Appendix D.3 - Jurisdictional Delineation MBI 202106Appendix D.3
Jurisdictional Delineation
MBI, 2021
Travertine SPA
Draft EIR
SCH# 201811023
Technical Appendices
October 2023
Appendix A - Delineation of State and Federal Waters,
Travertine Project, City of La Quinta, Riverside County,
California
TRAVERTINE PROJECT
CITY OF LA QUINTA, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA
Delineation of State and Federal Jurisdictional Waters
Prepared For:
TRG Land, Inc.
898 Production Place
Newport Beach, California 92663
Prepared By:
MICHAEL BAKER INTERNATIONAL
5 Hutton Centre Drive, Suite 500
Santa Ana, California 92707
Contacts:
Tim Tidwell, Project Manager
949.330.4208
Richard Beck, PWS, Vice President
949.680.9355
June 2021
JN 182517
TRAVERTINE PROJECT
CITY OF LA QUINTA, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA
Delineation of State and Federal Jurisdictional Waters
The undersigned certify that this report is a complete and accurate account of the findings and conclusions
of jurisdictional wetland and non -wetland "waters of the U.S.," "waters of the State," and streambed/banks
and associated riparian vegetation delineation for the above -referenced project.
Tim Tidwell
Regulatory Specialist
Richard Beck, PWS, CEP, CPESC
Vice President
June 2021
JN 182517
Executive Summary
On behalf of the TRG Land, Inc., Michael Baker International (Michael Baker) has prepared this
Delineation of State and Federal Jurisdictional Waters Report for the proposed Travertine Project (project
or project site), located in the City of La Quinta, Riverside County, California. The project proposes to
develop a variety of land uses on approximately 855 acres. Residential land uses would range from low to
medium density and total 1,200 residential units. The proposed project also includes a resort and spa
facility, a golf practice facility, public driving range, putting course, and hiking trails.
This report was prepared to document aquatic features identified by Michael Baker within the project site
that are potentially subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) pursuant to
Section 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act (CWA), the Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional
Board) pursuant to Section 401 of the CWA and/or Section 13263 of the California Porter -Cologne Water
Quality Control Act, and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) pursuant to Sections
1600 et seq. of the California Fish and Game Code (CFGC).
State jurisdictional features observed within the project site consisted of numerous ephemeral drainage
features located within five drainage areas (Drainage Area A through Drainage Area E) and Regional Board
jurisdiction totaled approximately 90.96 acres non -wetland waters of the State and 90.96 acres of CDFW
jurisdiction (jurisdictional streambed). In addition, the on-site Desert Dry Wash Woodland (DDWW)
habitat is considered CDFW jurisdiction and totaled approximately 55.98 acres. Table ES -1 below provides
a breakdown of total acreages of jurisdictional features within the project site as they relate to each
regulatory agency. Delineation methods followed the most recent, acceptable guidelines for conducting a
jurisdictional delineation in this region. However, only the regulatory agencies can make a final
determination of jurisdictional limits.
ES -1: Summary of Aquatic Resources and Jurisdictional Limits within the Project Site'
Drainage
Area
Flow Regime
and
Feature Type
Cowardin
Type
Jurisdictional Limits (acres)
Regional Board
CDFW
Non-
Wetland
Waters
Wetland
Waters
Streambed
Desert Dry
Wash
Woodland
A
Ephemeral
Streams
Riverine
16.39
0.00
16.39
1.27
B
Ephemeral
Streams
Riverine
0.27
0.00
0.27
0.00
C
Ephemeral
Streams
Riverine
46.01
0.00
46.01
22.58
1 Under the Navigable Waters Protection Rule, jurisdictional tributaries include perennial and intermittent rivers and streams that
contribute surface flow to traditional navigable waters in a typical year and must flow more often than just after a single
precipitation event. Based on field observations and data derived from the National Hydrography Dataset (NHD), the on-site
aquatic features do not meet the definition of a water of the U.S. (WoUS) and therefore are not subject to regulation under
Section 404 of the CWA.
Travertine Project ES -1
Delineation of State and Federal Jurisdictional Waters
Executive Summary
Drainage
Area
Flow Regime
and
Feature Type
Cowardin
Type
Jurisdictional Limits (acres)
Regional Board
CDFW
Non-
Wetland
Waters
Wetland
Waters
Streambed
Desert Dry
Wash
Woodland
D
Ephemeral
Streams
Riverine
26.40
0.00
26.40
23.29
E
Ephemeral
Streams
Riverine
1.89
0.00
1.89
8.84
TOTAL
90.96
0.00
90.96
55.98
Based on a detailed review of current site conditions and project design plans, the following regulatory
permits/authorizations would be required prior to construction within the identified jurisdictional areas:
1. Approved Jurisdictional Determination (AJD) or similar approval from the Corps to formal receive
concurrence that ephemeral aquatic features within the project site do not qualify as waters of the
U.S. (WoUS) and therefore are not subject to regulation under Section 404 of the CWA;
2. Regional Board Waste Discharge Requirements (WDR) for impacts associated with the placement
of dredge and/or fill material into waters of the State pursuant to the Porter -Cologne Act; and
3. CDFW Section 1602 Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement (or other approval in -lieu of a
formal agreement such as an Operation -by -Law letter) for alteration of streambed/banks and/or
associated vegetation.
Travertine Project ES -2
Delineation of State and Federal Jurisdictional Waters
Table of Contents
Section 1 Introduction 1
1.1 Project Location 1
1.2 Project Description 1
Section 2 Regulations 6
2.1 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 6
2.2 Regional Water Quality Control Board 8
2.3 California Department of Fish and Wildlife 9
Section 3 Methodology 10
3.1 Waters of the U.S. and Waters of the State 10
3.2 Wetlands 11
3.2.1 Vegetation 11
3.2.2 Hydrology 12
3.2.3 Soils 13
Section 4 Literature Review 15
4.1 Watershed Review 15
4.2 Local Climate 15
4.3 USGS 7.5 -Minute Topographic Quadrangle 16
4.4 Aerial Photograph 16
4.5 Soil Survey 16
4.6 Hydric Soils List of California 18
4.7 National Wetlands Inventory 18
4.8 Flood Zone 19
4.9 National Hydrography Dataset 19
Section 5 Site Conditions 20
5.1 Jurisdictional Features 20
5.1.1 Drainage Features 20
5.1.2 Wetland Features 24
5.1.3 Desert Dry Wash Woodland 25
Section 6 Findings 26
6.1 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 26
6.1.1 Waters of the U.S. Determination 26
6.2 Regional Water Quality Control Board 26
6.2.1 Non -wetland waters of the state determination 26
6.2.2 Wetland Determination 26
6.3 California Department of Fish and Wildlife 27
Section 7 Regulatory Approval Process 39
7.1 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 39
7.2 Regional Water Quality Control Board 39
7.3 California Department of Fish and Wildlife 39
Travertine Project
Delineation of State and Federal Jurisdictional Waters
Table of Contents
7.4
Section 8
FIGURES
Figure 1:
Figure 2:
Figure 3:
Figure 4:
Figure 5:
Figure 5A:
Figure 5B:
Figure 5C:
Figure 5D:
Figure 5E:
Figure 5F:
Figure 5G:
Figure 5H:
Figure 5I:
Figure 6:
TABLES
Table 1:
Recommendations 40
References 41
Regional Vicinity 2
Project Vicinity 3
Project Site 4
Drainage Areas 21
Regional Board & CDFW Jurisdictional Map 28
Regional Board & CDFW Jurisdictional Map 29
Regional Board & CDFW Jurisdictional Map 30
Regional Board & CDFW Jurisdictional Map 31
Regional Board & CDFW Jurisdictional Map 32
Regional Board & CDFW Jurisdictional Map 33
Regional Board & CDFW Jurisdictional Map 34
Regional Board & CDFW Jurisdictional Map 35
Regional Board & CDFW Jurisdictional Map 36
Regional Board & CDFW Jurisdictional Map 37
Regional Board & CDFW Jurisdictional Impact Map 38
Summary of Aquatic Resources and Jurisdictional Limits within the Project Site 27
APPENDICES
Appendix A
Appendix B
Appendix C
Documentation
Site Photographs
Data Forms
Travertine Project
Delineation of State and Federal Jurisdictional Waters
Acronyms and Abbreviations
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
AJD Approved Jurisdictional Determination
amsl above mean sea level
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CFGC California Fish and Game Code
Corps U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Corps Manual 1987 Corps Wetland Delineation Manual
CWA Federal Clean Water Act
DBH diameter at breast height
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
FAC Facultative
FACU Facultative Upland
FACW Facultative Wetland
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FIRM Flood Insurance Rate Map
LSAA Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement
MESA Field Guide Field Guide to Mapping Episodic Stream Activity
NHD National Hydrography Dataset
NWI National Wetlands Inventory
NWPR Navigable Waters Protection Rule
OBL Obligate Wetland
OHWM ordinary high-water mark
Porter -Cologne Act California Porter -Cologne Water Quality Control Act
Procedures State Wetland Definition and Procedures for Discharges of Dredged or Fill
Material to Waters of the State
project Travertine Project
Rapanos Rapanos v. United States
Regional Board Regional Water Quality Control Board
Regional Supplement Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual:
Arid West Region, Version 2.0
SWANCC Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
TNW Traditional Navigable Waters
UPL Upland
USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service
USGS U.S. Geological Survey
USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
WDR Waste Discharge Requirements
WoUS waters of the U.S.
WQC Water Quality Certification
Travertine Project iii
Delineation of State and Federal Jurisdictional Waters
Section 1 Introduction
On behalf of TRG Land, Inc., Michael Baker International (Michael Baker) has prepared this Delineation
of State and Federal Jurisdictional Waters Report to describe, map, and quantify aquatic and other
associated aquatic features located within the project site for the proposed Travertine Project (project or
project site).
This report describes the regulatory setting, methodologies, and results of the jurisdictional delineation,
including recommendations for any proposed impacts to previously documented or potential jurisdictional
resources. This report presents Michael Baker's best professional effort at determining the jurisdictional
boundaries using the most up-to-date regulations, written policy, and guidance from the regulatory
agencies; however, only the regulatory agencies can make a final determination of jurisdictional limits.
1.1 PROJECT LOCATION
The project site is located in the southern portion of the City of La Quinta, County of Riverside, State of
California (Figure 1, Regional Vicinity). Specifically, the project site is depicted within Sections 4, 5, and
33, Township 6 and 7 South, Range 7 East, of the U.S. Geological Survey's (USGS) Martinez Mountain,
California 7.5 -minute topographic quadrangle (Figure 2, Project Vicinity). The project site is located
adjacent to the Martinez Rockslide and the Santa Rosa Mountains and is comprised of undeveloped land
and a historic vineyard including unimproved dirt roads (refer to Exhibit 3, Project Site).
1.2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed Specific Plan Amendment covers an area of approximately 855 acres. The proposed project
will be comprised of a variety of land uses. Residential land uses will range from low density (1.5 to 4.5
dwelling units per acre) to medium density (4.5 to 8.5 dwelling units per acre) and total 1,200 residential
units. A resort/spa facility located in Planning Area (PA) 1 will serve residents, tourists and recreational
visitors and feature a 45,000 -square -foot boutique hotel with a 175 -seat restaurant, 97,500 square feet of
resort lodging to allow 100 villas. An 8,700 square foot spa and wellness center will offer activities to
include yoga, tennis, walking and hiking trails.
A 4 -hole golf practice facility with clubhouse is located in PA -11 adjacent to a banquet and restaurant
facility that will be shared with the wedding garden facilities. The private golf training academy is located
in the southeastern corner of the project area. A public driving range, putting course with restaurant and
bar, pro -shop and tracking bays will serve the daily needs of the community and its visitors in PA 19. Table
2.1, Proposed Planning Area Summary, shows the land use associated with each planning area. Exhibit
2.1, Conceptual Land Use Plan, shows the location of each project planning area.
Travertine Project 1
Delineation of State and Federal Jurisdictional Waters
° SEVEN PALMS
VALLEY
O.'
1rings!
P,LI%1 Springf.
.1•11.1. Air porl
AG, 4
CALIE,,rTE
: .
Cathedral City.
er
Dun43$
malt
Rancho'
Mirage
:thousand Paim s
SANTA ROSA
RESERV4T1ON 5 ANT A X
ROSA
P 0 CA
MOUfd TA/N
'Palm Desert
L i i 1
-1, PTtIGG4a
o
F
-9 'vsatzr
2 , i..- - rt. AT
".1 4.
r- SANTA
s A N
R 0 s4
j 2656 rn
14 S
4f 0 U 1'4
4 .
•
•
r..70,1hr
m At E
- -k ccuehnCochran
Rgn I Ai rp \
12
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
,LSAN DIEGOTCOUNTY
T41"-- ir •
j. 33
2uIrn
-
TPR€-HAJUM7
Mecca n
_
Gia_tul,_,
7.
SANTA ROSA
MOUNTAINS
STA TF.
.1NTA174
105
COYOTES
latorri
cnr
±1- I
I -
_ TEN ec;
SAV,gp
86
aOrt
• --;-33
Michael Baker
INTERNATIONAL
0
0
2.5
5
Miles
TRAVERTINE PROJECT
JURISDICTIONAL DELINEATION OF STATE AND FEDERAL WATERS
Source, ArcGIS Online, 2018
Regional Vicinity
Figure 1
Legend
I I
Project Site
�++■ Federal Boundary
Michael Baker
INTERNATIONAL
O 0
0.38
0.75
Miles
TRAVERTINE PROJECT
JURISDICTIONAL DELINEATION OF STATE AND FEDERAL WATERS
Source: USGS 7.5 -Minute topographic quadrangle maps: Martinez Mountain, California (2018)
Project Vicinity
Figure 2
/25/2021 JN H:\pdata\18251
-!ffranordlogabigEoife-
ex' 4 .
V
LOA
A.PPy
Legend
I I
Project Site
Reference Point
Michael Baker
INTERNATIONAL
0
0
750
1,500
Feet
TRAVERTINE PROJECT
JURISDICTIONAL DELINEATION OF STATE AND FEDERAL WATERS
Source: NearMap (2020)
Project Site
Figure 3
Section 1— Introduction
The project components shall include:
• 1,200 Dwelling Units of varying types
o 758 Low Density Units and 442 Medium Density Units
o Estate Homes, Single Family Luxury Homes, Single Family Mid Homes, Single Family
Entry Homes, Patio Homes, Single Family Attached Units
• Golf training facility with public Driving Range, 4 -hole practice facility, and private golf training
academy
• Putting course with restaurant and bar
• Wedding garden and banquet facilities
• 100 -villa resort
• Wellness Spa
• Tourist serving recreational facilities and amenities including restaurants, small shops, spa
facilities, lounge and activity rooms, outdoor activities, tennis, yoga, etc.
• Bike lanes throughout community, including Class II bike lanes located along both sides of
Jefferson Street
• Pedestrian walkways and a Travertine community trail — a network of trails suitable for pedestrian
use planned throughout the community
• Recreational Open Space uses, including picnic tables, barbeques, golf practice facilities, a tot lot
playground, and staging facilities for the regional interpretive trail
• Two community parks for residents
• One staging area located to the south of the Avenue 62 extension with parking
• Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) Well Sites (quantity to be determined by CVWD)
• Future 5 -acre substation will be located off-site within a 2.5 -mile radius of the project area.
• Perimeter flood protection barrier along the western and southern boundaries to manage alluvial
fan flows. The barrier will consist of a raised edge condition with a slope lining to protect against
scour and erosion.
• Two booster stations. One facility located on Avenue 62 and Monroe, and the second to be located
within the project site.
Travertine Project 5
Delineation of State and Federal Jurisdictional Waters
Section 2 Regulations
Three agencies regulate activities within inland streams, wetlands, and riparian areas in California. The
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) Regulatory Division regulates activities pursuant to Section 404 of
the Federal Clean Water Act (CWA). Of the State agencies, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife
(CDFW) regulates activities under Sections 1600 et seq. of the California Fish and Game Code (CFGC),
and the Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Board) regulates activities pursuant to Section
401 of the CWA and/or Section 13263 of the California Porter -Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Porter -
Cologne Act).
2.1 U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
Navigable Waters Protection Rule
On January 23, 2020, the EPA and the Corps finalized the Navigable Waters Protection Rule to define
WoUS. On April 21, 2020, the EPA and the Corps published the Navigable Waters Protection Rule in the
Federal Register. On June 22, 2020, 60 days after publication in the Federal Register, the Navigable Waters
Protection Rule became effective across the nation including the state of California.
Under the Navigable Waters Protection Rule, waters considered jurisdictional WoUS are outlined in four
categories as follows:
1. Territorial Seas and TNWs
• Under the final rule, the territorial seas and traditional navigable waters include large rivers
and lakes as well as tidally -influenced waterbodies used in interstate or foreign commerce.
2. Tributaries
• Under the final rule, tributaries include perennial and intermittent rivers and streams that
contribute surface flow to traditional navigable waters in a typical year.
• These naturally occurring surface water channels must flow more often than just after a
single precipitation event — that is, tributaries must be perennial or intermittent.
• Tributaries can connect to a traditional navigable water or territorial sea in a typical year
either directly or through other WoUS, through channelized non jurisdictional surface
waters, through artificial features (including culverts and spillways), or through natural
features (including debris piles and boulder fields).
• Ditches are to be considered tributaries only where they satisfy the flow conditions of the
perennial and intermittent tributary definition and either were constructed in or relocate a
tributary or were constructed in an adjacent wetland and contribute perennial or
intermittent flow to a traditional navigable water in a typical year.
Travertine Project 6
Delineation of State and Federal Jurisdictional Waters
Section 2 — Regulations
3. Lakes, Ponds, and Impoundments of Jurisdictional Waters
• Lakes, ponds, and impoundments of jurisdictional waters are jurisdictional where they
contribute surface water flow to a TNW or territorial sea in a typical year either directly or
through other WOUS, through channelized non jurisdictional surface waters, through
artificial features (including culverts and spillways), or through natural features (including
debris piles and boulder fields).
• Lakes, ponds, and impoundments of jurisdictional waters are also jurisdictional where they
are flooded by a "water of the United States" in a typical year.
4. Adjacent Wetlands
• Wetlands that physically touch other jurisdictional waters are "adjacent wetlands."
• Wetlands separated from a WoUS by only a natural berm, bank or dune are also "adjacent."
• Wetlands inundated by flooding from a WoUS in a typical year are "adjacent."
• Wetlands that are physically separated from a jurisdictional water by an artificial dike,
barrier, or similar artificial structure are "adjacent" so long as that structure allows for a
direct hydrologic surface connection between the wetlands and the jurisdictional water in
a typical year, such as through a culvert, flood or tide gate, pump, or similar artificial
feature.
• An adjacent wetland is jurisdictional in its entirety when a road or similar artificial structure
divides the wetland, as long as the structure allows for a direct hydrologic surface
connection through or over that structure in a typical year.
The final rule also outlines what features are not WoUS. The following waters/features are not
jurisdictional under the Navigable Waters Protection Rule:
• Waterbodies that are not included in the four categories of WoUS.
• Groundwater, including groundwater drained through subsurface drainage systems, such
as drains in agricultural lands.
• Ephemeral features, including ephemeral streams, swales, gullies, rills, and pools.
• Diffuse stormwater run-off and directional sheet flow over upland.
• Many farm and roadside ditches.
• Prior converted cropland.
• Artificially irrigated areas, including fields flooded for agricultural production, that would
revert to upland should application of irrigation water to that area cease.
• Artificial lakes and ponds, including water storage reservoirs and farm, irrigation, stock
watering, and log cleaning ponds, constructed or excavated in upland or in non -
jurisdictional waters.
Travertine Project 7
Delineation of State and Federal Jurisdictional Waters
Section 2 — Regulations
• Water -filled depressions constructed or excavated in upland or in non jurisdictional waters
incidental to mining or construction activity, and pits excavated in upland or in non -
jurisdictional waters for the purpose of obtaining fill, sand, or gravel.
• Stormwater control features excavated or constructed in upland or in non jurisdictional
waters to convey, treat, infiltrate, or store stormwater run-off.
• Groundwater recharge, water reuse, and wastewater recycling structures, including
detention, retention and infiltration basins and ponds, that are constructed in upland or in
non jurisdictional waters.
• Waste treatment systems.
2.2 REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD
Applicants for a Federal license or permit for activities that may discharge to WoUS must seek a Water
Quality Certification (WQC) from the State or Indian tribe with jurisdiction2. In California, there are nine
(9) Regional Boards that issue or deny Certification for discharges within their geographical jurisdiction.
Such Certification is based on a finding that the discharge will meet water quality standards, which are
defined as numeric and narrative objectives in each Regional Board's Basin Plan, and other applicable
requirements. The State Water Resources Control Board has this responsibility for projects affecting waters
within multiple Regional Boards. The Regional Board's jurisdiction extends to all WoUS, including
wetlands, and to waters of the State (described below).
The Porter -Cologne Act gives the State very broad authority to regulate waters of the State, which are
defined as any surface water or groundwater, including saline waters. The Porter -Cologne Act has become
an important tool for the regulatory environment following the SWANCC3 and Rapanos4 court cases, with
respect to the state's authority over isolated and otherwise insignificant waters. Generally, in the event that
there is no nexus to a Traditionally Navigable Water (TNW), any person proposing to discharge waste into
waters of the State that could affect its water quality must file a Report of Waste Discharge. Although
"waste" is partially defined as any waste substance associated with human habitation, the Regional Board
also interprets this to include fill discharged into water bodies.
On April 2, 2019 the State Water Resources Control Board adopted a State Wetland Definition and
Procedures for Discharges of Dredged or Fill Material to Waters of the State (Procedures), for inclusion in
the forthcoming Water Quality Control Plan for Inland Surface Waters and Enclosed Bays and Estuaries
and Ocean Waters of California. The Procedures consist of four major elements: 1) a wetland definition;
2) a framework for determining if a feature that meets the wetland definition is a water of the state; 3)
wetland delineation procedures; and 4) procedures for the submittal, review and approval of applications
for Water Quality Certifications and Waste Discharge Requirements for dredge or fill activities. The
2 Title 33, United States Code, Section 1341; Clean Water Act Section.
3 Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 531 U.S. 159 (2001).
4 Rapanos v. United States, 547 U.S. 715 (2006).
Travertine Project 8
Delineation of State and Federal Jurisdictional Waters
Section 2 — Regulations
Procedures were approved by the Office of Administrative Law on August 28, 2019 and became effective
May 28, 2020.
2.3 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE
Sections 1600 et seq. of the CFGC establishes a fee-based process to ensure that projects conducted in and
around lakes, rivers, or streams do not adversely affect fish and wildlife resources, or when adverse impacts
cannot be avoided, ensures that adequate mitigation and/or compensation is provided.
Section 1602 of the CFGC requires any person, State, or local governmental agency or public utility to
notify CDFW before beginning any activity that will do one or more of the following:
(1) substantially obstruct or divert the natural flow of a river, stream, or lake;
(2) substantially change or use any material from the bed, channel, or bank of a river, stream, or lake;
or
(3) deposit or dispose of debris, waste, or other material containing crumbled, flaked, or ground
pavement where it can pass into a river, stream, or lake.
This applies to all perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral rivers, streams, and lakes in the State, including
the maintenance of existing drain culverts, outfalls, and other structures.
Travertine Project 9
Delineation of State and Federal Jurisdictional Waters
Section 3 Methodology
The analysis presented in this report is supported by a site reconnaissance and verification of site conditions
conducted on February 2, 2021, February 3, 2021, February 10, 2021, February 19, 2021, and February 24,
2021 by certified wetland delineators Josephine Lim, PWS, and Tim Tidwell. A field delineation was
conducted to determine the jurisdictional limits of WoUS and waters of the State (including potential
wetlands), located within the boundaries of the project site. While in the field, jurisdictional features were
recorded on an aerial base map at a scale of 1" = 100' using topographic contours and visible landmarks as
guidelines. Data points were obtained with a Garmin Map62 Global Positioning System to record and
identify specific widths for OHWM indicators and the locations of photographs, soil points, and other
pertinent jurisdictional features, if present. These data were then transferred as a .shp file and added to the
report's jurisdictional figures. The jurisdictional figures were prepared using ESRI ArcMap Version 10
software and comply with the Corps Minimum Standards for Acceptance of Aquatic Resource Delineations,
dated January 2016.
3.1 WATERS OF THE U.S. AND WATERS OF THE STATE
The limits of the Corps' jurisdiction in non -tidal waters extend to the OHWM, which is defined as "...that
line on the shore established by the fluctuations of water and indicated by physical characteristics such as
a clear, natural line impressed on the bank, shelving, changes in the character of soil, destruction of
terrestrial vegetation, the presence of litter and debris, or other appropriate means that consider the
characteristics of the surrounding areas."5 An OHWM can be determined by the observation of a natural
line impressed on the bank; shelving; changes in the character of the soil; destruction of terrestrial
vegetation; presence of litter and debris; wracking; vegetation matted down, bent, or absent; sediment
sorting; leaf litter disturbed or washed away; scour; deposition; multiple observed flow events; bed and
banks; water staining; and/or change in plant community.
The Regional Board generally shares the Corps jurisdictional methodology, unless the waterbody is not
jurisdictional under the Navigable Waters Protection Rule. In the case the waterbody is not a WoUS, the
Regional Board considers such waterbodies to be jurisdictional waters of the State. The CDFW' s
jurisdiction extends to the top of bank of the streambed or to the limit (outer dripline) of the adjacent riparian
vegetation. For arid regions, the Field Guide to Mapping Episodic Stream Activity (MESA Field Guide) is
used to guide delineation methods for mapping of ephemeral streams (watercourses that flow only during
and shortly after precipitation events). The MESA Field Guide illustrates and describes fundamental stream
forms, processes, and functions to correctly identify and delineate episodic streams.
5 CWA regulations 33 CFR §328.3(e).
Travertine Project 10
Delineation of State and Federal Jurisdictional Waters
Section 3 — Methodology
3.2 WETLANDS
For this project location, jurisdictional wetlands were delineated using the methods outlined in the Regional
Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region, Version 2.0
(Regional Supplement; Corps, 2008). This document is part of a series of regional supplements to the 1987
Corps Wetland Delineation Manual (Corps' Manual). According to the Corps' Manual, identification of
wetlands is based on a three -parameter approach involving indicators of hydrophytic vegetation, hydric
soil, and wetland hydrology. In order to be considered a wetland, an area must exhibit at least minimal
characteristics within these three (3) parameters. The Regional Supplement presents wetland indicators,
delineation guidance, and other information that is specific to the Arid West Region. In the field,
vegetation, soils, and evidence of hydrology have been examined using the methodology listed below and
documented on Corps wetland determination data forms, when applicable.
The Procedures adopted by the State Water Resources Control Board on April 2, 2019, contain a wetland
definition and wetland delineation procedures. The State wetland definition and delineation procedures are
largely consistent with the three -parameter approach involving indicators of hydrophytic vegetation, hydric
soil, and wetland hydrology implemented by the Corps and outlined in the 2010 Regional supplement to
the Corps Manual. However, one exception is that an area can lack vegetation and still qualify as a wetland
water of the State if it satisfies both the hydric soil and wetland hydrology parameters.
3.2.1 VEGETATION
Nearly 5,000 plant types in the United States may occur in wetlands. These plants, often referred to as
hydrophytic vegetation, are listed in regional publications by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS).
In general, hydrophytic vegetation is present when the plant community is dominated by species that can
tolerate prolonged inundation or soil saturation during growing season. Hydrophytic vegetation decisions
are based on the assemblage of plant species growing on a site, rather than the presence or absence of
particular indicator species. Vegetation strata are sampled separately when evaluating indicators of
hydrophytic vegetation. A stratum for sampling purposes is defined as having 5 percent or more total plant
cover. The following vegetation strata are recommended for use across the Arid West Region:
• Tree Stratum: Consists of woody plants 3 inches or more in diameter at breast height (DBH);
• Sapling/shrub Stratum: Consists of woody plants less than 3 inches in DBH, regardless of height;
• Herb Stratum: Consists of all herbaceous (non -woody) plants, including herbaceous vines,
regardless of size; and
• Woody Vines: Consists of all woody vines, regardless of size.
Travertine Project 11
Delineation of State and Federal Jurisdictional Waters
Section 3 — Methodology
The following indicator is applied per the test method below'. Hydrophytic vegetation is present if any of
the indicators are satisfied.
Indicator 1— Dominance Test
Cover of vegetation is estimated and is ranked according to their dominance Species that contribute to a
cumulative total of 50 percent of the total dominant coverage, plus any species that comprise at least 20
percent (also known as the "50/20 rule") of the total dominant coverage, are recorded on a wetland
determination data form. Wetland indicator status is assigned to each species using The National Wetland
Plant List, version 3.4 (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 2018). If greater than 50 percent of the dominant
species from all strata were Obligate Wetland, Facultative Wetland, or Facultative species, the criteria for
wetland vegetation is considered to be met. Plant indicator status categories are described below:
• Obligate Wetland (OBL): Plants that occur almost always in wetlands under natural conditions, but
which may also occur rarely in non -wetlands;
• Facultative Wetland (FACW): Plants that occur usually in wetlands, but also occur in non -wetlands;
• Facultative (FAC): Plants with similar likelihood of occurring in both wetlands and non -wetlands;
• Facultative Upland (FACU): Plants that occur sometimes in wetlands, but occur more often in non -
wetlands; and
• Obligate Upland (UPL): Plants that occur rarely in wetlands but occur almost always in non -
wetlands under natural conditions.
3.2.2 HYDROLOGY
Wetland hydrology indicators are presented in four (4) groups, which include:
Group A — Observation of Surface Water or Saturated Soils
Group A is based on the direct observation of surface water or groundwater during the site visit.
Group B — Evidence of Recent Inundation
Group B consists of evidence that the site is subject to flooding or ponding, although it may not be inundated
currently. These indicators include water marks, drift deposits, sediment deposits, and similar features.
Group C — Evidence of Recent Soil Saturation
6
Although the Dominance Test is utilized in most wetland delineations, other indicator tests may be employed. If one indicator
of hydric soil and one primary or two secondary indicators of wetland hydrology are present, then the Prevalence Test
(Indicator 2) may be performed. If the plant community satisfies the Prevalence Test, then the vegetation is hydrophytic. If
the Prevalence Test fails, then the Morphological Adaptation Test may be performed, where the delineator analyzes the
vegetation for potential morphological features.
Travertine Project 12
Delineation of State and Federal Jurisdictional Waters
Section 3 — Methodology
Group C consists of indirect evidence that the soil was saturated recently. Some of these indicators, such
as oxidized rhizospheres surrounding living roots and the presence of reduced iron or sulfur in the soil
profile, indicate that the soil has been saturated for an extended period.
Group D — Evidence from Other Site Conditions or Data
Group D consists of vegetation and soil features that indicate contemporary rather than historical wet
conditions and include shallow aquitard and the FAC -neutral test.
If wetland vegetation criteria are met, the presence of wetland hydrology is evaluated at each transect by
recording the extent of observed surface flows, depth of inundation, depth to saturated soils, and depth to
free water in the soil test pits. The lateral extent of the hydrology indicators is used as a guide for locating
soil pits for evaluation of hydric soils and jurisdictional areas. In portions of the stream where the flow is
divided by multiple channels with intermediate sand bars, the entire area between the channels is considered
within the OHWM and the wetland hydrology indicator is considered met for the entire area.
3.2.3 SOILS
A hydric soil is a soil that formed under conditions of saturation, flooding, or ponding long enough during
the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper 16-20 inches'. The concept of hydric soils
includes soils developed under sufficiently wet conditions to support the growth and regeneration of
hydrophytic vegetation. Soils that are sufficiently wet because of artificial measures are included in the
concept of hydric soils. It should also be noted that the limits of wetland hydrology indicators are used as
a guide for locating soil pits. If any hydric soil features are located, progressive pits are dug moving laterally
away from the active channel until hydric features are no longer present within the top 20 inches of the soil
profile.
Once in the field, soil characteristics are verified by digging soil pits along each transect to an excavation
depth of 20 inches; in areas of high sediment deposition, soil pit depth may be increased. Soil pit locations
are usually placed within the drainage invert or within adjoining vegetation. At each soil pit, the soil texture
and color are recorded by comparison with standard plates within a Munsell Soil Chart (2012). Munsell
Soil Charts aid in designating color labels to soils, based by degrees of three simple variables — hue, value,
and chroma. Any indicators of hydric soils, such as organic accumulation, iron reduction, translocation,
and accumulation, and sulfate reduction, are also recorded. Hydric soil indicators are present in three
groups, which include:
7
According to the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region, Version
2.0 (Corps 2008), growing season dates are determined through on-site observations of the following indicators of biological
activity in a given year: (1) above -ground growth and development of vascular plants, and/or (2) soil temperature.
Travertine Project 13
Delineation of State and Federal Jurisdictional Waters
Section 3 — Methodology
All Soils
"All soils" refers to soils with any U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service
(USDA) soil texture. Hydric soil indicators within this group include histosol, histic epipedon, black histic,
hydrogen sulfide, stratified layers, 1 -centimeter muck, depleted below dark surface, and thick dark surface.
Sandy Soils
Sandy soils" refers to soil materials with a USDA soil texture of loamy fine sand and coarser. Hydric soil
indicators within this group include sandy mucky mineral, sandy gleyed matrix, sandy redox, and stripped
matrix.
Loamy and Clayey Soils
"Loamy and clayey soils" refers to soil materials with a USDA soil texture of loamy very fine sand and
finer. Hydric soil indicators within this group include loamy mucky mineral, loamy gleyed matrix, depleted
matrix, redox dark surface, depleted dark surface, redox depressions, and vernal pools.
Travertine Project 14
Delineation of State and Federal Jurisdictional Waters
Section 4 Literature Review
A thorough review of relevant literature and materials was conducted to preliminarily identify areas that
may fall under the jurisdiction of the regulatory agencies. A summary of materials utilized during the
literature review is provided below and in Appendix A, Documentation. In addition, refer to Section 8 for
a complete list of references used throughout the course of this delineation.
