Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRCFC - Arroyo Del Toro Channel - Zone 3 CEQA Study Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Riverside, California DRAFT CEQA INITIAL STUDY Arroyo Del Toro Channel ZONE 3 WARREN D. WILLIAMS August 2011 General Manager-Chief Engineer MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION State Clearinghouse Number: Contact Person: Telephone Number: @ Kris Flanigan 951.955.8581 Email: kflaniga@rcflood.org Lead Agency and Project Sponsor: Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Address: 1995 Market Street City: Riverside Zip: 92501 Project Title and Description: Arroyo Del Toro Channel The Arroyo Del Toro Channel project consists of the construction and subsequent operation and maintenance of a concrete rectangular channel, reinforced concrete box, an earthen trapezoidal channel, and 2 rock-lined energy dissipation structures which has a total system length of 3,775 lineal feet. The facility was identified in the 1986 Elsinore Valley Benefit Assessment Flood Control Bond Issue, and will provide flood protection for the local area including the Elsinore Valley Cemetery. The rectangular channel alignment is parallel to the 1-15 freeway for approximately 700 lineal feet,then heads southwest and transitions into a reinforced concrete box for approximately 900 lineal feet to Collier Avenue, crosses under Collier Avenue and turns northwest to State Route 74 (Riverside Drive) for approximately 1,000 lineal feet, crosses under State Route 74 (Riverside Drive), and transitions to an earthen trapezoidal channel that terminates in the Collier Marsh area. The system will be concrete lined except for approximately 660 lineal feet of the terminal end which will be earthen bottom with 2 rock-lined energy dissipation structures. The terminal 280 lineal feet will be constructed in the existing Collier Marsh. Utility services to be relocated will include cable,telephone, gas,water and sewer within the road rights-of-way. Project Location: The proposed project is located within the city of Lake Elsinore in Riverside County. The project area is generally situated on the west side of the 1-15 Freeway, and east, south, and west of the intersection of Collier Road and State Route 74. The site is in the northeast quarter of Section 36, Township 5 South,Range 5 West, and the northwest quarter of Section 31, Township 5 South, Range 4 West as shown on the USGS 7.5-minute "Lake Elsinore" quadrangle map. The General Manager-Chief Engineer of the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District has made a finding that the proposed Arroyo Del Toro Channel project will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment. An Initial Study supporting this finding is attached. This finding will become final upon adoption of this Mitigated Negative Declaration by the Board of Supervisors of the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District. Mitigation measures are as follows: Refer to attached Project Features&Environmental Commitments Monitoring Program Table. Signature: Dated: WARREN D. WILLIAMS General Manager-Chief Engineer The Board of Supervisors of the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District, assembled in regular session on @ has determined that the Arroyo Del Toro Channel project will not have a significant adverse effect on the environment and has adopted this Mitigated Negative Declaration. Signature: Dated: KECIA HARPER-IHEM Clerk of the Board Attachment Copies to: 1) County Clerk 2) Flood Control P8\138852 RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT Table 1 PROJECT FEATURES &ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS MONITORING PROGRAM TABLE Issue Potential Project Feature,Environmental Action Implementation Governing Agency Implementation Timing Impact Commitment,Avoidance,Minimization, Responsibility and/or Mitigation Measures Biology Resources Substantial effect on MM Bio 1: A pre-construction Perform pre-construction RCFC&WCD Not applicable(N/A) Within 30 days prior to species identified as a presence/absence survey for Burrowing survey. ground disturbance for candidate,sensitive,or Owl within suitable habitat shall be construction. special status species in conducted within 30 days prior to ground local or regional plans, disturbance. Take of active nests shall be policies,or regulations. avoided. Passive relocation(i.e.,the use of one-way doors and collapse of burrows) will occur when owls are present outside the nesting season. Biology Resources A substantial adverse MM Bio 2: If feasible,vegetation clearing Schedule vegetation RCFC&WCD N/A Prior to vegetation effect,either directly or should not occur during the nesting season clearing outside of the clearing. through habitat for sensitive riparian birds,i.e.,March nesting season,or modifications,on any through August. If vegetation clearing is to perform surveys as species identified as a occur between March 1"and August 31", needed. candidate,sensitive,or surveys for nesting birds will be performed special status species in prior to construction,along with avoidance local or regional plans, of impacts to nests in compliance with policies,or regulations, applicable regulations.As raptors are or by the California known to begin nesting in January, Department of Fish and additional surveys for nesting raptors will Game or U.S.Fish and be performed for vegetation clearing in Wildlife Service. January and February. Biology Resources Substantial effect on MM Bio 3: The mitigation described in Implement mitigation as RCFC&WCD CDFG,RWQCB, During the construction biological resources the Conceptual Restoration Plan shall be described in the plan. USACOE period and following involved within a implemented to offset the proposed construction for 5-year jurisdictional water project's temporary impacts to.41 acre of period as specified in the feature as defined by wetland and permanent impacts to.37 acre Conceptual Restoration federal,state,or local of the unvegetated ephemeral streambed. Plan. regulations. The temporary impacts to the.41 acre valley freshwater marsh and cismontane alkali marsh will be mitigated by on-site restoration of marsh habitat in the terminal end of the channel that occurs within Collier Marsh. This restoration will be performed by reseeding.41 acre with native wetland plant material(1:1 mitigation ratio). Temporary impacts to this area will also be mitigated by enhancement of.82 acre(2:1 mitigation ratio)of marsh habitat by removal of invasive lants located--ithin Collier Issue Potential Project Feature,Environmental Action Implementation Governing Agency implementation Timing Impact Commitment,Avoidance,Minimization, Responsibility and/or Mitigation Measures Marsh adjacent to the terminal end of the channel. Permanent impacts to the unvegetated ephemeral streambed will be mitigated by the on-site creation of.56 acre(1.5:1 mitigation ratio)of streambed within the newly constructed flood control channel between Riverside Drive and Collier Marsh. This is planned for an area that is currently upland. Cultural Resources Cause a substantial MM Cultural 1: If any historical Cease ground disturbance RCFC&WCD N/A Throughout construction. adverse change in the resources are discovered within the project activities in the vicinity significance of a limits during construction,ground of the discovery until a historical resource disturbance in the vicinity of the find shall qualified historical pursuant to Section cease,and a qualified historical resources resources specialist can 15064.5 of the California specialist shall assess the significance of assess the significance of Code of Regulations. the find and,if necessary,make the find. recommendations for appropriate treatment measures. Any discovered resources that merit long term consideration shall be collected and reported in accordance with current protocols. Cultural Resources Ground disturbance MM Cultural 2: A qualified Ensure that a qualified RCFC&WCD N/A Throughout construction. activities may uncover archeological resources specialist shall archeological resources archeological resources. perform periodic inspections of grading specialist is retained to operations between Riverside Drive and perform periodic Collier Avenue. The frequency of inspections of grading inspections will depend on the rate of operations between excavation,materials being excavated,and Riverside Drive and the abundance of artifacts uncovered. The Collier Avenue. archeologist shall evaluate,collect, document,and curate any findings. Cultural Resources Cause a substantial MM Cultural 3: If archeological Cease ground disturbance RCFC&WCD N/A Throughout construction. adverse change in the resources are exposed during construction, activities in the vicinity significance of an ground disturbance in the vicinity of the of the discovery until a archaeological resource discovery will cease immediately and a qualified archaeologist pursuant to Section qualified archeological resources specialist can assess the 15064.5 of the California will evaluate the resources. If the find is significance of the find. Code of Regulations. determined to be a historical or unique archeological resource as defined in Section 15064.5 of the California Code of Regulations,avoidance or other appropriate measures shall be implemented in accordance with standard archaeological management requirements. Cultural Resources Directly or indirectly MM Cultural 4: If paleontological Cease ground disturbance RCFC&WCD N/A Throughout construction. destroy a unique resources are exposed during ground activities in the vicinity paleontological resource excavation disturbance,ground disturbance of the discovery until a or site or unique activities in the vicinity of the discovery qualified paleontologist geological feature. will be terminated immediately until a can assess the qualified paleontological resources significance of the find. Issue Potential Project Feature,Environmental Action Implementation Governing Agency implementation Timing Impact Commitment,Avoidance,Minimization, Responsibility and/or Mitigation Measures specialist can evaluate the significance of the find and,if necessary,develop appropriate treatment measures. Cultural Resources Disturb any human MM Cultural 5: Dogs trained to detect Use dogs to detect human RCFC&WCD N/A Prior to construction. remains,including those historical human remains shall be used in remains outside the interred outside of formal the portion of the project along the east boundaries of the cemeteries. side of the cemetery prior to construction. cemetery prior to vegetation clearing and construction. Cultural Resources Disturb any human MM Cultural 6:If human remains in the Cease ground disturbance RCFC&WCD Riverside County Prior to and during remains,including those vicinity of the cemetery are encountered and notify the County Coroner and NAHC construction. interred outside of formal prior to or during construction,work will Coroner's Office for cemeteries. be halted until a decision is made with proper identification of regard to the disposition of the remains. If human remains found human remains are discovered in a location onsite. Contact NAHC other than a dedicated cemetery,the to assist in disposition of provisions and regulations of Health and human remains. Safety Code 7050.5,CEQA 15064.5(e), and Public Resources Code 5097.98 will be followed. The fieldwork at the site will cease immediately if any human remains are encountered. The Riverside County Coroner will be notified immediately.If the Coroner determines that the remains should be treated as historic resources,they would defer to SHPO with regard to treatment of the remains. Hazards and Construction activity MM Hazards 1: If previously unknown If potentially hazardous RCFC&WCD To be determined by During excavation Hazardous Materials may uncover potentially hazardous wastes/materials are encountered materials are uncovered, hazardous materials activities. hazardous materials. in the field during construction,ground cease ground disturbance specialist. disturbance activities in the vicinity of the near the material until a discovery shall cease until a qualified qualified hazardous hazardous materials management specialist materials specialist can assess the potentially hazardous assesses the materials substances and,if necessary,develop and provides appropriate management measures for the recommendations for treatment and disposal of the materials in their treatment and accordance with applicable laws and disposal. regulations set by the appropriate regulatory agencies. Noise Exposure of persons to or MM Noise 1: Use of heavy construction Construction will occur RCFC&WCD N/A During construction. generation of excessive equipment shall be limited to between the between the hours of ground-borne vibration hours of 7:00 a.m.to 5:00 p.m.and 7:00 a.m.and 5:00 p.m. or ground-bome noise prohibited on weekends and holidays, on weekdays. levels. unless otherwise approved by the General Manager-Chief Engineer. RIVERSIDE COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL AND WATER CONSERVATION DISTRICT California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Initial Study 1. Project title: Arroyo Del Toro Channel 2. Lead agency name and address: Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District 3. Contact person email address and phone number: Kris Flanigan: kflaniga@rcflood.org 951.955.8581 4. Project location: The proposed project is located within the city of Lake Elsinore in Riverside County. The project area is generally situated on the west side of the I-15 Freeway, and east, south, and west of the intersection of Collier Road and State Route 74. The site is in the northeast quarter of Section 36, Township 5 South, Range 5 West, and the northwest quarter of Section 31, Township 5 South, Range 4 West as shown on the USGS 7.5-minute "Lake Elsinore" quadrangle map. 5. Project sponsor's name and address: N/A 6. General plan designation: The City of Lake Elsinore General Plan designates the project area as Commercial Manufacturing, General Manufacturing, and Freeway Business. 7. Description of project: (Describe the whole action involved, including but not limited to later phases of the project, and any secondary, support, or offsite features necessary for its implementation. Attach additional sheets if necessary.) The Arroyo Del Toro Channel project consists of the construction and subsequent operation and maintenance of a concrete rectangular channel, reinforced concrete box, an earthen trapezoidal channel, and 2 rock-lined energy dissipation structures which has a total system length of 3,775 lineal feet. The facility was identified in the 1986 Elsinore Valley Benefit Assessment Flood Control Bond Issue, and will provide flood protection for the local area including the Elsinore Valley Cemetery. The rectangular channel alignment is parallel to the I-15 freeway for approximately 700 lineal feet, then heads southwest and transitions into a reinforced concrete box for approximately 900 lineal feet to Collier Avenue, crosses under Collier Avenue and turns northwest to State Route 74 (Riverside Drive) for approximately 1,000 lineal feet, crosses under State Route 74 (Riverside Drive), and transitions to an earthen trapezoidal channel that terminates in the Collier Marsh area. The system will be concrete lined except for approximately 660 lineal feet of the terminal end which will be earthen bottom with 2 rock-lined energy dissipation structures. The terminal 280 lineal feet will be constructed in the existing Collier Marsh. Utility services to be relocated will include cable, telephone, gas,water, and sewer. Earlier Analyses Used: None Impacts Adequately Addressed in Earlier Analyses: N/A Mitigation Measures from Earlier Analysis: N/A 1 8. Surrounding land uses and setting: (Briefly describe the project's surroundings) The upstream end of the proposed channel will be located within Caltrans' right-of-way at the I-15 Freeway. The existing surrounding land uses are characterized as commercial manufacturing and institutional uses, with the Elsinore Valley Cemetery adjacent to the proposed channel alignment between the I-15 Freeway and Collier Avenue. An existing ephemeral drainage course runs adjacent to the cemetery. The proposed channel will cross underneath Collier Avenue which is a two-lane, paved roadway and a section of State Route 74. The channel will then continue underground through vacant, undeveloped parcels designated as general commercial and which are vegetated primarily by weedy rural species. The channel will pass beneath Riverside Drive which is also a two-lane roadway and section of State Route 74, and will terminate in Collier Marsh, a jurisdictional wetland/water of the U.S. 9. Other public agencies whose approval is required: (e.g., permits, financing approval, or participation agreement.) Federal Agencies (not 'public agencies"as defined by CEQA or required to take a CEQA action) U. S.Army Corps of Engineers(Corps): Clean Water Act Section 404 Permit State Agencies California Department of Transportation(Caltrans): Encroachment Permit California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG): Section 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement Regional Water Quality Control Board— Santa Ana Region(RWQCB): Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification City/County Agencies Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority: Joint Project Review Financing Approval or Participation Agreements N/A 2 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS PO TENTIALL Y AFFECTED: The environmental factors, as checked below,would potentially be affected by this project. ❑ Aesthetics ❑ Mineral Resources ❑ Agriculture Resources ® Noise ❑ Air Quality and Greenhouse Gas Emissions ❑ Population/Housing ® Biological Resources ❑ Public Services ® Cultural Resources ❑ Recreation ❑ Geology/Soils ❑ Transportation/Traffic ® Hazards &Hazardous Materials ❑ Utilities/Service Systems ❑ Hydrology/Water Quality ❑ Mandatory Findings of Significance ❑ Land Use/Planning 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: No Impact or Less Than Significant" applies when the proposed project will not have a significant effect on the environment, does not require the incorporation of mitigation measures, and does not require the preparation of an Environmental Impact Report. The lead agency must briefly describe the reasons that a proposed project will not have significant effect on the environment and does not require the preparation of an environmental impact report. 