4.1 WATERSHED REVIEW
The project site is located within the Guadalupe Creek -Whitewater River (HUC 181002010804) sub -
watershed of the larger Salton Sea watershed (Hydrologic Unit Code 18100200). The Salton Sea watershed
includes the counties of Imperial, Riverside, San Bernardino, and San Diego. There are four surrounding
watersheds (Devils Canyon, Middle -North Canyon, Middle -South Canyon, and Toro Canyon) that are
tributaries to a dike located to the southeast of the site; the path of each tributary crosses over the project
area as described below.
Devil Canyon comprises 7.7 square miles and has a streambed length of 5.4 miles from its headwaters to
its alluvial fan apex. Devil Canyon and its internal tributary, Guadalupe Creek Canyon, exit the Santa Rosa
Mountains onto an alluvial fan that distributes alluvium onto the valley floor downstream of the canyon
apex. Middle -North Canyon is located south of Devil Canyon and comprises a watershed area of 1.2 square
miles with a streambed length as measured 3.3 miles between the canyon headwaters and the apex of the
downstream alluvial fan. Middle -South Canyon consists of a 6.2 square mile watershed and a streambed
length of 5.6 miles as measured between the canyon headwaters and the apex of the downstream alluvial
fan. Toro Canyon is the southernmost watershed, comprising 5.0 square miles with a streambed length of
4.9 miles as measured between the canyon headwaters and the apex of the downstream alluvial fan. During
flood conditions, all canyons as described above would pass through the project site as alluvial fan flow.
4.2 LOCAL CLIMATE
The Salton Sea Watershed is characterized by a year-round desert climate, with warm, sunny, dry summers,
and cool, rainy, mild winters. According to the Western Regional Climate Center, the average maximum
temperature in this area of California is 88.5° F annually, and average minimum temperature is at 56.3° F
annually. The warmest month on average is July at a maximum of 106.7° F, and the coolest month on
average is December at a minimum of 37.7° F. Most precipitation occurs between November and March
in the form of rain, with occasional and steadily increasing precipitation through the late summer and fall;
the average total precipitation is 2.96 inches annually. Snowfall does not typically occur within this area
of the watershed regardless of the season. According to the MESA Field Guide, lands receiving less than
8 inches of precipitation are considered "arid."
Travertine Project 15
Delineation of State and Federal Jurisdictional Waters
Section 4 — Literature Review
4.3 USGS 7.5 -MINUTE TOPOGRAPHIC QUADRANGLE
The majority of the project site is located within Sections 4, 5, and 33, Township 6 South and 7 South,
Range 7 East, San Bernardino Meridian in the USGS Martinez Mountain 7.5 -minutes topographic
quadrangle map. Portions of the project site also extend to Section 34, Township 6 South and 7 South,
Range 7 East, San Bernardino Meridian in the USGS Valerie 7.5 -minutes topographic quadrangle map.
The site slopes gently to the northeast but is generally flat, with onsite elevations generally ranging from
approximately 400 feet amsl at the highest point in the southwest to approximately 40 feet below mean sea
level in northernmost and easternmost areas. Two unnamed blue line streams are mapped entering the
southwestern portion of the project site where they quickly converge into a single feature which continues
across the project site in a generally northeasterly direction; no additional aquatic features such as ponds or
basins were noted on the topographic map. The foothills of Martinez Mountain comprise the southern
boundary of the project site; Whitewater River, also referred to as the Coachella Valley Storm Water
Channel, occurs approximately seven miles to the east, and the Salton Sea occurs approximately 12 miles
to the southeast.
4.4 AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH
Prior to the field visits, Michael Baker reviewed a current aerial photograph dated December 11, 2019 from
Google Earth Imaging for the project site. Aerial photographs can be useful during the delineation process,
as the photographs often indicate the presence of drainages and riparian vegetation within the boundaries
of the project site (if any). Based on the aerial image, the project site is composed primarily of undeveloped
land with former agricultural uses (vineyard) located in the central portion of the project site. Numerous
ephemeral drainages are noted traversing the southern and northern portions of the site as part of alluvial
fans generally flowing in a easterly direction from the mountains to the west. Sparse desert vegetation
consistent with the surrounding area is noted throughout the project site.
The project site is surrounded by undeveloped land and open space to the south, and west. Residential uses
are noted to the north of the eastern portion of the project site and agricultural uses are noted to the south
of the eastern portion of the site. Multiple groundwater recharge basins are noted to the east and north of
the project site and a levee is noted to the east intersecting the northern and eastern portions of the project
site preventing all flows within the on-site ephemeral drainages from proceeding further east.
4.5 SOIL SURVEY
Soils within the project site were researched prior to the field delineation using the Custom Soil Resource
Report for Anza-Borrego Area, California; and Riverside County, Coachella Valley Area, California
(USDA, 2021). The presence of hydric soils is initially investigated by comparing the mapped soil series
for the site to the County list of hydric soils. Soil surveys furnish soil maps and interpretations originally
needed in providing technical assistance to farmers and ranchers; in guiding other decisions about soil
selection, use, and management; and in planning, research, and disseminating the results of the research.
Travertine Project 16
Delineation of State and Federal Jurisdictional Waters
Section 4 — Literature Review
In addition, soil surveys are now heavily utilized in order to obtain soil information with respect to potential
wetland environments and jurisdictional areas (i.e., soil characteristics, drainage, and color). The following
soil series have been reported onsite:
Carrizo stony sand, 2 to 9 percent slopes (CcC)
The Carrizo series consists of very deep, excessively drained soils formed in mixed alluvium derived from
granite. Carrizo soils are on flood plains, alluvial fans, fan piedmonts, and bolson floors. Slope ranges
from 2 to 9 percent. Elevations are recorded at 2,000 feet above msl, mean annual precipitation is
approximately four inches, and the and runoff is very low. Carrizo soils are generally alkaline and are
typically used for rangeland and wildlife habitat. This soil type is not listed as hydric.
Carsitas _gravelly sand, 0 to 9 percent slopes (CdC), and Carsitas cobbly sand, 2 to 9 percent slopes (ChC)
The Carsitas soils consist of very deep, somewhat excessively drained soils that formed in alluvium from
granitoid and/or gneissic rocks. These soils formed on alluvial fans, fan aprons, valley fills, dissected
remnants of alluvial fans and in drainageways. Slopes range from 0 to 30 percent with a mean annual
precipitation of three inches and negligible to low runoff. Soils in the Carsitas series are typically neutral
to alkaline. Carsitas gravelly sand, 0 to 9 percent slopes, and Carsitas cobbly sand, 2 to 9 percent slopes,
are both considered hydric soils.
Gilman Fine Sandy Loam, 0 to 5 Percent Slopes (GaB), and Gilman Fine Sandy Loam, 2 to 5 Percent
Slopes (GbB)
The Gilman series consists of very deep, well drained soils that formed in stratified stream alluvium.
Gilman soils are on flood plains and alluvial fans have slopes of 0 to 5 percent. Mean annual precipitation
for these soils is 2 to 10 inches with low runoff. Elevations range from 1,080 to 1,600 feet above msl.
These soils are nonsaline to very slightly saline and are used for prime farmland if irrigated. These soil
types are not listed as hydric.
Indio Fine Sandy Loam (Ip), and Indio Fine Sandy Loam, wet (Ir)
The Indio series consists of very deep, well, or moderately well drained soils, formed in alluvium derived
from mixed rock sources. Indio soils are on alluvial fans, lacustrine basins, and flood plains and have slopes
of 0 to 2 percent with low runoff. Elevations range up to 300 feet above msl. Used for irrigated cropland
and livestock grazing. Such areas provide ephemeral grazing in unusually wet years. These soil types are
not listed as hydric.
Myoma fine sand, 0 to 5 percent slopes (MaB)
Myoma soils are light olive gray, moderately alkaline fine and very fine sands to a depth of about 31 inches.
Below 31 inches they are strongly alkaline and very fine sands. They are derived from wind-blown sandy
alluvium and are considered somewhat excessively drained. Elevation ranges from 200 below sea level to
1,800 feet amsl with slopes from 0 to 5 percent and negligible run off. This soil type is considered hydric.
Travertine Project 17
Delineation of State and Federal Jurisdictional Waters
Section 4 — Literature Review
Rock Outcrop (RO)
Rock outcrops consists of exposures of bare bedrock other than lava flows and rock -lined pits. These areas
derive from residuum weathered from igneous, metamorphic, and sedimentary rock. Elevation can range
from 650 to 4,000 feet above msl with slopes from 15 to 75 percent. Due to the impervious nature of these
outcroppings, these areas are typically susceptible to very high levels of runoff. This soil type is considered
hydric.
Rubble Land (RU)
Rubble land consists of areas of cobbles, stones, and boulders. Rubble land commonly occurs at the base
of mountains; however, some areas include deposits of cobbles, stones, and boulders left on mountainsides
by glaciation or periglacial processes. Stones and boulders may occur as alluvium. Elevations range from
650 to 4,000 feet amsl. This soil type is considered hydric.
A large portion of the southern half of the project site has not been subject to complete soil mapping
procedures per the NRCS soil survey. It is assumed these areas of incomplete mapping are comprised of
similar soil series as listed above.
4.6 HYDRIC SOILS LIST OF CALIFORNIA
The Hydric Soils List of California (USDA, 2021) was reviewed in an effort to verify whether on-site soils
are considered to be hydric8. It should be noted that lists of hydric soils along with soil survey maps provide
off-site ancillary tools to assist in wetland determinations, but they are not a substitute for field
investigations. According to the soils list, Carsitas gravelly sand, 0 to 9 percent slopes (CdC); Carsitas
cobbly sand, 2 to 9 percent slopes (ChC); Myoma fine sand 0 to 5 percent slopes (MaB); Rock Outcrop
(RO); and Rubble Land (RU) are listed as hydric.
4.7 NATIONAL WETLANDS INVENTORY
The USFWS National Wetlands Inventory maps were reviewed. According to the National Wetland
Inventory, three riverine features occur within the project site boundary according to the National Wetland
Inventory. One riverine wetland feature is reported to be of the riverine system, intermittent subsystem,
streambed class, intermittently flooded (R4SBJ). Two riverine wetland features are reported to be of the
riverine system, intermittent subsystem, streambed class, seasonally flooded (R4SBC). One freshwater
pond in the northern portion of the project site is reported to be of the palustrine system, unconsolidated
bottom, permanently flooded, excavated freshwater pond (PUBHx). However, this area is mapped as
occurring within a developed area and is assumed incorrect. Refer to Appendix A, Documentation.
8 A hydric soil is a soil that formed under conditions of saturation, flooding or ponding long enough during the growing season
to develop anaerobic conditions.
Travertine Project 18
Delineation of State and Federal Jurisdictional Waters
Section 4 — Literature Review
4.8 FLOOD ZONE
The Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) National Flood Insurance Program was reviewed
for available flood data within the project site. According to Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) No.
06065C2900H (FEMA, 2017) and FIRM No. 06065C2925H (FEMA, 2018), portions of the project site are
located within Zone A which are special flood hazard areas subject to inundation by the one percent annual
chance flood, generally without determined base flood elevations. The remaining areas onsite are mapped
as Zone X (areas of 0.2% annual chance of flood hazard or areas of 1% annual chance of flood with average
depth less than one foot or with drainage areas of less than one square mile) or as Zone D (areas of
undetermined flood hazard). Refer to Appendix A, Documentation.
4.9 NATIONAL HYDROGRAPHY DATASET
The National Hydrography Dataset was reviewed for available hydrography data within the project site
using the USGS The National Map Advanced Viewer. According to the National Hydrography Dataset,
multiple ephemeral streams are noted throughout the project site generally flowing from southwest to
northeast. In addition, one reservoir is noted in the eastern portion of the project site. In addition, multiple
reservoirs are noted adjoining the project site to the northeast. Refer to Appendix A, Documentation.
Travertine Project 19
Delineation of State and Federal Jurisdictional Waters
Section 5 Site Conditions
Certified wetland delineators and regulatory specialists Josephine Lim, PWS, Ryan Phaneuf, and Tim
Tidwell conducted multiple site investigations on February 2, 2021, February 3, 2021, February 10, 2021,
February 19, 2021, and February 24, 2021 to verify existing site conditions as well as document the extent
of jurisdictional areas within the boundaries of the project site. Field staff did not encounter any access
limitations during the site visits. The following sections provide a description of site conditions
documented during the February 2021 site visits. Refer to Appendix B, Site Photographs taken throughout
the project site.
5.1 JURISDICTIONAL FEATURES
5.1.1 DRAINAGE FEATURES
The majority of the on-site drainage features are characterized as desert dry wash and encompass multiple
alluvial fans, which originate from multiple canyons of the Santa Rosa Mountains located to the west and
south. The ephemeral drainage features generally display a sinuous form comprised of single and/or
braided active channels. Generally, the active channels exhibited a very flat bed topography with high
width to depth ratios. The identified ephemeral drainage features exhibited clear evidence of hydrology
and are generally characterized by the great variability in rainfall and runoff volumes typical of the arid
desert region. However, typical of desert dry wash systems and alluvial fans, segments of discontinuous
sheet flow occur as flows become insignificant or lack channel confinement. On-site drainage features
were compiled into five drainage areas based on location within the project site and general direction of
flow, solely for discussion purposes. Refer to Figure 4, Drainage Areas, for a depiction of the drainage
areas located throughout the project site.
Drainage Area A
Drainage Area A is located within the northern portion of the project site to the north of the historic
vineyard. Drainage Area A is comprised of an alluvial fan with multiple earthen ephemeral drainage
features which convey surface flows from the Santa Rosa Mountains and surrounding land. These
ephemeral drainage features enter the site from the west as desert dry washes which generally flow from
west to east through the project site and proceed toward a mountain in the northeast portion of the project
site. Two dikes comprised of boulders and cobble extend west from the mountain in the northeast portion
of the project site. These dikes redirect the ephemeral drainage features east and prevent additional flows
from migrating south toward the historic vineyard. The ephemeral drainage features converge at the base
of the mountain and are diverted north through two confined waterfalls or northeast around the southern
base of the mountain and continue offsite.
Travertine Project 20
Delineation of State and Federal Jurisdictional Waters
SEE INSET
MAP
Legend
Project Site
I I
® Reference Point
Discontinuous Sheet Flow
Drainage Areas
Drainage Area A
Drainage Area B
Drainage Area C Drainage Area E
Drainage Area D
Michael Baker
INTERNATIONAL
0
0
400
800
Feet
TRAVERTINE PROJECT
JURISDICTIONAL DELINEATION OF STATE AND FEDERAL WATERS
Drainage Areas
Source: National Agricultural Inventory Project (NAIP, 2018)
Figure 4
Section 5 — Site Conditions
The identified ephemeral drainage features within Drainage Area A generally display a sinuous form with
multiple active channels. The active channels generally consist of an earthen substrate comprised of coarse
sand, gravel, and cobble. Although no surface water was observed, the mapped drainage features exhibited
clear evidence of hydrology and an OHWM was observed via the following indicators: scour, a break in
bank slope, presence of litter and debris, sediment sorting and deposition, cobble bars behind obstructions,
and a change in vegetation community (from no terrestrial vegetation in the active channel to upland shrubs
outside the active channel).
Within Drainage Area A, many of the active channels were generally devoid of vegetation although sparse
occurrences of palo verde (Parkinsonia florida), catclaw (Acacia greggii), and smoke tree (Psorothamnus
spinosus) occur in association with the developed ephemeral drainage feature adjoining the historic
vineyard to the north as well as within the two dikes to the north. Vegetation along the banks of the active
channels or on higher terraces consisted of upland species consistent with the surrounding area including
creosote bush (Larrea tridentata), rubber rabbitbrush (Ericameria nauseosa), fourwing saltbush (Atriplex
canescens), burrobush (Ambrosia salsola), brittlebush (Encelia farinosa) and allscale saltbush (Atriplex
polycarpa).
Drainage Area B
Drainage Area B is located within the northeastern portion of the project site to the east of the historic
vineyard and Drainage Area A. Drainage Area B is comprised of multiple earthen ephemeral drainage
features, which convey surface flows from the surrounding land east toward Dike No. 4.
The active channels generally consist of an earthen substrate comprised of coarse sand, gravel, and cobble.
Although no surface water was observed, the mapped drainage features exhibited clear evidence of
hydrology and an OHWM was observed via the following indicators: scour, a break in bank slope, presence
of litter and debris, sediment sorting and deposition, cobble bars behind obstructions, and a change in
vegetation community (from no terrestrial vegetation in the active channel to upland shrubs outside the
active channel). Segments of discontinuous sheet flow occur throughout Drainage Area B as flows become
insignificant or lack channel confinement.
The active channels within Drainage Area B were generally devoid of vegetation although sparse
occurrences of palo verde and catclaw were identified. Upland vegetation outside the active channels
consisted of upland species consistent with the surrounding area including creosote bush, rubber
rabbitbrush, burrobush, brittlebush, and fourwing saltbush.
Drainage Area C
Drainage Area C is located within the southern portion of the project site to the south of the historic
vineyard. Drainage Area C is comprised of multiple alluvial fans with many earthen ephemeral drainage
features, which convey surface flows from the Santa Rosa Mountains and surrounding land. These
ephemeral drainage features enter the site from the west and generally flow from southwest to northeast
through the project site as braided channels toward a large channel at the southern edge of the historic
Travertine Project 22
Delineation of State and Federal Jurisdictional Waters
Section 5 — Site Conditions
vineyard. A boulder and rock dike located at the southern edge of the historic vineyard prevents flows from
proceeding further northeast and redirects them east toward Dike No. 4 and offsite.
The active channels generally consist of an earthen substrate comprised of coarse sand, gravel, and cobble.
Although no surface water was observed, the mapped drainage features exhibited clear evidence of
hydrology and an OHWM was observed via the following indicators: scour, a break in bank slope, presence
of litter and debris, sediment sorting and deposition, cobble bars behind obstructions, and a change in
vegetation community (from no terrestrial vegetation in the active channel to upland shrubs outside the
active channel). Segments of discontinuous sheet flow occur throughout Drainage Area C as flows become
insignificant, are subject to transmission losses, or lack channel confinement within the downstream
portions of the alluvial floodplains. In addition, upland areas above active alluvial floodplain areas were
identified by field indicators including rock weathering, desert pavement, rock varnish, and surface
color/tone.
The active channels within Drainage Area C were generally devoid of vegetation although sparse
occurrences of palo verde and catclaw were identified. Upland vegetation outside the active channels
consisted of upland species consistent with the surrounding area including creosote bush, rubber
rabbitbrush, burrobush, brittlebush, and fourwing saltbush. In addition, ocotillo (Fouquieria splendens),
pencil cholla (Opuntia ramosissima), and California barrel cactus (Ferocactus cylindraceus) were
distributed throughout upland areas located on high terraces well beyond the alluvial floodplain.
Drainage Area D
Drainage Area D is located within the southern portion of the project site to the south of the historic vineyard
and adjacent (east) to Drainage Area C. Drainage Area D is comprised of numerous braided channels
located on an alluvial floodplain which convey surface flows from the Santa Rosa Mountains and
surrounding land in a general southwest to east direction toward Dike No. 4 and offsite.
The active channels generally consist of an earthen substrate comprised of coarse sand, gravel, and cobble.
Although no surface water was observed, the mapped drainage features exhibited clear evidence of
hydrology and an OHWM was observed via the following indicators: scour, a break in bank slope, presence
of litter and debris, sediment sorting and deposition, cobble bars behind obstructions, and a change in
vegetation community (from no terrestrial vegetation in the active channel to upland shrubs outside the
active channel). Segments of discontinuous sheet flow occur throughout Drainage Area D as flows become
insignificant, are subject to transmission losses, or lack channel confinement within the downstream
portions of the alluvial floodplain. In addition, upland areas primarily in the southeastern portion of the
project site well above active alluvial floodplain areas were identified by field indicators including rock
weathering, desert pavement, rock varnish, and surface color/tone.
The active channels within Drainage Area D were generally devoid of vegetation although sparse
occurrences of palo verde, smoke tree, and catclaw were identified. Upland vegetation outside the active
channels consisted of upland species consistent throughout the project site. In addition, ocotillo, pencil
Travertine Project 23
Delineation of State and Federal Jurisdictional Waters
Section 5 — Site Conditions
cholla, and California barrel cactus were distributed throughout upland areas located on high terraces well
beyond the alluvial floodplain.
Drainage Area E
Drainage Area E is located in the southeastern portion of the project site to the south of Drainage Area D.
Drainage Area E is comprised of multiple active channels which convey surface flows originating from the
Martinez Rockslide east through the project site toward Dike No. 4 and offsite.
The active channels generally consist of an earthen substrate comprised of coarse sand, cobble, and rock.
No surface water was observed. However, the mapped drainage features exhibited clear evidence of
hydrology and an OHWM was observed via the following indicators: scour, a break in bank slope, presence
of litter and debris, sediment sorting and deposition, cobble bars behind obstructions, and a change in
vegetation community (from a lack of terrestrial vegetation in the active channel to upland shrubs outside
the active channel). Segments of discontinuous sheet flow occur throughout Drainage Area E as flows
become insignificant or lack channel confinement within the downstream portions of the alluvial floodplain.
In addition, upland areas well above active alluvial floodplain areas were identified by field indicators
including rock weathering, desert pavement, rock varnish, and surface color/tone.
The active channels within Drainage Area E contained sparse occurrences of palo verde, smoke tree,
catclaw, and desert lavender (Hyptis emoryi) were identified. Upland vegetation outside the active channels
consisted of upland species consistent throughout the project site as well as ocotillo, pencil cholla, and
California barrel cactus distributed throughout upland areas located on high terraces well beyond the
alluvial floodplain.
5.1.2 WETLAND FEATURES
Two soil pits were performed within the project site where evidence of wetland hydrology was observed.
Soil Pit 1 (SP1) was performed within the eastern portion of the project site where wetland hydrology
(surface soil cracks) was observed. SP 1 was performed within a depressional area to a depth of
approximately 16 inches and consisted of a single layer. SP1 exhibited a texture of clay loam and displayed
a matrix color of 10YR 3/3 when moist with no redoximorphic features identified within the soil profile.
Vegetation surrounding SP1 consisted primarily of catclaw (Not Listed [NL]). Vegetation surrounding SP 1
did not meet the Dominance Test or the Prevalence Index to satisfy the hydrophytic vegetation parameter.
Based on the results of the field delineation, it was determined that SP 1 only met one (hydrology) of the
three required wetland parameters and thus did not qualify as a wetland.
Soil Pit Two (SP2) was performed within the channel of an ephemeral drainage feature in the central portion
of the project site to a depth of approximately 8 inches prior to encountering a restrictive layer of rock and
cobble. SP2 consisted of a single layer and exhibited a texture of sand. SP2 displayed a matrix color of
2.5Y 4/3 when moist with no redoximorphic features identified within the soil profile. Vegetation
surrounding SP2 consisted paloverde (NL). Vegetation surrounding SP2 did not meet the Dominance Test
or the Prevalence Index to satisfy the hydrophytic vegetation parameter. Within the vicinity of SP2,
indicators of wetland hydrology were observed via drainage patterns, drift deposits, and sediment deposits.
Travertine Project 24
Delineation of State and Federal Jurisdictional Waters
Section 5 — Site Conditions
Based on the results of the field delineation, it was determined that SP2 only met one (hydrology) of the
three required wetland parameters and thus did not qualify as a wetland. Refer to Appendix C for a copy
of the wetland determination data forms.
5.1.3 DESERT DRY WASH WOODLAND
Desert Dry Wash Woodland (DDWW) habitat was identified in association with the larger and more
developed ephemeral drainage features throughout the project site. Mapped DDWW was primarily
dominated by blue palo verde and to a lesser extent catclaw. Mature palo verde trees ranged from 10 to 20
feet in height and crown diameter and were observed to be in good health. The catclaw observed within
identified DDWW generally displayed a shrublike form. Other species identified in association with the
on-site DDWW habitat included smoke tree, desert lavender, cheesebush (Hymenoclea salsola), and jojoba
(Simmondsia chinensis). In general, the observed woodlands contained low densities of the composite
species. DDWW species were identified throughout the project site, however the largest areas of identified
DDWW habitat are located within the southern portion of the project site in association with the upstream
portions of ephemeral drainage features where significant surface flows originating from the mountains to
the west and south are primarily confined. Lower densities of DDWW species occur as surface flows are
conveyed east into the braided and discontinuous channels of the downstream portions of the alluvial fans.
Areas of sparse occurrences of the indicated species or individual DDWW trees located significantly far
from and not in association with a drainage feature were excluded from DDWW habitat boundaries.
Travertine Project 25
Delineation of State and Federal Jurisdictional Waters
Section 6 Findings
This delineation documents the jurisdictional authority of the Corps, Regional Board, and CDFW within
the project site. This report presents our best effort at determining the extent of jurisdictional features using
the most up-to-date regulations, written policy, and guidance from the regulatory agencies. However, as
with any jurisdictional delineation, only the regulatory agencies can make a final determination of
jurisdictional boundaries.
6.1 U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
6.1.1 WATERS OF THE U.S. DETERMINATION
Evidence of an OHWM was noted within the boundaries of the project site. However, aquatic features
within the project site are considered ephemeral and do not meet the definition of a WoUS pursuant to the
Navigable Waters Protection Rule. Therefore, on-site aquatic features would not be subject to regulation
under Section 404 of the CWA and would not be considered Corps' jurisdiction.
6.2 REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD
6.2.1 NON -WETLAND WATERS OF THE STATE DETERMINATION
As mentioned in Section 6.1.1 Water of the U.S. Determination, the on-site aquatic features are considered
ephemeral and therefore would not meet the definition of a WoUS pursuant to the Navigable Waters
Protection Rule. However, the on-site features qualify as waters of the State and Regional Board
jurisdiction totals approximately 90.96 acres non -wetland waters of the State. Refer to Table 1: Summary
of Aquatic Resources and Jurisdictional Limits within the Project Site and Figures 5, and 5A through 5I,
Regional Board & CDFW Jurisdictional Map. Based on a review of project design plans, the proposed
project would temporarily impact approximately 12.15 acres and permanently impact 53.15 acres of non -
wetland waters of the State. Refer to Figure 6, Regional Board & CDFW Jurisdictional Impact Map, below.
6.2.2 WETLAND DETERMINATION
As previously noted, an area must exhibit all three wetland parameters described in the 2010 Regional
supplement to the Corps Manual to be considered a Corps jurisdictional wetland. In addition, the State
wetland definition and delineation procedures are largely consistent with the three -parameter approach
involving indicators of hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soil, and wetland hydrology implemented by the
Corps. However, one exception is an area can lack vegetation and still satisfy the parameter for hydrophytic
vegetation thus qualifying the area as a wetland water of the State if the hydric soil, and wetland hydrology
parameters are also fulfilled. Two soil pits (SP 1 — SP2) were dug within the a depressional area and the
channel of an ephemeral drainage feature where evidence of wetland hydrology was observed. Although
wetland hydrology was present at SP1 and SP2, hydric soils and hydrophytic vegetation were not
encountered. Based on the results of the field delineation, it was determined that no wetland waters of the
Travertine Project 26
Delineation of State and Federal Jurisdictional Waters
Section 6 - Findings
State are located within the boundaries of the project site. Refer to Appendix C, Wetland Determination
Data Forms.
Table 1: Summary of Aquatic Resources and Jurisdictional Limits within the Project Site9
Drainage
Area
Flow Regime
and
Feature Type
Cowardin
Type
Jurisdictional Limits (acres)
Regional Board
CDFW
Non-
Wetland
Waters
Wetland
Waters
Streambed
Desert Dry
Wash
Woodland
A
Ephemeral
Streams
Riverine
16.39
0.00
16.39
1.27
B
Ephemeral
Streams
Riverine
0.27
0.00
0.27
0.00
C
Ephemeral
Streams
Riverine
46.01
0.00
46.01
22.58
D
Ephemeral
Streams
Riverine
26.40
0.00
26.40
23.29
E
Ephemeral
Streams
Riverine
1.89
0.00
1.89
8.84
TOTAL
90.96 1
0.00
90.96
55.98
6.3 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE
The on-site drainage features exhibited a clear bed and bank and qualify as CDFW jurisdictional
streambed. Based on the results of the field investigations, a total of approximately 90.96 acres of CDFW
jurisdictional streambed occurs within the boundaries of the project site. In addition, the on-site DDWW
habitat is considered CDFW jurisdiction and totaled 55.98 acres. Approximately 20.56 acres of DDWW
habitat is located within the 90.96 acres of CDFW jurisdictional streambed and an additional 35.42 acres
of DDWW habitat is associated with the CDFW jurisdictional streambed. Refer to Table 1 above and
Figures 5, and 5A through 51, Regional Board & CDFW Jurisdictional Map, below. Based on a review of
project design plans, the proposed project would temporarily impact approximately 12.15 acres and
permanently impact 53.15 acres of CDFW jurisdictional Streambed. In addition, the proposed project
would temporarily impact approximately 2.67 acres and permanently impact 10.73 acres of CDFW
jurisdictional DDWW habitat. Approximately 1.26 acres of temporary impact and 5.82 acres of
permanent impact to DDWW habitat is located within CDFW jurisdictional streambed and the remaining
1.41 acres of temporary impact and 4.91 acres of permanent impact to DDWW habitat is associated with
CDFW jurisdictional streambed. Refer to Figure 6, Regional Board & CDFW Jurisdictional Impact Map.
9 Under the Navigable Waters Protection Rule, jurisdictional tributaries include perennial and intermittent rivers and streams that
contribute surface flow to traditional navigable waters in a typical year and must flow more often than just after a single
precipitation event. Based on field observations and data derived from the National Hydrography Dataset (NHD), the on-site
aquatic features do not meet the definition of a water of the U.S. (WoUS) and therefore are not subject to regulation under
Section 404 of the CWA.
Travertine Project 27
Delineation of State and Federal Jurisdictional Waters
33.612921
-116.272715
SEE INSET
MAP
�sxSP2
P20-0-*
P1.9
SP1
P15
P16
33.584164
-116.249242
Legend
Project Site
Soil Pits
I I
• Photograph Point and Direction
ED Reference Point
Regional Board Non -Wetland Waters & CDFW Jurisdictional Streambed (90.96 acres)
CDFW Desert Dry Wash Woodland Habitat (55.98 acres)
Discontinuous Sheet Flow
Michael Baker
INTERNATIONAL
0
0
400
800
Feet
TRAVERTINE PROJECT
JURISDICTIONAL DELINEATION OF STATE AND FEDERAL WATERS
Regional Board & CDFW Jurisdictional Map
Source: National Agricultural Inventory Project (NAIP, 2018)
Figure 5
Michael Baker
INTERNATIONAL
Legend
Project Site
Regional Board Non -Wetland
Waters & CDFW Jurisdictional
Streambed (90.96 acres)
I I
Discontinuous Sheet Flow
— Po- Flow Direction
▪ Reference Point
0
U
150
300
Feet
TRAVERTINE PROJECT
JURISDICTIONAL DELINEATION OF STATE AND FEDERAL WATERS
Regional Board & CDFW Jurisdictional Map
Source: Nearmap (September 2021)
Figure 5A
6/1/2021 JN H:\pdata\182517\GISWPRX\TravertineDelineation\TravertineD
Michael Baker
INTERNATIONALI
Source: Nearmap (September 2021)
Legend
Project Site
Regional Board Non -Wetland
Waters & CDFW Jurisdictional
Streambed (90.96 acres)
I I
---- Discontinuous Sheet Flow
-- Flow Direction
• Reference Point
A
C
E
F
Aiti ItkoE
0
U
150
300
Feet
TRAVERTINE PROJECT
JURISDICTIONAL DELINEATION OF STATE AND FEDERAL WATERS
Regional Board & CDFW Jurisdictional Map
Figure 5B
6/1/2021 JN H:\pdata\182517\GISWPRX\TravertineDelineation\T
Michael Baker
INTERNATIONAL
Source: Nearmap (September 2021)
Legend
Project Site
Regional Board Non -Wetland
Waters & CDFW Jurisdictional
Streambed (90.96 acres)
CDFW Desert Dry Wash
Woodland Habitat (55.98
acres)
Discontinuous Sheet Flow
Flow Direction
Reference Point
0
U
150
300
Feet
TRAVERTINE PROJECT
JURISDICTIONAL DELINEATION OF STATE AND FEDERAL WATERS
Regional Board & CDFW Jurisdictional Map
Figure 5C
6/1/2021 JN H:\pdala\182517\GIS\APRX\TraverlineDelinealion\Tr
Michael Baker
INTERNATIONAL
Legend
Project Site
Regional Board Non -Wetland
Waters & CDFW Jurisdictional
Streambed (90.96 acres)
I I
Discontinuous Sheet Flow
— No- Flow Direction
▪ Reference Point
0
U
150
300
Feet
TRAVERTINE PROJECT
JURISDICTIONAL DELINEATION OF STATE AND FEDERAL WATERS
Regional Board & CDFW Jurisdictional Map
Source: Nearmap (September 2021)
Figure 5D
0
�: arm•.::. .:. -i- .•..."........r -e. ....r.
•
•
• •
•
to
.
....„;•,;,- N_ - -- r -
'. c ;_• ..�,'• � .am-�xi��`...,„:+a•:
•.....,,..-.. .�
'. ...- 1 } • a,rsr rteY„/•a.4 -..t.,,,.,4 •.
Dcii 07,
y::uS' •�' r•a�w1n •` 'r e y r it ',!:: 1,rar..s.
�• or't.: r. /4 '1.' -`31*;' r —4 • i' • .•:4.Z.74-"r•....1.•`r. �- •p.}y y....64:?-'
A ,44
•
• . r r*xx . .a1 "4':r y; N:• 3 =i'�>� ..�•'�ae i • V : A i :•: • .y4 ,. .
�* ; y`.. t4s�y' � �` •yi+s..