5. "Mitigated Negative Declaration: Less Than Significant With Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced any 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). 3 6. 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. (CEQA Guidelines Section 15063(c)(3)(D)). The use of an earlier analysis as a reference should include a brief discussion that identifies 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. 7. 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. 8. Supporting Information Sources: A source list should be attached, and other sources used or individuals contacted should be cited in the discussion. 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. 4 r Cit of Morengaq V e F I s Lake Perris, y _ Project Site j --- — ---- - pit f Y r onyon Lake City of Menifee Canyon Lake 1 City Diarnond ke-E nore' Valley ..;�x Lake Lake Elsinore BMW 1 j, La ke�� Skinner I rt� Arroyo Del Toro Channel Vicinity Map Figure 1 0 , 2 s a 5 Miles 5 ARROYO DEL TORO CHANNEL STAGE 1 PROJECT NO. 3-0-0170 15 �o ,—COLLIER MARSH— TFp � F c� BEGIN F7XCT c� CQ T�pO � � END PROJECT �VVn �, 2 VALLtyE �� CIN°� � 7 5 5 6RCMlEY BRpSK a cva�3 �q St Wn[T \\90 P� "� 15 �fFa 5 STQ/ QEM 5E QREM ¢ p STEC eP ARD 41, f AV \\�� PROJECT SITE MAP re NTS FIGURE 2 6 Arroyo Del Toro Channel(Proposed Ali nment) �+I s Figure 3a. View southeast,culverts on west side of I-15 Freeway,December 23,2010 p. 7 Figure 3b. View southwest,ephemeral streambed adjacent to Elsinore Valley Cemetery,December 23,2010 7 I . )4�x W.. > � h yi ��'i n'�„�• '� + �' y,N _ Norm �i ►rrg � „�dam. _. i _ Figure 3e. View southeast,private property on southeast side of Riverside Drive,July 2,2007 9 Potentially Significant Potential Unless Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact I. AESTHETICS. Would the project: 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 state scenic highway? c) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site ❑ ❑ ® ❑ and its surroundings? d) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely ❑ ❑ ❑ affect day or nighttime views in the area? II. AGRICULTURAL & FOREST RESOURCES. 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. Would the project: 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 agricultural zoning, agricultural use or land ❑ ❑ ❑ subject to a Williamson Act contract or land within a Riverside County Agricultural Preserve? c) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their ❑ ❑ ® ❑ location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non- agricultural use? d) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as ❑ ❑ ❑ defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? e) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest ❑ ❑ ❑ use? III. AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: a) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality ❑ ❑ ® ❑ plan? 10 Potentially Significant Potential Unless Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact b) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing ❑ ❑ ® ❑ or projected air quality violation? c) Result in cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant ❑ ❑ ® ❑ for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ f) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that ❑ ❑ ® ❑ may have a significant impact on the environment? g) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the ❑ ❑ ® ❑ purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. 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 regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other ❑ ® ❑ ❑ sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? e) Have a substantial adverse effect on biological resources involved within ❑ ® ❑ ❑ a jurisdictional water feature as defined by federal, state or local regulations (e.g., Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, Section 401 of the Clean Water Act, Section 1602 of California Fish and Game Code, Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, etc.) through direct removal, filing,hydrological interruption, or other means? d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or ❑ ❑ ® ❑ migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological ❑ ❑ ❑ resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? 11 Potentially Significant Potential Unless Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, ❑ ❑ ® ❑ Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ resource as defined in §15064.5? b) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an ❑ ® ❑ ❑ archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? c) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ unique geologic feature? d) Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal ❑ ® ❑ ❑ cemeteries? VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: a) Expose people or structures to 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 or based on other substantial evidence of a Known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ iii) Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ iv) Landslides or mudflows? ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Result in substantial changes in topography, unstable soil conditions ❑ ❑ ® ❑ from excavation,grading or fill, or soil erosion or the loss of 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 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 (1994 or most current edition), creating substantial risks to life or property? 12 Potentially Significant Potential Unless Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact e) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting any structures, fill or other ❑ ❑ ❑ improvements associated with the project? VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the ❑ ❑ ® ❑ routine transport,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 release of hazardous materials into the environment? c) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous ❑ ❑ ❑ materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d) Be located on a site, which is included on a list of hazardous materials ❑ ❑ ® ❑ sites complied pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e) For a project located within an airport land use plan, 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 for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project ❑ ❑ ❑ result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted ❑ ❑ ® ❑ emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death ❑ ❑ ® ❑ involving wildland fires, including where Wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a) Violate or conflict with any adopted water quality standards or waste ❑ ❑ ® ❑ discharge requirements? b) Result in substantial discharges of typical stormwater pollutants (e.g. ❑ ❑ ® ❑ sediment from construction activities, hydrocarbons, and metals from motor vehicles, nutrients and pesticides from landscape maintenance activities, metals of other pollutants from industrial operation,) or substantial changes to surface water quality including, but not limited to, temperature, dissolved oxygen,pH, or turbidity? 13 Potentially Significant Potential Unless Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact c) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with ❑ ❑ ® ❑ groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, ❑ ❑ ® ❑ including through the alteration of a watercourse or wetland, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on-or off-site? e) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, ❑ ❑ ® ❑ including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on-or off-site? f) Create or contribute runoff water, which would exceed the capacity of ❑ ❑ ® ❑ existing or planned stormwater drainage systems? g) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on Federal ❑ ❑ ❑ Flood Hazard boundary of Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? h) Place structures or fill within a 100-year flood hazard area, which would ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ impede or redirect flood flows? i) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death ❑ ❑ ❑ involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? j) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death ❑ ❑ ❑ involving inundation by seiche,tsunami, or mudflow? IX. LAND USE PLANNING. Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an ❑ ❑ ❑ agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? X. MINERAL RESOURCES. 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? 14 Potentially Significant Potential Unless Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact 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? XI. NOISE. Would the project result in: a) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground-borne ❑ ® ❑ ❑ vibration or ground-borne noise levels? e) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project ❑ ❑ ® ❑ vicinity above levels existing without the project? d) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in ❑ ® ❑ ❑ the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? 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 expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project ❑ ❑ ❑ expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: a) Induce substantial 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) resulting in substantial adverse physical impacts or conflicts with the adopted general plan, specific plan, or other applicable land use or regional plan? b) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the ❑ ❑ ❑ construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of ❑ ❑ ❑ replacement housing elsewhere? XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES a) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the following public services: 15 Potentially Significant Potential Unless Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact Fire protection? ❑ ❑ ❑ Police protection? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Schools? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Parks? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Other public facilities? ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ XIV. RECREATION a) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b) Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction ❑ ❑ ❑ or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? XV. TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC. Would the project: a) Conflict with an adopted plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures ❑ ❑ ® ❑ of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non- motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways,pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? b) Conflict with an adopted congestion management program, including, ❑ ❑ ® ❑ but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the appropriate congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves ❑ ❑ ® ❑ or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g.,farm equipment)? d) Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? ❑ ❑ ® ❑ e) Would the project result in inadequate parking capacity? ❑ ❑ ❑ ED f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public ❑ ❑ ® ❑ transit, bicycle, pedestrian facilities, or other alternate transportation or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? 16 Potentially Significant Potential Unless Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: a) Impact the following facilities requiring or resulting in the construction of new facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Electricity ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Natural Gas ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Communication System ❑ ❑ ❑ Street lighting ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ Public facilities, including roads and bridges ❑ ❑ ❑ b) Require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage ❑ ❑ ❑ facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from ❑ ❑ ❑ existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? d) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which ❑ ❑ ❑ serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? e) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? f) Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to ❑ ❑ ❑ solid waste? XVII. MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. a) Does the project have the potential to 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, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b) Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but ❑ ❑ ® ❑ cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable.future projects.) 17 Potentially Significant Potential Unless Less than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact c) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial ❑ ❑ ® ❑ adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? 18 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. ® 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 the mitigation measures described on an attached sheet have been added to the project. 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. ❑ 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, if the effect is a "potentially significant impact" or "potentially significant unless mitigated." An ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required, but it must analyze only the effects that remain to be addressed. ❑ 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 all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR pursuant to applicable standards, and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the proposed project. Signature Date yr WARREN D. WILLIAMS, General Manager-Chief Engineer Printed Name and Title 19 ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION I. AESTHETICS. Would the project: Ia) Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? No Impact. The proposed project will be constructed along the path of an existing ephemeral unvegetated streambed which is located adjacent to commercial development and a cemetery. The proposed project alignment will cross below Collier Avenue, through an undeveloped parcel, then cross below Riverside Drive and onto Collier Marsh. Additionally, the facility will be below the ground surface with the exception of a chain link fence. There are no scenic resources located within the project area. Thus, a scenic vista will not be impacted. Source: Project Design, Thomas Guide Ib) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? No Impact. The proposed project is not located adjacent to any state scenic highways. No major rock outcroppings, trees, or historic buildings are located within the proposed project area. As discussed above in response Ia), scenic resources are not located within the proposed project area. Therefore, there will be no impacts to scenic resources as a result of the proposed project. Source: Project Design, Thomas Guide Ic) Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? Less than Significant Impact. The visual character of the project area and its surroundings could be affected in the short-term by construction grading. The potential construction- related visual impacts could result from excavating, stockpiling, and construction materials or equipment storage. Visual disturbance during construction will be short-term and would cease once construction is complete. The long-term visual character of the project area will not be significantly affected as a result of the proposed project. Source: Project Design Id) Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? No Impact. The proposed project will not produce any new sources of light or glare, either during construction or operations/maintenance. The only artificial lighting that may be expected to be used would be under emergency conditions. Any impacts would be temporary and insignificant. Source: Project Design II. AGRICULTURAL & FOREST RESOURCES. 