± ;4,+•.�;�.4.41•••-%.'''''•&,•!" —114'1,1"3. i F4' Yr' .•A►'..r►i .P>-,• 14.E;7 •a4► rf=i • �• . F•..:
-r. i.;'.•. •• r `.. •4.1. {:y�,.e ,-0. .. y -l/4; '-•°S �n••s,7°rte }r.''''''.5.�siib. •s• •.'•• '
i.• "r •9t h• '4 " � •'•" .. \ . <.� -. ( •'r _ •-..,.. +,-..i sane H , e'
»i a:r. �•.. •144, 4x• . •i:i `- -'we!T %. ▪ ' _yN• h%. 'tai°' 4•' ,.� R.�',• a! ,••-4
1. ♦� >p.: e•ry .a ... 4% kms i r .'' ;e✓'a '/: •'4.1-,-..• i�v +. r. sok"'.. "'.
'� ' x, a x.'„�''•.+" �;L;r �,, •�,w.:. �� 4 , " . �•_.• s��u.+a'.�..}�; r l�;
.t •& .
,Is, r•:.,
W •
4-41•.•:--.ti+%,APP. -4'1
t.•
Michael Baker
INTERNATIONAL
•z• •.M • 4 y,
Source: Nearmap (September 2021)
Legend
I I
•
Project Site
Regional Board Non -Wetland
Waters & CDFW Jurisdictional
Streambed (90.96 acres)
CDFW Desert Dry Wash
Woodland Habitat (55.98
acres)
Discontinuous Sheet Flow
Flow Direction
Reference Point
E
G
F
0
U
150
300
Feet
TRAVERTINE PROJECT
JURISDICTIONAL DELINEATION OF STATE AND FEDERAL WATERS
Regional Board & CDFW Jurisdictional Map
Figure 5E
17\GIS\APRX\Tray
6/1/2021 JN H:\pdate\1
Michael Baker
INTERNATIONAL
Legend
Project Site
I I
Regional Board Non -Wetland
Waters & CDFW Jurisdictional
Streambed (90.96 acres)
CDFW Desert Dry Wash
Woodland Habitat (55.98
acres)
•- Discontinuous Sheet Flow
0 Soil Pits
— OP- Flow Direction
® Reference Point
0
U
150
300
Feet
TRAVERTINE PROJECT
JURISDICTIONAL DELINEATION OF STATE AND FEDERAL WATERS
Regional Board & CDFW Jurisdictional Map
Source: Nearmap (September 2021)
Figure 5F
17\GIS\APRX\Traverti n e Del i n eation\Travertine D
z
33.590571,.
116127374
Michael Baker
INTERNATIONAL
Legend
I I
Project Site
Regional Board Non -Wetland
Waters & CDFW Jurisdictional
Streambed (90.96 acres)
CDFW Desert Dry Wash
Woodland Habitat (55.98
acres)
Discontinuous Sheet Flow
Flow Direction
Reference Point
0
U
150
300
Feet
TRAVERTINE PROJECT
JURISDICTIONAL DELINEATION OF STATE AND FEDERAL WATERS
Regional Board & CDFW Jurisdictional Map
Source: Nearmap (September 2021)
Figure 5G
6/1/2021 JN H:\pdata\182517\GISWPRX\TravertineDelineation\TravertineDelin
Michael Baker
INTERNATIONAL
Source: Nearmap (September 2021)
Legend
I I
•
Project Site
Regional Board Non -Wetland
Waters & CDFW Jurisdictional
Streambed (90.96 acres)
CDFW Desert Dry Wash
Woodland Habitat (55.98
acres)
Discontinuous Sheet Flow
Flow Direction
Reference Point
0
U
150
300
Feet
TRAVERTINE PROJECT
JURISDICTIONAL DELINEATION OF STATE AND FEDERAL WATERS
Regional Board & CDFW Jurisdictional Map
Figure 5H
82517\G ISVIPRX\Travertin e Del in eation\Travertine D
Michael Baker
INTERNATIONAL
Source: Nearmap (September 2021)
Legend
Project Site
I I
---- Discontinuous Sheet Flow
—Po- Flow Direction
® Reference Point
B
D
0
0
200
400
Feet
TRAVERTINE PROJECT
JURISDICTIONAL DELINEATION OF STATE AND FEDERAL WATERS
Regional Board & CDFW Jurisdictional Map
Figure 51
SEE INSET
MAP
Legend
Project Site
Temporary Impact Area
Permanent Impact Area
Reference Point
I I
Regional Board Non -Wetland Waters &
CDFW Jurisdictional Streambed
No Impact (25.66 Acres)
CDFW Desert Dry Wash Woodland
Habitat No Impact (42.58Acres)
Discontinuous Sheet Flow
Regional Board Non -Wetland Waters &
CDFW Jurisdictional Streambed
Temporary Impact (12.15 Acres)
CDFW Desert Dry Wash Woodland
Habitat Temporary Impact (2.67 Acres)
Regional Board Non -Wetland Waters &
IIMCDFW Jurisdictional Streambed
Permanent Impact (53.15 Acres)
CDFW Desert Dry Wash Woodland
Habitat Permanent Impact (10.73 Acres)
Michael Baker
INTERNATIONAL O
0
400
800
Feet
TRAVERTINE PROJECT
JURISDICTIONAL DELINEATION OF STATE AND FEDERAL WATERS
Regional Board & CDFW Jurisdictional Impact Map
Source: National Agricultural Inventory Project (NAIP), 2018
Figure 6
Section 7 Regulatory Approval Process
This report has been prepared for TRG Land, Inc. to delineate the Corps, Regional Board, and CDFW
jurisdictional authority within the project site. Below is a summary of the various permits/authorizations
that would be required prior to temporarily or permanently impacting on-site jurisdictional features.
7.1 U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
On January 23, 2020, the EPA and the Corps finalized the Navigable Waters Protection Rule to define
WoUS. On April 21, 2020, the EPA and the Corps published the Navigable Waters Protection Rule in the
Federal Register which became effective on June 22, 2020. Under the Navigable Waters Protection Rule,
ephemeral features such as those identified within the project site, do not meet the definition of a WoUS
and are not subject to regulation under Section 404 of the CWA. Therefore, it would be necessary for the
applicant to prepare and process an Approved Jurisdictional Determination (AJD) or similar approval with
the Corps to receive formal concurrence that ephemeral aquatic features within the project site do not
qualify as WoUS and therefore are not subject to regulation under Section 404 of the CWA.
7.2 REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD
The Regional Board regulates discharges to surface waters under Section 401 of the CWA and Section
13263 of the Porter -Cologne Act. This includes waters that are determined to be ephemeral and do not
meet the definition of a WoUS under the Navigable Waters Protection Rule. In the absence of a Section
404 permit issued from the Corps, a Section 401 Water Quality Certification (WQC) is not applicable.
However, a Waste Discharge Requirements (WDR) issued from the Regional Board would be required
prior to commencement of any construction activities within Regional Board jurisdictional areas. The
Regional Board also requires that California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) compliance be obtained
prior to issuance of the final WDR. Further, an application fee is required, which is based on both total
temporary and permanent impact acreages (as applicable).
7.3 CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND WILDLIFE
The CDFW regulates alterations to streambed under Section 1602 of the CFGC. Therefore, formal
notification to, and subsequent authorization from CDFW, would be required prior to commencement of
any construction activities within the CDFW jurisdictional areas. The CDFW also requires that CEQA
compliance be obtained prior to issuing the final LSAA. In addition, a notification fee is required, which
is calculated based on project costs within CDFW jurisdictional areas.
Travertine Project 39
Delineation of State and Federal Jurisdictional Waters
Section 7 — Regulatory Approval Process
7.4 RECOMMENDATIONS
As part of the regulatory permitting process, this delineation will be forwarded to each of the regulatory
agencies for their concurrence. The concurrence/receipt would typically be valid up to five years and would
solidify findings noted within this report.
Travertine Project 40
Delineation of State and Federal Jurisdictional Waters
Section 8 References
Brady, Roland H. III, Kris Vyverberg. 2013. MESA - A Field Guide to Mapping Episodic Stream Activity
(MESA). Final Draft V5: July 3, 2013.
Brady, Roland H. III, Kris Vyverberg. 2013. Methods to Describe and Delineate Episodic Stream
Processes on Arid Landscapes for Permitting Utility -Scale Solar Power Plants. California Energy
Commission, Publication Number: CEC-500-2014-013.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Lake and Streambed Alteration Program. Accessed online at:
https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/LSA.
Calflora, What Grows Here?, Accessed online at: https://www.calflora.org/entry/wgh.html.
Corps. 2008. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West
Region (Version 2.0), ed. J.S. Wakeley, R. W. Lichvar, and C. V. Nobel. ERDC/EL TR -08-28.
Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y-
87-1. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station.
Federal Register. 2020. The Navigable Waters Protection Rule: Definition of "Waters of the United
States ", 85 F.R. 22250 (April 21, 2020) (to be codified at 33 C.F.R. 328 and 40 C.F.R. pts. 110,
112, 116, 117, 120, 122, 230, 232, 300, 302, & 401).
Google, Inc. 2019. Google Earth Pro Imagery Version 7.3.3.7786, build date July 21, 2020. Aerial Image
dated December 11, 2019.
Lichvar, R.W., D.C. Finnegan, M.P. Ericsson, and W. Ochs. 2006. Distribution of Ordinary High Water
Mark Indicators and their Reliability in Identifying the Limits of "Waters of the United States " in
the Arid Southwestern Channels. ERDC/CRREL TR -06-5. Hanover, New Hampshire: U.S. Army
Engineer Research and Development Center, Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory.
Lichvar, R.W., and S.M McColley. 2008. A Field Guide to the Identification of the Ordinary High Water
Mark (OHWM) in the Arid West Region of the Western United States: A Delineation Manual.
ERDC/CRREL TR -08-12. Hanover, NH: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center,
Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory.
Michael Baker International. 2016. Travertine Development Project, Delineation of State and Federal
Jurisdictional Waters. Prepared for the Travertine Corporation.
Munsell Color. 2012. Munsell Soil Color Charts. X -rite. Grand Rapids, Michigan.
Travertine Project 41
Delineation of State and Federal Jurisdictional Waters
Section 8 — References
State Water Resources Control Board. April 2019. State Wetland Definition and Procedures for
Discharges of Dredged or Fill Material to Waters of the State. Effective May 28, 2020. Accessed
online at: https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water issues/programs/cwa401/wrapp.html.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2008. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland
Delineation Manual: Arid West Region (Version 2.0). ERDC/EL TR -08-28. Vicksburg, MS: U.S.
Army Engineer Research and Development Center.
USACE. 2016. Special Public Notice: Updated Map and Drawing Standards for the South Pacific
Regulatory Division Regulatory Program. Issued on February 10, 2016.
USACE. 2017. Special Public Notice: Minimum Standards for Acceptance of Aquatic Resources
Delineation Reports. Issued on March 16, 2017.
USACE. 2017. Special Public Notice: Reissuance of the Nationwide Permits and Issuance of Final
Regional Conditions for the Los Angeles District. Issued on March 22, 2017.
USACE. 2018. National Wetland Plant List, Version 3.4. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Engineer
Research and Development Center Cold Regions Research and Engineering Laboratory. Accessed
online at: http://wetland-plants.usace.army.mil/.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), Custom Soil
Resources Report for Western Riverside Area, California. Accessed online at:
https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/.
USDA, NRCS. 2020. Hydric Soils List of California. Accessed online at:
http://www.nres.usda. gov/wps/portal/nres/main/soils/use/hydric/.
U.S. Department of Homeland Security (USDHS), Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA),
National Flood Hazard Layer Viewer. 2008. Flood Insurance Rate Map Nos. No. 06065C2900H,
06065C2925H. Accessed online at: https://msc.fema.gov/portal/home.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). National Wetlands Inventory Mapper. 2020. Accessed online at:
http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Data/Mapper.html.
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 7.5 -Minute Topographic Quadrangle, Martinez Mountain, California,
2018.
USGS. National Hydrography Dataset and Wetland Boundary Dataset. Accessed online at:
https://viewer.nationalmap.gov/advanced-viewer/.
Western Regional Climate Center. 2016 — 2020. Period of Record Monthly Climate Summary for the Desert
Resorts Regional Airport (048892), California. Accessed online at:
https://wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?ca8892.
Travertine Project 42
Delineation of State and Federal Jurisdictional Waters
Appendix A Documentation
USDA United States
Department of
Agr culture
SCS
Natural
Resources
Conservation
Service
A product of the National
Cooperative Soil Survey,
a joint effort of the United
States Department of
Agriculture and other
Federal agencies, State
agencies including the
Agricultural Experiment
Stations, and local
participants
Custom Soil Resource
Report for
Anza-Borrego Area,
California; and Riverside
County, Coachella Valley
Area, California
June 2, 2021
Preface
Soil surveys contain information that affects land use planning in survey areas.
They highlight soil limitations that affect various land uses and provide information
about the properties of the soils in the survey areas. Soil surveys are designed for
many different users, including farmers, ranchers, foresters, agronomists, urban
planners, community officials, engineers, developers, builders, and home buyers.
Also, conservationists, teachers, students, and specialists in recreation, waste
disposal, and pollution control can use the surveys to help them understand,
protect, or enhance the environment.
Various land use regulations of Federal, State, and local governments may impose
special restrictions on land use or land treatment. Soil surveys identify soil
properties that are used in making various land use or land treatment decisions.
The information is intended to help the land users identify and reduce the effects of
soil limitations on various land uses. The landowner or user is responsible for
identifying and complying with existing laws and regulations.
Although soil survey information can be used for general farm, local, and wider area
planning, onsite investigation is needed to supplement this information in some
cases. Examples include soil quality assessments (http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/
portal/nrcs/main/soils/health/) and certain conservation and engineering
applications. For more detailed information, contact your local USDA Service Center
(https://offices.sc.egov.usda.gov/locator/app?agency=nres) or your NRCS State Soil
Scientist (http://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/detail/soils/contactus/?
cid=nres142p2_053951).
Great differences in soil properties can occur within short distances. Some soils are
seasonally wet or subject to flooding. Some are too unstable to be used as a
foundation for buildings or roads. Clayey or wet soils are poorly suited to use as
septic tank absorption fields. A high water table makes a soil poorly suited to
basements or underground installations.
The National Cooperative Soil Survey is a joint effort of the United States
Department of Agriculture and other Federal agencies, State agencies including the
Agricultural Experiment Stations, and local agencies. The Natural Resources
Conservation Service (NRCS) has leadership for the Federal part of the National
Cooperative Soil Survey.
Information about soils is updated periodically. Updated information is available
through the NRCS Web Soil Survey, the site for official soil survey information.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) prohibits discrimination in all its
programs and activities on the basis of race, color, national origin, age, disability,
and where applicable, sex, marital status, familial status, parental status, religion,
sexual orientation, genetic information, political beliefs, reprisal, or because all or a
part of an individual's income is derived from any public assistance program. (Not
all prohibited bases apply to all programs.) Persons with disabilities who require
2
alternative means for communication of program information (Braille, large print,
audiotape, etc.) should contact USDA's TARGET Center at (202) 720-2600 (voice
and TDD). To file a complaint of discrimination, write to USDA, Director, Office of
Civil Rights, 1400 Independence Avenue, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20250-9410 or
call (800) 795-3272 (voice) or (202) 720-6382 (TDD). USDA is an equal opportunity
provider and employer.
3
Contents
Preface 2
Soil Map 5
Soil Map 6
Legend 7
Map Unit Legend 9
Map Unit Descriptions 9
Anza-Borrego Area, California 12
NOTCOM—No Digital Data Available 12
Riverside County, Coachella Valley Area, California 13
CcC—Carrizo stony sand, 2 to 9 percent slopes 13
CdC—Carsitas gravelly sand, 0 to 9 percent slopes 14
ChC—Carsitas cobbly sand, 2 to 9 percent slopes 15
GaB—Gilman loamy fine sand, 0 to 5 percent slopes 16
GbB—Gilman fine sandy loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes 18
Ip—Indio fine sandy loam 19
Ir—Indio fine sandy loam, wet 20
MaB—Myoma fine sand, 0 to 5 percent slopes 21
RO—Rock outcrop 23
RU—Rubble land 24
References 26
4
Soil Map
The soil map section includes the soil map for the defined area of interest, a list of
soil map units on the map and extent of each map unit, and cartographic symbols
displayed on the map. Also presented are various metadata about data used to
produce the map, and a description of each soil map unit.
5
33° 371" N
33° 34' 48" N
567300
567900
Custom Soil Resource Report
Soil Map
569700
570300
570900
571500
566100
Map Scale: 1:28,800 if printed on A landscape (11" x 8.5") sheet.
N
566700
0 1600
Feet
0 1000 2000 4000 6000
Map projection: Web Mercator Comer coordinates: WGS84 Edge tics: UTM Zone 11N WGS84
400 800
Meters
2400
6
569700
33° 37 1" N
33° 34' 48" N
Custom Soil Resource Report
MAP LEGEND
Area of Interest (AOI)
Area of Interest (AOI)
Soils
0
rmie
O
Special Point Features
{ Blowout
Borrow Pit
Clay Spot
• Closed Depression
• Gravel Pit
4 Gravelly Spot
• Landfill
Lava Flow
Marsh or swamp
an4 Mine or Quarry
• Miscellaneous Water
• Perennial Water
• Rock Outcrop
▪ Saline Spot
Sandy Spot
• Severely Eroded Spot
Sinkhole
Slide or Slip
Sodic Spot
Soil Map Unit Polygons
Soil Map Unit Lines
Soil Map Unit Points
Spoil Area
Stony Spot
Very Stony Spot
Wet Spot
A Other
•� Special Line Features
Water Features
Streams and Canals
Transportation
Rails
rNeo Interstate Highways
US Routes
Major Roads
Local Roads
Background
lig Aerial Photography
7
MAP INFORMATION
The soil surveys that comprise your AOI were mapped at
1:24,000.
Please rely on the bar scale on each map sheet for map
measurements.
Source of Map: Natural Resources Conservation Service
Web Soil Survey URL:
Coordinate System: Web Mercator (EPSG:3857)
Maps from the Web Soil Survey are based on the Web Mercator
projection, which preserves direction and shape but distorts
distance and area. A projection that preserves area, such as the
Albers equal-area conic projection, should be used if more
accurate calculations of distance or area are required.
This product is generated from the USDA-NRCS certified data as
of the version date(s) listed below.
Soil Survey Area: Anza-Borrego Area, California
Survey Area Data: Version 2, Sep 17, 2019
Soil Survey Area: Riverside County, Coachella Valley Area,
California
Survey Area Data: Version 12, Jun 8, 2020
Your area of interest (AOI) includes more than one soil survey
area. These survey areas may have been mapped at different
scales, with a different land use in mind, at different times, or at
different levels of detail. This may result in map unit symbols, soil
properties, and interpretations that do not completely agree
across soil survey area boundaries.
Soil map units are labeled (as space allows) for map scales
1:50,000 or larger.
Date(s) aerial images were photographed: Aug 18, 2018—Aug
22, 2018
The orthophoto or other base map on which the soil lines were
compiled and digitized probably differs from the background
Custom Soil Resource Report
MAP LEGEND MAP INFORMATION
imagery displayed on these maps. As a result, some minor
shifting of map unit boundaries may be evident.
Custom Soil Resource Report
Map Unit Legend
Map Unit Descriptions
The map units delineated on the detailed soil maps in a soil survey represent the
soils or miscellaneous areas in the survey area. The map unit descriptions, along
with the maps, can be used to determine the composition and properties of a unit.
A map unit delineation on a soil map represents an area dominated by one or more
major kinds of soil or miscellaneous areas. A map unit is identified and named
according to the taxonomic classification of the dominant soils. Within a taxonomic
class there are precisely defined limits for the properties of the soils. On the
landscape, however, the soils are natural phenomena, and they have the
characteristic variability of all natural phenomena. Thus, the range of some
observed properties may extend beyond the limits defined for a taxonomic class.
Areas of soils of a single taxonomic class rarely, if ever, can be mapped without
including areas of other taxonomic classes. Consequently, every map unit is made
up of the soils or miscellaneous areas for which it is named and some minor
components that belong to taxonomic classes other than those of the major soils.
9
Map Unit Symbol
Map Unit Name
Acres in AOI
Percent of AOI
NOTCOM
No Digital Data Available
769.2
769.2
64.1%
64.1%
Subtotals for Soil Survey Area
Totals for Area of Interest
1,200.9
100.0%
Map Unit Descriptions
The map units delineated on the detailed soil maps in a soil survey represent the
soils or miscellaneous areas in the survey area. The map unit descriptions, along
with the maps, can be used to determine the composition and properties of a unit.
A map unit delineation on a soil map represents an area dominated by one or more
major kinds of soil or miscellaneous areas. A map unit is identified and named
according to the taxonomic classification of the dominant soils. Within a taxonomic
class there are precisely defined limits for the properties of the soils. On the
landscape, however, the soils are natural phenomena, and they have the
characteristic variability of all natural phenomena. Thus, the range of some
observed properties may extend beyond the limits defined for a taxonomic class.
Areas of soils of a single taxonomic class rarely, if ever, can be mapped without
including areas of other taxonomic classes. Consequently, every map unit is made
up of the soils or miscellaneous areas for which it is named and some minor
components that belong to taxonomic classes other than those of the major soils.
9
Map Unit Symbol
Map Unit Name
Acres in AOI
Percent of AOI
CcC
Carrizo stony sand, 2 to 9
percent slopes
39.2
3.3%
CdC
Carsitas gravelly sand, 0 to 9
percent slopes
232.0
19.3%
ChC
Carsitas cobbly sand, 2 to 9
percent slopes
0.8
0.1%
GaB
Gilman loamy fine sand, 0 to 5
percent slopes
5.3
0.4%
GbB
Gilman fine sandy loam, 2 to 5
percent slopes
17.2
1.4%
Ip
Indio fine sandy loam
4.9
0.4%
Ir
Indio fine sandy loam, wet
6.2
0.5%
MaB
Myoma fine sand, 0 to 5
percent slopes
47.4
3.9%
RO
Rock outcrop
18.6
1.5%
RU
Rubble land
60.1
5.0%
Subtotals for Soil Survey Area
431.7
35.9%
Totals for Area of Interest
1,200.9
100.0%
Map Unit Descriptions
The map units delineated on the detailed soil maps in a soil survey represent the
soils or miscellaneous areas in the survey area. The map unit descriptions, along
with the maps, can be used to determine the composition and properties of a unit.
A map unit delineation on a soil map represents an area dominated by one or more
major kinds of soil or miscellaneous areas. A map unit is identified and named
according to the taxonomic classification of the dominant soils. Within a taxonomic
class there are precisely defined limits for the properties of the soils. On the
landscape, however, the soils are natural phenomena, and they have the
characteristic variability of all natural phenomena. Thus, the range of some
observed properties may extend beyond the limits defined for a taxonomic class.
Areas of soils of a single taxonomic class rarely, if ever, can be mapped without
including areas of other taxonomic classes. Consequently, every map unit is made
up of the soils or miscellaneous areas for which it is named and some minor
components that belong to taxonomic classes other than those of the major soils.
9
Custom Soil Resource Report
Most minor soils have properties similar to those of the dominant soil or soils in the
map unit, and thus they do not affect use and management. These are called
noncontrasting, or similar, components. They may or may not be mentioned in a
particular map unit description. Other minor components, however, have properties
and behavioral characteristics divergent enough to affect use or to require different
management. These are called contrasting, or dissimilar, components. They
generally are in small areas and could not be mapped separately because of the
scale used. Some small areas of strongly contrasting soils or miscellaneous areas
are identified by a special symbol on the maps. If included in the database for a
given area, the contrasting minor components are identified in the map unit
descriptions along with some characteristics of each. A few areas of minor
components may not have been observed, and consequently they are not
mentioned in the descriptions, especially where the pattern was so complex that it
was impractical to make enough observations to identify all the soils and
miscellaneous areas on the landscape.
The presence of minor components in a map unit in no way diminishes the
usefulness or accuracy of the data. The objective of mapping is not to delineate
pure taxonomic classes but rather to separate the landscape into landforms or
landform segments that have similar use and management requirements. The
delineation of such segments on the map provides sufficient information for the
development of resource plans. If intensive use of small areas is planned, however,
onsite investigation is needed to define and locate the soils and miscellaneous
areas.
An identifying symbol precedes the map unit name in the map unit descriptions.
Each description includes general facts about the unit and gives important soil
properties and qualities.
Soils that have profiles that are almost alike make up a soil series. Except for
differences in texture of the surface layer, all the soils of a series have major
horizons that are similar in composition, thickness, and arrangement.
Soils of one series can differ in texture of the surface layer, slope, stoniness,
salinity, degree of erosion, and other characteristics that affect their use. On the
basis of such differences, a soil series is divided into soil phases. Most of the areas
shown on the detailed soil maps are phases of soil series. The name of a soil phase
commonly indicates a feature that affects use or management. For example, Alpha
silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is a phase of the Alpha series.
Some map units are made up of two or more major soils or miscellaneous areas.
These map units are complexes, associations, or undifferentiated groups.
A complex consists of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas in such an intricate
pattern or in such small areas that they cannot be shown separately on the maps.
The pattern and proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat similar
in all areas. Alpha -Beta complex, 0 to 6 percent slopes, is an example.
An association is made up of two or more geographically associated soils or
miscellaneous areas that are shown as one unit on the maps. Because of present
or anticipated uses of the map units in the survey area, it was not considered
practical or necessary to map the soils or miscellaneous areas separately. The
pattern and relative proportion of the soils or miscellaneous areas are somewhat
similar. Alpha -Beta association, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example.
An undifferentiated group is made up of two or more soils or miscellaneous areas
that could be mapped individually but are mapped as one unit because similar
interpretations can be made for use and management. The pattern and proportion
10
Custom Soil Resource Report
of the soils or miscellaneous areas in a mapped area are not uniform. An area can
be made up of only one of the major soils or miscellaneous areas, or it can be made
up of all of them. Alpha and Beta soils, 0 to 2 percent slopes, is an example.
Some surveys include miscellaneous areas. Such areas have little or no soil
material and support little or no vegetation. Rock outcrop is an example.
11
Custom Soil Resource Report
Anza-Borrego Area, California
NOTCOM—No Digital Data Available
Map Unit Composition
Notcom: 100 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Notcom
Properties and qualities
12
Custom Soil Resource Report
Riverside County, Coachella Valley Area, California
CcC—Carrizo stony sand, 2 to 9 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: hktz
Elevation: 2,000 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 8 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 72 to 75 degrees F
Frost -free period: 260 to 320 days
Farmland classification: Not prime farmland
Map Unit Composition
Carrizo and similar soils: 85 percent
Minor components: 15 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Carrizo
Setting
Landform: Alluvial fans
Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope
Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across -slope shape: Linear
Parent material: Alluvium derived from granite
Typical profile
H1 - 0 to 10 inches: stony sand
H2 - 10 to 39 inches: very gravelly coarse sand
H3 - 39 to 60 inches: stony coarse sand
Properties and qualities
Slope: 2 to 9 percent
Surface area covered with cobbles, stones or boulders: 0.1 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Drainage class: Excessively drained
Runoff class: Very low
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Very high (19.98 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: Rare
Frequency of ponding: None
Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 5 percent
Maximum salinity: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm)
Available water capacity: Very low (about 1.9 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 7s
Hydrologic Soil Group: A
Hydric soil rating: No
Minor Components
Carsitas
Percent of map unit: 10 percent
13
Custom Soil Resource Report
Hydric soil rating: No
Chuckawalla
Percent of map unit: 2 percent
Hydric soil rating: No
Myoma
Percent of map unit: 2 percent
Hydric soil rating: No
Unnamed, cobbly or gravelly
Percent of map unit: 1 percent
Hydric soil rating: No
CdC—Carsitas gravelly sand, 0 to 9 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: hkv0
Elevation: 800 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 4 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 72 to 73 degrees F
Frost -free period: 275 to 325 days
Farmland classification: Not prime farmland
Map Unit Composition
Carsitas and similar soils: 85 percent
Minor components: 15 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Carsitas
Setting
Landform: Alluvial fans
Landform position (two-dimensional): Footslope
Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across -slope shape: Linear
Parent material: Gravelly alluvium derived from granite
Typical profile
H1 - 0 to 10 inches: gravelly sand
H2 - 10 to 60 inches: gravelly sand
Properties and qualities
Slope: 0 to 9 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Drainage class: Excessively drained
Runoff class: Very low
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): High to very high (5.95
to 19.98 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
14
Custom Soil Resource Report
Frequency of ponding: None
Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 1 percent
Maximum salinity: Nonsaline to slightly saline (0.0 to 4.0 mmhos/cm)
Available water capacity: Very low (about 3.0 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): 4s
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 7e
Hydrologic Soil Group: A
Hydric soil rating: No
Minor Components
Riverwash
Percent of map unit: 4 percent
Landform: Channels
Hydric soil rating: Yes
Carsitas
Percent of map unit: 4 percent
Hydric soil rating: No
Myoma
Percent of map unit: 4 percent
Hydric soil rating: No
Unnamed, stony or gravelly
Percent of map unit: 3 percent
Hydric soil rating: No
ChC—Carsitas cobbly sand, 2 to 9 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: hkv3
Elevation: 800 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 4 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 72 to 73 degrees F
Frost -free period: 300 days
Farmland classification: Not prime farmland
Map Unit Composition
Carsitas and similar soils: 85 percent
Minor components: 15 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Carsitas
Setting
Landform: Alluvial fans
Landform position (two-dimensional): Summit
Landform position (three-dimensional): Interfluve
Down-slope shape: Linear
15
Custom Soil Resource Report
Across -slope shape: Linear
Parent material: Gravelly alluvium derived from granite
Typical profile
H1 - 0 to 10 inches: cobbly sand
H2 - 10 to 60 inches: gravelly sand
Properties and qualities
Slope: 2 to 9 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Drainage class: Excessively drained
Runoff class: Very low
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): High to very high (5.95
to 19.98 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 1 percent
Maximum salinity: Nonsaline to slightly saline (0.0 to 4.0 mmhos/cm)
Available water capacity: Very low (about 3.0 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): 6s
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 7e
Hydrologic Soil Group: A
Hydric soil rating: No
Minor Components
Riverwash
Percent of map unit: 4 percent
Landform: Channels
Hydric soil rating: Yes
Carrizo
Percent of map unit: 4 percent
Hydric soil rating: No
Chuckawalla
Percent of map unit: 4 percent
Hydric soil rating: No
Unnamed
Percent of map unit: 3 percent
Hydric soil rating: No
GaB—Gilman loamy fine sand, 0 to 5 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: hkvk
Elevation: 1,080 to 1,600 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 2 to 10 inches
Custom Soil Resource Report
Mean annual air temperature: 72 to 73 degrees F
Frost -free period: 240 to 300 days
Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated
Map Unit Composition
Gilman and similar soils: 85 percent
Minor components: 15 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Gilman
Setting
Landform: Alluvial fans
Landform position (two-dimensional): Footslope
Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across -slope shape: Linear
Parent material: Alluvium
Typical profile
H1 - 0 to 8 inches: loamy fine sand
H2 - 8 to 60 inches: stratified loamy sand to silty clay loam
Properties and qualities
Slope: 0 to 5 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Drainage class: Well drained
Runoff class: Low
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to high
(0.57 to 1.98 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: Rare
Frequency of ponding: None
Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 1 percent
Maximum salinity: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm)
Available water capacity: High (about 9.5 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): 3e
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 7s
Hydrologic Soil Group: B
Hydric soil rating: No
Minor Components
Coachella
Percent of map unit: 8 percent
Hydric soil rating: No
Indio
Percent of map unit: 5 percent
Hydric soil rating: No
Salton
Percent of map unit: 2 percent
Hydric soil rating: No
Custom Soil Resource Report
GbB—Gilman fine sandy loam, 2 to 5 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: hkvm
Elevation: 1,080 to 1,600 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 2 to 10 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 72 to 73 degrees F
Frost -free period: 240 to 300 days
Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated
Map Unit Composition
Gilman and similar soils: 85 percent
Minor components: 15 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Gilman
Setting
Landform: Alluvial fans
Landform position (two-dimensional): Footslope
Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across -slope shape: Linear
Parent material: Alluvium
Typical profile
H1 - 0 to 8 inches: fine sandy loam
H2 - 8 to 60 inches: stratified loamy sand to silty clay loam
Properties and qualities
Slope: 2 to 5 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Drainage class: Well drained
Runoff class: Low
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to high
(0.57 to 1.98 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 1 percent
Maximum salinity: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm)
Available water capacity: High (about 10.2 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): 2e
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 7e
Hydrologic Soil Group: B
Hydric soil rating: No
Custom Soil Resource Report
Minor Components
Unnamed, sandy surface
Percent of map unit: 5 percent
Hydric soil rating: No
Coachella
Percent of map unit: 4 percent
Hydric soil rating: No
Indio
Percent of map unit: 4 percent
Hydric soil rating: No
Salton
Percent of map unit: 2 percent
Hydric soil rating: No
Ip—Indio fine sandy loam
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: hkvy
Elevation: 300 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 4 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 72 degrees F
Frost -free period: 270 to 320 days
Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated
Map Unit Composition
Indio and similar soils: 85 percent
Minor components: 15 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Indio
Setting
Landform: Alluvial fans
Landform position (two-dimensional): Footslope
Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across -slope shape: Linear
Parent material: Alluvium
Typical profile
H1 - 0 to 10 inches: fine sandy loam
H2 - 10 to 60 inches: very fine sandy loam
Properties and qualities
Slope: 0 to 2 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Drainage class: Well drained
19
Custom Soil Resource Report
Runoff class: Low
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to high
(0.57 to 1.98 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 5 percent
Maximum salinity: Nonsaline to slightly saline (0.0 to 4.0 mmhos/cm)
Available water capacity: High (about 10.5 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): 2e
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 7c
Hydrologic Soil Group: B
Hydric soil rating: No
Minor Components
Salton
Percent of map unit: 5 percent
Hydric soil rating: No
Gilman
Percent of map unit: 5 percent
Hydric soil rating: No
Coachella
Percent of map unit: 5 percent
Hydric soil rating: No
Ir—Indio fine sandy loam, wet
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: hkvz
Elevation: 300 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 4 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 72 degrees F
Frost -free period: 270 to 320 days
Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated and drained
Map Unit Composition
Indio and similar soils: 85 percent
Minor components: 15 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Indio
Setting
Landform: Alluvial fans
Landform position (two-dimensional): Footslope
Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread
Custom Soil Resource Report
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across -slope shape: Linear
Parent material: Alluvium
Typical profile
H1 - 0 to 10 inches: fine sandy loam
H2 - 10 to 60 inches: very fine sandy loam
Properties and qualities
Slope: 0 to 2 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Drainage class: Moderately well drained
Runoff class: Low
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Moderately high to high
(0.57 to 1.98 in/hr)
Depth to water table: About 36 to 60 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 5 percent
Maximum salinity: Nonsaline to slightly saline (0.0 to 4.0 mmhos/cm)
Available water capacity: High (about 10.5 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): 2w
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 7w
Hydrologic Soil Group: B
Hydric soil rating: No
Minor Components
Gilman
Percent of map unit: 5 percent
Hydric soil rating: No
Salton
Percent of map unit: 5 percent
Hydric soil rating: No
Coachella
Percent of map unit: 5 percent
Hydric soil rating: No
MaB—Myoma fine sand, 0 to 5 percent slopes
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: hkw3
Elevation: -200 to 1,800 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 2 to 4 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 72 to 75 degrees F
Frost -free period: 270 to 320 days
Farmland classification: Prime farmland if irrigated
Custom Soil Resource Report
Map Unit Composition
Myoma and similar soils: 85 percent
Minor components: 15 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Myoma
Setting
Landform: Alluvial fans
Landform position (two-dimensional): Toeslope
Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across -slope shape: Linear
Parent material: Wind blown sandy alluvium
Typical profile
H1 - 0 to 18 inches: fine sand
H2 - 18 to 60 inches: sand
Properties and qualities
Slope: 0 to 5 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: More than 80 inches
Drainage class: Somewhat excessively drained
Runoff class: Negligible
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): High to very high (5.95
to 19.98 in/hr)
Depth to water table: More than 80 inches
Frequency of flooding: None
Frequency of ponding: None
Calcium carbonate, maximum content: 5 percent
Maximum salinity: Nonsaline to very slightly saline (0.0 to 2.0 mmhos/cm)
Available water capacity: Low (about 4.8 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): 3e
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 7e
Hydrologic Soil Group: A
Hydric soil rating: No
Minor Components
Unnamed, noncalcareous soils
Percent of map unit: 4 percent
Hydric soil rating: No
Coachella
Percent of map unit: 4 percent
Hydric soil rating: No
Carsitas
Percent of map unit: 4 percent
Hydric soil rating: No
Riverwash
Percent of map unit: 3 percent
Landform: Channels
Hydric soil rating: Yes
22
Custom Soil Resource Report
RO—Rock outcrop
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: hkwc
Elevation: 650 to 4,000 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 8 to 15 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 45 to 52 degrees F
Frost -free period: 110 to 180 days
Farmland classification: Not prime farmland
Map Unit Composition
Rock outcrop: 90 percent
Minor components: 10 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Rock Outcrop
Setting
Down-slope shape: Concave
Across -slope shape: Concave
Parent material: Residuum weathered from igneous, metamorphic and
sedimentary rock
Typical profile
H1 - 0 to 60 inches: unweathered bedrock
Properties and qualities
Slope: 15 to 75 percent
Depth to restrictive feature: 0 inches to lithic bedrock
Runoff class: Very high
Capacity of the most limiting layer to transmit water (Ksat): Low to very high (0.01
to 19.98 in/hr)
Available water capacity: Very low (about 0.0 inches)
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 8
Hydric soil rating: No
Minor Components
Rubble land
Percent of map unit: 5 percent
Hydric soil rating: No
Riverwash
Percent of map unit: 3 percent
Landform: Channels
Hydric soil rating: Yes
Custom Soil Resource Report
Carsitas
Percent of map unit: 2 percent
Hydric soil rating: No
RU—Rubble land
Map Unit Setting
National map unit symbol: hkwf
Elevation: 650 to 4,000 feet
Mean annual precipitation: 8 to 50 inches
Mean annual air temperature: 45 to 54 degrees F
Frost -free period: 75 to 180 days
Farmland classification: Not prime farmland
Map Unit Composition
Rubble land: 70 percent
Minor components: 30 percent
Estimates are based on observations, descriptions, and transects of the mapunit.
Description of Rubble Land
Setting
Landform: Alluvial fans
Landform position (two-dimensional): Backslope
Landform position (three-dimensional): Tread
Down-slope shape: Linear
Across -slope shape: Linear
Parent material: Stony and bouldery alluvium
Typical profile
H1 - 0 to 60 inches: fragmental material
Interpretive groups
Land capability classification (irrigated): None specified
Land capability classification (nonirrigated): 8
Hydric soil rating: No
Minor Components
Carrizo
Percent of map unit: 14 percent
Hydric soil rating: No
Carsitas
Percent of map unit: 10 percent
Hydric soil rating: No
Riverwash
Percent of map unit: 6 percent
Landform: Channels
Hydric soil rating: Yes
24
References
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO).
2004. Standard specifications for transportation materials and methods of sampling
and testing. 24th edition.
American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM). 2005. Standard classification of
soils for engineering purposes. ASTM Standard D2487-00.
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of
wetlands and deep -water habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service FWS/OBS-79/31.
Federal Register. July 13, 1994. Changes in hydric soils of the United States.
Federal Register. September 18, 2002. Hydric soils of the United States.
Hurt, G.W., and L.M. Vasilas, editors. Version 6.0, 2006. Field indicators of hydric
soils in the United States.
National Research Council. 1995. Wetlands: Characteristics and boundaries.
Soil Survey Division Staff. 1993. Soil survey manual. Soil Conservation Service.
U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 18. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/
nres/detail/national/soils/?cid=nres 142p2_054262
Soil Survey Staff. 1999. Soil taxonomy: A basic system of soil classification for
making and interpreting soil surveys. 2nd edition. Natural Resources Conservation
Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 436. http://
www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/detail/national/soils/?cid=nres142p2_053577
Soil Survey Staff. 2010. Keys to soil taxonomy. 11th edition. U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service. http://
www. nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/detail/national/soils/?cid=nres142p2_053580
Tiner, R.W., Jr. 1985. Wetlands of Delaware. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and
Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Wetlands
Section.
United States Army Corps of Engineers, Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of
Engineers wetlands delineation manual. Waterways Experiment Station Technical
Report Y-87-1.
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
National forestry manual. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/detail/soils/
home/?cid=nres142p2_053374
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
National range and pasture handbook. http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/
detail/national/landuse/rangepasture/?cid=stelprdb1043084
26
Custom Soil Resource Report
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
National soil survey handbook, title 430 -VI. http://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/
nres/detail/soils/scientists/?cid=nres142p2_054242
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
2006. Land resource regions and major land resource areas of the United States,
the Caribbean, and the Pacific Basin. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook
296. http://www.nres.usda.gov/wps/portal/nres/detail/national/soils/?
cid=nres142p2_053624
United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1961. Land
capability classification. U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook 210. http://
www.nrcs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/nrcs142p2_052290.pdf
27
n.r
."'�iiwv err.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
National Wetlands Inventor
Wetlands
•
..F
•
.1
t
•••r 1 •�.. a`
1:19,034
0.15 0.3
i i I
I
0 0.25 0.5
E
0.6 mi
I
1 km
•
Source: Esri, Maxar, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS,
USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Commtnity
February 1, 2021
Wetlands
fl
Estuarine and Marine Deepwater
I I
Estuarine and Marine Wetland
Freshwater Emergent Wetland
Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland
Freshwater Pond
11
i i
Lake
Other
Riverine
This map is for general reference only. The US Fish and Wildlife
Service is not responsible for the accuracy or currentness of the
base data shown on this map. All wetlands related data should
be used in accordance with the layer metadata found on the
Wetlands Mapper web site.
National Wetlands Inventory (NWI)
This page was produced by the NWI mapper
I:4
nilU.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
National Wetlands Inventor
Wetlands
a
timpampus
- .e
•
■
1:19,034
0 0.15 0.3
1i i II
L0.25 0.5
0.6 mi
Ii ` .�•�' • , •• :' moi'
1 km .��
• stil
f •
Source: EsrijiMar, GeoEye, Eadhstar Geo raphics, CNES/Airbus DS,
USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GISJser Community
February 1, 2021
Wetlands
Estuarine and Marine Deepwater
1-1
Estuarine and Marine Wetland
I
I I
Freshwater Emergent Wetland
Freshwater Forested/Shrub Wetland
Freshwater Pond
I
I
Lake
Other
Riverine
This map is for general reference only. The US Fish and Wildlife
Service is not responsible for the accuracy or currentness of the
base data shown on this map. All wetlands related data should
be used in accordance with the layer metadata found on the
Wetlands Mapper web site.
National Wetlands Inventory (NWI)
This page was produced by the NWI mapper
•
.•
L
tie,' 1.11,NrIl•
LEGEND
••• ••
-a w
Al....r.IT;"J=11.1.:Ltr="Zi.;.672.1rm="1
EM:=2 rr.'"^rr'••••'''
•••••-• •••• own. •••••.,...5,zze
1•!•1' , ••r•••-•,71- All•S
------- •
,...... -
4,111
i• •
„ -•
V.••••.•41 • -311.
FIRM
PIDOE•riSUIWICE RATE HAP
5,1•3gtilliA; puzym
„IP(7111
!ND irffN11.0051.4 11.11•11.1.1,..
EL MO Or nos
:ave.-. row., •••- mr,
4.'2:4Y,!2•1". ;5'1
410 PULER.
1144•65Califil
YR, Rel•liEb
19, 2017
T1 -E ARFA SHOWN r A FICA! F OF V -1.941a
CN IA NLGBER NICe5C204
FIC.20 HAZARD 11.JR1.11MAT181,1
.M....E.71T,M, CILIN•MRIE.• ArlIF
IBM!
T.5T
min -1'17.
11T.)1.L.1
1.1M15 x•RHilvs':n...n, 6".
EN;•1. •• '••
--
+-r.T.- Lib VEMS=1.4lemME
Lre,••••W
Ens4.1.E.IngdomiSimm
"
.11.14,tri
I all•flur.
- tomg1421s,m1.•
•--.1 3.— •
!MET 1,0-1•Eml{m,
SCALE
•
1.1.4
Nom. LEGATOR
v.
•73.41X n
The National Map Advanced Viewer
2/16/2021, 1:19:46 PM
Waterbody - Large Scale
Estuary
Ice Mass
LakePond
Playa
Reservoir
SwampMarsh
Area - Large Scale
Area of Complex Channels
Area to be Submerged
Baylnlet
Bridge
CanalDitch
▪ DamWeir
Flume
Foreshore
▪ Hazard Zone
Inundation Area
▪ Lock Chamber
▪ Rapids
SeaOcean
▪ Special Use Zone
▪ Spillway
StreamRiver
Submerged Stream
Wash
Water IntakeOutflow
Flowline - Large Scale
Perennial
Intermittent
— Ephemeral
— Artificial Path
Canal Ditch
— Coastline
— Connector
— Pipeline
StreamRiver
StreamRiver - Perennial
StreamRiver - Intermittent
StreamRiver - Ephemeral
i" Pipeline
i" Artificial Path
Line - Large Scale
— Line
Tunnel
— Underground Conduit Point Event
•
Flow Direction Dam
1" Connector • Gaging Station
CanalDitch Divergence Structure
Underground Conduit ` Other
0
0
1:36,112
0.33 0.65
0.5 1
2 km
USGS TNM – National Hydrography Dataset. Data Refreshed
January, 2021.
USGS The National Map: Orthoimagery and US Topo. Data
refreshed January, 2021.
USGS
Antecedent Precipitation vs Normal Range based on NOAA's Daily Global Historical Climatology Network
Jul
2020
n
Aug Sep - Oct
2020 2020 2020
Nov
2020
A
N\
2020- 2-11
Dec
2020
n
Jan
2021
Feb
2021
Mar
2021
Apr
2021
- Daily Total
- 30 -Day Rolling Total
30 -Year Normal Range
May
2021
Jun
2021
Coordinates
33.594494, -116.260383
Observation Date
2021-02-09
Elevation (ft)
177.86
Drought Index (PDS!)
Severe drought
WebWIMP H2O Balance
Dry Season
Figure and tables made by the
Antecedent Precipitation Tool
Version 1.0
Written by_Jason Deters
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
30 Days Ending
30th %ile (in)
70th %ile (in)
Observed (in)
Wetness Condition
Condition Value
Month Weight
Product
2021-02-09
0.791339
1.929921
0.673228
Dry
1
3
3
2021-01-10
0.479921
3.596851
0.5
Normal
2
2
4
2020-12-11
0.526378
1.387402
0.0
Dry
1
1
1
Result
33.7986, -116.4418
351.05
17.54
173.19
10.931
606
Drier than Normal - 8
Weather Station Name
Coordinates
Elevation (ft)
Distance (mi)
Elevation A
Weighted A
Days Normal
Days Antecedent
IDYLLWILD 1.8 NW
33.7631, -116.735
6325.131
29.671
6147.271
195.748
3266
0
THOUSAND PALMS 0.7 W
33.8212, -116.3978
253.937
17.543
76.077
9.229
41
1
PALM DESERT 5.0 ENE
33.7711, -116.301
108.924
12.424
68.936
6.447
3
0
RANCHO MIRAGE 3.0 NNW
33.7986, -116.4418
351.05
17.54
173.19
10.931
606
0
PALM DESERT 2.1 ENE
33.7442, -116.3421
229.003
11.361
51.143
5.693
111
78
BORREGO SPRINGS 2.4 WSW
33.2225, -116.3904
776.903
26.774
599.043
28.087
25
0
BORREGO SPRINGS 7.1SE
33.1934, -116.2786
574.147
27.733
396.287
23.47
330
11
ANZA
33.5558, -116.6739
3915.026
23.954
3737.166
100.299
5274
0
BORREGO DESERT PARK
33.2558, -116.4036
810.039
24.816
632.179
26.855
1663
0
DEEP CANYON LAB
33.6514, -116.3764
1200.131
7.747
1022.271
11.406
3
0
DESERT RESORTS RGNL AP
33.6267, -116.1594
-118.11
6.222
295.97
4.641
31
0
Antecedent Precipitation vs Normal Range based on NOAA's Daily Global Historical Climatology Network
f
Jul Aug Sep
2020 2020 I 2020
Oct
2020
Nov
2020
A
Dec
2020
21-01-20 i
N\
2b20-12-21
Jan
2021
Feb
2021
n
2021-02-19
Mar
2021
Apr
2021
- Daily Total
- 30 -Day Rolling Total
30 -Year Normal Range
May
2021
Jun
2021
Coordinates
33.594494, -116.260383
Observation Date
2021-02-19
Elevation (ft)
177.86
Drought Index (PDS!)
Severe drought
WebWIMP H2O Balance
Dry Season
Figure and tables made by the
Antecedent Precipitation Tool
Version 1.0
Written by _Ja s o n Deters
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
30 Days Ending
30th %ile (in)
70th %ile (in)
Observed (in)
Wetness Condition
Condition Value
Month Weight
Product
2021-02-19
1.075591
2.976772
0.641732
Dry
1
3
3
2021-01-20
0.242126
2.085827
0.531496
Normal
2
2
4
2020-12-21
0.379921
2.252362
0.0
Dry
1
1
1
Result
33.7986, -116.4418
351.05
17.54
173.19
10.931
606
Drier than Normal - 8
Weather Station Name
Coordinates
Elevation (ft)
Distance (mi)
Elevation 0
Weighted A
Days Normal
Days Antecedent
IDYLLWILD 1.8 NW
33.7631, -116.735
6325.131
29.671
6147.271
195.748
3266
0
THOUSAND PALMS 0.7 W
33.8212, -116.3978
253.937
17.543
76.077
9.229
41
1
PALM DESERT 5.0 ENE
33.7711, -116.301
108.924
12.424
68.936
6.447
3
0
RANCHO MIRAGE 3.0 NNW
33.7986, -116.4418
351.05
17.54
173.19
10.931
606
0
PALM DESERT 2.1 ENE
33.7442, -116.3421
229.003
11.361
51.143
5.693
111
77
BORREGO SPRINGS 2.4 WSW
33.2225, -116.3904
776.903
26.774
599.043
28.087
25
0
BORREGO SPRINGS 7.1SE
33.1934, -116.2786
574.147
27.733
396.287
23.47
330
12
ANZA
33.5558, -116.6739
3915.026
23.954
3737.166
100.299
5274
0
BORREGO DESERT PARK
33.2558, -116.4036
810.039
24.816
632.179
26.855
1663
0
DEEP CANYON LAB
33.6514, -116.3764
1200.131
7.747
1022.271
11.406
3
0
DESERT RESORTS RGNL AP
33.6267, -116.1594
-118.11
6.222
295.97
4.641
31
0
Antecedent Precipitation vs Normal Range based on NOAA's Daily Global Historical Climatology Network
3.5 -
3.0 -
▪ V7
Qj 2.5-
U
c
• 2.0 -
(13
4-
._ 1.5 -
(6
1.0 -
0.5 -
0.0
2020-12-04
2021-01-03
1*
2021-02-02
n � n
- Daily Total
- 30 -Day Rolling Total
30 -Year Normal Range
Jul
2020
Aug Sep Oct
2020
2020
2020
Coordinates
33.594494, -116.260383
Observation Date
2021-02-02
Elevation (ft)
177.86
Drought Index (PDS!)
Severe drought
WebWIMP H2O Balance
Dry Season
Figure and tables made by the
Antecedent Precipitation Tool
Version 1,0
Written .by Jason Deters
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Nov
2020
Dec
2020
Jan
2021
Feb
2021
Mar
2021
Apr
2021
May
2021
Jun
2021
30 Days Ending
30th %ile (in)
70th %ile (in)
Observed (in)
Wetness Condition
Condition Value
Month Weight
Product
2021-02-02
0.40315
1.779921
0.472441
Normal
2
3
6
2021-01-03
0.415748
2.035433
0.5
Normal
2
2
4
2020-12-04
0.082677
1.020866
0.011811
Dry
1
1
1
Result
33.8212, -116.3978
253.937
17.543
76.077
9.229
91
Normal Conditions - 11
Weather Station Name
Coordinates
Elevation (ft)
Distance (mi)
Elevation 0
Weighted L
Days Normal
Days Antecedent
RANCHO MIRAGE 3.0 NNW
33.7986, -116.4418
351.05
17.54
173.19
10.931
636
0
PALM DESERT 5.0 ENE
33.7711, -116.301
108.924
12.424
68.936
6.447
724
0
PALM DESERT 2.1 ENE
33.7442, -116.3421
229.003
11.361
51.143
5.693
111
79
THOUSAND PALMS 0.7 W
33.8212, -116.3978
253.937
17.543
76.077
9.229
91
0
IDYLLWILD 1.8 NW
33.7631, -116.735
6325.131
29.671
6147.271
195.748
2465
0
BORREGO SPRINGS 2.4 WSW
33.2225, -116.3904
776.903
26.774
599.043
28.087
25
0
BORREGO SPRINGS 7.1SE
33.1934, -116.2786
574.147
27.733
396.287
23.47
330
11
ANZA
33.5558, -116.6739
3915.026
23.954
3737.166
100.299
5274
0
BORREGO DESERT PARK
33.2558, -116.4036
810.039
24.816
632.179
26.855
1663
0
DEEP CANYON LAB
33.6514, -116.3764
1200.131
7.747
1022.271
11.406
3
0
PALM SPRINGS RGNL AP
33.8281, -116.5053
420.932
21.417
243.072
14.844
31
0
Antecedent Precipitation vs Normal Range based on NOAA's Daily Global Historical Climatology Network
0.8 -
0.2 -
0.0
Jul
2020
Aug fi
2020
Sep
2020
Oct
2020
Nov T
2020
2020-12-04
Dec
2020
2021-0
Jan
2021
2021-02-02
03
Feb
2021
Mar
2021
Apr
2021
- Daily Total
- 30 -Day Rolling Total
30 -Year Normal Range
May
2021
Jun
2021
Coordinates
33.594494, -116.260383
Observation Date
2021-02-02
Elevation (ft)
177.86
Drought Index (PDS!)
Severe drought
Weh\NIMP H,C) RAIanra
flry cPACnr
0.464173
0.30315
•■ .. - '
En
Figure and tables made by the Antecedent Precipittion Tool
Version 1.0
Written by_Jason Deters
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
3
6
30 Days Ending
30th %Ile (in)
70th %ile (in)
Observed (in)
Wetness Condition
Condition Value
Month Weight
Product
2021-02-02
0.020079
0.464173
0.30315
Normal
2
3
6
2021-01-03
0.017323
0.351181
0.03937
Normal
2
2
4
2020-12-04
0.0
0.1
0.0
Normal
2
1
2
Result
Normal Conditions - 12
Weather Station Name
Coordinates
Elevation (ft)
Distance (mi)
Elevation A
Weighted A
Days Normal
Days Antecedent
DESERT RESORTS RGNL AP
33.6267, -116.1594
-118.11
6.222
295.97
4.642
11242
90
MECCA FIRE STN
33.5697, -116.0731
-183.071
6.339
64.961
3.264
110
0
INDIO FIRE STN
33.7086, -116.2153
-20.997
6.508
97.113
3.561
1
0
Appendix B Site Photographs
Appendix B: Site Photographs
Photo 1: View looking east at an ephemeral drainage in the northern portion of the project
site.
Photo 2: View looking north at an ephemeral drainage in the northern portion of the project
site.
Travertine Project B-1
Delineation of State and Federal Jurisdictional Waters
Appendix B: Site Photographs
Photo 3: View looking east at ephemeral drainage in the northern portion of the project site.
Photo 4: View looking east at ephemeral drainage in the northern portion of the project
site.
Travertine Project B-2
Delineation of State and Federal Jurisdictional Waters
Appendix B: Site Photographs
Photo 5: View looking east at an ephemeral drainage in the northeastern portion of the
project site.
Photo 6: View looking northwest at an ephemeral drainage in the eastern portion of the
project site.
Travertine Project B-3
Delineation of State and Federal Jurisdictional Waters
Appendix B: Site Photographs
Photo 7: View looking southwest at an ephemeral drainage in the central portion of the project
site.
Photo 8: View looking northwest at an ephemeral drainage and desert dry wash woodland in
the western portion of the project site.
Travertine Project B-4
Delineation of State and Federal Jurisdictional Waters
Appendix B: Site Photographs
Photo 9: View looking west at an ephemeral drainage and desert dry wash woodland in the
central portion of the project site.
Photo 10: View looking west at an ephemeral drainage feature in the central portion of the
project site.
Travertine Project B-5
Delineation of State and Federal Jurisdictional Waters
Appendix B: Site Photographs
Photo 11: View looking southwest at an ephemeral drainage feature in the western portion of
the project site.
Photo 12: View looking southwest at an ephemeral drainage feature in the southern portion of
the project site.
Travertine Project B-6
Delineation of State and Federal Jurisdictional Waters
Appendix B: Site Photographs
Photo 13: View looking southwest at an ephemeral drainage feature in the southwestern
portion of the project site.
Photo 14: View looking southeast at multiple ephemeral drainage features and desert dry wash
woodland in the southern portion of the project site.
Travertine Project B-7
Delineation of State and Federal Jurisdictional Waters
Appendix B: Site Photographs
Photo 15: View looking east at an ephemeral drainage feature and desert dry wash woodland
in the southeastern portion of the project site.
Photo 16: View looking southeast at an ephemeral drainage feature and desert dry wash
woodland in the southeastern portion of the project site.
Travertine Project B-8
Delineation of State and Federal Jurisdictional Waters
Appendix B: Site Photographs
Photo 17: View looking northeast at non jurisdictional uplands in the southeastern portion of
the project site.
Photo 18: View looking east at non jurisdictional uplands (historic vineyard) in the central
portion of the project site.
Travertine Project B-9
Delineation of State and Federal Jurisdictional Waters
Appendix B: Site Photographs
Photo 19: View looking northwest at Soil Pit 1 in a depressional area in the eastern portion of
the project site.
Photo 20: View looking east at Soil Pit 2 in an ephemeral drainage feature in the central
portion of the project site.
Travertine Project B-10
Delineation of State and Federal Jurisdictional Waters
Appendix C Data Forms
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Arid West Region
Project/Site: Travertine Proiect City/County: La Quinta/Riverside
Applicant/Owner: TRD Land, Inc.
Sampling Date: 2/18/21
State: CA Sampling Point: SP1
Investigator(s): Tim Tidwell, Josephine Lim Section, Township, Range: Sections 4,5,33: Range 7E:Township 6,7S
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): basin
Subregion (LRR): C -Mediterranean
Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope (%): 0-1
Lat: 33.596376° Long: -116.250553°
Soil Map Unit Name: Carsitas cobblv sand, 2 to 9 percent slopes
NWI classification: NA
Datum:
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ✓ No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation , Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes ✓ No
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland? Yes No ✓
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0 (A)
Remarks:
SP1 performed within a depression (former basin). Trash and debris present in basin and soil profile.
VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants.
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30'
)
Absolute
% Cover
Dominant Indicator
Species? Status
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0 (A)
1.
2.
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 1 (B)
3.
4.
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0 (NB)
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:
15'
0
= Total Cover
Y
NL
)
5
1. Acacia greggii
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
2. Larrea tridentata
1
N
NL
3. Parkinsonia florida
1
N
NL
OBL species x 1 =
4,
FACW species x 2 =
5,
FAC species x 3 =
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5'
)
7
= Total Cover
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
1.
Column Totals: 0 (A) (B)
2.
Prevalence Index = B/A = 0
3
4.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
_ Dominance Test is >50%
_ Prevalence Index is <_3.0'
_ Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
5.
6.
7.
$
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:
0
= Total Cover
)
1.
2.
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum
80
0
= Total Cover
0
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No ✓
% Cover of Biotic Crust
Remarks:
Dead herbs present within the vicinity of SP1.
US Army Corps of Engineers
Arid West — Version 2.0
SOIL
Sampling Point: SP1
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm
Depth Matrix Redox Features
the absence of indicators.)
Texture Remarks
clay loam
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches):
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type' Loc2
0-16 10 YR 3/3 100 - - - -
Saturation Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches):
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C)
Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR B)
Black Histic (A3) _ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) _ Reduced Vertic (F18)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) _ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) _ Red Parent Material (TF2)
Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C) Depleted Matrix (F3) Other (Explain in Remarks)
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D) _ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) _ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Thick Dark Surface (Al2) Redox Depressions (F8) 3lndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) _ Vernal Pools (F9) wetland hydrology must be present,
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Type:
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
✓
Depth (inches):
Remarks:
Trash and debris are noted within the soil pit.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
Surface Water (A1) _ Salt Crust (B11) _ Water Marks (B1) (Riverine)
High Water Table (A2) _ Biotic Crust (B12) _ Sediment Deposits (B2) (Riverine)
Saturation (A3) _ Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) _ Drift Deposits (B3) (Riverine)
Water Marks (B1) (Nonriverine) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) Drainage Patterns (B10)
Sediment Deposits (B2) (Nonriverine) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) _ Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
Drift Deposits (B3) (Nonriverine) _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
✓ Surface Soil Cracks (B6) _ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) _ Thin Muck Surface (C7) _ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Water -Stained Leaves (B9) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ FAC -Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches):
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ✓ No
Water Table Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches):
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers
Arid West — Version 2.0
WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM — Arid West Region
Project/Site: Travertine Proiect City/County: La Quinta/Riverside
Applicant/Owner: TRD Land, Inc.
Sampling Date: 2/18/21
State: CA Sampling Point: SP2
Investigator(s): Tim Tidwell, Josephine Lim Section, Township, Range: Sections 4,5,33: Range 7E:Township 6,7S
Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.): Channel
Subregion (LRR): C -Mediterranean
Soil Map Unit Name: NA
Local relief (concave, convex, none): Concave Slope (%): 0-1
Lat: 33.597986° Long: -116.257198°
NWI classification: NA
Datum:
Are climatic / hydrologic conditions on the site typical for this time of year? Yes ✓ No (If no, explain in Remarks.)
Are Vegetation , Soil or Hydrology significantly disturbed? Are "Normal Circumstances" present? Yes ✓ No
Are Vegetation Soil or Hydrology naturally problematic? (If needed, explain any answers in Remarks.)
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS — Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Is the Sampled Area
within a Wetland?
Yes
No
✓
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
10 Y
2.
Remarks:
SP2 performed within channel of ephemeral drainage.
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 1 (B)
3.
VEGETATION — Use scientific names of plants.
Tree Stratum (Plot size: 30'
)
Absolute Dominant Indicator
% Cover Species? Status
NL
Dominance Test worksheet:
Number of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0 (A)
1. Parkinsonia florida
10 Y
2.
Total Number of Dominant
Species Across All Strata: 1 (B)
3.
4.
Percent of Dominant Species
That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: 0 (NB)
Sapling/Shrub Stratum (Plot size:
15'
10 = Total Cover
)
1.
Prevalence Index worksheet:
Total % Cover of: Multiply by:
2.
3.
OBL species x 1 =
4,
FACW species x 2 =
5,
FAC species x 3 =
Herb Stratum (Plot size: 5'
)
0 = Total Cover
FACU species x 4 =
UPL species x 5 =
1.
Column Totals: 0 (A) (B)
2.
Prevalence Index = B/A = 0
3.
4.
Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators:
_ Dominance Test is >50%
_ Prevalence Index is <_3.0'
_ Morphological Adaptations' (Provide supporting
data in Remarks or on a separate sheet)
Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation' (Explain)
'Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must
be present, unless disturbed or problematic.
5.
6.
7.
$
Woody Vine Stratum (Plot size:
0 = Total Cover
)
1.
2.
% Bare Ground in Herb Stratum
100
0 = Total Cover
Hydrophytic
Vegetation
Present? Yes No ✓
% Cover of Biotic Crust 0
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers
Arid West — Version 2.0
SOIL
Sampling Point: SP2
Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm
Depth Matrix Redox Features
the absence of indicators.)
Texture Remarks
sand
(inches) Color (moist) % Color (moist) % Type' Loc2
0-8 2.5Y 4/3 100 - - - -
Water Table Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches):
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
'Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix, CS=Covered or Coated Sand Grains. 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, M=Matrix.
Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.) Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3:
Histosol (A1) Sandy Redox (S5) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C)
Histic Epipedon (A2) Stripped Matrix (S6) 2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR B)
Black Histic (A3) _ Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) _ Reduced Vertic (F18)
Hydrogen Sulfide (A4) _ Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2) _ Red Parent Material (TF2)
Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C) Depleted Matrix (F3) Other (Explain in Remarks)
1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D) _ Redox Dark Surface (F6)
Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11) _ Depleted Dark Surface (F7)
Thick Dark Surface (Al2) Redox Depressions (F8) 3lndicators of hydrophytic vegetation and
Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1) _ Vernal Pools (F9) wetland hydrology must be present,
Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) unless disturbed or problematic.
Restrictive Layer (if present):
Type: Rock/Cobble
Hydric Soil Present? Yes No ✓
Depth (inches): 8
Remarks:
No redoximorphic features identified. Significant cobble throughout profile. Sand collapses within soil pit
while digging.
HYDROLOGY
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators (minimum of one required; check all that apply) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
Surface Water (A1) _ Salt Crust (B11) _ Water Marks (B1) (Riverine)
High Water Table (A2) _ Biotic Crust (B12) ✓ Sediment Deposits (B2) (Riverine)
Saturation (A3) _ Aquatic Invertebrates (B13) ✓ Drift Deposits (B3) (Riverine)
Water Marks (B1) (Nonriverine) Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1) ✓ Drainage Patterns (B10)
✓ Sediment Deposits (B2) (Nonriverine) _ Oxidized Rhizospheres along Living Roots (C3) _ Dry -Season Water Table (C2)
Drift Deposits (B3) (Nonriverine) _ Presence of Reduced Iron (C4) _ Crayfish Burrows (C8)
Surface Soil Cracks (B6) _ Recent Iron Reduction in Tilled Soils (C6) _ Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9)
Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7) _ Thin Muck Surface (C7) _ Shallow Aquitard (D3)
Water -Stained Leaves (B9) _ Other (Explain in Remarks) _ FAC -Neutral Test (D5)
Field Observations:
Surface Water Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches):
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ✓ No
Water Table Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches):
Saturation Present? Yes No ✓ Depth (inches):
(includes capillary fringe)
Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available:
Remarks:
US Army Corps of Engineers
Arid West — Version 2.0
Arid West Ephemeral and Intermittent Streams OHWM Datasheet
Project: 1 i4IitQ, Date: 0-11q(2.1 Time: c9-:30FM.
Project Number: Town: State:
Stream: Photo begin file#: Photo end file#:
Investigator(s): J Lim
Yj / N ❑ Do normal circumstances
exist on the site?
disturbed?
Location Details:
Noailuii poi-ri)1
Projection: Datum:
Coordinates:
Y • /N al Is the site significantly
Potential anthropogenic influences on the channel system:
ja -(-b *I/kJ !
Brief site description:
51;0'010- VVA•511
Checklist of resources (if available):
al Aerial photography ❑ Stream gage data
Dates: Gage number:
JXTopographic maps Period of record:
n Geologic maps ❑ History of recent effective discharges
Vegetation maps fl Results of flood frequency analysis
Soils maps J 1 Most recent shift -adjusted rating
Rainfall/precipitation maps n Gage heights for 2-, 5-, 10-, and 25 -year events and the
Ell Existing delineation(s) for site most recent event exceeding a 5 -year event
a Global positioning system (GPS)
❑ Other studies
Procedure for identifying
1. Walk the channel and floodplain
vegetation present at the
2. Select a representative cross
3. Determine a point on the
a) Record the floodplain
b) Describe the sediment
floodplain unit.
c) Identify any indicators
4. Repeat for other points
5. Identify the OHWM and
Mapping
I1 Digitized
Hydrogeomorphic Floodplain Units
Active Floodplain
Low Terrace
the OHWM:
geomorphology and
label the floodplain units.
floodplain units.
characteristics of the
cross section.