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. Would the project: 20 IIa) 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? Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project is not located within areas designated as Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance. A portion of the alignment is located in land designated as Farmland of Local Importance in the Riverside County GIS. This same area is designated as freeway business and general commercial land use according to the City of Lake Elsinore General Plan. The proposed project will convert a minimal area of land designated as farmland to a non-agricultural use, temporarily impacting 2.4 acres upstream of the crossing under Riverside Drive, and permanently impacting 2.8 acres downstream of Riverside Drive. As such, impacts are considered less than significant. Source: Conservation,Riv Co GIS,LE Gen Plan IIb) Conflict with existing agricultural zoning, agricultural use or land subject to a Williamson Act contract or land within a Riverside County Agricultural Preserve? No Impact. The proposed project does not contain areas zoned for agricultural use or areas subject to a Williamson Act Contract. Source: Conservation,Riv Co GIS IIe) Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature,could result in conversion of Farmland,to non-agricultural use? Less than Significant Impact. See response to IIa) above. While a portion of the proposed project alignment is located through an undeveloped field on the southeast side of Riverside Drive that is designated as Farmland of Local Importance,the land is not currently being used as farmland. Consequently,the proposed project will not impact land that is currently used as farmland. Therefore, impacts are anticipated to be less than significant. Source: Conservation, Riv Co GIS IId) Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? No Impact. The proposed project does not contain forest land, timberland, nor timberland zoned as Timberland Production. Therefore, the project does not conflict with existing zoning, or cause rezoning of forest land, timberland, or timberland zoned Timberland Production. Source: Conservation, Riv Co GIS IIe) Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? No Impact. The proposed project is not located within an area designated as forest land. The proposed project will not result in a loss of forest or conversion of forest to non-forest use. Source: Conservation,Riv Co GIS 21 III. AIR QUALITY AND GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS. Where available, the significance criteria established by the applicable air quality management or air pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: IIIa) Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the applicable air quality plan? Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project is located within the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB). The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) adopted the 2007 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP) on June 1, 2007. The 2007 AQMP demonstrates that applicable ambient air quality standards can be achieved within the time frames required under Federal law. The 2007 AQMP identifies emission reductions from existing sources and air pollution control measures that are necessary to comply with applicable State and Federal ambient air quality standards. The proposed project construction will result in temporary air emissions from heavy equipment exhaust, construction-related trips by workers and associated fugitive dust generation. Subsequent maintenance of the project is expected to release infrequent and minor air emissions associated with trucks and/or heavy equipment used on an as-needed basis for inspection and/or maintenance purposes. As described below, the project will be consistent with existing AQMD rules and will not conflict with the AQMP or obstruct its implementation. Source: AQMP IIIb) Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project involves the construction and subsequent maintenance of approximately 3,770 lineal feet of storm drain channel. Air quality impacts can be described in terms of short-term and long-term effects. Short-term impacts result from site grading and project construction. Long-term impacts relate to facility operations and maintenance. Temporary emissions would result during construction from heavy equipment exhaust, construction-related travel by workers, and dust generation from excavation and grading activities. Construction equipment will be powered by diesel and the primary pollutants would be reactive organic gas (ROG), nitrogen oxides (NOX), carbon monoxide (CO), sulfur dioxide(SOA and dust(e.g.,PMI0/PM2,5)particulates. The URBEMIS model was run using the assumption that the proposed project would be conducted in six phases over an estimated construction period of nine months. The first phase is anticipated to consist of excavation and mass grading to include clearing and grubbing for the channel alignment, and is estimated to last approximately two months. The second phase consists of rectangular concrete channel construction, and would last approximately six weeks. The third phase consists of additional grading and reinforced concrete box construction for 11 weeks. The fourth phase involves earthen trapezoidal channel construction and related grading for two weeks. The fifth phase consists of grading and backfill lasting four weeks. The sixth and final phase will involve paving for roadway resurfacing lasting approximately three weeks. The total ground area disturbed is approximately 15.6 acres. Short-term construction emissions of criteria pollutants from the proposed project were modeled using the URBEMIS 2007 (Version 9.2.4) air pollution emissions model. Emission 22 thresholds recommended by the SCAQMD and estimates for the proposed project are shown below in Table 1. Table 1 —Air Quality Significance Thresholds and URBEMIS Emissions Estimates Estimated SCAQMD Project Emissions Significance Criteria Pollutant (lbs per day) (lbs per day) Years: 2012-2013 ROG 5.82/8.91 75 NO,, 50.74/73.89 100 CO 23.13/32.85 550 SO2 0.01/0.01 150 PMI0 16.12/33.23 150 PM2,5 4.15/9.21 55 The proposed project's estimated emissions do not exceed the regional thresholds set by the SCAQMD. As such, the impacts to air quality from the construction of the proposed project will be less than significant. The long-term emissions associated with operations of the storm drain system will be the result of infrequent vehicle travel for maintenance. These emissions will be negligible and would have less than a significant impact. Source: AQMP,Project design, SCAQMD,URBEMIS IIIc) Result in cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? Less than Significant Impact. As mentioned above in response IIIb), the estimated construction emissions derived from the URBEMIS 2007 model do not exceed the SCAQMD recommended significance thresholds for the criteria air pollutants. Therefore, the proposed project will not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of criteria pollutants and less than significant impact is anticipated. Source: AQMD,Project design, SCAQMD,URBEMIS IIId) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? Less than Significant Impact. Since estimated short-term emissions from construction activities have been shown to be below the applicable SCAQMD thresholds, and there are no significant emissions associated with the proposed project's long-term operation, sensitive receptors will not be exposed to substantial pollutant concentrations. The project area is adjacent to commercial businesses, the Elsinore Valley Cemetery, and the I-15 freeway, and these areas will be exposed to minor dust and vehicle emissions during construction. Source: AQMD,Project design, SCAQMD,URBEMIS IIIe) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project will utilize diesel equipment and generate diesel exhaust during construction activity in the vicinity of the project area. 23 However, the diesel emissions will be short-term in duration and will not create an objectionable odor in the project area. As such,impacts will be less than significant. Source: Project design IIIf) Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? Less than Significant Impact. Draft GHG thresholds have been developed by the SCAQMD and the California Air Resources Board (GARB). In December 2008 the SCAQMD issued interim GHG significance threshold approaches for stationary/industrial sector activities, to include construction emissions amortized over 30 years and added to operational GHG emissions. The GHG emissions threshold pertaining to construction activities is 10,000 MTCO2eq/year. The CARB has recommended an interim significance threshold of 7,000 MTCO2eq/year in its October 2008 preliminary draft staff proposal. Greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions for the proposed project were estimated using the URBEMIS 2007 Version 9.2.4. The main source of GHG emissions would be equipment and vehicles used during short-term construction activity. The following assumptions were used in the URBEMIS emissions analysis for this project. The anticipated construction timeframe used for the estimate is described above in response Illb). Additional assumptions for the model are described in Appendix A, Combined Emissions Reports. The emissions estimate developed for the assumed construction timeframe is 399.44 total tons of carbon dioxide (CO2). This estimate converted to metric tons (MT) is 362.30 MTCO2eq/year. The total CO2 emissions from construction of the proposed project is well below the 10,000 MTCO2eq/year recommended by the SCAQMD for industrial projects to include construction and the CARB interim significance threshold of 7,000 MTCO2eq/year. Due to the estimated low amount of emissions from construction and the infrequent operational emissions from maintenance vehicles,the proposed project will not generate a significant amount of GHG emissions. As such, the impact is considered less than significant. Source: Project design, SCAQMD,URBEMIS Ilig) Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Less than Significant Impact. As described above, the GHG emissions are temporary and insignificant. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy,or regulation adopted for reducing GHG emissions. Source: Project design, SCAQMD,URBEMIS IV. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES. Would the project: IVa) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. Helix Environmental Planning, Inc. conducted various biological surveys on the project site between March and April 2007. A 24 formal Jurisdictional Delineation (JD) was completed in March 2007. Burrowing Owl surveys were conducted during July 2007 and August 2010. Additionally, AMEC Earth & Environmental,Inc. conducted focused special-status plant species surveys during May 2011. The focus of the field surveys was to document the presence or absence of special status species identified in the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP). The results of the investigations and surveys are presented in the Helix JD Report and General Biological Resources Assessment(GBRA). Data contained in the JD and GBRA reports is used in this section to evaluate this project's potential effects on biological resources. Results of the special-status plant species surveys conducted by AMEC concluded that no special-status plant species occur within the survey area at the time of the surveys. In addition, it was determined that an additional survey was not necessary for species that have potential to occur within the project vicinity that bloom later(June). Focused Burrowing Owl surveys were conducted during July 2007 and August 2010. No Burrowing Owl or Burrowing Owl sign were observed during either survey. Implementation of mitigating measure MM Bio 1 will ensure potential impacts to Burrowing Owl are reduced to less than significant levels. MM Bio 1: A pre-construction presence/absence survey for Burrowing Owl within suitable habitat shall be conducted within 30 days prior to ground disturbance. Take of active nests shall be avoided. Passive relocation (i.e., the use of one-way doors and collapse of burrows) will occur when owls are present outside the nesting season. Source: Helix 1,Helix 2,Helix 4 During the 2007 field survey work, habitat that could support sensitive riparian bird species was observed. Least Bell's vireo was detected on 7 out of 8 focused surveys, and southwestern willow flycatchers were observed on two surveys. The yellow-billed cuckoo was not detected nor heard within the project area. In order to reduce potential impacts to riparian species to less than significant, the following mitigating measure will be implemented. MM Bio 2: If feasible, vegetation clearing should not occur during the nesting season for sensitive riparian birds, i.e., March through August. If vegetation clearing is to occur between March 1st and August 315i, surveys for nesting birds will be performed prior to construction, along with avoidance of impacts to nests in compliance with applicable regulations. As raptors are known to begin nesting in January, additional surveys for nesting raptors will be performed for vegetation clearing in January and February. Source: Helix 2 IVb) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. Based on the biological site surveys,the proposed project would temporarily impact .22 acre valley freshwater marsh, and .18 acre cismontane alkali marsh. The proposed project would permanently impact .37 acre unvegetated ephemeral streambed. Mitigation for the temporary and permanent impacts is described in response IVf) below. The proposed mitigation will offset impacts to the Riparian/Riverine functions and values, and provide for other functions and services as 25 described below in response IVc). Therefore, the proposed project will not have a substantial adverse effect on riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community. Source: Helix 1,Helix 2,Helix 3,Helix 5 IVc) Have a substantial adverse effect on biological resources involved within a jurisdictional water feature as defined by federal, state or local regulations (e.g., Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, Section 401 of the Clean Water Act, Section 1602 of California Fish and Game Code, Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, etc.) through direct removal,filing,hydrological interruption,or other means? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. Helix Environmental Planning, Inc. conducted a Jurisdictional Delineation (JD) of the project site during March and April 2007. The purpose of the delineation was to identify and map Waters of the U.S. (WUS) under the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) jurisdiction pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act(33 U.S.C. 1344), wetland and streambed habitats under California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG)jurisdiction pursuant to Section 1600 (et seq.) of the California Fish and Game Code, and State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act and the Porter Cologne Water Quality Control Act. The methods, results, and supporting references are contained in the Helix Environmental Planning, Inc. JD report, and are summarized here. The methods used for delineation followed standard protocol for both Corps and CDFG jurisdictional boundaries. Areas with depressions, drainage channels, or wetlands vegetation were evaluated for the presence of WUS or uplands. Two specific areas on the project site were identified as jurisdictional: the marsh area in the northwest portion of the study area, and the unvegetated ephemeral streambed in the southeast portion of the property. The marsh area was determined to contain both wetland WUS and CDFG jurisdictional areas. The unvegetated ephemeral streambed exhibited an Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) and was determined to contain non-wetland WUS and CDFG jurisdictional areas. The proposed project area impacts approximately .78 acre of Riparian/Riverine habitat that consists of jurisdictional water features as defined by Federal, State, or local regulations. The impacts are comprised of temporary impacts of .41 acre of marsh habitat from channel construction, and permanent impacts of.37 acre of unvegetated ephemeral streambed. The .41 acre of temporary impacts to marsh habitat is comprised of .18 acre cismontane alkali marsh and .22 acre valley freshwater marsh. As described in MM Bio 3 below, mitigation for the proposed project will offset impacts to Riparian/Riverine functions and values by providing high quality Riparian/Riverine habitat, and provide for other functions and services such as water quality benefits, groundwater recharge, and nutrient cycling. The proposed mitigation for wetland impacts satisfies the definition of a Biologically Equivalent Preservation Alternative consistent with MSHCP Section 6.1.2. MM Bio 3: The mitigation described in the Conceptual Restoration Plan shall be implemented to offset the proposed project's temporary impacts to .41 acre of wetland and permanent impacts to .37 acre of the unvegetated ephemeral streambed. The temporary impacts to the .41 acre valley freshwater marsh and cismontane alkali marsh will be mitigated by on-site restoration of marsh habitat in the terminal end of the channel that occurs within Collier Marsh. This restoration will be performed by reseeding .41 acre with native wetland 26 plant material (1:1 mitigation ratio). Temporary impacts to this area will also be mitigated by enhancement of.82 acre (2:1 mitigation ratio) of marsh habitat by removal of invasive plants located within Collier Marsh adjacent to the terminal end of the channel. Permanent impacts to the unvegetated ephemeral streambed will be mitigated by the on-site creation of.56 acre (1.5:1 mitigation ratio) of streambed within the newly constructed flood control channel between Riverside Drive and Collier Marsh. This is planned for an area that is currently upland. Source: Helix 1,Helix 2,Helix 3,Helix 5 IVd) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? Less than Significant Impact. The project area is not a migratory fish or wildlife corridor, nor a native wildlife nursery site. As a storm drain system, the proposed project will not interfere substantially with the movement of native resident species. As such, less than significant impact is anticipated. Source: Project design IVe) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? No Impact. The proposed project is not subject to local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance. The proposed project is subject to MSHCP compliance. Refer to response IVf) for a discussion of MSHCP compliance. Source: Project design,MSHCP IVf) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Less than Significant Impact. The County of Riverside Board of Supervisors adopted the MSHCP on June 23, 2003. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) issued "take" permits in June 2004 for the implementation of the MSHCP. The MSHCP is a comprehensive, multi jurisdictional habitat conservation plan focusing on the conservation of species and their associated habitats in Western Riverside County. The District is an MSHCP permittee, and the proposed project must be consistent with the applicable provisions of the MSHCP. A summary of the obligations specific to implementation by the District is described in Section 13.4 of the Implementing Agreement (IA)and includes: • Adopt and maintain resolutions as necessary to implement the requirements and to fulfill the purposes of the Permits, the MSHCP, and the IA for covered activities. Such requirements include compliance with: 1) 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; 2) the policies for the protection of narrow endemic 27 plant species as set forth in Section 6.1.3 of the MSHCP; 3) the requirements of Section 7.3.7 of the MSHCP; 4) the urban/wildlands interface guidelines as set forth in Section 6.1.4 of the MSHCP; and 5)the BMPs and the siting and design criteria as set forth in Section 7.0 and Appendix C of the MSHCP. The requirements also include conducting surveys as set forth in Section 6.3.2 of the MSHCP. • Contribute mitigation through payment of 3% of total capital costs for a covered activity. Such payment may be offset through acquisition of replacement habitat or creation of new habitat for the benefit of covered species, as appropriate. Such mitigation shall be implemented prior to impacts to covered species and their habitats. • Manage land owned or leased within the MSHCP Conservation Area that has been set aside for conservation purposes pursuant to a management agreement to be executed between Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District and the CDFG. • Participate as a member of the Reserve Management Oversight Committee (RMOC). • Carry out all other requirements of the MSHCP,the MSHCP permits,and the IA. RCA Approval The project has been submitted to and reviewed by the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (RCA)pursuant to the Joint Project Review (JPR)process. Pursuant to a Criteria Consistency Review letter from the RCA dated July 6, 2011, it was determined that the project is consistent with both the Criteria and other Plan requirements. Project Site Location Within MSHCP Area Regions of the MSHCP have been organized into Area Plans that generally follow political jurisdictional boundaries. The project site is located within the Elsinore Area Plan. Portions in the southwest area of the project site are located within Subunit 3 (Elsinore) of the Elsinore Area Plan and in Cell 4266. Regarding Cell conservation objectives, conservation within this Cell will contribute to assembly of Proposed Linkage 2. The conservation focus will be on meadow,marsh,riparian scrub, woodland, and forest habitat along Alberhill Creek and adjacent grassland habitat. Areas conserved within Criteria Cell 4266 will be connected to meadow, marsh, and grassland habitat proposed for conservation within Cell 4169 to the north. Additional conservation measures are listed in the General Biological Resources Assessment(GBRA). A portion of Proposed Linkage 2 occurs within Criteria Cell 4266. No MSHCP designated biological core area occurs on the property. Proposed Linkage 2 is comprised of wetland habitat associated with Collier Marsh. The MSCHP Implementation Structure is described in Section 6.0, Volume I-Part 2 of 2 of the MSHCP. Section 6.1.2 In accordance with MSHCP Section 6.1.2 field assessments of the project area and surrounding lands were performed for Riparian/Riverine and vernal pool habitats. The field assessments were conducted by HELIX Environmental Planning, Inc. during March and April 2007. Results are documented in the GBRA. 28 According to the results described in the GBRA and Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation (DBESP) reports, riverine/riparian areas occur in the project area. Collier Marsh is located at the western end of the proposed project alignment. In addition, an unvegetated ephemeral streambed is located on the east side of Collier Avenue adjacent to the Elsinore Valley Cemetery. No vernal pools exist on-site, and no vernal pool species are expected to occur. Identification and assessment of the Riparian/Riverine areas appear in the GBRA and DBESP reports. An analysis of alternative channel alignments to avoid, minimize, and mitigate effects to Riparian/Riverine areas was performed in accordance with MSHCP Section 6.2.1. The most cost-effective and least disruptive alternative was selected. The Collier Marsh is the natural outlet for storm flows generated in the Arroyo Del Toro watershed. The channel is designed to convey flow to the marsh while minimizing the alignment footprint to the maximum extent practical. An alternative alignment to completely avoid the channel footprint crossing into Collier Marsh is not feasible. However, the preferred practicable alternative results in minimal temporary impacts to the marsh. Additionally, locating the channel underground within street right-of-way was considered infeasible due to utility conflicts, lengthy traffic disruptions, and lack of sufficient cover. Complete avoidance of Riparian/Riverine areas would necessitate the "no project" alternative. The selected alignment implements the avoidance and minimization principals in compliance with the MSHCP. The proposed channel alignment will result in permanent impacts of approximately 1,790 feet (37 acre) to the unvegetated ephemeral streambed and temporary impacts of approximately .41 acre to Collier Marsh. The alignment will add approximately 380 feet (.56 acre) of new earthen channel downstream of Riverside Drive. Implementation of mitigation measure MM Bio 3 described above will ensure that impacts to Riparian/Riverine habitats are less than significant. The .37 acre permanent impact will be mitigated by the on-site creation of .56 acre of streambed within the new flood control channel between Riverside Drive and Collier Marsh. The temporary .41 acre impact will be mitigated by the on-site restoration of .41 acre of marsh habitat in the terminal end of the channel that occurs within Collier Marsh, and by the enhancement of .82 acre of marsh habitat located within Collier Marsh adjacent to the terminal end of the channel. In compliance with the MSHCP, the DBESP report describes the measures to ensure replacement of lost functions and values of habitat as it relates to Covered Species. The DBESP was reviewed by the USFWS and the CDFG,and is on file at the District office. The proposed project area was assessed for habitat that could support riparian birds per MSCHP Section 6.1.2. Focused surveys are required if suitable habitat is present within the project area for the least Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and western yellow- billed cuckoo. The project area was determined to contain habitat suitable to support the riparian birds mentioned above, and focused surveys for these species were then conducted. Mitigation measures as described in MM Bio 2 above will be implemented to reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level. Section 6.1.3 The proposed project is located within the Narrow Endemic Plant Species Survey Area (NEPSSA), Group 1. Pursuant to Section 6.1.3 of the MSHCP, habitat assessments and/or focused surveys for certain narrow endemic plant species were conducted. The results of the 29 MSHCP focused surveys and habitat assessments are documented. No Narrow Endemic Plant Species were observed during the focused plant surveys. Therefore, the proposed project satisfies the MSHCP requirements for Narrow Endemic Plant Species. Section 6.3.2 The project is located within the Burrowing Owl survey area per the Additional Survey Needs of Section 6.3.2 of the MSHCP. Pursuant to Section 6.3.2, habitat assessments and/or focused surveys for certain additional plant and animal species are required for properties within mapped survey areas. Habitat assessments and focused surveys were conducted for the Burrowing Owl pursuant to accepted protocol during July 2007 and August 2010. No Burrowing Owls or Burrowing Owl sign were observed within the surveyed area in 2007 or 2010. In accordance with the MSHCP, a pre-construction survey for Burrowing Owls will be conducted within 30 days prior to disturbance of the property for construction purposes. Implementation of MM Bio 1 will ensure potential impacts to Burrowing Owls are less than significant. The proposed project satisfies the plant, mammal, amphibian, and bird Additional Survey Needs and Procedures requirements of the MSHCP. Section 6.1.4 Section 6.1.4 of the MSHCP addresses indirect impacts from developments in proximity to MSHCP Conservation Areas. While the proposed project is not adjacent to an existing MSHCP Conservation Area, it is within a Criteria Cell and is in proximity to a Conservation Area. As a storm drain system, the proposed project will not conflict with the Guidelines Pertaining to the Urban Wildlands Interface including Toxics, Noise/Lighting, Invasives, or Drainage. Section 7.3.7 MSHCP Section 7.3.7 identifies potential flood control projects that are "Covered Activities" in the MSHCP Criteria Area. The proposed Arroyo Del Toro Channel project is listed in MSHCP Section 7.3.7 as a covered activity. Implementation is subject to the construction guidelines as described in MSHCP Section7.5.3 and the Best Management Practices (BMPs) contained in Appendix C. Section 7.5.3 Section 7.5.3 of the MSHCP outlines construction guidelines when constructing facilities within the Criteria Area or within P/QP lands. The proposed project is within a Criteria Area, but is not within P/QP lands. The proposed project will incorporate the applicable Construction Guidelines per MSCHP Section 7.5.3 and the BMPs contained in Appendix C. As such,the proposed project will satisfy the BMP requirements of the MSHCP. Source: MSHCP, IM,Helix 2 V. CULTURAL RESOURCES. Would the project: Va) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in§15064.5? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. Applied Earthworks, Inc. conducted an archeological literature and records search at the Eastern Information Center (EIC) at the University of California, Riverside on February 20, 2007. The objective of the records search was to determine whether any prehistoric or historical resources had been previously recorded within the proposed Project study area. Additionally, an archeological field survey of a 44-acre Project study area was completed on February 20, 2009. The results of the records search and field survey were reported by Applied Earthworks, Inc. in a Phase 1 30 cultural resources survey dated April 2009 and a Phase II report dated July 2009 of the project area. The Phase II report focused on the remnants of a concrete foundation discussed below. The proposed project is considered an "undertaking" per Section 301(7) of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) because Corps jurisdictional areas are present within the project area. Thus, it was necessary to define an area of potential effects (APE) as the geographic area within which the proposed project has the potential to directly or indirectly cause alternations to historic properties per 36 CFR Section 800.16(d). The archeological records search and field survey of the project area identified the presence of potential significant cultural resources of both prehistoric and historical sensitivity. According to the research, five cultural resources were identified as follows. Three new cultural resources — remnants of a concrete pad (CA-RIV-8226H), an isolated prehistoric mano (P-33-15793), and an isolated prehistoric metate (P-33-17576) — were discovered within the project APE. Two previously recorded resources within the project APE are the Elsinore Valley Cemetery/Home of Peace Jewish Cemetery (CA-RIV-8132H) and the Old Santa Fe Railroad Grade (CA-RIV-3832H). The concrete pad (CA-RIV-8226H) was further evaluated for NRHP/CRHR eligibility through the Phase 11 testing program. This resource consists of a concrete foundation and associated artifacts. Details of the field survey results and archival research are contained in the referenced Phase II report. As documented in the Phase II report, the resource was determined not to be eligible for inclusion on the NRHP or CRHR. Because the site is not considered to be a historic property under 36 CFR 800.5(a)(1), or a historical resource for the purposes of CEQA, construction activities for the proposed project would have no significant effect on this resource. Per the Phase I report results no structures or historical archaeological resources were noted south of the Collier Avenue and Riverside Drive intersection. Based on the available information, known historic resources do not occur within the project area and potential impacts will be less than significant. To ensure that any accidently uncovered cultural resources are properly evaluated and documented, the following mitigation measure will be incorporated into the project. MM Cultural 1: If any historical resources are discovered within the project limits during construction, ground disturbance in the vicinity of the find shall cease, and a qualified historical resources specialist shall assess the significance of the find and, if necessary, make recommendations for appropriate treatment measures. Any discovered resources that merit long term consideration shall be collected and reported in accordance with current protocols. Source: AE 1,AE 2 Vb) Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to §15064.5? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated Incorporated. Applied Earthworks, Inc. contacted the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) on February 13, 2007 regarding the Sacred Lands Inventory to determine whether any known cultural properties are present within or adjacent to the project area. The NAHC responded that no Native American cultural resources are known to exist within or adjacent to the project area. In accordance with NAHC recommendations, Native American individuals/organizations were contacted to solicit any information or concerns regarding cultural resource issues related to the project 31 area. The Cahuilla Band of Mission Indians and the Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians responded and requested that a cultural resources monitor be present during ground- disturbing activities. It is unlikely that archeological resources will be impacted during construction of the proposed project. However, archeological resource monitoring in accordance with MM Cultural 2 will be conducted during ground disturbance operations between Riverside Drive and Collier Avenue because of the potential for deeply buried deposits. MM Cultural 2: A qualified archeological resources specialist shall perform periodic inspections of grading operations between Riverside Drive and Collier Avenue. The frequency of inspections will depend on the rate of excavation, materials being excavated, and the abundance of artifacts uncovered. The archeologist shall evaluate, collect, document, and curate any findings. In the event of accidental discovery of archeological resources during construction, the mitigation measure MM Cultural 3 as described below will be incorporated into the proposed project. MM Cultural 3: If archeological resources are exposed during construction, ground disturbance in the vicinity of the discovery will cease immediately and a qualified archeological resources specialist will evaluate the resources. If the find is determined to be a historical or unique archeological resource as defined in Section 15064.5 of the California Code of Regulations, avoidance or other appropriate measures shall be implemented in accordance with standard archaeological management requirements. Source: AE 1,AE 2 Vc) Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? Less than Significant Impact. The Riverside County GIS mapping indicates that the proposed project location is within an area of low potential paleontological sensitivity. Due to the disturbed nature of the project area for commercial and agricultural land uses, it is unlikely that paleontological resources or sites, or unique geologic features will be encountered during construction. To ensure that potential impacts to paleontological resources are avoided or reduced to less than significant, implementation of MM Cultural 4 will be implemented. MM Cultural 4: If paleontological resources are exposed during ground excavation disturbance, ground disturbance activities in the vicinity of the discovery will be terminated immediately until a qualified paleontological resources specialist can evaluate the significance of the find and, if necessary, develop appropriate treatment measures. Source: Riv Co GIS Vd) Disturb any human remains,including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. The proposed project is located adjacent to the Elsinore Valley Cemetery and Home of Peace Jewish Cemetery. One of the goals of the cultural resources investigation was to determine whether graves lie outside of the dedicated cemetery through archival research and oral history. Individuals with local knowledge were interviewed regarding the potential for human remains to have been buried 32 outside the boundary of the dedicated cemetery. Several persons interviewed indicated that there had been anecdotal accounts of burials possibly occurring outside the dedicated cemetery, specifically along the east side of the cemetery near the I-15 freeway, and along the west side between the "west fence" and Collier Avenue. To reduce the potential of accidentally encountering remains during construction, MM Cultural 5 will be implemented. MM Cultural 5: Dogs trained to detect historical human remains shall be used in the portion of the project along the east side of the cemetery prior to construction. If any human remains are detected prior to construction using the above mentioned techniques,MM Cultural 6 as described below will be immediately implemented. At the time construction begins, ground disturbance and excavation will proceed carefully in order to identify signs of potential human remains. If evidence of potential remains is discovered,MM Cultural 6 described below will be implemented. MM Cultural 6: If human remains in the vicinity of the cemetery are encountered prior to or during construction, work will be halted until a decision is made with regard to the disposition of the remains. If human remains are discovered in a location other than a dedicated cemetery, the provisions and regulations of Health and Safety Code 7050.5, CEQA 15064.5(e), and Public Resources Code 5097.98 will be followed. The fieldwork at the site will cease immediately if any human remains are encountered. The Riverside County Coroner will be notified immediately. If the Coroner determines that the remains should be treated as historic resources, they would defer to SHPO with regard to treatment of the remains. Source: AE 1 VI. GEOLOGY AND SOILS. Would the project: VIa) Expose people or structures to 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 or based on other substantial evidence of a Known fault? Refer to Division of Mines and Geology Special Publication 42. Less than Significant Impact. According to Riverside County GIS and Figure S-2 of the Riverside County General Plan, the proposed project is not located within a currently delineated State of California Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zone. The project area is located in proximity to the Elsinore Fault Zone and numerous County Fault Zones. The District's routine inspection and maintenance activities will ensure that the storm drain system is repaired if damage does occur during a seismic event. Consequently, as a storm drain system the proposed project would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects. Source: RCIP,Riv Co GIS 33 ii) Strong seismic ground shaking? Less than Significant Impact. Most of southern California, including the project area, is subject to strong seismic ground shaking due to the numerous faults traversing the region. According to the Riverside County GIS, the project area is not located within a fault zone. The District's routine inspection and maintenance activities will ensure that the storm drain system is repaired if damage does occur during a seismic event. Therefore, impacts are anticipated to be less than significant. Source: RCIP,Riv Co GIS iii) Seismic-related ground failure,including liquefaction? Less than Significant Impact. According to Figure S-3 of the Riverside County General Plan, the project area is located within an area of high liquefaction susceptibility due to the shallow depth of the local groundwater. However, the proposed project is a storm drain system and does not provide habitable structures. Additionally, the District's routine inspection and maintenance activities will ensure that the storm drain system is repaired if damage does occur during a seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction. Therefore, impacts are anticipated to be less than significant. Source: RCIP iv) Landslides or mudflows? No Impact. According to Figure S-4 of the Riverside County General Plan, the proposed project is located near areas designated as having a high susceptibility to seismically induced landslides and rock falls. However, the proposed project will be located on relatively flat terrain and will not provide habitable structures. Therefore, the proposed project would not expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects involving landslides or mudflows. Source: RCIP VIb) Result in substantial changes in topography, unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading or fill,or soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project alignment is generally located over level ground and would not involve substantial changes in topography, unstable soil conditions from excavation, grading or fill, or soil erosion or loss of topsoil. The proposed project is a storm drain system that will reduce erosion and debris transport by providing an engineered drainage conveyance for stormwater runoff. During project construction, graded areas could be susceptible to erosion, however, potential erosion will be minimized by implementing Best Management Practices (BMPs) as described in the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) as required by the NPDES General Permit for Construction Stormwater Discharges. Source: NPDES,Project Design VIc) 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 on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence,liquefaction or collapse? 34 Less than Significant Impact. According to the Riverside County GIS as identified in response VIa) iii) above, the proposed project is located in an area of high liquefaction susceptibility. However, the proposed project alignment covers a limited area and the proposed project does not involve structures which would be inhabited by people. In the event that the storm drain system sustains any damage, the District's Operations and Maintenance Division will be responsible for evaluation and repair. Therefore, impacts are anticipated to be less than significant. Source: Riv Co GIS VId) Be located on expansive soil, as defined in Table 18-1-B of the Uniform Building Code (1994 or most current edition),creating substantial risks to life or property? No Impact. A geotechnical report has been prepared for the project area. The report states that the soils within the project area have a very low expansion potential. No impacts are anticipated. Source: RCIP VIe) Have soils incapable of adequately supporting any structures, fill or other improvements associated with the project? No Impact. The proposed project consists of the construction and maintenance of a storm drain system. The geotechnical report states that the soils are adequate for the construction of the project. No impacts are anticipated. Source: Project Design VII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: VIIa) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport,use,or disposal of hazardous materials? Less than Significant Impact. Construction and subsequent maintenance of the proposed project does not involve the routine use or transport of hazardous materials beyond the short- term use of petroleum-based fuels, lubricants, pesticides, and other similar materials during construction and the occasional transport and use of these materials during the maintenance phase. The construction phase may include transport of gasoline and diesel fuel to the project site and on-site storage for the sole purpose of fueling construction equipment. Best Management Practices (BMPs) stipulating proper storage of hazardous materials and vehicle fueling will be included in the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan(SWPPP). All transport, handling, use, and disposal of substances such as petroleum products, solvents, and paints related to operation and maintenance of the proposed project will comply with all Federal, State, and local laws regulating the management and use of hazardous materials. District operations and maintenance personnel participate in an ongoing Herbicide Training Program. Additionally, the District is in compliance with State and local policies regarding herbicide application. The proposed project will not create a significant hazard to the public or to the environment. Source: Project Design 35 VIIb) 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? Less than Significant Impact. Refer to response VIIa) above. VIIc) Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? No Impact. Refer to response VIIa) above. There is not an existing or proposed school within one-quarter mile of the project site. VIId) Be located on a site, which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites complied pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? Less than Significant Impact. An online record search of available databases, i.e., Department of Toxic Substances Control's Hazardous Waste and Substances List (Cortise List), State Water Resources Control Board Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) Geotracker indicates that listed hazardous material sites are not located within or adjacent to the project area. Construction of the proposed project will include excavation. In the unlikely event that unknown potentially hazardous materials are uncovered during excavation, such materials will be handled in accordance with the following measure. MM Hazards 1: If previously unknown hazardous wastes/materials are encountered in the field during construction, ground disturbance activities in the vicinity of the discovery shall cease until a qualified hazardous materials management specialist can assess the potentially hazardous substances and, if necessary, develop appropriate management measures for the treatment and disposal of the materials in accordance with applicable laws and regulations set by the appropriate regulatory agencies. Source: DTSC, SWRCB VIIe) 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 for people residing or working in the project area? No Impact. The proposed project is not located within an airport land use plan or within two miles of a public or public use airport. Source: Thomas Guide VIIf) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip,would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? No Impact. The proposed project is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. Therefore,no impacts are anticipated. Source: Thomas Guide VIIg) Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? 36 Less than Significant Impact. The construction and subsequent maintenance of the proposed project will not impair implementation of, or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response or evacuation plan. Vehicular access will be maintained or detours will be provided during project construction. It is also standard practice for the District to notify public safety agencies prior to commencing project construction activity. Thus, no associated impacts would occur. Source: Project Design VIIh) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where Wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? Less than Significant Impact. According to Figure S-I I in the Riverside County General Plan, the plan area is not subject to wildland fire hazards. Additionally, the Elsinore Area Plan Wildfire Susceptibility Exhibit (Figure 11) of the Riverside County General Plan indicates that the majority of the plan area is not subject to risk of wildland fire hazards. The proposed project would not expose people or structures to an increased risk of wildfire beyond current conditions. Source: RCIP VIII. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: VIIIa) Violate or conflict with any adopted water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project consists of the construction, operation, and maintenance of a storm drain system. The proposed project will not create new sources of stormwater pollution. It will collect, convey, and discharge stormwater runoff originating in developed areas that may contribute pollutants. During construction, there is potential for temporary discharge of pollutants from the construction area. The District's contractor will implement appropriate Best Management Practices (BMPs) in compliance with the NPDES General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Construction Activity. The District is also required to comply with the NPDES Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System (MS4) permit issued by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (SARWQCB). Compliance with the established programs and policies mentioned above will ensure that the project would not result in violation or conflict with adopted water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. Source: Project design,NPDES, SARWQCB VIIIb) Result in substantial discharges of typical stormwater pollutants (e.g. sediment from construction activities, hydrocarbons, and metals from motor vehicles, nutrients and pesticides from landscape maintenance activities, metals of other pollutants from industrial operation,) or substantial changes to surface water quality including, but not limited to, temperature,dissolved oxygen,pH,or turbidity? Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project will not result in substantial changes to surface water quality including temperature, dissolved oxygen, pH, or turbidity. Refer to response VIII.A) above. 