OHWM
units to
get an impression
the cross
of one of
class size) and
units
OHWM position
GPS
Other: N lEP1
/
Paleo Channel
assist in identifying
of the
section and
the hydrogeomorphic
the vegetation
across the
via:
Coln/47A-
-_moi/
Low -Flow Channels
and characterizing the floodplain
within the study area to
site.
section across the channel. Draw
cross section that is characteristic
unit and GPS position.
texture (using the Wentworth
present at the location.
in different hydrogeomorphic floodplain
record the indicators. Record the
on aerial photograph
on computer
Wentworth Size Classes
Inches (in)
Millimeters (mm)
Wentworth size class
Boulder
10.08 —
— - 256
-
2.56 —
— - 64
Cobble -
15
Pebble
6
0.157 —
— _ 4
Granule
0-079
2.00
Very coarse sand
0.039 —
— - 1.00
-
Coarse sand
0-020 —
— - 050
v
Medium sand
G
112 0.0098 —
Fine sand
1/4 0.005 —
-- - 0125
-
Very fine sand
1/8 — 0 0025
0.0625
Coarse sill
1116 0.0012 —
— -- 0.031
Medium silt
1/32 0 00061 —
— - 0.0156
-
Fine silt
1/64 0.00031 —
— - 0.0078
-
Very fine silt
11128 — 0 00015-
0.0039
Clay
-9
l 2 3 4 5 6 7 IN
11111111111111111111111 111111 'I'I'I' 1111 111 11111
1) r _
Project ID:
Cross section ID:
Date:
Time:
Cross section drawing:
r
OHWM
GPS point: DPW WI
Indicators:
Change in average sediment texture Break in bank slope
Change in vegetation species ❑ Other:
Change in vegetation cover ❑ Other:
Comments:
VQ5tTM C 4(-15 a(K't vL G4mi,nit , . ,5)svti°f sC r
61ne641rv1- sr -
Floodplain unit: JLow-Flow Channel
GPS point: SGtIAL fik.J0
❑ Active Floodplain ❑ Low Terrace
Characteristics of the floodplain unit:
Average sediment texture: ✓ -kfr2, JA iiii
Total veg cover: % Tt e: % Shrub: - % Herb: %
Community successional stage:
❑ NA I -Mid (herbaceous, shrubs, saplings)
❑ Early (herbaceous & seedlings) ❑ Late (herbaceous, shrubs, mature trees)
Indicators:
n Mudcracks Soil development
❑r Ripples Surface relief
Drift and/or debris Other:
Presence of bed and bank E Other:
❑ Benches n Other:
Comments:
Project ID:
Cross section ID:
Date:
Time:
Floodplain unit: ❑ Low -Flow Channel
GPS point:
Characteristics of the floodplain unit:
Average sediment texture:
Total veg cover: % Tree:
Community successional stage:
n NA
❑ Early (herbaceous & seedlings)
Indicators:
[1 Mudcracks
❑ Ripples
❑ Drift and/or debris
❑ Presence of bed and bank
❑ Benches
Comments:
❑ Active Floodplain
% Shrub: % Herb:
n
Mid (herbaceous,
Late (herbaceous,
❑ Low Terrace
shrubs, saplings)
shrubs, mature trees)
❑ Soil development
❑ Surface relief
❑ Other:
❑ Other:
❑ Other:
Floodplain unit: 0 Low -Flow Channel
GPS point:
Characteristics of the floodplain unit:
Average sediment texture:
Total veg cover: % Tree:
Community successional stage:
❑ NA
O Early (herbaceous & seedlings)
Indicators:
❑ Mudcracks
❑ Ripples
❑ Drift and/or debris
❑ Presence of bed and bank
❑ Benches
Comments:
❑ Active Floodplain
Shrub: % Herb:
0 Low Terrace
❑ Mid (herbaceous, shrubs, saplings)
❑ Late (herbaceous, shrubs, mature trees)
❑ Soil development
E Surface relief
n Other:
❑ Other:
❑ Other:
Arid West Ephemeral and Intermittent Streams OHWM Datasheet
Project: TAy lye- Date: a,� IS I Z; Time: a apt''''
Project Number: Town: State:
Stream: Photo begin file#: Photo end file#:
lnvestigator(s):1TdIiat J. 1.4 IA
exist on the site?
disturbed?
Location Details:
Y II/ N ❑ Do normal circumstances
Y ❑ / N ❑ Is the site significantly
Projection: Datum:
Coordinates:
Potential anthropogenic influences on the channel system:
PiN n eStri clotAniAtt, okd ja tavt,t- 4-0 Aver) lA.:`C. (,;- - S WL1_, -IYASln 15 VI i 1;:.)62, -
Lcc.'L rwatltet, hlk, altmh iikg. roam .
Brief site description:
St O? I r&sA
Checklist of resources (if available):
Iv Aerial photography ❑ Stream gage data
Dates: Gage number:
j Topographic maps Period of record:
n Geologic maps ❑ History of recent effective discharges
0 Vegetation maps ❑ Results of flood frequency analysis
laSoils maps ❑ Most recent shift -adjusted rating
Rainfall/precipitation maps ❑ Gage heights for 2-, 5-, 10-, and 25 -year events and the
❑ Existing delineation(s) for site most recent event exceeding a 5 -year event
0 Global positioning system (GPS)
El Other studies io X5 GIP)ItteAo{1O(IS
Procedure for identifying
1. Walk the channel and floodplain
vegetation present at the
2. Select a representative cross
3. Determine a point on the
a) Record the floodplain
b) Describe the sediment
floodplain unit.
c) Identify any indicators
4. Repeat for other points
5. Identify the OHWM and
Mapping
Digitized
Hydrogeomorphic floodplain Units
Active Floodplain
Low Terrace
the OHWM:
geomorphology and
label the floodplain units.
floodplain units.
characteristics of the
cross section.
r^.
Low -Flow
and characterizing
within the
site.
section across
cross section that
unit and GPS position.
texture (using the
present at the location.
in different hydrogeomorphic
record the indicators.
on aerial photograph
on computer
Paleo Channel
assist in identifying
of the
section and
the hydrogeomorphic
the vegetation
across the
via:
l kon Colo
Channels OHWM
the floodplain units to
study area to get an impression
the channel. Draw the cross
is characteristic of one of
Wentworth class size) and
floodplain units
Record the OHWM position
M GPS
®' Other: N
Wentworth Size Classes
Inches (in)
Millimeters (mm)
Wentworth size class
Boulder
10.08 —
— - 256
-
2.56 —
— - 64
Cobble -
g
Pebble
C7
0157 —
— _ 4
Granule
0.079
2 00
Very coarse sand
0.039 —
--- - 1 00
-
Coarse sand
0020 —
— - 050
-
v
Medium sand
R
1/2 0.0098 —
— - 0.25
-
u)
Fine sand
1/4 0.005 —
— - 0125
-
118 — 0
Very tine sand
0025
0.0625
Coarse silt
1(16 0.0012 —
— - 0.031
-
Medium silt
1(32 0 00061 —
— - 0.0156
-
Fine silt
1/64 0 00031 —
— - 0.0078
-
Very fine silt
11128 — 0 00015
0 0039
v
Clay
0 rin 1 2 3 4 5 6
111111111[11111 1111111 1111 11J 1 1 111
n
Project ID:
Cross section ID:
Date:
Time:
OHWM
GPS point: _04(Y1
Indicators:
XChange in average sediment texture Break in bank slope
Change in vegetation species Other:
OK Change in vegetation cover ❑ Other:
Comments:
dr f /seitthlte4fr say v pyc- f'
Floodplain unit: 14 Low -Flow Channel
GPS point: SeiiWw
D Active Floodplain
Characteristics of the floodplain unit: ,}
Average sediment texture: V 41 InSSG n d
Total vcg cover: % Trc : % Shrub: 1
Community successional stage:
❑ NA
7 Early (herbaceous & seedlings)
indicators:
❑ Mudcracks
❑ Ripples
I Drift and/or debris
IVPresence of bed and bank
Benches
Comments:
% Herb:
❑ Low Terrace
Mid (herbaceous, shrubs, saplings)
Late (herbaceous, shrubs, mature trees)
Soil development
Surface relief
Other:
❑ Other:
n Other:
Project ID:
Cross section ID:
Date:
Time:
Floodplain unit: ❑ Low -Flow Channel
GPS point:
Characteristics of the floodplain unit:
Average sediment texture:
Total veg cover: % Tree:
Community successional stage:
n NA
❑ Early (herbaceous & seedlings)
Indicators:
❑ Mudcracks
❑ Ripples
❑ Drift and/or debris
❑ Presence of bed and bank
❑ Benches
Comments:
❑ Active Floodplain
% Shrub: % Herb:
❑ Low Terrace
Fl Mid (herbaceous, shrubs, saplings)
n Late (herbaceous, shrubs, mature trees)
❑ Soil development
n Surface relief
O Other:
n Other:
❑ Other:
Floodplain unit: Li Low -Flow Channel
GPS point:
Characteristics of the floodplain unit:
Average sediment texture:
Total veg cover: % Tree:
Community successional stage:
❑ NA
❑ Early (herbaceous & seedlings)
Indicators:
n Mudcracks
❑ Ripples
❑ Drift and/or debris
❑ Presence of bed and bank
❑ Benches
Comments:
Active Floodplain
% Shrub: % Herb:
f1
Mid (herbaceous,
Late (herbaceous,
LJ Low Terrace
shrubs, saplings)
shrubs, mature trees)
Fl Soil development
E Surface relief
❑ Other:
❑ Other:
n Other:
Arid West Ephemeral and Intermittent Streams OHWM Datasheet
Project: 7rcer-/- . e Date: e -/g - z/
Project Number: Town: Le, ck?0,0-46,.
Stream: Photo begin file#:
Investigators): ., 17 �u� p C/ 1 ffe e L4 S
Y [I / N ❑ Do normal circumstances exist on the site?
Y / N ❑ Is the site significantly disturbed?
Location Details:
Time:
State:C
Photo end file#:
7'g9 05
Projection:
Coordinates:
Datu rn:
Potential anthropogenic influences on tate channel system:
i+re fIra 4-‹ Arel,-r 0 - V(Y.rt c,c/$Ur fiy rb, C Gotme1
aki 1' v e yam, of 5 fa 5O *1-h , 124 r ;5 f Sh pr. -54'4 -774 -
Brief site description:
Z. r? r pvd' rerJ
5u�5ff�r-�P
5 Uer�!
cc Sh . jc,[c 5 S.
lU (4-1 et, "pi +0
5°I^ •1 , / r r. P i'CS r >t- 5 0 4,
s
Checklist of resources (if available):
7 Aerial photography
Dates: 7- ?c77 p
❑ Topographic maps
n Geologic maps
❑ Vegetation maps
❑ Soils maps
n Rainfall/precipitation maps
y Existing delineation(s) for site
❑ Global positioning system (GPS)
❑ Other studies
Stream gage data
Gage number:
Period of record:
❑ History of recent effective discharges
n Results of flood frequency analysis
n Most recent shift -adjusted rating
n Gage heights for 2-, 5-, 10-, and 25 -year events and the
most recent event exceeding a 5 -year event
Hydrogeomorphic Floodplain Units
Active Floodplain
.Low Terrace
Low -Row Channels
OHWM Paleo Channel
Procedure for identifying and characterizing the floodplain units to assist in identifying the OHWM:
1. Walk the channel and floodplain within the study area to get an impression of the geomorphology and
vegetation present at the site.
2. Select a representative cross section across the channel. Draw the cross section and label the floodplain units.
3. Determine a point on the cross section that is characteristic of one of the hydrogeomorphic floodplain units.
a) Record the floodplain unit and GPS position.
b) Describe the sediment texture (using the Wentworth class size) and the vegetation characteristics of the
floodplain unit.
c) Identify any indicators present at the location.
4. Repeat for other points in different hydrogeomorphic floodplain units across the cross section.
5. Identify the OHWM and record the indicators. Record the OHWM position via:
17 Mapping on aerial photograph n GPS
0 Digitized on computer ❑ Other:
Wentworth Size Classes
Inches (in)
Millimeters (mm)
Wentworth size class
Boulder
10.08 —
— - 256
Cobble
-
m
2.56 —
— - 64
- ;S
Pebble
C7
0157 —
— - 4 — -,
— — — —
Granule
-
0079
200
Very coarse sand
0.039 —
— - 1.00
-
Coarse sand
0.020 —
1/2 0.0098 —
— - 0 50
— - 0 25
Medium sand
- 0
- rn
Fine sand
114 0005 —
-- - 0125
-
Very fine sand
1/8 — 0, 0025
0.0625
Coarse silt
1116 0.0012 —
— - 0.031
-
Medium sift
1/32 0 00061 —
— - 0.0156
Fine silt
1/64 0.00031 —
— - 0.0078
-
Very fine silt
1/125 — 0 00015
0 0039
Clay
-3
pnIIIII Iiiulniilnn111111 11111lin11111 IIniliaajln11111 111111111IIIII1
41�rn 1 2 3 4 5 (r
111111111111111 11111111111
Din 1
111 1111I111I1111111111111
rft-n rr4 y-1 Ago
Project ID: Cross section ID:175 - 1 wt Date: 71 1 S /t Time: Z ; 4- ra,,.,
Cross section drawing: Loc
't t(' C k 5
1
rmir(fD 5
uJ
tip r-fren 14.1
«66 '7,7e,-Hu'1I
OHWM
GPS point: } k -n-
Indicators:
Indicators:
gui,Change in average sediment texture Break in bank slope
y Change in vegetation species m Other: pzi;,,n b -'Y,5
41 Change in vegetation cover [] Other: p,,,, -/e N, p ii
CIv, K rp I rt Ii k
Comments:
Floodplain unit: Low -Flow Channel
GPS point:
wNa cf-5 D5- Tv,
F Active Floodplain
L,a nate_ cc r'/
Characteristics of the floodplain unit:
Average sediment texture: UerN Coc (V- 14r,d cr gm 6'C r
/G %
Total veg cover: /0 % Tree:
Community successional stage:
❑ NA
❑ Early (herbaceous & seedlings)
Indicators:
❑ Muderacks 0 Soil development
❑ Ripples ❑ Surface relief
2Drift and/or debris Other: Ova i
Presence of bed and bank Other: - d,0u,e n t GIG 114514 r
Benches ❑ Other:
Shrub:
% Herb:
ado
❑ Low Terrace
Fly err, 7 :c
❑ Mid (herbaceous, shrubs, saplings)
[II Late (herbaceous, shrubs, mature trees)
C�Yf�1'ur i oy \1cA.P 1 °#' k!rav,c $'
?-#-fe rv5
Comments:
C to h Hel /Yo-IArrcr pre5pem!
52-ic c k .5 tr 004d c/nee. S_
Prof ect ID: Cross section ID: Date: Time:
Floodplain unit: ❑ Low -Flow Channel
GPS point:
❑ Active Floodplain ❑ Low Terrace
Characteristics of the floodplain unit:
Average sediment texture:
Total veg cover: % Tree: % Shrub:
Community successional stage:
❑ NA
❑ Early (herbaceous & seedlings)
Indicators:
❑ Mudcracks
❑ Ripples
n Drift and/or debris
❑ Presence of bed and bank
❑ Benches
Comments:
Vo Herb:
OA
n Mid (herbaceous, shrubs, saplings)
O Late (herbaceous, shrubs, mature trees)
n Soil development
O Surface relief
n Other:
❑ Other:
❑ Other:
Floodplain unit:
GPS point:
Low -Flow Channel
Characteristics of the floodplain unit:
Average sediment texture:
Total veg cover: % Tree:
Community successional stage:
❑ NA
❑ Early (herbaceous & seedlings)
Indicators:
❑ Mudcracks
❑ Ripples
❑ Drift and/or debris
❑ Presence of bed and bank
❑ Benches
Comments:
O Active Floodplain
% Shrub:
% Herb:
0 Low Terrace
Lj Mid (herbaceous, shrubs, saplings)
El Late (herbaceous, shrubs, mature trees)
O Soil development
n Surface relief
❑ Other:
❑ Other:
O Other:
Arid West Ephemeral and Intermittent Streams OHWM Datasheet
Project: Tr,4«f,„� Date: 2/+4t/ -i Time: 12. El,
Project Number: Town: State: (4„
Stream: Photo begin file#: Photo end file#:
Invest' tor(s): TT,RP, TZ \A-5. 7'g3 i7y 72
Y / N ❑ Do normal circumstances
exist on the site?
disturbed?
Location Details:
Projection: Datum:
Coordinates:
1711/N la Is the site significantly
Potential anthropogenic influences on the channel system: e d, .1„.s /..-t1 s, 4
veim.0 lic5 j( .- _ J -4,c-4”.
Brief site description: oe1 �l „i �- ...t_. IIµ,,, ( ey �I rh.l-e ct r i. se#e
! y� r Nr- fir, r r. 1 �t.rl s 1 �.
f? -01 it" 6 Sorrb,..Nd, n1
Chec st of resources (if available):
Aerial photography ❑ Stream gage data
Dates: Gage number:
❑ Topographic maps Period of record:
❑ Geologic maps Pf History of recent effective discharges
❑ Vegetation maps ❑ Results of flood frequency analysis
❑ Soils maps 1 l Most recent shift -adjusted rating
❑ Rainfall/precipitation maps n Gage heights for 2-, 5-, 10-, and 25 -year events and the
❑ sting delineation(s) for site most recent event exceeding a 5 -year event
Global positioning system (GPS)
Er Other studies (pie v. rnapr, l)
Procedure for identifying
1. Walk the channel and floodplain
vegetation present at the
2. Select a representative cross
3. Determine a point on the
a) Record the floodplain
b) Describe the sediment
floodplain unit.
c) Identify any indicators
4. Repeat for other points
5. Identify the OHWM and
❑ Mapping
Hydrogeomorphic Floodplain Units
Active Floodplain
Low Terrace
the OHWM:
geomorphology and
label the floodplain units.
floodplain units.
characteristics of the
cross section.
Channels OHWM
the floodplain units to
study area to get an impression
the channel. Draw the cross
is characteristic of one of
Wentworth class size) and
flood lain units
Record t OHWM position
GPS
0 Other:
Paleo Channel
assist in identifying
of the
section and
the hydrogeomorphic
the vegetation
across the
via:
Low -Flow
and characterizing
within the
site.
section across
cross section that
unit and GPS position.
texture (using the
present at the location.
in different hydrogeomorphic
record the indicators.
on aerial photograph
on computer
• Digitized
Wentworth Size Classes
Inches (in)
Millimeters (mm)
Wentworth size class
Boulder
10.08 -
- - 256 - -
-- - - - -
Cobble
lii
2-56 -
- - 64
-
;
Pebble
6
0157 -
- - 4 - -
--- - - -
Granule
0.079
2 00
Very coarse sand
0.039 -
- - 1.00 - -
- - - - -
Coarse Sand
0.020 -
--- - 0 50
-
c
Medium sand
2
112 0.0098 -
- - 0-25
-
Fine sand
1/4 0.005 -
- - 0125
-
Very fine sand
1/8 - 0.0025
0.0625
Coarse silt
1116 0.0012 -
-- - 0.031
-
Medium silt
1/32 0.00061 -
- - 0 0156
-
in
Fine sip
1/64 0.00031 -
- - 0.0078
-
Very fine sip
1/128 - 0.00015
0 0039
Clay
2
r),, 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
111ll1II111111 11 111111 1 111111111111 I
iIillIi lIl1lI
Project ID:
Cross section ID: /
Date:
Time:
Cross section drawing:\
�0$14A �NwA� 11T
OHWM
GPS point: �� ?
Indicato
[Change in average sediment texture R Break in bank slope
❑ hange in vegetation species n Other:
L J Change in vegetation cover ❑ Other:
Comments: ,--�. ►� n G�n�•,r& ( nv44 to i pc OH ,
.t.nj
5'7C / !rA A Anti r (; 6k>/et? - %ve D# ,try-1114tir, brick Ik4, we 4.1- eo ♦!�+r .`! ri
a/cn' bm.45 :n t✓p4id C tea,' b.t„ L !.• 4 k
Floodplain unit: I i,IrLow-Flow Channel ❑ Active Floodplain 0 Low Terrace
GPS point: DS
Characteristics of the floodplain unit:
Average sediment texture: 0.5 1 ov* ync1- ft rri Sri it,
Total vcg cover: b % Tree: % Shrub: % Herb:
Comma ty successional stage:
L 1' NA ❑ Mid (herbaceous, shrubs, saplings)
n Early (herbaceous & seedlings) ❑ Late (herbaceous, shrubs, mature trees)
Indicators:
❑ Mudcracks 1-7)1611 development
0 Ripples Surface relief
❑�r
rift and/or debris n Other:
esence of bed and bank ❑ Other:
enches 0 Other:
Comments:
Clea be CI PIA bAYk Oltel k- ,n 4.1+4 Sloe- - benedes-co0.,J Ahort (>Noso
0117)( 1 A elf. vort o% pioCit -C pre F►,e o FP 40 041^ef ,
Project ID:
Cross section 1D:
Date:
Tame:
Floodplain unit: ❑ Low -Flow Channel
GPS point:L T — !
O Active Floodplain
Characteristics of the floodplain unit:
Average sediment texture: p.A
Total veg cover: S % Tree: % Shrub: % Herb: S
Community successional stage:
D
Early (herbaceous & seedlings)
Indicators:
❑ Mudcracks
❑ pples
❑ rift and/or debris
Presence of bed and bank
O Benches
Comments:
,1.40+(t— r£ I,e-1 urtid 3om�
4c,fs et
4-0 vier/1na_
•R
C Low Terrace
❑ Mid (herbaceous, shrubs, saplings)
❑ Late (herbaceous, shrubs, mature trees)
❑ y5oi1 development
rface relief
Other: 5e ns -14 .�
Other: Gt+� e < n v e !, G e vil/
❑ Other:
it9 re. A,,
a icy /cavi 4 fti
t f. `I 4 rCr. y, 4, Lin �rrC�v► a
Floodplain unit: ❑ Low -Flow Channel
GPS point:
Characteristics of the floodplain unit:
Average sediment texture:
% Shrub: % Herb:
Total veg cover: % Tree:
Community successional stage:
n NA
❑ Early (herbaceous & seedlings)
❑ Active Floodplain 0 Low Terrace
Indicators:
❑ Mudcracks
❑ Ripples
❑ Drift and/or debris
❑ Presence of bed and bank
n Benches
Comments:
O Mid (herbaceous, shrubs, saplings)
O Late (herbaceous, shrubs, mature trees)
❑ Soil development
n Surface relief
❑ Other:
❑ Other:
O Other:
Arid West Ephemeral and Intermittent Streams OHWM Datasheet
Project:
Project Number:
Stream:
Investigator(s): ' P
Y N ❑ Do normal circumstances exist on the site?
Y ❑ / N MTs the site significantly disturbed?
Date: 2/1021
Town:
Photo begin file#:
U.s . 36 3if
Location Details:
Time: t 2 9 F M
State: C
Photo end file#:
36 -7
Projection:
Coordinates:
Datum:
Potential anthropogenic influences on the channel system:
Brief site description: t,,,,,cr q
�l ub +A
Chc�klist of resources (if available):
Aerial photography
Dates:
n Topographic naps
❑ Geologic neaps
❑ Vegetation naps
❑ Soils maps
0❑ infall/precipitation maps
n isting delineation(s) for site
lobal positioning system (GPS)
Other studies r, c v. "r'° %)
❑ Strewn gage data
Gage number:
Period of record:
❑ History of recent effective discharges
❑ Results of flood frequency analysis
❑ Most recent shift -adjusted rating
❑ Gage heights for 2-, 5-, 10-, and 25 -year events and the
most recent event exceeding a 5 -year event
Hydrogeomorphic Floodplain Units
Active Floodplain
Low Terrace
Low -Flow Channels
OHWM
Paleo Channel
Procedure for identifying and characterizing the floodplain units to assist in identifying the OHWM:
1. Walk the channel and floodplain within the study area to get an impression of the geomorphology and
vegetation present at the site.
2. Select a representative cross section across the channel. Draw the cross section and label the floodplain units.
3. Determine a point on the cross section that is characteristic of one of the hydrogeomorphic floodplain units.
a) Record the floodplain unit and GPS position.
b) Describe the sediment texture (using the Wentworth class size) and the vegetation characteristics of the
floodplain unit.
c) Identify any indicators present at the location.
4. Repeat for other points in different hydrogeomorphic flo plain units across the cross section.
5. Identify the OHWM and record the indicators. Record e OHWM position via:
n Mapping on aerial photograph GPS
❑ Digitized on computer ❑ Other:
Wentworth Size Classes
Inches (n)
Millimeters (mm)
Wentworth size class
Boulder
10.08 -
- - 256 - --
- - - - -
Cobble
To
2 56 -
- - 64
-
g
Pebble
6
0157 -
- - 4 - -
- - - - -
Granule
0 079
2.00
Very coarse sand
0.039 -
- - 1-00
-
Coarse sand
0.020 -
- - 0 50 - -
- - --- -- -
c
Medium sand
1/2 0.0096 --
- - 0.25
-
Fine sand
1/4 0.005 -
- - 0125
-
Very fine sand
1/8 - 003025
0-0625
Coarse silt
1/16 0.0012 -
- - 0.031
-
1/32 0.00061 -
- - 0.0156
Medium silt
-
�,
Fine silt
1/64 0.00031 -
- - 0.0078
-
Very fine sift
11128 - 0.00015
0 0039
n
Clay
(1,f. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
I"11 [ 1111111 i11111ij111111' ' 1'I!III1111111
0 in 1 2
111111
Project ID:
Cross section ID:
Cross section drawing:
Date: 2/ie , Time: p44
OHWM
GPS point: C H W /h 2.
Indicator
Change in average sediment texture reak in bank slope
❑ Change in vegetation species C'Other: 5, -cd;;, e <
hange in vegetation cover (l Other:
Comments:
Se4.1, 1 cilopue I b d / coor f 0444( b/ 1^/ti► ,An4-1
tl,nn ►,e I &K5 504+-4441'i' oC.C.u'1 k</CV. O 44 wM
I ! cl►c�nee � /a‘�
, 30,-4, u fAand JO^ e5 01-(1-4,‘
Floodplain unit: ❑ Low -Flow Channel
GPS point:
Ll Active Floodplain n Low Terrace
Characteristics of the floodplain unit:
Average sediment texture: Ler( "-Nor
Total veg cover: /Q % Wee: % Shrub: S % Herb: 5—
Community successional stage:
❑ NA
❑ Early (herbaceous & seedlings)
Indicators:
❑ Mudcracks
❑ Ripples
rift and/or debris
Presence of bed and bank
❑ Benches
Comments:
Mid (herbaceous, shrubs, saplings)
❑ Late (herbaceous, shrubs, mature trees)
0 rl development
rface relief
Other: sarlo—cnt „I/,:-
O/Other: }i uy, Yc. ,` c n ��
LI Other:
any
t.
Cifor9Cr sr�d bMJ 1,i4 bica '� ��r 6/ p . .�cc!a.,.0.J,
64 r '/v:) ,mal /nits e,t ass, $ sA -C1065 Gtr le -e B 1—tel -
G iiShe d 40,4-6 H wM U,Ce,,4ccl .n A i) ,4. none be' I cw 1S h bV
Project ID: Cross section 10:
Date: /Time:
❑ Active Floodplain E Low Terrace
Floodplain unit: ❑ Low -Flow Channel
GPS point: LT
Characteristics of the floodplain unit:
Average sediment texture: r..661
Total veg cover: /C % Tree: % Shrub: f) % Herb: 5� %
Community successional stage:
❑ NA
❑ Early (herbaceous & seedlings)
Indicators:
❑ Mudcracks
❑ Ripples
• rill and/or debris
esence of bed and bank
Li/ Benches
Comments:
4,‘;41, , rd rr1/4“.
It d ),
r\d b•r% ,'ncl;
VN. -/lid (herbaceous, shrubs, saplings)
❑ Late (herbaceous, shrubs, mature trees)
❑ oil development
L Surface relief
R'Other: e cLrL p<, f s f4:,
❑ Other:
❑ Other:
4i2CCA , I 4 [ '.rI Beolc 4frs
s,ntller j,e, sn <,-re.
i
Floodplain unit: ❑ Low -Flow Channel
GPS point:
Characteristics of the floodplain unit:
Average sediment texture:
Total veg cover: % Tree:
Community successional stage:
❑ NA
❑ Early (herbaceous & seedlings)
Indicators:
❑ Mudcracks
❑ Ripples
❑ Drift and/or debris
❑ Presence of bed and bank
❑ Benches
Comments:
❑ Active Floodplain ❑ Low Terrace
Shrub: % Herb: %
n Mid (herbaceous, shrubs, saplings)
❑ Late (herbaceous, shrubs, mature trees)
❑ Soil development
❑ Surface relief
n Other:
❑ Other:
❑ Other:
New Mexico Environment Department Surface Water Quality Bureau
LEVEL 1 Hydrology Determination Field Sheet
Date: 2 y! -
Time: / .J 7 ,i
Evaluators: ff J 3� L
Stream Na e: I SiteDescrippttion:
WQS as found under NMAC (20.6.4): Assessment Unit: d -72 nI %u 1h
Starting Latitude: Ending Latitude: �+
Starting Longitude: Ending Longitude:
Starting Elevation:
TOTAL POINTS"
DROUGHT CONDITIONS:
Ending Elevation:
Nearest weather
station:
PAST 48 HOURS**:
CURRENTLY**:
WEATHER
12 -mo. SPi Value:
12 -mo. SPEI Value:
—storm (heavy rain)
— rain (steady rain)
storm (heavy rain)
— rain (steady rain)
CONDITIONS
Drought Condition:
Obtained from:
Date Obtained:
Precipitation past
48 hours:
intermittant rain
% cloud cover
clear/sunny
— intermittant rain
% cloud cover
clear/sunny
**Field evaluations should be performed at least 48 hours after the last major rainfall event
Nearest Stream Modification (description and proximity):
SITE OBSERVATIONS
ALONG ENTIRE
Nearest Diversion (description and proximity):
REACH
Nearest Discharge (description and proximity):
Include any and all modifications/discharges and diversions regardless of perceived impact to hydrologic regime
along with any field observations
CALCULATIONS FOR
DETERMINING
Thalwag Height
(#1)
�r
Bankfull Height
(#2)
'l
Change in Height (#1-
#2)
Change in
Height x 2 (#3)
/U N
Flood -prone Area Height
(#1-#3)
FLOODPLAIN AND
CHANNEL
`1.3f
w,c: 4/4
DIMENSIONS
Flood -prone width:
p
(Use for 1.8 on Field
Survey)'
Bankfull Width:
Rood -prone Width to Bankfull Width Ratio:
45"(
Alternative Methods used o
(describe)?
Time
Photo
Description
'
Identifiable References
Photographer
PHOTO
V - So �M
.#
X627
Lv ii tiq 100'1 uplAkm
—
—
DOCUMENTATION
Gt,4rj
(include additional
photographs as
attachment)
OTHER SITE
CHARACTERISTIC
NOTES/
SCHEMATICS
LEVEL 1
INDICATORS
1.1
Water In Channel
1.2
Fish in Channel
1.3
Benthic
Macroinvertebrates
in Channel
1.4
Filamentous
Algae/Periphytonin
Channel
1.5
Vegetation along
cooridor (within
floodplain)
Stream Condition (identify all that apply then choose most prominent score)
0 Flow is evident
throughout reach
0 How is observed in
riffles
0 Flow may not be evident
in runs
1.6
Rooted Upland
Plants in Channel
6
Notes/Comments:
❑ Found easily
0 Found consistently
throughout reach
3
Species Observed and
Notes/Comments:
0 Found easily
0 Found consistently
throughout reach
3
Species Observed and
Notes/Comments:
0 Found easily
0 Found consistently
throughout reach
3
Notes/Comments:
0 Wet Channel
0 Flow is barely
discernable
0 Floating object needed
to observe flow
4
❑ Dry Channel with
standing pools
0 Saturated or moist
sediment under
rocks/debris
❑ Evidence of base flows
2
® Dry Channel
❑ Dry under rocks/debris
0 No evidence of base
flows
COMM
0 Dramatic compositional
species difference between
upland and riparian
corridor
0 Distinct riparian corridor
exists along entire reach
❑ Riparian, aquatic or
wetland species dominate
entire reach
3
0 Found with little
difficulty
0 Not consistent
throughout reach
Species Observed and
Notes/Comments:
p Rooted upland plants
dare absent within the
streambed/thalweg
3
Species Observed and
Notes/Comments:
2
0 Found with difficulty (10
or more minutes of
searching)
1
b. Not present (after 10 or
more minutes of searching)
11171111111
0 Found with little
difficulty
0 Not consistent
throughout reach
2
0 Found with difficulty (10
or more minutes of
searching)
1
Fr Not present (after 10 or
more minutes of searching)
0 Found with little
difficulty
0 Not consistent
throughout reach
2
0 Found with difficulty (10
or more minutes of
searching)
1
Q Not present (after 10 or
more minutes of searching)
(0
0 Distinct riparian corridor
exists but not along entire
reach
0 Compositional species
difference between upland
and riparian corridor
0 Riparian species
interspersed with upland
species
2
IR Minimal compositional
species difference between
upland and riparian
corridor
0 Vegetation growing
along the riparian area
occurs in greater density or
grows more vigorously
than in the adjacent
uplands
0 No compositional
species difference between
upland and riparian
corridor
0 Vegetation growing
along the riparian cooridor
does not occur in greater
density or grow more
vigorously than in the
adjacent uplands
0
0 There are a few rooted
upland plants within the
strea mbed/thalweg
2
0 Rooted upland plants
are consistently dispersed
throughout the
streambed/thalweg
1
0 Rooted upland plants
are prevalent within the
streambed/thalweg
0
SUBTOTAL (1.1-1.6)
106rehC1 eh't cc 1/c)
6,6
Guic141=6.G,
1.7
Sinuosity of
Segment (for length
no less than two
meanders)
❑ Calculated ratio >1.4
0 Numerous closely
spaced bends
0 Few straight sections
0 Calculated ratio 1.4 <>
1.2
❑ Mostly bends
ti Some straight sections
0 Calculated ratio 1.2 <>
1.0
0 Few bends
0 Mostly straight sections
0 Calculated ratio = 1.0
0 Completely straight
3
!)
1
0
0 Calculated
*Observed
Notes/Comments:
1.8
Floodplain and
Channel Dimensions
❑ Calculated ratio > 2.5
❑ Minimally confined
0 Wide, active floodplain
',Calculated ratio 2.5 <> 1.2
'0 -Moderately confined
0 Floodplain active during larger
events
0 Calculated ratio < 1.2
0 Incised/confined channel
0 Flooplain absent or narrow
0 Floodplain not connected
3
i1:5)
0
❑ Calculated
01 -Observed
Notes/Comments:
1 9
In Channel
Structure: Riffle-
Pool Sequence
❑ Frequent number of
riffle and pools observed
throughout reach
❑ Obvious transition
between riffles and pools
0 Less frequent number of
riffle and pools
0 Transition between
riffles and pools difficult to
distinguish
3Mostly has areas of
ools or of riffles
0 No riffles or pools
observed
3
2
(1)
0
Notes/Comments:
SUBTOTAL (1.1-1.9)
1.10
Particle Size or
Stream Substrate
Sorting
'f .Particle sizes in the channel are
noticeably different from particle
sizes outside the channel in the flood-
.prone area.
EI,Clear distribution of various sized
substrates in the stream channel.
0 Particle sizes in the channel are 1❑
moderately similar to particle sizes
outside the channel in the flood-
prone area.
0 Various sized substrates are
present in the stream channel,
0 Higher ratio of larger particles
(eravel/cobblel.
Particle sizes in the channel are
similar or comparable to particle
sizes outside the channel in the flood
prone area.
0 Substrate sorting is not readily
observed in the stream channel.
(3)
1.5
0
❑ Calculated
0 -Observed
Notes/Comments:
1.11
Hydric Soils Within
Flood -Prone Area
0 Hydric soils were observed in reach
Ei(Hydric soils were not observed in reach
3
(0)
Notes/Comments:
1.12
Sediment on Plants
and Debris
❑ Sediment found readily
on plants and debris in:
0 channel
❑ streambank
❑ floodplain
0 Sediment found but riot
prevalent on plants and
debris.
0 Sediment mostly
accumlated on plants and
debris in pools
0 Sediment on plants and
debris is isolated in small
amounts along the sample
reach.
9 No sediment is present
on plants or debris.
1.5
1
0.5
_ /9
Notes/Comments:
1.13
0 Seeps and/or springs present in reach
D Seeps and/or springs not present in reach
1.5
p
Seeps and Springs
Notes/Comments: 1
1.14
0 Iron-oxizing bacteria/fungi present in reach
'. lron-oxizing bacteria/fungi not pressent in reach
Iron Oxidizing
1.5
r 0 ‘1
Bacteria/Fungi
Notes/Comments:
TOTAL POINTS (1.1-1.14)
Total <9, the stream is determined to be EPHEMERAL.
Total 59 and <12, the stream is determined to be INTERMITTENT until further analysis indicates otherwise
Total 2 12.0 and 519.0, the stream is determined to be INTERMITTENT
Total > 19.0 and 5 22.0, the stream is determined to be PERENNIAL until further analysis indicates otherwise
Total > 22.0, the stream is determined to be PERENNIAL.
New Mexico Environment Department Surface Water Quality Bureau
LEVEL 1 Hydrology Determination Field Sheet
Date: 01/ I $/ 21
Time: /,0012frvk
Evaluators:
Stream Name: Site Description:
I riV&I(Alikt
WQS as found under NMAC (20.6.4): Assessment Unit:
Starting Latitude: Ending Latitude:
Starting Longitude: Ending Longitude:
Starting Elevation:
TOTAL POINTS*:
WEATHER
CONDITIONS
DROUGHT CONDITIONS:
Ending Elevation:
Nearest weather
station:
PAST 48 HOURS**:
CURRENTLY**:
12 -mo. SPI Value:
12 -mo. SPEI Value:
Drought Condition:
Obtained from:
Date Obtained:
_ storm (heavy rain)
_ rain (steady rain)
intermittant rain
_ % cloud cover
_ clear/sunny
_ storm (heavy rain)
_ rain (steady rain)
intermittant rain
_% cloud cover
_ clear/sunny
Precipitation past
48 hours:
**Field evaluations should be performed at least 48 hours after the last major rainfall event
SITE OBSERVATIONS
ALONG ENTIRE
REACH
Nearest Stream Modification (description and proximity):
Nearest Diversion (description and proximity):
Nearest Discharge (description and proximity):
include any and all modifications/discharges and diversions regardless of perceived impact to hydrologic regime
along with any field observations
CALCULATIONS FOR
DETERMINING
FLOODPLAIN AND
DIMENSIONS
(Use for 1.8 on Field
Survey)
Thalwag Height
(#1)
Bankfull Height
(#2)
Change in Height (#1 -
#2)
Change in
Height x 2 (#3)
Flood -prone Area Height
(#1-#3)
0
ao�
D (OMCHANNEL
Flood -prone width:
3.6210
Bankfull Width:
3 ryr)
Flood -prone Width to Bankfull Width Ratio.
:
f , a
Alternative Methods used
(describe)?
PHOTO
DOCUMENTATION
(include additional
photographs as
attachment)
Time
Photo #
Description
Identifiable References
Photographer
I '' 01
9n2)Lt
11, WI C14.61y�i1.
T�
1 �0i P"
'pit
dowh s�trityvi piCk1Ah i t,
-� --r
-
OTHER SITE
CHARACTERISTIC
NOTES/
SCHEMATICS
03,n F 3 . C6,r4
LEVEL 1
INDICATORS
Stream Condition (identify all that apply then choose most prominent score)
Stroh , o`ri E =1r:1i-, .o--4=1't �,00r
1.1
Water In Channel
0 Flow is evident
throughout reach
0 Flow is observed in
riffles
0 Flow may not be evident
in runs
0 Wet Channel
0 Flow is barely
discernable
0 Floating object needed
to observe flow
0 Dry Channel with
standing pools
0 Saturated or moist
sediment under
rocks/debris
0 Evidence of base flows
lel Dry Channel
0 Dry under rocks/debris
JI No evidence of base
flows
6
4
2
CI:I.)Notes/Comments:
1.2
Fish in Channel
0 Found easily
0 Found consistently
throughout reach
0 Found with little
difficulty
0 Not consistent
throughout reach
0 Found with difficulty (10
or more minutes of
searching)
V Not present (after 10 or
more minutes of searching)
3
2
1
0
Species Observed and
Notes/Comments:
1.3
Benthic
Macroinvertebrates
in Channel
0 Found easily
0 Found consistently
throughout reach
0 Found with little
difficulty
0 Not consistent
throughout reach
0 Found with difficulty (10
or more minutes of
searching)
Not present (after 10 or
more minutes of searching)
3
2
10
(�
Species Observed and
Notes/Comments:
JO
1.4
Filamentous
Algae/Periphyton in
Channel
0 Found easily
0 Found consistently
throughout reach
0 Found with little
difficulty
0 Not consistent
throughout reach
0 Found with difficulty (10
or more minutes of
searching)
(y Not present (after 10 or Y
more minutes of searching)
3
2
1
Notes/Comments:
1.5
Vegetation along
cooridor (within
floodplain)
0 Dramatic compositional
species difference between
upland and riparian
corridor
0 Distinct riparian corridor
exists along entire reach
0 Riparian, aquatic or
wetland species dominate
entire reach
0 Distinct riparian corridor
exists but not along entire
reach
0 Compositional species
difference between upland
and riparian corridor
0 Riparian species
interspersed with upland
species
Minimal compositional
species difference between
upland and riparian
corridor
0 Vegetation growing
along the riparian area
occurs in greater density or
grows more vigorously
than in the adjacent
uplands
0 No compositional
species difference between
upland and riparian
corridor
0 Vegetation growing
along the riparian cooridor
does not occur in greater
density or grow more
vigorously than in the
adjacent uplands
3
2
(1)
0
Species Observed and
Notes/Comments:
1/
1.6
Rooted Upland
Plants in Channel
0 Rooted upland plants
are absent within the
streambed/thalweg
R There are a few rooted
upland plants within the
streambed/thalweg
0 Rooted upland plants
are consistently dispersed
throughout the
streambed/thalweg
0 Rooted upland plants
are prevalent within the
streambed/thalweg
3
1
0
Species Observed and
Notes/Comments:
SUBTOTAL (1.1-1.6)
1.7
Sinuosity of
Segment (for length
no less than two
meanders)
❑ Calculated ratio > 1.4
0 Numerous closely
spaced bends
0 Few straight sections
0 Calculated ratio 1.4 <>]
1.2
0 Mostly bends
0 Some straight sections
Calculated ratio 1.2 <>
1.0
0 Few bends
❑ Mostly straight sections
0 Calculated ratio = 1.0
0 Completely straight
3
2
(1)
0
0 Calculated
Observed
Notes/Comments:
1.8
Floodplain and
Channel Dimensions
_❑
❑ Calculated ratio > 2.5
❑ Minimally confined
0 Wide, active floodplain
4 Calculated ratio
0 Moderately confined
0 Floodplain active
events
2.5 <> 1.2
during larger
0 Calculated ratio < 1.2
0 Incised/confined channel
0 Flooplain absent or narrow
0 Floodplain not connected
3
1.5
0
❑ Calculated
❑ Observed
Notes/Comments:
1 9
In Channel
Structure: Riffle-
Pool Sequence
Pool Sequence
0 Frequent number of
riffle and pools observed
throughout reach
0 Obvious transition
between riffles and pools
0 Less frequent number of
riffle and pools
0 Transition between
riffles and pools difficult to
distinguish
0 Mostly has areas of
pools or of riffles
LEtNo riffles or pools
observed
3
3
2
2
1
1
C—)
Notes/Comments:
SUBTOTAL (1.1-1.9)
1.10
Particle Size or
Stream Substrate
Sorting
❑ Particle sizes in the channel are
noticeably different from particle
sizes outside the channel in the flood-
prone area,
0 Clear distribution of various sized
substrates in the stream channel.
p4 Particle sizes in
moderately similar
outside the channel
prone area.
0 Various sized substrates
present in the stream
0 Higher ratio of larger
(gravel/cobble).
the channel are
to particle sizes
in the flood-
are
channel.
particles
0 Particle sizes in the channel are
similar or comparable to particle
sizes outside the channel in the flood.
prone area.
0 Substrate sorting is not readily
observed in the stream channel.
3
1.5
0
0 Calculated
❑ Observed
Notes/Comments:
1.11
Hydric Soils Within
Flood -Prone Area
0 Hydric soils were observed in reach
Al Hydric soils were observed in reach
3
r 0 1
Notes/Comments:
1.12
Sediment on Plants
and Debris
❑ Sediment found readily
on plants and debris in:
0 channel
❑ streambank
❑ floodplain
0 Sediment found but not
prevalent on plants and
debris,
0 Sediment mostly
accumlated on plants and
debris in pools
0 Sediment on plants and
debris is isolated in small
amounts along the sample
reach.
Al No sediment is present
on plants or debris.
1.5
1
Q.5
Cy.)
Notes/Comments:
1.13
Seeps and Springs
0 Seeps and/or springs present in reach
[ Seeps and/or springs n resent in reach
1.5
I 0
Notes/Comments:
1.14
Iron Oxidizing
Bacteria/Fungi
0 Iron-oxizing bacteria/fungi present in reach
lron-oxizing bacteria/fur}g'' not pressent in reach
1 5 1
0 }J
Notes/Comments:
TOTAL POINTS (1.1-1.14) ,
Total <9, the stream is determined to be EPHEMERAL.
Total 59 and <12, the stream is determined to be INTERMITTENT until further analysis indicates
Total z 12.0 and 5 19.0, the stream is determined to be INTERMITTENT
Total > 19.0 and 5 22.0, the stream is determined to be PERENNIAL until further analysis
Total > 22.0, the stream is determined to be PERENNIAL.
otherwise
indicates otherwise
Appendix B - Potential Well Site Locations
ncho
Lrenter
AVENUE .5&
58TH AVENUE
Andalusia
coral
Canyon
Tract 33444
AVENUE 60
GUADALUPE
DIKE
CVWD
RECHARGE
BASINS
Coachella Valley
Multiple Species Habitat
Conservation Area
DEVILS
CANYON
FLOW
AVENUE 82
AVENUE 62
PROPOSED
CVWD
BOOSTER
PUMP
Martinez
Rock Slide -X;
Restricted
/Open Space
�.: Criticat Habitat
Boundary
(USFWS)
Resource
Protect ion
• Area
40
Santa
Rosa
Mountains
MIDDLE
SOUTH
FLOW
42
se
J7
9 * e
4.4
Atj
AVENUE 64
HOFMANN
LAND DEVELOPMENT
COMPANY
Ta NOVEMBER 18, 2020
�Fand
Preliminary Impact Diagram with Andalusia West
TRAVERTINE
AVE 58
APN
Map #
Owner Name
Land Use
Land Use Type
Mailing Street Address
Mailing City State
Mailing Zip Lot Acres
Total Assessed Value
Last Sale Price
764200086
1
T D DESERT DEV
RESIDENTIAL ACREAGE
Residential
81570 Carboneras
La Quinta, CA
92253
4.65 $16,417
764190003
2
HAMMER WILLIAM JOSEPH
AGRICULTURAL LAND
Commercial
45510 Cielito Dr
Indian Wells, CA
92210
5.01 $37,124
764180002
3
PALMDALE CAPITAL SHAMAN CAPITAL
FARMS
Commercial
24933 Ariella Dr
Calabasas, CA
91302
4.6 $300,614
$265,000
764180003
4
VAJDI MEHRON & LADAN
RESIDENTIAL ACREAGE
Residential
24933 Ariella Dr
Calabasas, CA
91302
4.84 $650,000
$625,000
764180006
5
HAMMER WILLIAM J HAMMER KIM M
AGRICULTURAL (NEC)
Commercial
PO Box 278
Palm Desert, CA
92261
4.35 $324,671
$300,000
AVE 60
APN
Map #
Owner Name
Land Use
Land Use Type
Mailing Street Address
Mailing City State
Mailing Zip Lot Acres
Total Assessed Value
Last Sale Price
764230002
6
HAMMER WILLIAM JOSEPH HAMMER KIM M
DESERT
Commercial
PO Box 278
Palm Desert, CA
92261
9.13 $189,907
764240027
7
BARTON LAND LA QUINTA
RESIDENTIAL ACREAGE
Residential
751 Laurel St 519
San Carlos, CA
94070
43.41 $1,373,000
$7,000,000
764230001
8
HAMMER WILLIAM JOSEPH HAMMER KIM M
DESERT
Commercial
PO Box 278
Palm Desert, CA
92261
8.3 $171,399
764230003
9
HAMMER WILLIAM JOSEPH HAMMER KIM M
DESERT
Commercial
PO Box 278
Palm Desert, CA
92261
9.96 $153,893
764240026
10
BARTON LAND LA QUINTA
RESIDENTIAL ACREAGE
Residential
751 Laurel St 519
San Carlos, CA
94070
55.21 $1,746,000
$7,000,000
764230004
11
HAMMER WILLIAM JOSEPH HAMMER KIM M
DESERT
Commercial
PO Box 278
Palm Desert, CA
92261
9.1 $139,212
764240006
12
PETER RABBIT FARMS INC
FARMS
Commercial
85810 Grapefruit Blvd
Coachella, CA
92236
38.18 $85,890
764240021
13
BARTON LAND LA QUINTA
RESIDENTIAL ACREAGE
Residential
751 Laurel St 519
San Carlos, CA
94070
11.79 $372,000
$7,000,000
764240009
14
A & J MCKEEVER HOLDINGS
FARMS
Commercial
49024 Croquet Ct
Indio, CA
92201
7.2 $377,864
764220028
15
TOWER ENERGY GROUP
FARMS
Commercial
1983 W 190th St 100
Torrance, CA
90504
39.01 $1,559,568
$18,500,000
764220005
16
ALS FUND INC MANSSOURIAN MERGERDOON
FARMS
Commercial
964 Calle Amable
Glendale, CA
91208
17.03 $535,000
764240001
17
HAMMER WILLIAM JOSEPH HAMMER KIM M
GREENHOUSE
Commercial
PO Box 278
Palm Desert, CA
92261
9.78 $438,348
$415,000
AVE 62
APN
Map #
Owner Name
Land Use
Land Use Type
Mailing Street Address
Mailing City State
Mailing Zip Lot Acres
Total Assessed Value
Last Sale Price
764300013
18
DOPIERALA JENNIE BOZEK SHIRLEY ANN
RANCH
Commercial
1830 La Manzanita St
South Pasadena, CA
91030
10.08 $83,000
764320003
19
M & M DESERT LANDSCAPE INC
AGRICULTURAL LAND
Commercial
54 400 Jackson St
Thermal, CA
92274
19.7 $479,400
$10,000,000
764320008
20
JACKSON 80 LAND CO
FARMS
Commercial
4545 Allstate Dr
Riverside, CA
92501
38.2 $395,364
764320001
21
M & M DESERT LANDSCAPE INC
AGRICULTURAL LAND
Commercial
54 400 Jackson St
Thermal, CA
92274
18.3 $445,740
$1,847,272
764300016
22
JDMI PROP
AGRICULTURAL (NEC)
Commercial
211 S Spalding Dr 5505
Beverly Hills, CA
90212
8.55 $136,234
$600,000
764300017
23
JDMI PROP
AGRICULTURAL (NEC)
Commercial
211 S Spalding Dr S505
Beverly Hills, CA
90212
9.47 $150,310
$600,000
764300012
24
DOPIERALAJENNIE BOZEK SHIRLEYANN
RANCH
Commercial
1830 La Manzanita St
South Pasadena, CA
91030
10.06 $79,659
764300011
25
DOPIERALAJENNIE BOZEK SHIRLEYANN
RANCH
Commercial
1830 La Manzanita St
South Pasadena, CA
91030
10.05 $79,659
764300015
26
JDMI PROP
AGRICULTURAL (NEC)
Commercial
211 S Spalding Dr 5505
Beverly Hills, CA
90212
9.24 $146,820
$600,000
753090011
27
USA 753
DESERT
Commercial
PO Box 2245
Palm Springs, CA
92263
39.5
764300010
28
DOPIERALAJENNIE BOZEK SHIRLEYANN
RANCH
Commercial
1830 La Manzanita St
South Pasadena, CA
91030
10.08 $90,118
$85,500
764300014
29
JDMI PROP
AGRICULTURAL (NEC)
Commercial
211 S Spalding Dr S505
Beverly Hills, CA
90212
10.09 $211,453
$600,000
753110035
30
PARS RANCH
AGRICULTURAL (NEC)
Commercial
100 Wilshire Blvd 1280
Santa Monica, CA
90401
74.45 $1,545,096
AVE 61-62
APN
Map # Owner Name
Land Use
Land Use Type Mailing Street Address
Mailing City State Mailing Zip Lot Acres
Total Assessed Value
Last Sale Price
764300004
753090001
753090020
764300001
753090002
764300002
31 SALES CARDINAL PRODUCE POWELL JOHN P
32 DOYLE KELLY A
33 USA 753
34 FAUSEL RICHARD E FAUSEL ROSEMARY M
35 MCGOLDRICK SHANE
36 CAL SUNGOLD INC
FARMS
FARMS
DESERT
FARMS
DESERT
AGRICULTURAL (NEC)
Commercial
Commercial
Commercial
Commercial
Commercial
Commercial
85810 Peter Rabbit Ln
41 Washington Blvd
PO Box 2245
42311 May Pen Rd
9554 Josephine St
PO Box 1540
Coachella, CA
Marina Del Rey, CA
Palm Springs, CA
Bermuda Dunes, CA
Thornton, CO
Indio, CA
92236
90292
92263
92203
80229
92202
117.42
9.77
118.36
9.04
9.79
11.42
$3,114,000
$212,034
$206,854
$209,470
$176,253
$1,318,878
$118,000
$1,000,500
AVE 62-63
APN
Map # Owner Name
Land Use
Land Use Type Mailing Street Address
Mailing City State Mailing Zip Lot Acres
Total Assessed Value
Last Sale Price
753100012
753100001
753090010
753100011
753100013
753090021
37 USA 753
38 WEBER WARREN T & AMY NATHAN
39 KECK HOWARD
40 USA 753
41 MARSHALL ERIKA GLORIA DIAZ JOSE MARIA CHAVEZ
42 GOMEZ JOSE L GOMEZ IRMA C
DESERT
DESERT
FARMS
DESERT
DESERT
SFR
Commercial
Commercial
Commercial
Commercial
Commercial
Residential
PO Box 2245
445 Woodland Rd
7947 Woodley Ave
PO Box 2245
2202 Zion Way
PO Box 877
Palm Springs, CA
Kentfield, CA
Van Nuys, CA
Palm Springs, CA
Hanford, CA
Thermal, CA
92263
94904
91406
92263
93230
92274
39.09
40.12
19.54
39.14
31.17
20
$200,385
$406,975
$193,167
$2,160,937
$137,000
Appendix C - 2005 Biological Opinion
United States Department of the Interior
In Reply Refer To:
FWS-ERIV-2735.3
Memorandum
FISH I AND 'W ILDLIFI3 SERVICE
Ecological Scniccs
Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office
6010 Hidden Valley Road
Carlsbad, California 92011
DEC 0 7 ZOOS
To: Field Manager, Bureau of Land Management, Palm Springs, California
Area Manager, Bureau of Reclamation, Yuma Area Office, Yuma, Arizona
From: AssistantieldSupervisor, Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office, Carlsbad, California
Subject: Endanger d Species Consultation on the Proposed Travertine Project, City of La
Quinn, Riverside County, California
This biological opinion responds to your request to initiate consultation under section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended D6 U.S.C. 1531 et seq., (Act)]. Your request
dated June 25, 2004, was received by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) on June 28,
2004. At issue are the effects of the subject project on the Peninsular bighorn sheep (Ovis
canadensis) and its designated critical habitat.
After receipt of a regional species list from the Service dated February 3, 2003, representatives
of the Service, Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Bureau of Reclamation (BOR), and
Travertine Corporation further assessed the suitability of the project site and environs to support
the ten listed species included in the list. Based on this review, the Service agreed that seven of
the species were unlikely to be found on or adjacent to the project site but that a more refined
assessment was needed for the remaining three species. Travertine then sponsored a habitat
assessment for the endangered triple -ribbed milk -vetch (Astragalus tricarinatus). In a letter
from Dr. Andrew Sanders, dated September 16, 2003, the author concluded that the species was
unlikely to be present based on a map/photograph that was provided for his review. Travertine
also sponsored a field survey for the threatened desert tortoise (Gopherus agassizii), which was
conducted in September 2003 largely following Service protocol but did not detect any tortoise
or tortoise sign (letter from Ecological Ventures California, Inc., dated September 12, 2003).
Based on numerous site visits by Service personnel, reconfiguration of project boundaries, and
results of species surveys and habitat assessments, the Service agrees that the proposed project is
unlikely to affect the milk -vetch or tortoise, which will not be addressed further in this opinion.
This biological opinion is based on (1) she Biological Assessment of the Impacts to Peninsular
Bighorn Sheep, Desert Tortoise, and Triple -ribbed milk -vetch for the Proposed Travertine
Development, City of la Quinla, Riverside County, California, dated June 2004; (2) an
addendum to the biological assessment, entitled Addendum to Biological Assessment for the
TAKE PRI17E` I.
INAMERICA{
Field Manager, BLM (FWS-ERIV-2735.3) 2
Area Manager, BOR
Travertine Development, La Quinta, CA, dated February 2005; (3) another addendum to the-
biological
hebiological assessment, entitled Section 5 Addendum to Travertine Biological Assessment,
transmitted by email on September 29, 2005; (4) various email and verbal communications
between representatives of the project proponent, Service, California Department of Fish and
Game, BOR, BLM, and City of La Quinta (City); and (5) the scientific literature, unpublished
data, various maps, file materials, and meeting notes.
CONSULTATION HISTORY
Or ginally, BLM requested on April 8, 1997, initiation of a conference on Peninsular bighorn
sheep pursuant to 50 CFR 402.10. However, based on a memo from the Service dated June 18,
1998, the conference was not completed. Subsequently, after meeting with prospective partners
and their representatives with an interest in the project, and learning that a right -of -use
application had been submitted to the AOR for access across Federal ]ands, the Service wrote
BOR on March 12, 2002, requesting project- related information and initiation of formal
consultation. This request led to a series of meetings involving representatives of the permit
applicant, BOR, BLM, Service, California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), Coachella
Valley Association of Governments (CVAG), and City. On March 21, 2003, BOR requested
initiation of consultation but the Service responded on June 2, 2003, and deferred initiation
pending completion of a biological assessment per 50 CFR 402.1(c)(6), After numerous
additional meetings among the interests listed above, and reviews of several draft biological
assessments, BLM requested initiation of consultation with submittal of the biological
assessment on June 25, 2004, which was received by the Service on June 28, 2004. Numerous
additional meetings were held, primarily between the permit applicant and Service, and an
addendum to the biological assessment was received by the Service on March 12, 2005.
Following another series of meetings, Travertine submitted the Section 5 Addendum to the
Travertine Biological Assessment. A complete administrative record of this consultation is on
File in the Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office.
DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPOSED ACTION
The proposed Travertine development is located in the City of La Quinta (City) at the base of the
Santa Rosa Mountains in the Coachella Valley, Riverside County, California, The project area is
in T6S, R7E, Section 33, and T7S, R7E, Sections 3, 4, and 5, San Bernardino Base Meridian
(Figure 1). About one section of land within the current Travertine project site was acquired into
private ownership through the Toro Canyon land exchange in a trade for public acquisition of
about five sections of land within the Santa Rosa Mountains National Scenic Area by BLM. In
addition to the public interest benefits of acquiring in -holdings within the National Scenic Area,
the Toro Canyon exchange was to have a positive impact on management of public lands
that also provided habitat for Peninsular bighorn sheep. Once the land exchange was approved,
the City annexed the project site and adjoining areas from the County in 1993, and the site was
incorporated into the City as Low Density Residential (LDR, 2 to 4 dwelling units per acre) and
Field Manager, BLM (FWS-ERIV-2735.3) 3
Area Manager, BOR
Open Space. In 1995, the proposed Travertine development (Specific Plan 94-026) and
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) (State Clearinghouse No. 94112047) were approved by the
City through adoption of Resolution 95-39. In 1999, the City approved an indefinite time
extension of the final specific plan by adoption of Resolution 99-061.
The original project area was 906 acres but Travertine Corporation currently has acquired an
additional 35 acres in Section 5 immediately adjacent to Travertine's western boundary for
conservation of bighorn sheep habitat and golf course expansion. Travertine continues to
investigate the acquisition of additional lands in Section 5 for conservation of bighorn sheep.
Additional lands not to exceed about 150 acres in Section 33 along the project's northeastern
comer outside of designated critical habitat may also be added to the project site. This increase
in acreage would potentially accommodate larger lot sizes with the total number of residential
units not exceeding 2,000 units and an additional nine holes of golf to bring the total to 36 holes.
The proposed Travertine development is a master -planned resort community that would include
a variety of land uses, including residential, recreational/open space, commercial, and resort
hotellconference center. At least three proposed residential types, including estate homes, resort
homes, and villas, would be oriented around up to 36 holes of golf and a driving range. A
neighborhood commercial site is proposed to provide local services. A resort hotel/conference
center will include the opportunity for a tennis facility, which may provide additional
recreational opportunities for both residents and visitors to the Travertine community.
The project would be developed in multiple phases over a number of years. The anticipated
project phases are depicted in Table 1. After construction of the golf course, phasing of project
area development would be driven primarily by the construction of the two water reservoirs,
each of which would serve a different portion of the development. At build -out, the project
would result in impacts to approximately 826 acres, of which about 267acres are in designated
critical habitat. The total acreage of Travertine could increase as described above, in
consultation with the Service. This information is from the Travertine Specific Plan and exhibits
prepared by The Keith Companies (1995a, 1995b, 1999) and Travertine Corporation.
Table 1. Proposed Phasing of the Travertine Development, City of La Quinta,
Riverside County, California.
Phase Description
1 Selective grading of project site, and construction of Madison Street
from Avenue 60 to Avenue 62.
2 Construction of lower contour water reservoir, water mains, sewer, &
other backbone infrastructure.
3 Golf course development (driving range & first 18 holes around southern
perimeter).
Field Manager, BLM (PWS-ERIV-2735.3) 4
Area Manager, BOR
4 Phase 1 of residential development of approximately 500 units and
construction of Jefferson Street.
5 Clubhouse construction.
6 Phase 2 of residential development of approximately 500 units.
7 Golf course development (second 18 holes).
8 Phase 3 of residential development of approximately 500 units.
9 Construction of upper water reservoir.
10 Phase 4 of residential development of approximately 500 units.
11 Construction of Resort Hotel & associated facilities.
12 Construction of Commercial Site & associated facilities.
13 Construction of Connector Trail & Trail User Parking Lot (to connect
CVRPD, Madison Street, and Dike #4 Trail, with Boo Hoff Trail).
Residential Land Use: The project could include a total of 2,000 home sites, consisting of
multiple residential land uses consistent with local concepts of Estate Homes, Resort Homes, and
Villas. This land use concept provides for a variety of residential housing and lot sizes. The
combination of lot numbers, sizes, and residential acreage is the best projection available based
on current market conditions. The actual combination at the time of development will be
determined through the entitlement process with the City.
Commercial Land Use: The neighborhood commercial site would be approximately 10 acres in
size, although the exact size has not been determined at this time. The commercial site will
provide local services such as a dry cleaner, a convenience store, and restaurants.
Resort Hotel & Tennis Facility: The project includes an approximately 25 -acre, 500 -room resort
hotel with associated visitor facilities, including tennis club and spa. (The exact number of
rooms and the exact size of these facilities have not been determined at this time.)
Recreational/Open Space: Encompassing about 298 acres, the desert -style golf facilities will
consist of up to 36 holes and a driving range. Associated with the golf facility will be a single
clubhouse and related uses, including a driving range and maintenance facilities that would
encompass an additional 4 acres. The desert golf course design will maximize retention of native
open space that will naturally merge into the adjoining desert scrub and woodland. A 100 -foot
wide recreational trail corridor and the golf course will front the project: habitat edge, providing
a minimum 200 -foot wide buffer between residential units and desert habitat proposed for
conservation. These setback measures provide additional buffer between the development and
bighom sheep habitat. Together, natural and artificial open space uses, including golf course
and intermixed desert open space, trail corridor, and conserved habitat for bighorn sheep, total
approximately 413 acres.
The trail corridor proposed along the golf course perimeter is intended to connect with other trail
segments on adjoining properties that would link the Coachella Valley Recreation and Park
Field Manager, BLM (FWS-ERIV-2735.3) 5
Area Manager, BOR
District's (CVRPD) Dike #4 Trail with the Boo Hoff Trail. This altered alignment of the City's
General Plan trail network was agreed to by Travertine, the City, BLM, BOR, and the Service.
The Travertine connector trail, to be located along the Madison Street alignment south of
Avenue 62, will provide public access for viewing of the Martinez Rockslide, a prominent
geological feature adjacent to Travertine and is hereafter referred to as the Rockslide Access
Trail. Unauthorized trails currently in use on Travertine's property will be closed to minimize
impacts to bighorn sheep.
The proposed Rockslide Access Trail begins on Dike #4 at Avenue 62 and proceeds south on the
Madison Street alignment, as requested by the City to the development: habitat edge, , where it
then roughly follows the golf course alignment to the base of the Martinez Rockslide. The trail
then follows the base of the rockslide until it veers in a northwesterly direction toward the
junction of sections 4, 5, 32 and 33, again following along or through the golf course. The Trail
would then parallel the section line between Section 32 and Section 33 on the west side of the
proposed Jefferson Street (i.e.„ until it connects with the Boo Hoff Trail. Parking for trail users
will be located on the project site at two locations: one at Madison Street and Avenue 62, and
the other approximately 0.75 miles south of there near the southern terminus of the proposed
Madison Street extension.
Support Facilities: All project infrastructures will be designed and constructed to serve only the
Travertine project or lands east of Travertine, No additional capacity will be installed to provide
service for potential projects in Section 5. Support facilities for the Travertine development
would entail two gravity -distribution water reservoirs, Imperial Irrigation District Energy (TIDE)
is the local electric power provider to the project. Coachella Valley Water District (CVWD) is
the local water and sewer services provider to the project site. Currently, domestic water service
lines exist in the area of the intersection of Avenue 61) and Madison Street.
Electrical Power: IIDE plans to provide electrical power to the Travertine project. Travertine
anticipates that the electrical power lines will be located within Madison Street and possibly
within Avenue 62. All distribution lines would be under -grounded. Section 5 landowners other
than Travertine will be solely responsible for providing utilities, adequate utility system
capacities, and any associated system upsizing for potential developments there. Please refer to
the Section 5 Addendum to the Travertine Biological Assessment for a detailed discussion of the
impacts of the Travertine project on Section 5.