37 Source: Project design VIIIc) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project will not result in the withdrawal or use of groundwater. The proposed project consists of a storm drain system that will convey stormwater flow from the project area to Collier Marsh. A minor reduction in groundwater recharge is anticipated to occur as the new concrete channel section replaces the existing unvegetated ephemeral streambed (approximately .37 acre). However, an approximately .56 acre new earthen channel will be created with the new channel construction downstream of Riverside Drive to replace functions and values of the unvegetated ephemeral streambed including infiltration. As such, less than significant impacts are anticipated. Source: Project design VIIld) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of a watercourse or wetland, in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on-or off-site? Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project is a storm drain system that will generally maintain the existing drainage pattern to safely convey flows via an engineered channel to the natural drainage area in Collier Marsh. The channel will include 2 energy dissipation structures to reduce the occurrence of erosion and siltation. The proposed project will reduce the erosion and flooding risk that currently occurs during storm events. Therefore, impacts are anticipated to be less than significant. Source: Project design VIIIe) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on-or off-site? Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project will convey flows through an engineered channel that presently drain through an unvegetated ephemeral streambed and onto Collier Avenue, and will eliminate flooding, not cause more of it. Therefore, impacts are less than significant. Source: Project design VIIIf) Create or contribute runoff water, which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems? Less than Significant Impact. The project discharges into Collier Marsh. Collier Marsh has adequate capacity for flows discharged from this project. As such, impacts are less than significant. Source: Project design 38 VIIIg) Place housing within a 100-year flood hazard area as mapped on Federal Flood Hazard boundary of Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? No Impact. The proposed project will not include or involve the construction of housing within the 100-year flood hazard area or other flood hazard delineation map. No impact is anticipated. Source: Project design VIIIh) Place structures or fill within a 100-year flood hazard area, which would impede or redirect flood flows? Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project is a storm drain system that will channelize flows through the project area. The proposed project will collect and redirect the first 2,100-cfs through the Caltrans culverts to an adequate outlet in Collier Marsh. There is no adverse impact to buildings or infrastructure due to the redirection of flows. Therefore, impacts are anticipated to be less than significant. Source: Project design VIIIi) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding,including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? No Impact. The proposed project area will reduce flood risk and flood-related damage in the watershed by increasing the level of flood protection to local development. Source: Project design VIIIj) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving inundation by seiche,tsunami,or mudflow? No Impact. The proposed project is not subject to inundation by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. No impact is anticipated. Source: Project design IX. LAND USE PLANNING. Would the project: IXa) Physically divide an established community? Less than Significant Impact. The majority of the project is underground and will not divide the community. The open channel part of the project is at the edge of the existing development in the city of Lake Elsinore. As such, the project will not physically divide an established community. Source: Project Design IXb) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? 39 No Impact. The proposed project is located within the city of Lake Elsinore and generally subject to the land use policies of the City. The proposed project will not conflict with any land use designations or policies adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect. Source: Project Design X. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: Xa) 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? Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project site is located on land that is designated as MRZ-3 according to the County of Riverside General Plan. This classification denotes areas where the available geologic information indicates that mineral deposits are likely to exist, however, the significance of the deposit is undetermined. The proposed project is not located on an area where the available geologic information indicates that there are significant mineral deposits according to the General Plan. As a storm drain system, the project alignment will impact a relatively minor footprint area of approximately 5 acres and 3,770 feet. Therefore, the project would not result in the loss of availability of a mineral resource that would be of value to the region and residents of the state. Source: RCIP Xb) 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? Less than Significant Impact. Refer to previous response in Section Xa). XI. NOISE. Would the project result in: XIa) Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project will include the use of mechanical equipment for the temporary construction period. Mechanical equipment will also be used intermittently during operations and maintenance activity after the construction is completed. Neither the construction period nor the maintenance periods will involve generation of noise levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan, noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies. Therefore, the impact is anticipated to be less than significant. Source: Project Design XIb) Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground-borne vibration or ground- borne noise levels? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. The proposed project will include the use of mechanical equipment for the temporary construction period. Mechanical equipment will also be used intermittently during operations and maintenance activity after the construction is completed. The project area is adjacent to commercial activities and a cemetery. Areas located adjacent to the project area will be temporarily exposed to increased noise levels and possible ground vibration from vehicles and excavation equipment during 40 construction. Subsequent operations and maintenance is expected to generate infrequent and minor increased noise levels associated with trucks and/or heavy equipment during inspection and maintenance activities. The long-term operation and maintenance would not result in a significant increase in noise levels. However,to ensure that potential adverse impacts remain less than significant during both construction and subsequent maintenance, the following mitigation measure will be incorporated into the project: MM Noise 1: Use of heavy construction equipment shall be limited to between the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and prohibited on weekends and holidays, unless otherwise approved by the General Manager-Chief Engineer. Source: Project Design XIc) A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Less than Significant Impact. The construction, operation, and maintenance of the proposed project will be temporary activities. These temporary activities will involve short-term minor increases in noise levels due to operation of mechanical equipment. There will be no permanent increases in noise levels, and potential impacts will be less than significant. Source: Project Design XId) A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? Potentially Significant Unless Mitigation Incorporated. As described in response XIa) above, the proposed project will include the use of mechanical equipment for the temporary construction period. Mechanical equipment will also be used intermittently during operations and maintenance activity after the construction is completed. Both the construction and subsequent maintenance periods will be temporary with limited increased noise levels. With the incorporation of the proposed mitigation measure MM Noise 1, potential impacts will be less than significant. Source: Project Design XIe) 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 expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No Impact. The project area is not located within an airport land use plan, or within two miles of a public airport or public use airport. Therefore,no impact is anticipated. Source: Project Design XIf) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? No Impact. The project area is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip, therefore, no impact is anticipated. Source: Project Design 41 XII. POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: XIIa) Induce substantial 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) resulting in substantial adverse physical impacts or conflicts with the adopted general plan, specific plan, or other applicable land use or regional plan? No impact. The proposed project does not include the construction of homes or businesses that could directly induce population growth. The proposed project will provide improved flood protection to developed areas adjacent to the project site. Since these areas are mostly developed, substantial population growth inducement is not expected. Source: Project Design XIIb) Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact. The proposed project will not displace any existing housing or people. Source: Project Design XIIc) Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? No Impact. Refer to response XIIb). Source: Project Design XIII. PUBLIC SERVICES XIIIa) Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any of the following public services: Fire protection? No Impact. The proposed project would not require new fire protection services. Police protection? No Impact. The proposed project would not require new police protection services. Schools? No Impact. The proposed project would not affect existing schools within the area. Parks? No Impact. Additional demands on existing public parks would not occur. New or improved park facilities would not be necessary as a result of the proposed project. 42 Other public facilities? No Impact. Roads are the only public facilities that may be impacted by the proposed project. Once constructed, the proposed project will reduce the potential for flood damage to the public roads and adjacent properties within the project area. Thus, the need to maintain and repair public roads due to flood damage will be reduced. No additional public facilities will be impacted by the proposed project. Source: Project design XIV. RECREATION XIVa) Would the project increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? No Impact. The proposed project would not impact or increase the use of existing neighborhood parks,regional parks, or other recreational facilities. Source: Project design XIVb) 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? No Impact. The proposed project does not include recreational facilities nor will it require the construction or expansion of such facilities. Source: Project design XV. TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC. Would the project: XVa) Conflict with an adopted plan, ordinance or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system, taking into account all modes of transportation including mass transit and non-motorized travel and relevant components of the circulation system, including but not limited to intersections, streets, highways and freeways,pedestrian and bicycle paths, and mass transit? Less than Significant Impact. Temporary lane closures during construction will be kept at a minimum and will be coordinated with the City of Lake Elsinore, and Caltrans to ensure that adverse impact to traffic flow is less than significant. Construction related vehicles traveling to the project site would temporarily increase traffic volume during the construction period. After construction is complete, maintenance vehicles will travel infrequently to the project site. However, the project would not cause a permanent increase in traffic volume. Due to the relatively short construction period and associated minor amount of increased traffic, the temporary increase in traffic will not substantially change the existing levels of traffic. Therefore,the project will not conflict with an adopted plan, ordinance, or policy establishing measures of effectiveness for the performance of the circulation system. Impacts will be less than significant. Source: Project design 43 XVb) Conflict with an adopted congestion management program,including,but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the appropriate congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? Less than Significant Impact. In accordance with the 2010 Riverside County Congestion Management Program (CMP), State Route 74 from Lakeshore to the 1-15 Freeway is designated an exempt facility from the CMP. As a result, the proposed project will not conflict with an adopted congestion management program. Source: Project design, CMP XVc) Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g.,farm equipment)? Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project consists of a flood control storm facility that would not increase hazards due to a design feature or incompatible uses. A guardrail will be installed on the northwest side of Riverside Drive to prevent vehicles from accidently driving into the channel. Impacts will be less than significant. Source: Project design XVd) Would the project result in inadequate emergency access? Less than Significant Impact. The operation and maintenance of the proposed project would not result in inadequate emergency access. However, project construction is expected to include temporary activity and potential lane closures along Collier Avenue and Riverside Drive. The project will include a traffic control plan to ensure that there is acceptable emergency access through both of the above-mentioned streets, and the project area. Therefore,the project would not result in inadequate emergency access. Source: Project design XVe) Would the project result in inadequate parking capacity? No Impact. The proposed project will not affect any existing parking facilities nor increase the need for additional parking facilities. Temporary parking related to construction activities will be available on, or adjacent to the construction site. Source: Project design XVf) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, pedestrian facilities, or other alternate transportation or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities? Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, pedestrian facilities, or other alternate transportation or otherwise decrease the performance or safety of such facilities. Source: Project design 44 XVI. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: XVIa) Impact the following facilities requiring or resulting in the construction of new facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? Electricity No Impact. The proposed project would not require or result in the construction of new electrical facilities or expansion of existing electrical facilities. Natural Gas No Impact. The proposed project would not require or result in the construction of new natural gas facilities or expansion of existing natural gas facilities. Communication System No Impact. The proposed project would not require or result in the construction of new communication system facilities or expansion of existing communication system facilities. Street lighting No Impact. The proposed project would not require or result in the construction of new street lighting or expansion of existing street lighting. Public facilities,including roads and bridges No Impact. The proposed project would not require or result in the construction of new public facilities or expansion of existing public facilities including roads and bridges. Source: Project design XVIb) Require or result in the construction of new stormwater drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? No Impact. The proposed project consists of the construction of new drainage facilities to alleviate flooding within the project area. Other drainage facilities will not be required as a result of the proposed project. Source: Project design XVIc) Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources,or are new or expanded entitlements needed? No Impact. The proposed project is construction of new flood control drainage facilities that will not require the long-term use of water supplies. The project will only require the temporary use of water during construction. Existing water supplies are expected to be adequate. Source: Project design 45 XVId) Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? No Impact. The proposed project will not result in any wastewater discharges or require wastewater treatment services. Source: Project design XVIe) Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's solid waste disposal needs? Less than Significant Impact. The proposed project may generate a limited amount of solid waste during construction. Subsequent facility maintenance may involve occasional trash and debris removal. However, the limited amount of solid waste generated during construction and maintenance would not be substantial or interfere with the capacity of local solid waste disposal facilities. Source: Project design XVIf) Comply with federal,state,and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? No Impact. Waste disposal during project construction or maintenance will be performed in compliance with the appropriate statutes and regulations. Source: Project design XVIL MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE. XVIIa)Does the project have the potential to 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, 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? Less than Significant Impact. As demonstrated by this Initial Study,potential impacts to the quality of the environment, to the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, or plant or animal, or historical resources will not occur, will be less than significant, or will be mitigated to a level of insignificance. XVIIb)Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probablefuture projects.) Less than Significant Impact. The storm drain construction will be short-term in nature and result in improved stormwater conveyance through the project area. Potential impacts such as air emissions, hazardous materials issues, historic/archeological/paleontological resource finds, and riverine/riparian area mitigation have been addressed and reduced to less than significant. As a short-term infrastructure improvement project with potential impacts mitigated,there will be no impacts that are cumulatively considerable. 46 XVIIc) Does the project have environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Less than Significant Impact. As discussed throughout this Initial Study, the short-term construction of the storm drain system will be conducted with potential impacts mitigated to levels of less than significant. As a result, there will be no substantial adverse effects on human beings. 47 INITIAL STUDY CHECKLIST REFERENCE LIST Cited as: Source: AE 1 Applied EarthWorks,Inc.,Phase I Cultural Resources Investigation for the Arroyo Del Toro Project, Lake Elsinore,Riverside County, California,April 2009. AE 2 Applied EarthWorks,Inc.,Phase II Testing and Evaluation of CA-RIV-8226Hfor the Arroyo Del Toro Channel Project,Lake Elsinore,Riverside County, California,July 2009. AMEC AMEC Earth&Environmental,Inc.,Final Focused Special Status Plant Species Survey Report— Arroyo Del Toro Channel Project, June 2011. AQMP South Coast Air Quality Management District,Air Quality Management Plan 2007,dated June 2007. CMP 2010 Riverside County Congestion Management Program,Page 4-2. Conservation California Department of Conservation,Division of Land Resource Protection,Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program,Land Use Conversion reports,Riverside County Important Farmland Data Availability(Available at ftp://ftp.consrv.ca.gov/DLRP/fmmp). DTSC California Department of Toxic Substances Control,Hazardous Waste and Substance Site List (Cortese List),(Available at:http://www.calepa.ca.aov/SiteCleggup/CorteseList/default.htm) Helix 1 Helix Environmental Planning,Inc.,Jurisdictional Delineation Report,May 7,2007,revised June 23, 2009. Helix 2 Helix Environmental Planning,Inc., General Biological Resources Assessment, September 25,2009. Helix 3 Helix Environmental Planning,Inc.,Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation Report(with errata),November 16,2009. Helix 4 Helix Environmental Planning,Inc.,Results of the Burrowing Owl Survey for the Arroyo Del Toro Flood Control Channel Project,dated September 10,2010. Helix 5 Helix Environmental Planning,Inc.,Arroyo Del Toro Channel Conceptual Restoration Plan, dated December 2,2010. IM Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan(MSHCP),Permittee Implementation Guidance Manual,dated August 2007. LE Gen Plan City of Lake Elsinore General Plan Approved,Land Use Map. (Available at: htw://www.lake- elsinore.org/index.aspx?pqgg:—��16) MSHCP Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan,County of Riverside Transportation and Land Management Agency,dated June 17,2003. NPDES General Permit for Discharges of Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity Construction General Permit Order 2009-0009-DWO. (Available at: http://www.waterboards.ca.gov) RCIP Riverside County Integrated Project,County of Riverside General Plan,October 7,2003. Riv Co GIS County of Riverside,Geographic Information System Database. (Available at hllp://www3.tlma.co.riverside.ca.us/pa/rclis/index.html). SARWQCB Municipal Separate Storm Sewer System(MS4)Permit,Order No.R8-2010-0033,NPDES Permit No. CAS618033,issued January 29,2010. SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District,1993 CEQA Air Quality Handbook, Significance Thresholds and Analysis, supplemental information regarding greenhouse gases(GHG).(Available at http://www.agmd. og v/cega/hdbk.hmA). SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board,Geotracker Database,(Available at: hiip:Hgeotracker.waterboards.ca.gov) Thomas Guide Thomas Guide for San Bernardino&Riverside Counties,street guide. (Available at District and public libraries) 48 APPENDIX A URBEMIS Summary Report 49 Page: 1 7/20/2011 9:20:43 AM Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4 Combined Annual Emissions Reports (Tons/Year) File Name: C:\WINNT\Profiles\tmrheine\Application Data\Urbemis\Version9a\Projects\ADT allocate volumes Jul 14.urb924 Project Name: Arroyo del Toro channel project Project Location: Riverside County On-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Off-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007 Summary Report: CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO S02 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 PM2.5 CO2 Exhaust 2012 TOTALS(tons/year unmitigated) 0.23 1.99 0.89 0.00 0.65 0.09 0.73 0.14 0.08 0.22 253.19 2013 TOTALS(tons/year unmitigated) 0.13 1.00 0.48 0.00 0.26 0.05 0.31 0.06 0.04 0.10 146.25 Construction Unmitigated Detail Report: CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Annual Tons Per Year,Unmitigated ROG NOx CO S02 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 CO2 50 Page: 2 7/20/2011 9:20:43 AM 2012 0.23 1.99 0.89 0.00 0,65 0.09 0.73 0.14 0.08 0,22 253,19 Mass Grading 07/02/2012- 0.13 1.14 0.52 0.00 0.23 0.05 0.27 0.05 0.04 0.09 151.74 08/31/2012 Mass Grading Dust 0,00 0.00 0.00 0-00 0.23 0.00 0.23 0.05 0.00 0,05 0.00 Mass Grading Off Road Diesel 0.12 1.00 0.44 0.00 0.00 0.04 0.04 0.00 0.04 0.04 122.12 Mass Grading On Road Diesel 0.01 0.14 0.05 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 25.43 Mass Grading Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.20 Asphalt 09/01/2012-10/12/2012 0.02 0.20 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 23.84 Paving Off-Gas 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Paving Off Road Diesel 0.02 0.19 0.07 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 21.70 Paving On Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.74 Paving Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.01 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,40 Mass Grading 10/15/2012- 0.07 0.65 0.29 0.00 0.42 0.03 0.45 0.09 0.03 0.12 77.61 01/07/2013 Mass Grading Dust 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.42 0.00 0.42 0.09 0.00 0.09 0,00 Mass Grading Off Road Diesel 0.07 0.62 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.03 0,03 69.35 Mass Grading On Road Diesel 0.00 0.02 0.D1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.89 Mass Grading Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.03 0,00 0,00 0.00 0-00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4,35 51 Page: 3 7/20/2011 9:20:44 AM 2013 0.13 1.00 0.48 0.00 0.26 0.05 0.31 0.06 0.014 0.10 14525 Mass Grading 10/1512012- 0.01 0.05 0.02 0.00 0.04 0.00 0.04 0.01 0.00 0-01 6.93 01/07/2013 Mass Grading Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0-00 0.04 0.00 0.04 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 Mass Grading Off Road Diesel 0.01 0.05 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.19 Mass Grading On Road Diesel 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.35 Mass Grading Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 039 Mass Grading 01/07/2013- 0.03 0.26 0.11 0.00 0.08 0.01 0.09 0.02 0.01 0.03 40.74 01/18/2013 Mass Grading Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.08 0.00 0.08 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.00 Mass Grading Off Road Diesel 0.03 0.24 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 35.57 Mass Grading On Road Diesel 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 000 0.00 0.00 4.24 Mass Grading Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.93 Mass Grading 01/21/2013- 006 0.51 0.25 0.00 0.15 0.02 0.17 0.03 0.02 0.05 74.99 0211512013 Mass Grading Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.15 0.00 0.15 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.00 Mass Grading Off Road Diesel 0.06 0.49 0.22 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.02 0.02 68.26 Mass Grading On Road Diesel 0.00 0.02 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.24 Mass Grading Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2 a9 Asphalt 02/18/2013-03/06/2013 0.03 0.18 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 23.60 Paving Off-Gas 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 000 Paving Off Road Diesel 0.02 0.17 0.09 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 21.61 Paving On Road Diesel 0-00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.57 Paving Worker Trips 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 000 1.41 52 Page 4 7120/2011 9:20:44 AM P-haseAssumotions Phase:Mass Grading 7/2/201 2-8131/2012-Excavation Total Acres Disturbed.8 Maximum Daily Acreage Disturbed 0.5 Fugitive Dust Level of Detail:Default 20 Ibs per acre-day On Road Truck Travel(VMT):266.67 Off-Road Equipment: 1 Excavators(168 hp)operating at a 0.57 load factor for 8 hours per day 2 Off Highway Trucks(479 hp)operating at a 0.57 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Rubber Tired Dozers(357 hp)operating at a 0.59 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Tractors/LoadersrBackhoes(108 hp)operating at a 0 55 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Water Trucks(189 hp)operating at a 0-5 load factor for 8 hours per day Phase Mass Grading 10/15/2012-117/2D13-Reinforced concrete box Total Acres Disturbed:3 Maximum Daily Acreage Disturbed:0.75 Fugitive Dust Level of Detail:Default 20 Ibs per acre-day On Road Truck Travel(VMT):32 79 Off-Road Equipment: 1 Cranes(399 hp)operating at a 0 43 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Other General Industrial Equipment(238 hp)operating at a 0.51 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Pumps(53 hp)operating at a 0.74 bad factor for 8 hours per day 1 Tractors/LoaderslBackhoes(108 hp)operating at a 0.55 bad factor for 7 hours per day 1 Water Trucks(189 hp)operating at a 0.5 load factor for 8 hours per day Phase.Mass Grading 1/7712013-1/16/2013-Earthen trapezoidal channel Total Acres Disturbed'1 53 Page:5 7120/2011 9:20:44 AM Maximum Daily Acreage Disturbed:0.75 Fugitive Dust Level of Detail:Default 20 Ibs per acre-day On Road Truck Travel(VMT):200 Off-Road Equipment 1 Excavators(168 hp)operating at a 0.57 load factor for 8 hours per day 4 Off Highway Trucks(479 hp)operating at a 0.57 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes(108 hp)operating at a 0 55 load factor for 8 hours per day Phase-Mass Grading 12112013.2/15/2013-Backfill Total Acres Disturbed:2 Maximum Daily Acreage Disturbed:0.75 Fugitive Dust Level of Detail:Default 20 Ibs per acre-day On Road Truck Travel(VMT):100 Off-Road Equipment. 1 Excavators(168 hp)operating at a 0.57 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Graders(174 hp)operating at a 0.61 load factor for 6 hours per day 3 Off Highway Trucks(479 hp)operating at a 0.57 load factor for 8 hours per day 2 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes(108 hp)operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Water Trucks(189 hp)operating at a 0.5 load factor for 8 hours per day Phase:Paving 9/11201 2-1011 2/2012-Rectangular concrete channel construction Acres to be Paved:1 Off-Road Equipment: 1 Other General Industrial Equipment(238 hp)operating at a 0.51 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes(108 hp)operating at a 0.56 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Water Trucks(189 hp)operating at a 0 5 load factor for 8 hours per day Phase:Paving 2/18/2013-3/6/2013-Paving 54 Page: 6 7/20/2011 9:20:44 AM Acres to be Paved:0.75 Off-Road Equipment: 1 Concrete/Industrial Saws(10 hp)operating at a 0.73 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Off Highway Trucks(479 hp)operating at a 0.57 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Pavers(100 hp)operating at a 0.62 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Rollers(95 hp)operating at a 0.56 load factor for 7 hours per day 2 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes(108 hp)operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Water Trucks(189 hp)operating at a 0.5 load factor for 8 hours per day Construction Mitigated Detail Report: CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Annual Tons Per Year,Mitigated Construction Related Mitigation Measures 55 Page. 1 7/20/2011 9:23:29 AM Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4 Combined Summer Emissions Reports(Pounds/Day) File Name. C:\WINNT\Profiles\tmrheine\Application Data\Urbemis\Version9a\Projects\ADT allocate volumes Jul 14.urb924 Project Name:Arroyo del Toro channel project Project Location: Riverside County On-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on Version Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Off-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on' OFFROAD2007 Summary Report CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG N x CO S02 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2 5 Dust PM2-5 PM2.5 Exhaust 2012 TOTALS(Ibs/day unmitigated) 582 50 74 23.13 0.01 1501 2.09 1612 3.14 1 92 4,15 5,744.19 2013 TOTALS(Ibs/day unmitigated) 8.91 73.89 32.85 0 01 3005 3,18 33.23 6.28 2 92 9-21 10.919.82 Construction Unmitigated Detail Report CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Summer Pounds Per Day,Unmitigated ROC; N_Qx SO S02 PM10Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM25Dust PM25Exhaust PM2.5 CO2 56 Page: 2 7120/2011 9:23:29 AM Time Slice 712/2012-8/31/2012 5.82 50.74 23_13 0.01 10.05 2.09 12.14 2.10 1,92 4.03 6.744.19 Active Days:45 Mass Grading 07102/2012- 5.82 50,74 23.13 0.01 10.05 2.09 12.14 2.10 1.92 4.03 6,744.19 08/31/2012 Mass Grading Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.00 0.00 10.00 2.09 0.00 2.09 0.00 Mass Grading Off Road Diesel 5.30 44.27 19A8 0.00 0,00 1.85 1.85 0.00 1.70 1.70 5A27.41 Mass Grading On Road Diesel 0.48 6,39 2.31 0.01 0,04 0.24 0.28 0.01 0.22 0.23 1.130.24 Mass Grading Worker Trips 0.04 0.08 1.34 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 186.54 Time Slice 9/3/2012-10/12/2012 1.59 13.28 5.52 0.00 0.01 0.59 0.60 0.00 0.55 0.55 1.589.23 Active Days:30 Asphalt 09/01/2012-10/12/2012 1.59 13.28 5.52 0.00 0.01 0.59 0.50 0.00 0.55 0.55 1,589.23 Paving Off-Gas 0.08 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Paving Off Road Diesel 1.46 12.96 4,75 0.00 0.0D 0.58 0.58 0.00 0.53 0.53 1.446.88 Paving On Road Diesel 0.02 0.28 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 49.08 Paving Worker Trips 0.02 0-04 0.