Reservoirs: CVWD plans to provide the Travertine project with water by dividing Travertine
into two pressure zones, each of which will be served by a separate reservoir. CVWD has
determined that the only locations suitable for the two proposed water reservoirs are in Section 5,
with one placed at the 332 -foot elevation and the other at the 405 -foot elevation. Both reservoirs
will be depressed and screened to the greatest extent possible. Any above -ground tank
appurtenances will be painted with non -reflective paint colored to blend with the surrounding
habitat. The post -construction footprint of the reservoirs and access road is expected to be about
Field Manager, BLM (FWS-ER1V-2735.3) 6
Area Manager, BOR
6 acres and all areas temporarily disturbed during construction will be revegetated using locally
endemic native plant species/materials. Access would be strictly limited to CVWD personnel
and maintenance vehicles. An access road would be constructed with an all-weather, typical
Class 2 road base of compacted gravel. An access gate will be constructed to prevent public use
and proliferation of unauthorized trailheads. Electrical power to the reservoirs will be under -
grounded and no night -lighting will be used.
Federal Action
To access and develop the proposed project site, Travertine Corporation requires three ROW
permits, two from BOR and one from BLM. Specifically, Travertine requires a new ROW
permit from BOR for an extension of Madison Street, and an amendment to an existing permit
for expansion of Avenue 62 across BOR Levee No. 4 and adjacent BOR ]ands. Madison Street
would provide primary access to the development. The Avenue 62 permit is required by the City
to provide access for local traffic from the east. From BLM, Travertine requires a ROW permit
for an extension of Jefferson Street across BLM-managed lands. Jefferson Street would provide
secondary access to the development. The Madison Street and Jefferson Street ROW permits are
also needed because the Riverside County Fire Marshal requires two all-weather public access
roads at separate locations to and from the Travertine project site. Details regarding these
roadway extensions are provided below.
The need for these ROW permits arises from the fact that the property is virtually surrounded by
Federal lands. Without the permits, the Travertine property would remain landlocked, with no
access via public roads. Also, acquisition of the ROW permits is required as a condition of
approval imposed by the City for approval of the land use entitlements sought by Travertine.
Madison Street: The Madison Street ROW, which would provide primary access to the project
area, would extend across BOR Levee No. 4 between Avenue 60 and Avenue 62, located along
the section line between Sections 33 and 34 (Figure 2b). This stretch is designated as a
secondary arterial street in the City's General Plan. By agreement with BOR, the Madison Street
ROW will be in the form of a recorded easement. The ROW that Travertine is requesting would
be approximately 2,600 feet long and 100 feet wide. The ultimate ROW will include a 12 -foot
parkway with sidewalk, curb and gutter, a six-foot wide bike lane (each side), painted median,
and two 12 -foot wide travel lanes. There will also be additional slope and drainage easements,
since Madison Street must cross Dike No. 4 between Avenue 60 and Avenue 62. These
easements will be needed as part of the proposed street improvements.
All construction staging would take place from nearby privately owned lands. Buried utilities
planned within the access road easement would include water and sewer, electric distribution
tines, and storm drains sized for the Travertine project only. Dry utilities (e.g., cable television,
telephone, and gas lines) would also be buried within the ROW. After construction of this
portion of Madison Street is completed, BOR will require that the ROW be conveyed to the City,
Field Manager, BLM (FWS-ERIV-2735.3) 7
Area Manager, BOR
who will be responsible for long-term operation and maintenance of the roadway and
appurtenances.
Jefferson Street: The Jefferson Street ROW, which would provide secondary access to the
development site, would extend across BLM-managed lands located in the northeast corner of
Section 32 {Figure 2b). The ROW would consist of four lanes (two lanes in either direction).
Buried utilities planned within the access road easement would include water, sewer, electric
distribution lines, and storm drains sized for the Travertine project only. Dry utilities (e.g., cable
television, telephone, and gas lines) would also be buried within the ROW. The ROW would be
approximately 1,600 feet long and 100 feet wide. All construction staging would take place
from nearby privately owned lands. After the construction of this portion of Jefferson Street is
completed, BLM will assign the ROW license to the City, who will be responsible for operation
and maintenance of the roadway and appurtenances.
Avenue 62: BOR and Travertine Corporation are parties 10 a ROW agreement, which allows
vehicular traffic across Levee No, 4 at the Avenue 62 alignment {Figure 2b). The Riverside
County Fire Department has indicated to Travertine Corporation that it may be necessary to use
this access point for fire and other public safety vehicles. Avenue 62 is also designated as a
public street in the City's General Plan for local traffic to and from the east. As in the other
rights-of-way above, any utilities and infrastructure would be restricted in size to meet the needs
only of Travertine. This proposed use would expand the current authorized use of the existing
ROW. Therefore, Travertine Corporation requires BOR approval to expand the scope of the
existing ROW permit. The existing loose gravel road would be improved to conform to the
City's standards for public asphalted streets.
Conservation Measures
Following several meetings in 2002 and 2003 with the Service and CDFG, the development plan
was extensively modified and reconfigured to remove development in bighom sheep habitat
from the southern portion of the Travertine property, specifically in Sections 4 and 5 in the
vicinity of the Martinez Rockslide. Based on these discussions, the project boundary was
established on May 1, 2003, during a field visit with Travertine, Service, and CDFG, which was
depicted in the draft Coachella Valley Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan, dated
October 15, 2004 (CVMSHCP). Subsequent meetings with the Service in 2005 refined the
project boundary to encompass approximately 170 acres of conserved habitat within Travertine's
original land holdings (Figure 1). This area to be conserved as bighorn sheep habitat lies in the
southern portion of the project site adjacent to the Martinez Rockslide and would be preserved in
perpetuity through a deed restriction consistent with California Civil Code Section 815, et seq.,
as approved by the Service, prior to recording the first final map for the project. The only
project -related development within this area of conserved habitat would be the two subterranean
water reservoirs located in Section 5, and associated access roads, which would encompass about
Field Manager, BLM (FWS-ER1V-2735.3) 8
Area Manager, BOR
6 acres. These conserved ]ands would become part of the habitat reserve system proposed by the
CVMSHCP, if that plan is adopted.
In addition to the lands subject to Specific Plan 94-026, Travertine has acquired 35 acres
additional acres in Section 5, of which 14.4 acres would be used for the proposed golf course and
about 19.7 acres would be permanently protected as bighorn sheep habitat. These parcels are
strategically located to make development in Section 5 beyond the Travertine ownership more
difficult (see the Section .5 Addendum to the Travertine Biological Assessment for more details).
Travertine also has committed to acquire an additional approximately 100 acres of bighorn sheep
habitat in Section 5 that is strategically located to fragment larger blocks of land into smaller
units with significantly reduced development potential (Figure 1).
Travertine Corporation proposes a variety of additional conservation measures to avoid and
minimize potential impacts to bighorn sheep, based on discussions with the Service, BLM, BOR,
and the City. The following measures augment the conservation commitments described in the
BA, which may contain more detail in certain instances:
(1) Relocation of the City's General Plan trails out of the centra] portions of Sections 5 and 32, to
the Rockslide Access Trail along the golf course buffer zone of the Travertine project. The final
design and location of the Rockslide Access Trail will be approved by the Service and the City to
minimize disturbance to bighorn sheep. If necessary, the southern and/or western boundaries of
the trail and golf course alignments will be fenced, as described in Conservation Measure 5
below.
Unauthorized trails currently in use on Travertine's property will be closed to minimize impacts
to bighorn sheep and replaced with the Rockslide Access Trail described above. Other than this
trail, no additional trails would be proposed or allowed as part of the Travertine development. A
variety of other measures will be implemented to restrict human access to surrounding hills,
including: (a) placement of "no trespass" signs at legally enforceable intervals along the trail and
habitat/development interface, with legally enforceable language; (b) development of CC&Rs
and educational materials that explain to residents and members the ecology of bighorn sheep
and the rules concerning unauthorized hiking into sheep habitat; (c) the strategic location of
select golf holes outside (i.e., south) of the Rockslide Access Trail at certain points to serve as
passive restraints to inhibit users of the trail from venturing into the canyons situated on east and
west sides of the rockslide; and (d) implementation of a program to train golf course marshals
and other personnel to monitor and control human access to adjacent hills.
(2) Strategic acquisition of land in Section 5. In addition to the lands subject to Specific Plan 94-
026, Travertine has acquired 35 acres in Section 5, of which 14.4 acres would be used for the
proposed golf course and 19.7 acres would be permanently protected as bighorn sheep habitat.
Due to recent escalation in land values, Travertine accelerated the purchase and acquisition of
Field Manager, BLM (FWS-ERIV-2735.3) 9
Area Manager, BOR
these lands to make development in Section 5 beyond the Travertine ownership more difficult
due to economic, topographic, regulatory, and land planning constraints.
Prior to recording the first final map, Travertine also has committed to acquire an additional
approximately 100 acres of bighorn sheep habitat in Section 5 that also are strategically located
to fragment larger blocks of land into smaller units with reduced development potential. Ml
lands proposed for conservation in Section 5 will be approved by the Service and protected in
perpetuity consistent with California Civil Code Section 815, et seq. For more detail, please
refer to the Section 5 Addendum to the Travertine Biological Assessment,
In addition, if the CVMSHCP is adopted, Travertine has agreed to loan $2 million to CVAG or
Coachella Valley Conservation Commission (CVCC), as specified at Section 4.3.21 of the
CVMSHCP and per separate agreement between the parties. CVAG/CVCC would be obligated
per the terms of the CVMSHCP to use the loan to acquire additional bighorn sheep habitat within
Section 5, and would guarantee repayment of the $2 million loan without interest to Travertine or
its successor if the CVMSHCP is adopted.
(3) Establishment of a $500,000 endowment with the Center for Natural Lands Management
(CNLM) to be managed by the Service to assist with the long-term management of bighorn
sheep. Of this total, $100,000 will be provided upon issuance of the first grading permit on the
Travertine site with the balance of $400,000 paid in installments of $100,000 per year over the
next four years.
(4) Provision of an additional $100,000 to the CNLM endowment above to support the gathering
of information on the effects of the regional trails system on bighorn sheep, including trails in
and around the Travertine development.
(5) Because fences could block wildlife movement, fences will not be used as an initial deterrent
to unauthorized access; however, a fencing contingency plan is needed to address potential
indirect effects of the project. To avoid complications with the installation of any future fence,
Travertine will (1) provide appropriate wildlife fence easements that will be Located at the
exterior boundary of either the golf course or the trail corridor, whichever is the outer most
perimeter of the project; (2) create a Home Owners Association (HOA) as the legally responsible
party for such installation; and (3) provide or identify a dedicated source of funds to construct the
fence, all to be completed prior to recording the first final map. Following formation of the HOA
and prior to completion of the habitat interface golf course, Travertine Corporation will establish
and convene a three-person committee consisting of a representative from the HOA, the Service,
and CDFG, which will be charged with the responsibility to assess the need for a buffer fence
between the development and adjoining habitat to keep bighorn sheep off the project site and
control human access to sheep habitat. Based on these two criteria, the committee will cooperate
in good faith in determining a need for the fence, and agreeing on its design and specific
location. The committee members shall have access to the habitat -urban interface areas on the
project site to monitor sheep activity through various means, including interviews with residents
Field Manager, BLM (FWS-ERIV-2735.3) 10
Area Manager, BOR
and staff, and the use/collection of any scientific information. If available information suggests
that either of the above two criteria has been met, the committee may decide to conduct further
studies on the extent of the problem, funded by the HOA, before voting on whether to require the
HOA to construct an 8 -foot fence (or functional equivalent) between the development and the
adjoining habitat. Though the Service may decide in its sole discretion whether a fence is
required, it will not require construction of a fence without evidence that either of the above
criteria have occurred. Prior to construction of any fence, the committee shall coordinate and
solicit views on fence design issues with local interests and only approve a given design after a
meeting with residents of the Travertine project. The committee shall exist for ten years from
the date of creation of the HOA, but the committee may be extended indefinitely if
recommended by any of the committee members. Violators of CC&Rs and club rules will be
subject to increasingly severe penalties Travertine will consult with the Service during the
drafting of the initial set of Rules and Regulations concerning appropriate rules and regulations
to protect the bighom sheep. With Travertine's consent, the Master Declaration of Conditions,
Covenants and Restrictions for the entire Travertine project will incorporate certain rules and
regulations specifically addressing the bighorn sheep, which rules and regulations may be
modified, amended or deleted only with the express written consent of the Service.
(6) The Jefferson Street extension through Section 32 will be constructed using active and
passive design features to prevent public roadside parking and foot access into bighorn sheep
habitat (e.g., boulders, k -rail, berm, narrow road shoulder, bar ditch, and restrictive signage),
subject to review and approval by the Service.
(7) Within the project boundary, approximately 100 yards at the west end of the newly
constructed Jefferson Street Loop in the southwest corner of Section 33, where it connects with
the Avenue 62 alignment, will be left as undeveloped desert. This design feature, in combination
with enhanced native landscaping, will discourage unauthorized vehicle access into bighorn
sheep habitat in Section 5 adjacent to the Travertine project boundary.
(8) The golf course will be designed in a desert/links-style to minimize loss of native plants and
wildlife (compared to conventional golf courses) and reduce potential impediment to movement
wildlife movement. The golf course design will use a locally endemic native plant species
palette for restoration of any areas that may be disturbed during development.
(9) No exotic plants known to be toxic to Peninsular bighorn sheep, or invasive in desert
environments, will be used in project landscaping.
(10) All internal streets would be separated from the hillsides by golf holes and home sites (i.e.,
there would be no direct public access from internal streets to hillside sheep habitat).
(11) The Martinez Rockslide Access Trail and golf holes will form the southern and western
perimeters of the Travertine project.
Field Manager, BLM (FWS-ERIV-2735.3) 11
Area Manager, BOR
(12) Berms will be located at various points on the golf course to deter bighorn sheep access to
the project site. Natural landscaping and berms around residential areas and golf courses would
reduce noise, light, and visual impacts on surrounding hills.
(13) The best management practices will be used to preclude the establishment of potential
disease vectors at open water features (i.e., water bodies will be designed with steep, unvegetated
slopes and deep enough water to prevent establishment of emergent wetland vegetation).
(14) CC&R's, Specific Plan conditions, and club rules will prohibit activities that emit noise
above specified levels (not to exceed 60 dB(A) for sensitive receptors or 75 dB(A) for non-
residential receptors (per City Ordinance 9.100.210 Noise Control). For example, Travertine
will require that only quiet electric golf carts will be used for service, maintenance, and play.
Whenever possible, automobiles, gasoline -powered golf carts, and gasoline -powered leaf -
blowers will be prohibited from the completed golf course.
(15) Outdoor lighting will be down -shielded and directed away from the hillsides in accordance
with the City municipal code.
iii,(16) To increase public awareness regarding the sensitivity of Peninsular bighorn sheep in the
region, educational materials will be provided to homeowners and made available to users of the
public facilities within the Travertine development. This material will be prepared in
cooperation with the Service and CDFG. In addition, Travertine will provide within the project
an area dedicated as an interpretive center concerning the bighorn sheep.
(17) The two water reservoirs will be constructed of steel or concrete and buried underground to
the extent possible. Any tank appurtenances (e.g., valves) remaining above -ground will be
painted with non -reflective paint colored to blend with the surrounding habitat and to prevent
light from being reflected toward sheep habitat in the Santa Rosa Mountains.
(18) Dogs and other pets are not allowed within the National Monument and Travertine will
install appropriate signage at the designated trailhead parking areas and any other access points
to prohibit dogs along the Rockslide Access Trail. Travertine project homeowner CC&Rs and
club rules will require pets to remain on a leash while outside enclosed areas, and will prohibit
pets from entering the hills at any time. Compliance with the local "leash law" will also be
enforced pursuant to City ordinance and the project's Specific Plan conditions.
STATUS OF THE SPECIES/CRITICAL HABITAT
Legal/Listing Status: The Peninsular bighorn sheep was federally listed as endangered on March
18, 1998 (63 FR 13134). A recovery plan was approved in October 2000 and 844,897 acres of
critical habitat were designated on February 1, 2001 (66 FR 8649). The decision to list the
Peninsular bighorn sheep was made because of declining population numbers and continuing
Field Manager, BLM (FWS-ERN-2735.3) 12
Area Manager, BOR
habitat toss, degradation, and fragmentation throughout a significant portion of bighorn sheep
habitat within the Peninsular Ranges. In addition, periods of depressed recruitment, likely
associated with disease, and high predation, coincided with low population numbers endangering
the continued existence of these animals in southern California. The California Fish and Game
Commission listed bighorn sheep inhabiting the Peninsular Ranges as "rare" in 1971. In 1984,
the designation was changed to "threatened" by the CDFG to conform with the terminology in
the amended California Endangered Species Act.
Species Description: Bighorn sheep inhabiting the Peninsular Ranges were once considered a
separate subspecies (Ovis canadensis cremnobates) and were one of the 4 desert subspecies (0.
c. nelsoni, D. c. mexicana, O. c. cremnobates, and O. c.weemsi) recognized by Cowan (1940).
The validity of these subspecies delineations was questioned and reassessed. Based on
morphometric and genetic results, Wehausen and Ramey (1993) placed Peninsular bighorn
within the O. c. nelson/ subspecies, which is the current taxonomy.
The overall range of the subspecies extends from the San Jacinto Mountains near Palm Springs,
California south to Vo]can Tres Virgenes near Santa Rosalia, Baja California, Mexico.
However, only the distinct vertebrate population segment within the United States is listed as
endangered and addressed in this document. For a population to be listed under the Act as a
distinct vertebrate population segment, three elements are considered (61 FR 4722): 1) the
discreteness of the population segment in relation to the remainder of the species to which it
belongs; 2) the significance of the population segment to the species to which it belongs, and 3)
the population segment's conservation status in relation to the Act's standards for listing. Within
the United States, the range extends along the Peninsular Ranges from the San Jacinto Mountains
of southern California south to the United States - Mexico border. Bighorn sheep habitat in the
Peninsular Ranges is restricted to the east facing, lower elevation slopes typically below 4,600
feet along the northwestern edge of the Sonoran Desert.
Distribution: An examination of past records and current data suggests that the distribution of
bighorn sheep has been altered during the past 25 years. Ewe groups along the Mexican border
and in the northern San Jacinto Mountains (north of Chino Canyon) have disappeared since the
1980's. DeForge et al. (1997) suggested disturbance and habitat fragmentation were the primary
factors driving the changes in bighorn distribution in the northern San Jacinto Mountains. Ewes
ceased occupying the northern San Jacinto Mountains about 20 years after construction of the
Palm Springs Aerial Tramway in Chino Canyon, though rams still occasionally cross Chino
Canyon and use the area formerly occupied by the ewe group. Lass of the border population was
poorly documented, but the construction of interstate 8 in the mid -1960's, railroad activity,
livestock grazing, poaching, and fire suppression appear to be the most likely factors
contributing to the isolation and decline of bighorn sheep in the area (Rubin et al. 1998).
In the northern Santa Rosa Mountains, the number and distribution of bighorn sheep is
substantially reduced from the 1980's, with formerly important use areas, such as Carrizo and
Field Manager, BLM (FWS-ERIV-2735.3) 13
Area Manager, BOR
Dead Indian Canyons, currently supporting few animals (DeForge and Scott 1982; DeForge et
al. 1995; Bighorn Institute 1998, 1999). Rubin et al. (1998) suggested that in portions of the
range, roads or increased traffic have contributed to fragmentation by restricting ewe movement,
as evidenced by 4 ewe groups having home ranges delineated by roadways. In the 1970's, ewes
were observed to cross Highway 74 in the Santa Rosa Mountains (V. Bleich, pers. comm.; D.
Jessup, in 1itt. 1999). No radio -collared ewes were observed to cross this road from 1993 to
2001. California Department of Transportation records indicate that Highway 74 traffic has
approximately tripled since 1970. In addition, bighorns use significantly less of the Santa Rosa
Mountains since the construction of the Dunn Road (DeForge in lift. 1997).
The Peninsular Ranges of California are northern extensions of the mountain ranges of Baja
California, Mexico, and the majority of Peninsular bighorn sheep are located in Mexico.
Peninsular bighorn sheep are found along steep, east -facing escarpments in the desert regions of
the Baja Peninsula, south to the Las Virgenes Mountains near the town of San Ignacio. The
mountain ranges of Baja are remote and rugged, thus obtaining accurate population estimates is
very difficult. Biologists currently estimate that approximately 2,500 Peninsular bighorn sheep
inhabit northern Baja, much less than the estimates of over 28,000 from the turn of the century.
The problems facing Peninsular bighorns in Baja are different than the challenges facing them in
the United States. Habitat loss resulting from housing, resort, and golf course development does
not currently pose the same level of threat present in the United States, but poaching,
competition with domestic and feral livestock, predation, and diseases introduced from domestic
livestock continue to impact these herds (DeForge et al. 1999).
Habitat Affinities: Bighorn sheep in the Peninsular Ranges have important habitat requirements
that relate to topography, visibility, water availability, and forage quality and quantity. Bighorn
sheep evolved predator evasion behaviors that depend critically on the use of escape terrain,
which is generally defined as steep, rugged slopes (Hansen 1980c, Cunningham 1989). Escape
terrain is important because bighorn sheep typically do not outrun their predators, but depend
upon their climbing abilities to escape their enemies (Geist 1971, McQuivey 1978). When ewes
are ready to give birth they will typically seek out the most precipitous terrain, where their lambs
will presumably be safest (Geist 1971). The presence of such steep terrain for predator evasion
and lambing is, therefore, a crucial component of bighorn sheep habitat. Variation in slope and
aspect also help bighorn sheep to survive in a hatch environment, During hot weather, desert
bighorn seek shade under boulders and cliffs, or may move to north facing slopes (Merritt 1974,
Andrew 1994). During inclement weather they may again seek protected caves or overhangs, or
move to sunny, south facing slopes (Andrew 1994), or slopes that are protected from strong
winds.
In addition to mountainous terrain, other types of habitat are crucial to bighorn sheep
populations. Areas of flat terrain, such as valley floors, serve as important linkages between
neighboring mountainous regions, thereby providing bighorn sheep temporary access to
resources (e.g., forage, water, or lambing habitat) in neighboring areas, and allowing gene flow
Field Manager, BLi14 (FWS-ERIV-2735.3) 14
Area Manager, BOR
to occur between subpopulations (Krausman and Leopold 1986, Schwartz et al. 1986, Bleich et
al. 1990a, 131eich et al. 1996). Low rolling terrain and washes seasonally provide an important
source of high quality forage, with a greater diversity of browse species than steeper terrain
(Leslie and Douglas 1979). In summer, washes also provide a source of high quality browse
longer than other areas (Andrew 1994). Leslie and Douglas (1979) noted that these areas
became increasingly important to bighorn sheep not only in summer, but during any period of
limited forage availability.
The predator evasion behavior of bighorn sheep depends on the ability to visually detect danger
at a distance. Bighorn sheep will avoid habitat in which dense vegetation reduces visibility
(Risenhoover and Bailey 1985, Etchberger et al. 1989). This appears to be the case in the
Peninsular Ranges, where bighorn sheep usually remain below the elevation of chaparral and
other dense vegetation associations. In the Peninsular Ranges, bighorn sheep habitat occurs
along the east -facing desert slopes, typically below approximately 1,400 -meter (4,600 -foot)
elevations (Jorgensen and Turner 1975, DeForge et al. 1997). The elevational patterns of
vegetation associations in the Peninsular Ranges, in combination with bighorn sheep predator
avoidance behavior, result in habitat use patterns that are more restricted to lower elevations than
in most other bighorn populations. The available habitat of Peninsular bighorn sheep can,
therefore, be visualized as a long, narrow band that runs north -south along the lower elevations
of the Peninsular Ranges.
In hot, arid deserts, water is an important resource for bighorn sheep (Jones et al. 1957, Blong
and Pollard 1968, Leslie and Douglas 1979, Turner and Weaver 1980, Elenowitz 1984,
Cunningham and Ohmart 1986). A number of studies have shown that desert bighorn sheep will
concentrate around water sources in the summer, with most animals found within a 3- to 5 -
kilometer (2- to 3 -mile) radius of water (Jones et al. 1957, Leslie and Douglas 1979,
Cunningham and Ohmart 1986). During periods of high rainfall, sheep distribution is less
coincident with permanent water sources (Leslie and Douglas 1979). Apparently, bighorn sheep
obtain enough water from forage to meet their requirements during wetter portions of the year.
Lactating ewes and lambs appear to be more dependent on free-standing water and arc often
found closer to water sources (Blong and Pollard 1968, Leslie and Douglas 1979, Bleich et al.
1997). Water sources are most valuable to bighorn sheep if they occur in proximity to adequate
escape terrain with good visibility. Therefore, the juxtaposition of open escape terrain to water
sources is an important factor in their utilization (Cunningham 1989, Andrew 1994).
The critical importance of free-standing water to bighorn sheep has been questioned (Krausman
and Leopold 1986, Broyles 1995), and some small populations apparently exist without free-
standing water (Krausman et al. 1985, Krausman and Leopold 1986, Broyles 1995). However,
in most populations, bighorn sheep will drink regularly when water is available and concentrate
near water sources during the warmer months.
In the Peninsular Ranges, bighorn sheep use a wide variety of plant species as their food source
(Weaver et al. 1968, Jorgensen and Turner 1973). Turner (1973) recorded the use of at least 43
Field Manager, BLM (FWS-•ERIV-2735.3) 15
Area Manager, BOR
species, with browse being the food category most frequently consumed. Cunningham and
Ohmart (1986) determined that the bighorn sheep diet in Carrizo Canyon (at the south end of the
U.S. Peninsular Ranges) consisted of 57 percent shrubs, 32 percent forbs, 6 percent cacti, and 2
percent grasses. Scott (1986) and Turner (1976) reported similar diet compositions at the north
end of the range. Diet composition varied among seasons (Cunningham and Ohmart 1966, Scott
1986), presumably because of variability in forage availability, selection of specific plant species
during different times of the year (Scott 1986), and seasonal movements of bighorn sheep.
The time period surrounding late gestation, lambing, and nursing is very demanding in terms of
the energy and protein required by bighorn ewes. Failure to acquire sufficient nutrients during
late gestation and during nursing adversely affects the survival of newborn ungulates (Thome er
al. 1976, Julander er al. 1961, Holl er al. 1979). Crude protein and digestible energy values of
early green -up species are usually much higher than those of dormant forages during the critical
late gestation, lambing, and rearing seasons. With their high nutrient content, even minor
volumes of these forages within the overall diet composition may contribute important
nutritional value at critical life stages (Wagner 2000). However, during the reproductive season,
due to the varied topography of bighorn sheep habitat, these forages typically are concentrated
on specific sites, such as alluvial fans and washes, where more productive soils support greater
herbaceous growth than steeper, rockier soils. Furthermore, forage green -up follows an
elevational gradient with lower elevations beginning spring growth earlier than higher elevations
(Wehausen 1980, Berger 1991). Access to a range of elevations provides bighorn sheep
enhanced opportunities to acquire nutrients during critical seasons.
Life History: The movement pattems and habits of ewes are learned by their offspring (Geist
1971). By following older animals, young bighorn sheep gather knowledge about escape terrain,
water sources, foraging areas, and lambing habitat (Geist 1971). As young rams reach 2 to 4
years of age, they hegin to follow older rams away from their natal group (Geist 1971, Festa-
Bianchet 1991). Because, bighorn sheep rely on vigilance to detect predators, they benefit from
gregariousness and group alertness (Geist 1971, Berger 1970.
The adult sexes tend to loosely segregate during much of the year, coming together primarily
during the rut (Geist 1971, Bleich et al. 1997), which typically peaks from August through
October in the Peninsular Ranges (Rubin et al. 2000), During the rut, rams join the ewe groups
and compete to breed with receptive ewes. The largest rams presumably are the most successful
breeders, but smaller rams have been reported to breed as well (Hogg 1964). During the period
of sexual segregation, ewes and their lambs are typically found in steeper, more secure habitat,
while rams may be found in less steep or rugged terrain (Geist 1971, Bleieh cr al. 1997).
Desert bighorn sheep are primarily diurnal (Krausman et al. 1985) but may be active at any time
of day or night (Miller et al. 1984). Their daily activity pattern includes alternating feeding and
resting/ruminating periods. Forage quality influences activity patterns because when forages are
low in digestibility, bighorn sheep must spend more time ruminating and digesting forage.
Field Manager, BLM (FWS-ER1V-2735.3) 16
Area Manager, BOR
Consequently, bighorn sheep may establish a cycle of feeding and ruminating that reflects forage
quality and optimizes nutrient intake (Wagner and Peck 1999, Wagner 2000).
Size of individual or group home range depends on the juxtaposition of required resources
(water, forage, escape, or lambing habitat) and, therefore, varies geographically. Home range
size also is affected by forage quantity and quality, season, sex, and age of the animal (Leslie
1977, McQuivey 1978). Although most desert bighorn sheep do not seasonally migrate along
elevational gradients like many populations in higher latitude mountain ranges, they do exhibit
seasonal differences in habitat use pattems. In many populations, animals will have a smaller
home range in summer (McQuivey 1978, Leslie and Douglas 1979, Elenowitz 1983),
presumably due to their limited movement away from permanent water sources. During the
cooler or wetter months of the year, bighorn sheep often exhibit an expanded range as animals
move farther from water sources (Simmons 1980). Ewes generally display a higher degree of
philopatry to their seasonal home ranges than do rams. Rams tend to range more widely, often
moving among ewe groups (Boyce et al. 1997, Del urge et al. 1997, Rubin et al. 1998). In most
populations of desert bighorn sheep, ram home ranges have been found to be larger than those of
ewes (Simmons 1980, DeForge et al. 1997).
The gregarious and philopatric behavior of ewes limits their dispersal and exploratory abilities
relative to those of rams (Geist 1967, 1971). Geist (1971) theorized, however, that a young ewe
might switch to a new ewe group if she encountered neighboring sheep and followed them away
from her natal ewe group. In the Peninsular Ranges, movement of radio -collared ewes between
ewe groups is rare, however, inter -group movement does occasionally occur. During a 3 -year
study, one ewe moved over 30 kilometers (18.6 miles) and temporarily joined another ewe group
(Rubin et al. 1998). No emigration of ewes has been observed even though radio -collared
animals have been regularly monitored in the northern Santa Rosa Mountains since 1981
(Ostermann et al. 2001) and throughout the range since 1993 (E. Rubin, pers. comm.; DeForge et
al. 1997). Genetic analyses reflect a low rate of ewe dispersal across the Peninsular Ranges in
the evolutionary past (Boyce et al. 1999).
An important consideration in the conservation of Peninsular bighorn sheep is their behavioral
response to humans and human activity. Bighorn have been considered a wilderness species,
because they do not thrive in contact with human development (Leopold 1933). The impacts of
human development extend beyond the urban edge into bighorn sheep habitat. A growing
human population and increased activity adjacent to and within bighorn sheep habitat have the
potential to adversely affect bighorn sheep. Numerous researchers have expressed concem over
the impact of human activity on Peninsular bighorn sheep (Jorgensen and Turner 1973, Hicks
1978, Olech 1979, Cunningham 1982, DeForge and Scott 1982, Gross 1987, Sanchez et al.
1988), as well as on sheep in other areas (Graham 1980, Gionfriddo and Krausman 1986, Smith
and Krausman 1988). A variety of human activities such as hiking, mountain biking, hang
gliding, horseback riding, camping, hunting, livestock grazing, dog walking, and use of aircraft
and off -road -vehicles have the potential to disrupt normal bighorn sheep social behaviors and use
Field Manager, BLM (PWS-ERN-2735.3) 17
Area Manager, BOR
of essential resources, and cause bighorn sheep to abandon traditional habitat (McQuivey 1978,
MacArthur ei al. 1979, Olech 1979, Wehausen 1979, Leslie and Douglas 1980, Graham 1980,
MacArthur et al. 1982, Bates and Workman 1983, Wehausen 1983, Miller and Smith 1985,
Krausman and Leopold 1986, Krausman et al. 1989, Goodson 1999, Papouchis et al. 1999).
Etchberger et al. (1989) found that habitat abandoned by bighorn sheep in the Pusch Ridge
Wildemess had greater human disturbance than currently occupied habitat. Etchberger and
Krausman (1999) observed the abandonment of lambing habitat while construction activities
were ongoing within the home range of the ewe group. Ewes eventually returned to the area
following cessation of construction activities.
Although cases have been cited in which bighorn sheep populations did not appear to be greatly
affected by human activity, numerous researchers have documented altered bighorn sheep
behavior in response to anthropogenic disturbance. Even when bighorn sheep appear to be
tolerant of a particular activity, continued and frequent human use of an area can cause them to
avoid the area, eventually interfering with use of resources, such as water, mineral licks, lambing
or feeding areas, or use of traditional movement routes (Jorgensen and Tumer 1973, McQuivey
1978, Graham 1980, Leslie and Douglas 1980, DeForge and Scott 1982, Hamilton et al. 1982,
Krausman and Leopold 1986, Rubin et al. 1998). In addition, disturbance can result in
physiological responses, such as elevated heart rate, even when no behavioral response is
discernable, and the cumulative energetic cost of such responses may potentially affect the
nutritional status of individuals potentially populations (MacArthur et al. 1979, 1982).
Bighorn response to human activity is variable and depends on many factors, including but not
limited to: the type and predictability of the activity, presence of domestic dogs, the animal's
previous experience with humans, size or composition of the bighorn sheep group, location of
bighorn sheep relative to the elevation of the activity, distance to escape terrain, and distance to
the activity (Weaver 1973; McQuivey 1978; Hicks 1977, 1978; Hicks and Elder 1979;
MacArthur et al. 1979, 1982; Wehausen 1980; Hamilton et al. 1982; Whitacker and Knight
1998; Papouchis et al. 1999). Ewes with lambs typically are more sensitive to disturbance (Light
and Weaver 1973, Wehausen 1980). Responses can range from cautious curiosity to immediate
flight or abandonment of habitat. Bighorn sheep use of an area within the Peninsular Ranges
was reduced by 50 percent when off-road vehicle use was allowed (Jorgensen 1974). Cardiac
and behavioral responses of bighorn sheep to an approaching human were determined to be
greatest when a person was accompanied by a dog or approached from over a ridge (MacArthur
et al. 1979, 1982). Though the effect of human activity in bighorn sheep habitat is not always
obvious, human presence or activity in many cases has been found to detrimentally alter normal
behavioral and habitat use patterns. Bighorn sheep have evolved to deal with occasional stress,
such as the presence of a predator. However, long-term chronic stress may cause physiological
reactions that impair immune function, endocrine regulation, and growth and development
(Desert Bighorn Council 1991). Bighorn sheep prevented from using their normal range by
frequent human disturbance or dogs may be subject to nutritional deprivation, which can also
adversely affect the immune system (Festa-Bianchet 1988).