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0,00 93.27 Time Slice 10115/2012-12131/2012 2.67 23.14 10.35 0.00 15.01 1.11 16�12 3.14 1.02 415 2.771.65 Active Days:56 Mass Grading10/15/2012- 2.67 23.14 10.35 0.00 15.01 1.11 16,12 3.14 1.02 4.15 2,771.65 01/07/2013 Mass Grading Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 15.00 0.00 15.00 3.13 0.00 3.13 0,00 Mass Grading Off Road Diesel 2.58 22.29 8.95 0.00 0.00 1.07 1.07 0.00 0.99 0.99 2,47723 Mass Grading On Road Diesel 0.06 0.79 028 0,00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0,03 0.03 138.96 Mass Grading Worker Trips 0.03 0.06 1.12 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0,00 0.01 155.45 57 Page: 3 7/20/2011 9:23:29 AM Time Slice Ill/2013-114/2013Active 2.51 21.38 9.97 0.00 15.01 0.99 16.00 3.14 0.91 4.04 2.771.64 Days:4 Mass Grading 10/1512012- 2.51 21.38 9.97 0.00 15.01 0.99 16.00 3-14 0.91 4.04 2.771.64 0110 7/2 01 3 Mass Grading Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 15.00 0.00 15.00 3.13 0.00 3A 3 0.00 Mass Grading Off Road Diesel 2.43 20.63 8.68 0.00 0.00 0.95 0.95 0.00 0.88 0.88 2.477.23 Mass Grading On Road Diesel 0.05 0.69 025 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.02 0.02 138.96 Mass Grading Worker Trips 0.03 0.06 1.03 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 155.44 Time Slice 1/712 0 1 3-1 1712 01 3 Active 8.91 73_89 32.85 0.011 30.06 3.18 33_23 6.28 2.992 9.21 10,919.82 Days:1 Mass Grading 01/07/2013- 6.40 52.51 22.88 0.01 15.04 2.19 17.23 3.15 2.02 5.16 8.148.18 01/'f 8/2013 Mass Grading Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 15.00 0.00 15.00 3.13 0.00 3.13 0.00 Mass Grading Off Road Diesel 6.03 48.23 20.11 0.00 0.00 2.03 2.03 0.00 1.87 1.87 7.113.97 Mass Grading On Road Diesel 0.33 4.21 1.53 0.01 0.03 0.15 0.18 0.01 0.14 0.15 847.68 Mass Grading Worker Trips 0.04 0.07 1.24 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 186.53 Mass Grading 10/15/2012- 2.51 21.38 9.97 0.00 15.01 0.99 16.00 3.14 0.91 4.04 2.771.64 01/07/2013 Mass Grading Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 15.00 0.00 15.00 3.13 0.00 3.13 0.00 Mass Grading Off Road Diesel 2.43 20.63 8.68 0.00 0.00 0.95 0.95 0.00 0.88 0.88 2.477.23 Mass Grading On Road Diesel 0.05 0.69 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.02 0.02 138.96 Mass Grading Worker Trips 0.03 0.06 1.03 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 155.44 58 Page:4 7/20/2011 9:23:29 AM Time Slice 1/8/2013-1118/2013 6.40 52.51 22.88 0.01 15.04 2.19 17.23 3.15 2.02 5.16 8.148.18 Active Days:9 Mass Grading 01/07/2013- 6.40 52.51 22.88 0.01 15.04 2.19 17.23 3.15 2.02 5.16 8.148.18 01/18/2013 Mass Grading Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 15.00 0.00 15.00 3.13 0.00 3.13 0.00 Mass Grading Off Road Diesel 6.03 48.23 20.11 0.00 0.00 2.03 2.03 0.00 1.87 1.87 7,113.97 Mass Grading On Road Diesel 0.33 4.21 1.53 0.01 0.03 0.15 0.18 0.01 0.14 0.15 847.68 Mass Grading Worker Trips 0.04 0.07 124 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 186.53 Time Slice 1/2112013-2/1512013 6.35 50.75 24.68 0.01 15.03 2.30 17.33 3.14 2.12 5.26 7.498,85 Active Days:20 Mass Grading 01/21/2013- 6.35 50.75 24.68 0.01 15.03 2.30 17.33 3.14 2.12 5.26 7.498.85 02/15/2013 Mass Grading Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 15.00 0.00 15.00 3.13 0.00 3.13 0.00 Mass Grading Off Road Diesel 6.14 48.56 22.27 0.00 0.00 2.21 2.21 0.00 2.04 2.04 6.826.30 Mass Grading On Road Diesel 0.16 2.10 0.77 0.00 0.01 0.08 0.09 0.00 0.07 0.08 423.84 Mass Grading Worker Trips 0.05 0.09 1.65 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.01 24871 Time Slice 2118/2013-3/612013 3.87 27.08 14.89 0.00 0.01 1.57 1.58 0.00 1.44 1.45 3,630.01 Active Days:13 Asphalt 02118/2013-03/0612013 3.87 27.08 14.89 0.00 0.01 1.57 1.58 0.00 1A4 1.45 3.630.01 Paving Off-Gas 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Paving Off Road Diesel 3.65 26.57 13.29 0.00 0.00 1.55 1.55 0.00 1.42 1.42 3.324.61 Paving On Road Diesel 0.03 0.44 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.02 87.78 Paving Worker Trips 0.04 0.08 1.45 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.01 217.62 Phase Assumptions Phase:Mass Grading 71212012-8/31/2012-Excavation Total Acres Disturbed:8 Maximum Daily Acreage Disturbed:0.5 Fugitive Dust Level of Detail:Default 59 Page: 5 7/20/2011 9:23:29 AM 20 Ibs per acre-day On Road Truck Travel(VIViT):266.67 Off-Road Equipment: 1 Excavators(168 hp)operating at a 0.57 load factor for 8 hours per day 2 Off Highway Trucks(479 hp)operating at a 0.57 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Rubber Tired Dozers(357 hp)operating at a 0.59 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes(108 hp)operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Water Trucks(189 hp)operating at a 0.5 load factor for 8 hours per day Phase:Mass Grading 1 011 51201 2-117/201 3-Reinforced concrete box Total Acres Disturbed:3 Maximum Daily Acreage Disturbed:0.75 Fugitive Dust Level of Detail:Default 20 Ibs per acre-day On Road Truck Travel(VMT):32.79 Off-Road Equipment: 1 Cranes(399 hp)operating at a 0.43 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Other General Industrial Equipment(238 hp)operating at a 0.51 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Pumps(53 hp)operating at a 0.74 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes(108 hp)operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Water Trucks(189 hp)operating at a 0.5 load factor for 8 hours per day Phase:Mass Grading 1/71201 3-1/1 81201 3-Earthen trapezoidal channel Total Acres Disturbed:1 Maximum Daily Acreage Disturbed:0.75 Fugitive Dust Level of Detail:Default 20 Ibs per acre-day On Road Truck Travel(VMT):200 Off-Road Equipment: 1 Excavators(168 hp)operating at a 0.57 load factor for 8 hours per day 60 Page: 6 7/20/2011 9:23:29 AM 4 Off Highway Trucks(479 hp)operating at a 0.57 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes(108 hp)operating at a 0.55 load factor for 8 hours per day Phase:Mass Grading 1/21/201 3-2/1 51201 3-Backfill Total Acres Disturbed:2 Maximum Daily Acreage Disturbed:0.75 Fugitive Dust Level of Detail:Default 20 Ibs per acre-day On Road Truck Travel(VMT):100 Off-Road Equipment: 1 Excavators(168 hp)operating at a 0.57 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Graders(174 hp)operating at a 0.61 load factor for 6 hours per day 3 Off Highway Trucks(479 hp)operating at a 0.57 load factor for 8 hours per day 2 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes(108 hp)operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Water Trucks(189 hp)operating at a 0.5 load factor for 8 hours per day Phase:Paving 9/1/2012-1 0/1 21201 2-Rectangular concrete channel construction Acres to be Paved:1 Off-Road Equipment: 1 Other General Industrial Equipment(238 hp)operating at a 0.51 toad factor for 8 hours per day 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes(108 hp)operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Water Trucks(189 hp)operating at a 0.5 load factor for 8 hours per day Phase:Paving 2/18/201 3-3/6/2013-Paving Acres to be Paved:0.75 Off-Road Equipment: 1 Concreteftndustrial Saws(10 hp)operating at a 0.73 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Off Highway Trucks(479 hp)operating at a 0.57 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Pavers(100 hp)operating at a 0.62 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Rollers(95 hp)operating at a 0.56 load factor for 7 hours per day 61 Page: 7 7/20/2011 9:23:29 AM 2 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes(108 hp)operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Water Trucks(189 hp)operating at a 0.5 load factor for 8 hours per day Construction Mitigated Detail Report: CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Summer Pounds Per Day,Mitigated Construction Related Mitigation Measures 62 Page: 1 7/20/2011 9:23:59 AM Urbemis 2007 Version 9.2.4 Combined Winter Emissions Reports(Pounds/Day) File Name: C:\WINNT\Profiles\tmrheine\Application Data\Urbemis\Version9a\Projects\ADT allocate volumes Jul 14.urb924 Project Name: Arroyo del Toro channel project Project Location: Riverside County On-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: Version : Emfac2007 V2.3 Nov 1 2006 Off-Road Vehicle Emissions Based on: OFFROAD2007 Summary Report: CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES ROG NOx CO S02 PM10 Dust PM10 Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 PM2.5 CO2 Exhaust 2012 TOTALS(Ibs/day unmitigated) 5.82 50.74 23.13 0.01 15.01 2.09 16.12 3.14 1.92 4.15 6,744.19 2013 TOTALS(Ibs/day unmitigated) 8.91 73.89 32.85 0.01 30.05 3.18 33.23 6.28 2.92 9.21 10,919.82 Construction Unmitigated Detail Report: CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Winter Pounds Per Day,Unmitigated ROG NOx CO S02 PM10 Dust PM10Exhaust PM10 PM2.5 Dust PM2.5 Exhaust PM2.5 CO2 63 Page:2 7/20/2011 9:23:59 AM Time Slice 712/2012-8/31/2012 5.82 5074 23_13 0.01 10.05 2.09 12.14 2.10 1.92 4.03 6.744.19 Active Days:45 Mass Grading 07/02/2012- 5.82 50.74 23.13 0.01 10.05 2.09 12.14 2,10 1.92 4.03 6,744.19 08/31/2012 Mass Grading Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 10-00 0.00 10.00 2.09 0.00 2.09 0.00 Mass Grading Off Road Diesel 5.30 44.27 19.48 0.00 0,00 1.85 1.85 0.00 1.70 1.70 5.427.41 Mass Grading On Road Diesel 0.48 6.39 2.31 0,01 0.04 0.24 0.28 0.01 0.22 0.23 1.130.24 Mass Grading Worker Trips 0.04 0.08 1.34 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0,00 0.01 186.54 Time Slice 9/3/2012-10112/2012 1.59 13.28 5.52 0.00 0.01 0.59 0.60 0.00 0.55 0.55 1.589.23 Active Days:30 Asphalt 0910112012-10/1212012 1.59 13.28 5.52 0.00 0.01 059 0.60 0.00 0.55 0.55 1.589.23 Paving Off-Gas 0.08 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.001 0.00 0.00 Paving Off Road Diesel 1.46 12.96 4.75 0,00 0.00 0.58 0.58 0.00 0.5�': 0.53 1.446.88 Paving On Road Diesel D.02 0.28 0.10 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 49.08 Paving Worker Trips 0.02 0.04 0.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0,00 0.00 0.00 93.27 Time Slice 10/15/2012-12/3112012 2.67 23.14 10.35 0.00 15.01 1.11 16.12 3.14 1.02 4.15 2.771.65 Active Days:56 - Mass Grading 10/15/2012- 2.57 23.14 10.35 0.00 15.01 1.11 16.12 3.14 1.02 4A5 2.771.65 01/07/2013 Mass Grading Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 15.00 0.00 15.00 3.13 0.0C 3,13 0.00 Mass Grading Off Road Diesel 2.58 22.29 8.95 0.00 0.00 1.07 1.07 0.00 0.99 0.99 2.477.23 Mass Grading On Road Diesel 0.06 0.79 0.28 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.03 0.03 138.96 Mass Grading Worker Trips 0.03 0.06 1.12 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 155.45 64 Page. 3 7/20/2011 9:23:59 AM Time Slice 1 11 1201 3-1 1412 01 3 Active 2.51 21.38 9.97 0.00 15.01 0-99 16.00 3.14 0.91 4.04 2.771.64 Days:4 Mass Grading 10/16/2012- 2.51 21.38 9.97 0.00 15-01 0.99 16.00 3.14 0.91 4.04 2.771.64 01/07/2013 Mass Grading Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 15.00 0.00 15.00 3.13 0.00 3.13 0.00 Mass Grading Off Road Diesel 2.43 20.63 8.68 0.00 0.00 0.95 0.95 0.00 0.88 0.88 2.477.23 Mass Grading On Road Diesel 0.05 0.69 0.25 0.00 0-00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.02 0.02 138.96 Mass Grading Worker Trips 0.03 0.06 1.03 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 155,44 Time Slice 1/712 0 1 3-1/71201 3 Active 8.91 73_89 32_85 0.01 30_05 3.18 33.23 6.28 2.92 9,21 10.919.82 Days: 1 Mass Grading 01/07/2013- 6.40 52.51 22.88 0.01 15,04 2.19 17.23 3.15 2.02 5.16 8.148.18 01/18/2013 Mass Grading Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 15.00 0.00 15.00 3.13 0.00 3.13 0.00 Mass Grading Off Road Diesel 6.03 48.23 20.11 0.00 0.00 2.03 2.03 0.00 1.87 1.87 7.113.97 Mass Grading On Road Diesel 0.33 4.21 1.53 0.01 0.03 0.15 0.18 0.01 0.14 0.15 847.68 Mass Grading Worker Trips 0.04 0.07 1.24 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 186.53 Mass Grading 10/15/2012- 2.51 21.38 9.97 0.00 15.01 0.99 16.00 3.14 0.91 4.04 2.771.64 01/07/2013 Mass Grading Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0,00 15.00 0.00 15.00 3.13 0.00 3.13 0.00 Mass Grading Off Road Diesel 2.43 20.63 8.68 0.00 0,00 0.95 0.95 0.00 0.88 0.88 2.477.23 Mass Grading On Road Diesel 0.05 0.69 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.03 0.03 0.00 0.02 0.02 138.96 Mass Grading Worker Trips 0.03 0.06 1.03 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.01 155.44 65 Page: 4 7/20/2011 9:23:59 AM Time Slice 11812013-1/18/2013 6A0 52.51 22.88 0.01 15.04 2A9 17.23 3.15 2.02 5.16 8.148.18 Active Days:9 Mass Grading 01/0712013- 6.40 52.51 22.88 0.01 15.04 2.19 17.23 3.15 2.02 5.16 8.148.18 01/18/2013 Mass Grading Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 15.00 0.00 15.00 3A 3 0-00 3.13 0.00 Mass Grading Off Road Diesel 6.03 48.23 20.11 0.00 0,00 2.03 2.03 0.00 1.87 1.87 7.113.97 Mass Grading On Road Diesel 0.33 4.21 1.53 0.01 0.03 0.15 0.18 0.01 0.14 0.15 847.68 Mass Grading Worker Trips 0.04 0.07 1.24 0,00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.00 0.01 0.01 186.53 Time Slice 1/21/2013-2/1512013 6.35 50.75 24.68 0.01 15.03 2.30 17.33 3.14 2.12 526 7.498.85 Active Days:20 Mass Grading 01/2l/2013- 6.35 50.75 24.68 0.01 15.03 2.30 17.33 3.14 2.12 5.26 7.498.85 02/1 512 01 3 Mass Grading Dust 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 15.00 0.00 15.00 3.13 0.00 3.13 0.00 Mass Grading Off Road Diesel 6.14 48.56 22.27 0.00 0.00 2.21 2.21 0.00 2.04 2.04 6,826.30 Mass Grading On Road Diesel 0.16 2.10 0.77 0.00 0,01 0.08 0.09 0.00 0.07 0.08 423.84 Mass Grading Worker Trips 0.05 0.09 1.65 0.00 0.01 0.01 0-02 0.00 0.01 0.01 248.71 Time Slice 2/18/2013-3/612013 3.87 27.08 14.89 0.00 0.01 1.57 1-58 0.00 1,44 1.45 3.630.01 Active Days: 13 Asphalt 02118/2013-03106/2013 3,87 27.08 14.89 0.00 0.01 1.57 1.58 0.00 1.44 1.45 3.630.01 Paving Off-Gas 0.15 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Paving Off Road Diesel 3.65 26.57 13.29 0.00 0,00 1.55 1.55 0.00 1.42 1.42 3.324.61 Paving On Road Diesel 0,03 0.44 U6 0.00 0.00 0.02 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.02 87.78 Paving Worker Trips 0.04 0.08 1 A5 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.01 0.01 217.62 Phase Assumptions Phase:Mass Grading 7/2/2012-8/31/2012-Excavation Total Acres Disturbed:8 Maximum Daily Acreage Disturbed:0.5 Fugitive Dust Levef of Detail:Default 66 Page: 5 7/20/2011 9:23:59 AM 20 Ibs per acre-day On Road Truck Travel(VMT):266.67 Off-Road Equipment: 1 Excavators(168 hp)operating at a 0.57 load factor for 8 hours per day 2 Off Highway Trucks(479 hp)operating at a 0.57 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Rubber Tired Dozers(357 hp)operating at a 0.59 load factor for 6 hours per day 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes(108 hp)operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Water Trucks(189 hp)operating at a 0.5 load factor for 8 hours per day Phase:Mass Grading 1 011 5/201 2-11712013-Reinforced concrete box Total Acres Disturbed:3 Maximum Daily Acreage Disturbed:0.75 Fugitive Dust Level of Detail:Default 20 Ibs per acre-day On Road Truck Travel(VMT):32.79 Off-Road Equipment: 1 Cranes(399 hp)operating at a 0.43 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Other General Industrial Equipment(238 hp)operating at a 0.51 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Pumps(53 hp)operating at a 0.74 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes(108 hp)operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Water Trucks(189 hp)operating at a 0.5 load factor for 8 hours per day Phase:Mass Grading 1I71201 3-1/1 8/2013-Earthen trapezoidal channel Total Acres Disturbed:1 Maximum Daily Acreage Disturbed:0.75 Fugitive Dust Level of Detail:Default 20 Ibs per acre-day On Road Truck Travel(VMT):200 Off-Road Equipment: 1 Excavators(158 hp)operating at a 0.57 load factor for 8 hours per day 67 Page:6 7/20/2011 9:23:59 AM 4 Off Highway Trucks(479 hp)operating at a 0.57 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes(108 hp)operating at a 0.55 load factor for 8 hours per day Phase:Mass Grading 1/21/201 3-211 51201 3-Backfill Total Acres Disturbed:2 Maximum Daily Acreage Disturbed:0.75 Fugitive Dust Level of Detail:Default 20 Ibs per acre-day On Road Truck Travel(VMT):100 Off-Road Equipment: 1 Excavators(168 hp)operating at a 0.57 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Graders(174 hp)operating at a 0.61 load factor for 6 hours per day 3 Off Highway Trucks(479 hp)operating at a 0.57 load factor for 8 hours per day 2 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes(108 hp)operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Water Trucks(189 hp)operating at a 0.5 load factor for 8 hours per day Phase:Paving 9/1/2012-10/12/2012-Rectangular concrete channel construction Acres to be Paved:1 Off-Road Equipment: 1 Other General Industrial Equipment(238 hp)operating at a 0.51 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 TractorslLoaders/Backhoes(108 hp)operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Water Trucks(189 hp)operating at a 0.5 load factor for 8 hours per day Phase:Paving 2/1 81201 3-316/201 3-Paving Acres to be Paved:0.75 Off-Road Equipment: 1 Concrete/industrial Saws(10 hp)operating at a 0.73 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Off Highway Trucks(479 hp)operating at a 0.57 load factor for 8 hours per day 1 Pavers(100 hp)operating at a 0.62 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Rollers(95 hp)operating at a 0.56 load factor for 7 hours per day 68 Page: 7 7/20/2011 9:23:59 AM 2 Tractors/Loaders/Backhoes(108 hp)operating at a 0.55 load factor for 7 hours per day 1 Water Trucks(189 hp)operating at a 0.5 load factor for 8 hours per day Construction Mitigated Detail Report: CONSTRUCTION EMISSION ESTIMATES Winter Pounds Per Day,Mitigated Construction Related Mitigation Measures 69