Field Manager, BLM (FWS-ERIV-27353) 18
Area Manager, BOR
Desert bighorn sheep have fared poorly when urban areas have expanded around and within their
ranges. In the Sandia Mountains of New Mexico and the Santa Catalina Mountains of Arizona,
two populations of desert bighorn sheep faced situations very similar, to the one now challenging
the bighorn sheep inhabiting she Peninsular ranges of California. The bighorn sheep population
in the Sandia Mountains has declined to extinction, and the population in the Santa Catalina
Mountains appears to be extinct (Krausman et al. 2001). Factors, such as predation or disease,
do not appear to have played a significant role in tither of the above extinctions. Instead, in both
cases the level of human activity appears to have been too great for bighorn sheep to survive. In
the Sandia Mountains human activity doubled from 1975 to 1990, as hiking trails, ski areas,
restaurants, and a tramway were built (Krausman et al. 2001). In she Santa Catalina Mountains,
real estate developments directly eliminated bighorn sheep habitat (Krausman 1993), hiking
activity, dog use, and other recreational activities increased in more remote areas (Schoenecker
1997), and fire suppression allowed the vegetation in some areas to become too dense for
bighorn sheep (Gionfriddo and Krausman 1985, Krausman et al. 1996). In San Bernardino
National Forest, California, Light and Weaver (1973) studied the reaction of bighorn sheep to
human activities when ski areas and other developments were built in their habitat. They
concluded bighorns abandoned suitable habitat to ostensibly remain out-of-sight.
The breeding period, or rut, occurs in the We summer and fall months. In the Peninsular
Ranges, ewes estimated to be between 2 and 16 years of age have been documented to product
lambs (Rubin et al. 2000, Ostcrmann et al. 2001). As parturition approaches, ewes seek isolated
sites with shelter and unobstructed views (Turner and Hansen 1980), and seclude themselves
from other females while finding sites to bear their lambs (Elchberger and Krausman 1999).
Lambs are born after a gestation of approximately 6 months-171 to 185 days (Turner and Hansen
1980, Shackleton et al. 1984, Hass 1995). During a 4-year (1993 to 1996) study conducted in
the Peninsular Ranges south of the San Jacinto Mountains, the lambing season extended from
February through August; however, 87 percent of the lambs were born from February to April,
and 55 percent of the lambs were born in March (Rubin et al. 2000). DeForge et al. (1997) and
Cunningham (1982) reported a similar onset of the lambing season in the San Jacinto Mountains
and in Carrizo Canyon, respectively. In the San Jacinto and northers Santa Rosa Mountains, ewe
groups, the lambing season begins in January during some years (Bighorn Institute 1997),
Lambs usually are weaned by 6 months of age (Hansen and Deming 1980, Wehausen 1980).
From 1993 to 1996, the reproductive patterns of five ewe groups (Carrizo Canyon, south San
Ysidro Mountains, north San Ysidro Mountains, Santa Rosa Mountains [Deep Canyon], and
northern Santa Rosa Mountains) were monitored and annual Iamb production averaged 77
percent (0.77 Iambs bona per "ewe-year") for the 4-year period (E. Rubin, pers. comm.). Using a
fecal-based enzyme immunoassay, Borjcsson et al. (1996) determined that in the fall of 1992, at
least 85 percent of sampled adult ewes were pregnant. Both of these observations suggest that
conception rates arc not currently limiting population growth in die Peninsular Ranges.
Field Manager, BLM (FWS-ER1V-2735.3) 19
Area Manager, BOR
Lamb survival (to 6 months of age) was variable among groups and across years. A year of high
lamb survival in one group was not necessarily a high survival year in another group (Rubin et
al. 2000). Of the four groups studied, the northern Santa Rosa Mountains group typically had
the lowest lamb survival, while the neighboring Deep Canyon group, located less than 8
kilometers (5 miles) away, had the highest lamb survival. Researchers working in the northern
portion of the Santa Rosa Mountains have expressed concern over the low Iamb recruitment
observed in this area since approximately 1977 (DeForge et al. 1982, DeForge and Scott 1982,
Turner and Payson 1982). Periods of low lamb to ewe ratios, as well as clinical signs of
pneumonia among lambs, have occasionally been observed in Anza-Borrego Desert State Park
(Jorgensen and Turner 1973, Jorgensen and Turner 1975, Hicks 1978), but years of high lamb to
ewe ratios (Cunningham 1982; M. Jorgensen, pers. comm.) have been observed in these areas as
well (Rubin et al. 2000).
Wehausen (1992) suggested that periods of low recruitment may not warrant alann because
long-lived animals such as bighorn sheep can exist in viable populations if periods of low
offspring recruitment are interrupted by periodic pulses of high offspring recruitment. Most ewe
groups in the Peninsular Ranges appear to have exhibited such pulses of high recruitment but
declining population trends suggest that they have not been sufficient to balance adult mortality
over longer time periods.
In mminants, reproductive success is related to the mother's body weight, access to resources,
quality of home range, and age (Etchberger and Krausman 1999). Survival of offspring also
depends on birth weight and parturition date. Festa-Bianchet and Jorgenson (1996) found that
female sheep reduce the care of lambs when resources are scarce to favor their own nutritional
requirements over their Iamb's development. Ewes that fail to acquire a minimum level of
energy reserves (i.e., body weight) may not conceive (Wehausen 1984) or will produce smaller
offspring with a poorer chance of survival (Price and White 1985). Several studies have
documented a positive relationship between winter precipitation and lamb recruitment in the
following year (Douglas and Leslie 1986, Wehausen et al. 1987). However, the relationships
between climate, lamb recruitment, and population trends likely differ among different bighorn
sheep populations, and are not fully understood (Rubin el al. 2000).
Lamb and yearling age classes experience high mortality rates relative to adult bighorns. After
reaching adulthood at two years of age, most bighorn sheep survive high until ten years of age
(Hansen 19806), or until shortly before the age of ecological longevity (Cowan and Geist 1971).
However, observed values of annual adult survivorship in the Peninsular bighorn sheep appear
low relative to other reported desert populations. During November 1992 to May 1998,
survivorship of 113 adult radio -collared bighorn sheep (97 ewes and 16 rams) was monitored
between Highway 74 (in the Santa Rosa Mountains) and the U.S.-Mexico border. During this
period, overall annual adult survival was 0.79, with no significant difference among three age
classes of adults (Hayes et aI. 2000). Annual survivorship of individual ewe groups ranged from
0.70 to 0.87, and a year of high survivorship in one group was not necessarily a year of high
Field Manager, BLM (PWS-LRIV-2735.3) 20
Area Manager, BOR
survivorship in other groups (Rubin et al. 1998). In the northern Santa Rosa Mountains ewe
group, adult survivorship was monitored during a 14 -year period (1985 to 1998), and was found
to range between 0.50 and 1.00 annually (Ostermann et al. 2001). In the San Jacinto Mountains,
DeForge et al. (1997) monitored the survival of adult (2 or more years of age) radio -collared
bighorn sheep during 1993 to 1996 and estimated annual adult survival to be 0.75.
Survival of desert bighorn sheep in greater southeastern California averaged 0.91 (Andrew
1994), 0.86 or greater in northwest Arizona (when highway mortalities were excluded,
(Cunningham and deVos 1992), 0.82 in New Mexico (Logan et al. 1996), and 0.85 or greater for
four populations studied in the Mojave Desert (Wehausen 1992).
Population Trends; Bighorn sheep have been documented in the Peninsular Ranges since early
explorers, such as Anza, observed them in the 1700's (Bolton 1930). Grinnell and Swarth (1913)
described the arca of Deep Canyon in the southern Santa Rosa Mountains, "...well worn trails,
footprints, and feces were plentiful. In places it looked as though a herd of domestic sheep had
been over the region." Rangewide population estimates were not made until the 1970's.
Published estimates were as high as 971 in 1972 (Weaver 1972), and 1,171 in 1974 (Weaver
1975).
Recent range -wide population estimates were 570 in 1988 (Weaver 1989), 400 in 1992 (U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service 1992), and between 327 and 524 in 1993 (Torres et al. 1994). Starting
in 1994 biennial helicopter census were conducted throughout the Peninsular Ranges using
radio -collared animals to correct for visibility bias. The population estimates were 347, 276,
334, and 400 for the years 1991-2000, respectively. From the historic highs of the 1970's,
population estimates declined to a low of 276 adults in 1996 (Service 2000); since that low, the
population has apparently increased. Currently, at least 8 ewe groups exist in the range, and the
population trajectory of each ewe group appears to be determined independently (Rubin et al.
1998). Climatic patterns arc correlated across the Peninsular Ranges, suggesting that other local
factors specific to ewe groups play important roles in determining long-term abundance trends
(Rubin et al. 1998). Independent population trends also were observed among ewe groups in the
Mojave Desert (Wehausen 1992).
In the southern pan of the San Jacinto Mountains, a ewe group currently consists of 29 adult
male and female bighorn sheep, with only 4 native adult ewes and 6 captive -released ewes. The
subpopulation has remained approximately stable (17-26 individuals) from 1992-2000, but the
unbalanced sex ratio causes concern (Bighorn Institute 2000). The three Santa Rosa Mountain
ewe groups declined 69 percent from 1984 to 1990, remained stable at 115-120 individuals from
1990-1995, until declining in 1996 to approximately 95 adults, Currently, these 3 ewe groups
total approximately 129 adults (CDFG 2004 helicopter surveys, unpublished data). The ewe groups
in the northern Santa Rosas and southern San Jacinto Mountains continue to receive intensive
monitoring from the Bighorn Institute, and have periodically been augmented with captive -
reared individuals.
Field Manager, BLM (FWS-ERIV-2735.3) 21
Area Manager, BOR
Helicopter surveys south of the Santa Rosa Mountains, indicated a 28 percent decline in ewe
numbers in a recent 2 -year period (from an estimate of 141 females in 1994 to 102 females in
1996; Rubin et al. 1998), and a statistically non-significant increase (from approximately 102 to
112 females) from 1996 to 1998 (Rubin et al. 1999). Ewe groups in Coyote Canyon, North San
Ysidro Mountains, and South San Ysidro Mountains currently average approximately 36
individuals each, with the number of ewes ranging from 17 to 27. The 2000 helicopter survey
indicated that the Vallecitos Mountains and Carrizo Canyon (southern) ewe groups have
increased significantly since 1996.
Bighorn sheep are relatively long-lived animals that have the potential to reproduce over an
extended period of time (2-16 years). Therefore, periods of above average recruitment may
compensate for periods of low recruitment (Wehausen 1992). Forage quality and quantity vary
with environmental conditions, and thus female condition, and conception, parturition and lamb
survival rates reflect this natural variation. However, if mortality agents begin impacting adult
survival, then subpopulation levels may drop dramatically, endangering the existence of a ewe
group. Consequently, a ewe group's persistence is always vulnerable to disease outbreaks, high
levels of predation, mortality caused by urbanization, and habitat loss from human disturbance
and development.
Threats: Cause specific mortality in the San Jacinto Mountains was studied from 1992 to 1998.
During this period, five mortalities were attributed to mountain lion (Puma concolor) predation,
two were attributed to bobcat or mountain lion predation, and three died of unknown causes
(DeForge et al. 1997; Bighorn Institute 1997, 1998).
In the northern Santa Rosa Mountains, artificially irrigated vegetation attracts bighorn sheep and
creates a hazard for them. Though often thought to be the product of releasing captive -reared
animals into the wild, behavioral habituation to urban sources of food and water began when
urbanization started encroaching into bighorn habitat in the 1950's, several decades before
population augmentation began in 1985 (Tevis 1959, DeForge and Scott 1982, Ostermann et al.
in press, V. Bleich, pers. comm.). A study of cause -specific mortality conducted from 1991 to
1996 revealed that predation accounted for 28 percent of 32 adult bighorn sheep mortalities (25
percent due to lion predation and 3 percent due to either lion or bobcat predation) and 34 percent
were directly caused by urbanization (DeForge and Ostermann 1998b), The remaining
mortalities were due to disease (3 percent) and undetermined causes (34 percent). Of the 11
adult mortalities attributed to urbanization, 5 were due to automobile collisions, 5 were caused
by exotic plant poisoning, and 1 bighorn ram was strangled in a wire fence. An additional four
bighorn sheep were struck but not killed by vehicles. Toxic plants causing mortality included
oleander (Nerium oleander) and laurel cherry (Prunus sp.) (Bighorn Institute 1995, 1996).
Preliminary results from an ongoing study of radio collared Iambs indicate that urbanization is
also affecting lamb survival in this ewe group. Eight of nine deaths occurred within 300 meters
(980 feet) of the urban interface (Bighorn Institute 1999). Of the nine lamb mortalities recorded
in 1998 and 1999, five were attributed to coyote or bobcat predation, one to mountain lion
Field Manager, BLM (PWS-LRIV-2735.3) 22
Arca Manager, BOR
predation, and three to the direct and indirect effects of urbanization (automobile collision and
drowning in a swimming pool). Dogs also have been observed to chase bighorn ewes and their
Iambs near residential areas (E. Rubin, pers. comm.), and dogs likely caused the death of 2
yearlings in April 2001 (J. DeForge, pers. comm.).
Though mule deer (Odocoileus hemio us) are the primary prey of mountain lions in North
America (Anderson 1983), and the range of bighorn sheep in the Peninsular Ranges largely
avoids overlap with mule deer, lion predation may threaten individual ewe groups in the
Peninsular Ranges (Hayes et al. 2000), and has the potential to affect population recovery. From
November 1992 to May 1998, Mayes et al. (2000) found the primary cause of death of radio-
collared adult bighorn sheep between Highway 7'l (in the Santa Rosa Mountains) and the U.S.-
Mexico border was predation by mountain lions. Lion predation accounted for at least 69
percent of the 61 adult mortalities and occurred in tach of the ewe groups in this portion of the
range (Hayes ea al. 2000). Annually, lion predation accounted for 50 to 100 percent of the
bighorn sheep mortality, and did not exhibit a decreasing or increasing trend during 199310
1997. Lion predation appeared to show a seasonal pattern, with the majority of incidents
occurring during the cooler and wetter months of the year. A bighorn sheep's risk of predation
did not appear to be related to its age. 1t is unknown, however, how current levels of lion
predation observed throughout the Peninsular Ranges compare to historic levels. Reported
incidents of lion predation were not common in the past and predation was not considered to be a
serious risk to bighorn shccp (Weaver and Mensch 1970, Jorgensen and Turner 1975,
Cunningham 1982). 11 is important to note that the increase in the number of radio-collared
bighorn sheep since 1993 has greatly increased the detection of such mortalities, and it is
possible that other factors influencing Peninsular bighorn sheep and alternate prey species have
altered the proportion of mortalities caused by lion predation. Bighorn sheep evolved in the
presence of predators, and developed effective physical and behavioral mechanisms for dealing
with them. Similar to other desert bighorn populations, sheep in the Peninsular Ranges have
likely experienced varying levels of lion predation for thousands of years. However, when other
factors, such as drought, habitat loss and fragmentation due to urbanization, diseases, and other
mortality factors reduce populations to low levels and/or alter the abundance and distribution of
alternate prey species, such as mule deer, then the influence of predation on population dynamics
may increase (Logan and Swcanor 2001).
In areas of the Peninsular Ranges beyond the Coachella Valley, past field observations and
records documented mortalities resulting from predation (of Iambs) by coyotes (Canis iatrans)
(Weaver and Mensch 1970, Jorgensen and Turner 1975, DeForge and Scott 1912), train
collisions (Jorgensen and Turner 1973), automobile collisions (Turner 1976, Ricks 197g),
poaching (Jones et al. 1957, Jorgensen and Turner 1973, Cunningham 1982), and accidental falls
('Turner 1976). Golden eagles (Aquila cluysaeros) and bobcats (Lynx nefas) arc also potential
predators.
Field Manager, BLM (FWS-ERIV-2735.3) 23
Area Manager, BOR
The westward spread of Europeans and their domestic livestock across North America was
thought to play a significant role in reducing the distribution and abundance of bighorn sheep
due to the introduction of new infectious diseases (Spraker 1977, Onderka and Wishart 1984). In
particular, domestic sheep have been repeatedly implicated in Pasteurella pneumonia die -offs of
bighorn sheep. It has been hypothesized that disease has played an important role in the
population dynamics of bighorn sheep in the Peninsular Ranges (DeForge et al. 1982, DeForge
and Scott 1982, Turner and Payson 1982, Wehausen et al. 1987). Numerous pathogens have
been isolated or detected by serologic assay from bighorn sheep in these ranges. These
pathogens include bluetongue virus, contagious ecthyma virus, parainfluenza -3 virus, bovine
respiratory syncy9iai virus, Anaplasma, Chlamydlia, Leptospira, Pasteurella, Psoroptes, and
Dermacentor (DeForge et al., 1982; Clark et al. 1985, 1993; Mazet et a1. 1992; Elliott et al.
1994; Boyce 1995; Crosbie et al., 1997, DeForge era/. 1997).
DeForge et al. (1982) found multiple pathogens (contagious ecthyma virus, blue tongue,
Pas/cure/1a, and parainfluenza virus) and low lamb recruitment in association with overall
population declines. Between 1982 and 1998, 39 lambs showing signs of illness (lethargy,
droopy ears, nasal discharge, and lung consolidation) were collected from the Santa Rosa
(northern and southern), Jacumba, and In -Ko -Pah Mountains for disease research and
rehabilitation at the Bighorn Institute (Ostermann et al. 2001). Additionally, DeForge et al.
(1995) documented a population decline throughout the Santa Rosa Mountains during 1983 to
1994, resulting from inadequate recruitment. Although a cause and effect relationship between
disease and population decline has not been clearly established in the Peninsular Ranges, results
from several studies provide support for this hypothesis (DeForge et al. 1952, Clark et al. 1985,
Wchausen et al. 1987, Clark et al. 1993, Elliot et al. 1994, DeForge et al. 1995). Analysis of
spatial variation in pathogen exposure among bighorn sheep sampled between 1978 to 1990
showed that Peninsular bighorn sheep populations and other populations in southern California
have higher levels of pathogen exposure than other populations of bighom sheep in the State
(Elliott et aL 1994). The presence of feral goats in portions of the Santa Rosa Mountains until
the late 1970's to early 1980's may have contributed to exposure of wild bighorn to disease
during this period of population decline (D. Jessup, in lilt. 1999). All evidence indicates that the
influence of disease in the Peninsular Ranges has subsided in recent years. For example, recent
sampling and examination of bighorn sheep throughout the range indicated that most animals
were clinically normal (Boyce 1995; DeForge et al. 1997; Bighorn Institute 1997, 1998, 1999).
Additional research is necessary to better understand the relationship between disease and
population trajectories. Furthermore, it appears that risk of disease and parasites might differ
among ewe groups based on their exposure and habitat use patterns, therefore future research
should address these questions at the level of the ewe group and population. Although an
epizootic docs not currently appear to be occurring in the Peninsular Ranges, diseases pose a
threat that could potentially occur at any time, especially if sheep experience chronic levels of
disturbance (Geist 1971, Hamilton et al. 1982, Spraker et al. 1984, King and Workman 1986,
Festa-Bianchet 1988, Desert Bighom Council 1992),
Field Manager, BLM (FWS-ER1V-2735.3) 24
Arca Manager, BOR
Habitat loss is a leading cause of current species extinctions and endangerment worldwide
(13urgman et al. 1993), It represents a particularly serious threat to Peninsular bighorn sheep,
because they live in a narrow band of lower elevation habitat that represents some of the most
desirable real estate in the California desert, and it is being developed at a rapid pace. At least
7,490 hectares (18,500 acres or about 30 square miles) of suitable habitat has been lost to
urbanization and agriculture within the range of the three ewe groups that occur along the urban
interface between Palm Springs and La Quinta. Within the narrow band of habitat, bighorn
sheep make use of sparse and sometimes sporadically available resources found within their
home ranges. As humans encroach into this habitat, these resources are eliminated or reduced in
value, and the survival of ewe groups is threatened. Bighorn sheep are also sensitive to habitat
loss or modification because they are poor dispersers (Geist 1967, 1971), largely learning their
ranging patterns from older animals. When habitat is lost or modified, the affected group is
likely to remain within their familiar surroundings but with a reduced likelihood of population
persistence, due to the reduced quantity and/or quality of resources.
Encroaching urban development and anthropogenic disturbances have the dual effect of
restricting animals to a smaller area and severing connections between ewe groups.
Fragmentation poses a particularly severe threat to species with a metapopulation structure
because overall survival depends on interaction among suhpopulations. The movement of rams
and occasional ewes between ewe groups maintains genetic diversity and augments populations
of individual ewe groups (Brown and Kodric-Brown 1977, Soule 1980, Krausman and Leopold
1986, Schwartz er al. 1986, Burgman et al. 1993). "Temporary moves by females between
neighboring ewe groups could also provide new habitat knowledge facilitating future range
expansion (Geist 1971). Increased fragmentation reduces such possibilities.
Beyond physical barriers to movement, fragmentation also can result from less obvious forms of
habitat modification. Increased traffic on roads apparently make bighorn sheep, especially ewes,
hesitant to cross these roads (Rubin er al. 1998). Animals that do cross suffer an additional risk
of mortality from automobile collisions (Turner 1976, McQuivey 1978, Cunningham and deVos
1992, DeForge and Osterntann 1998b, Bighorn Institute 1999), with the result that a group
whose range is bisected by a road can have reduced viability in the long term (Cunningham and
deVos 1992). Human disturbance along trails can cause sheep to avoid those areas (Papouchis et
al. 1999), potentially affecting bighorn sheep movement and habitat use, thereby fragmenting
bighorn sheep distribution, although the habitat appears to be intact.
Development and human populations along the eastern slope of the Peninsular Ranges continue
to grow at a rapid pace at the lower and upper elevational boundaries of Peninsular bighorn
sheep habitat. The Coachella Valley Association of Governments anticipates that by the year
2010, the human population in the Coachella Valley will increase from 227,000 to over 497,000,
not including 165,000 to 200,000 seasonal residents. Bighorn population declines typically have
been most pronounced in ewe groups adjoining the urban interfact in the Coachella Valley.
Field Manager, BLM (FWS-ER1V-2735.3) 25
Arca Manager, BOR
Similar to predation, prolonged drought is a natural factor that can have negative impacts on
desert bighorn sheep populations, either by limiting water sources or by affecting forage quality
(Rosenzweig 1968, Hansen 1980a, Monson 1980, Douglas and Leslie 1986, Wehausen et al.
1987). During drought years, the concentration of bighorn sheep near remaining water sources
may increase competition for forage as well as water, thereby limiting population growth through
density dependent regulation (Caughley 1977, Gotelli 1995). In addition, increased density
potentially renders animals more susceptible to diseases or parasites (Anderson and May 1979,
May and Anderson 1979).
Domestic livestock and feral animals can reduce the availability and quality of resources (water
and forage) required by bighorn sheep, and can function as potential vectors for diseases such as
bluetongue virus (Mullens et al. 1986). In portions of the range, water has been pumped from
aquifers and diverted away from springs for use by ranches and private residences, reducing and
eliminating the water sources upon which bighorn sheep depend (Tevis 1961; Blong 1967;
Turner 1976; M. Jorgensen, pers. comm., Anza-Borrego State Park).
In the Peninsular Ranges, the presence of tamarisk (Tamarix sp.), also known as saltcedar,
represents a serious threat to bighorn sheep. This exotic plant consumes large amounts of water
and has rapid reproductive and dispersal rates (Sanchez 1975, Lovich et al. 1994), enabling it to
out compete native plant species in canyon bottoms and washes. It has the following negative
effects on bighorn sheep: 1) it reduces or eliminates the standing water on which bighorn sheep
depend, 2) it out competes plant species on which bighorn sheep feed, and 3) it occurs in thick,
often impenetrable stands that block access to water sources and provide cover for predators.
Fire suppression can influenee the distribution and habitat use patterns of bighorn sheep by
causing avoidance of areas with low visibility (Risenhoover and Bailey 1985, Wakelyn 1987,
Etchberger et al. 1989, Etehberger et al. 1990, Krausman 1993, Krausman et al. 1996). Long-
term fire suppression results in taller, denser stands of vegetation, thereby reducing openness and
visibility making bighorn sheep more susceptible to predation (Sierra Nevada Bighorn Sheep
Interagency Advisory Group 1997). In addition, Graf (1980) suggested that fire suppression
reduces forage conditions in some bighorn sheep ranges. In the Peninsular Ranges, changes in
vegetation succession are evident in some portions of bighorn sheep range, primarily in higher
elevation chaparral and pinyon -juniper habitats, and have apparently decreased bighorn sheep
use of certain canyons and springs (M. Jorgensen, pers. comm.).
Disease problems have periodically caused die -offs of bighorn sheep herds throughout their
range, and the Peninsular Ranges have not escaped this problem (DeForge et al. 1982, DeForge
and Scott 1982, Tumer and Payson 1982, Wehauscn et al. 1987). The most virulent pathogens
appear to originate from domestic livestock, and are not endemic to bighorn sheep.
Consequently, bighorns have not evolved with these pathogens and have little resistance
compared to domestic livestock. The threat of novel strains of previously experienced pathogens
Field Manager, BLM (FWS-ERIV-2735.3) 26
Area Manager, BOR
and entirely new ones is always present. Potential vectors for disease transmission vary from
domestic livestock and insects to other native wild ungulates. For example, if the current foot
and mouth disease being experienced in Europe eventually reaches North America, then white-
tailed deer and mule deer may become infected. This scenario could eventually lead to a serious
problem for all North American ungulates. Chronic wasting disease is currently a problem
within commercial cervid operations and currently exists within wild cervid populations in the
central Rocky Mountains. This disease could potentially spread westward, and its ecosystem
level effects could cause major problems for all native wild ungulates.
The number of illegal immigrants entering the U.S. from Mexico continues to increase despite
the efforts of the U.S. Border Patrol. Some of these immigrants travel through the Peninsular
Ranges and camp at water sources where they may occasionally kill and consume bighorn sheep,
or displace them. The Border Patrol is responding by increasing its activity along the border and
in the southern Peninsular Ranges. Consequently the level of human disturbance in the area is
increasing. This scenario may cause bighorn sheep to avoid areas they once utilized.
Synopsis of Status/Critical Habitat
Since listing in 1998, biennial range -wide surveys have estimated that the Peninsular bighorn
sheep population has increased from about 280 adult and yearling sheep to about 700 sheep in
2004 (CDFG unpubl. data). Over this time frame, mountain lion predation has become less
pronounced in the Anza-Borrego Desert State Park area compared to predation rates observed in
the mid-1990s (Hayes et al. 2000). The apparent absence of major disease outbreaks in the same
area has benefited recruitment of lambs into the breeding population. This combination of
improved adult survivorship and lamb recruitment appear to be the primary factors contributing
to population expansion in the southern ranges. In the Santa Rosa Mountains, ewe
subpopulations generally have increased as well, though in part for different reasons, since ewe
group population dynamics are typically independent from each other (Rubin et al. 1998). In the
northern Santa Rosa Mountains, the recent population expansion appears largely attributable to
completion of a barrier fence that has improved survivorship of adults and lambs by eliminating
formerly high levels of urban related mortality, including death from vehicle collisions,
strangulation in fences, drowning in swimming pools, ingestion of toxic plants, etc (DcForge and
Osterman') 1998). fn the San Jacinto Mountains, the population has fluctuated at low numbers
(approximately 20-30 adult bighorn) since 1993 (DeForge et al. 1997; Bighorn Institute 1998-
2004 annual reports). As in the northern Santa Rosas, population augmentation through the
release of captive -reared sheep has been an important contributing factor to the maintenance and
recovery of the population. Of the 10 ewes currently extant in the San Jacintos, six sheep arc
captive releases. Incidence of disease has been relatively quiescent in sheep subpopulations in
the Coachella Valley, which also has contributed to overall population growth. However, a
disease outbreak of unknown cause and origin was documented in the Santa Rosa Mountains in
the summer of 2005, and may have reduced the population in the northern Santa Rosa Mountains
by about 38 percent (Bighorn Institute, unpubl. data).
Field Manager, BLM (FWS-ERIV-2735.3) 27
Area Manager, BOR
The 844,897 acres of designated critical habitat were primarily based on the prior delineation of
essential habitat in the Recovery Plan (Service 2000). At the time of listing and preparation of
the Recovery Plan, the Peninsular bighorn sheep population was near its historic low point and
one of the primary considerations in preparation of the Recovery Plan was protecting sufficient
space to support population growth needed to support the recovery objectives of maintaining
subpopulations of at least 25 adult ewes within each of nine designated recovery regions of
delineated essential habitat and an overall population level of 750 adults and yearlings. The
critical habitat designation was intended to maintain connectivity across the nine recovery
regions so that the metapopulation dynamics among these subpopulations would be allowed to
continue. Within the critical habitat designation, the primary constituent elements included
space for the normal behavior of groups and individuals; protection from disturbance;
availability of various native desert plant communities found on different topographic slopes,
aspects, and landforms, such as steep slopes, rolling foothills, alluvial fans, and canyon bottoms;
a range of habitats that provide forage, especially during periods of drought; steep, remote
habitat for lambing, rearing of young, and escape from disturbance and/or predation; water
sources; and suitable linkages allowing individual bighorn to move freely between ewe groups
and maintain connections between subpopulations. These constituent elements were recognized
as essential to meet the biological needs of feeding, resting, reproduction and population
recruitment, dispersal, connectivity, and isolation from detrimental disturbances.
ENVIRONMENTAL BASELINE
The area affected directly and/or indirectly by the proposed project includes all areas that would be
developed or conserved areas on the project site, as well as the adjoining sections 5 and 32, and is
hereinafter referred to as the action area.
Two major native vegetation communities occur on the project site (Thomas Olsen Associates,
Inc.1994): Sonoran Creosote Bush Scrub and Desert Dry Wash Woodland. These two
communities encompass approximately 680 acres or about 75 percent of the project site. The
remainder of the project site, 226 acres or about 25 percent, is a cultivated vineyard. Native
vegetation community types described below follow Holland (1986).
Sonoran Creosote Bush Scrub: This vegetation community is similar to the Mojave Creosote
Bush Scrub but has a greater diversity of plant species and growth forms, likely due to warmer
temperatures and a seasonally split rainfall regime, The dominant woody perennial shrub in the
project area is creosote bush (Lerma tridentate). Other plants found onsite include pencil cholla
(Opuntia ramosissima), indigo bush (Psorothamnus fremontii), sweetbush (Bebbia sp.),
brittlebush (Encelia farinosa), desert lavender (Hyptis emoryi), white bursage (Ambrosia
dumosa), and ocotillo (Fouquieria splendens). A variety of annual forbs, which typically flower
in late February and March, are also found in the project area. This vegetation community
occurs on slopes, fans, and valleys with high soil salinity and winter temperatures usually above
freezing.
A
Field Manager, BLM (FWS-ER1V-2735.3) 28
Area Manager, BOR
Desert Dry Wash Woodland: Desert Dry Wash Woodland is associated with sandy or gravelly
washes and arroyos of the lower Mojave and Colorado deserts and occurs mainly in frost -free
areas. This vegetation community is a drought deciduous, microphyllous xeroriparian thorn
scrub woodland dominated by various trees and shrubs of the legume family, including blue pato
verde (Cercidium floridum), smoke tree (Psorothamnus spinosus), sweetbush, desert lavender,
brittlebush, and catclaw acacia (Acacia greggii). Compared to the Sonoran Creosote Bush
Scrub, vegetation in this community is more abundant. During a field survey after summer rains,
a desert seep was observed at the confluence of two large ephemeral washes in the narrow linear
portion of the property near the southwestern corner of Section 3 (Ecological Ventures
California, Inc. 2003).
Existing structures and disturbances on the project site include a cultivated vineyard,
groundwater wells, a mobile home compound, and dumping sites (SFC Consultants 1998).
These are discussed in greater detail below. Existing roads on the property consist of dirt and
gravel tracks in and around the vineyard. Dirt roads or vehicle trails also lead southward toward
the Martinez Rockslide, and generally crisscross the site. The vineyard is located entirely
outside the boundaries of critical habitat for Peninsular bighorn sheep, where grapes have been
cultivated since at least 1981.
Though bighorn sheep in the action area have not been the focus of intensive study, sheep have
been documented consistently on the mountain slopes south and west of the project site during
annual surveys (Bighorn Institute, unpubl. data). Consistent observations over time of sheep in
the same general area typically indicate habitation as part of a home range of one or more sheep.
CDFG surveys (K. Brennan, in lift.) also have documented sheep use (two rams and one ewe) in
alluvia] habitat near the vineyard, over 0.5 miles from the closest escape terrain. In addition,
data are available for one radio -collared ewe with a GPS unit, which showed regular use in the
main canyon draining into the southwestern portion of the project site. Consultants hired by the
project proponent also documented sheep sign on the property in this area (S. Deiateur, pers.
comm., P. Krausman, in list.).
The project site encompasses about 457 acres of designated critical habitat for Peninsular
bighorn sheep. Of this about 267 acres would be developed and abouttaNcres would be
permanently conserved on and off-site in sections 4 and 5. The primary function and particular
constituent elements in the action area include foraging habitat and water sources, escape terrain,
isolation from human disturbance, and lambing and rearing habitat. Compared to critical habitat
areas farther north along the urban interface, critical habitat in the action area is not as heavily
disturbed by human activities, and therefore, provides greater sanctuary for the resident sheep
population. This relative lack of disturbance and habitat loss is related to the extensive and
undeveloped alluvial fan system that has functioned in absorbing and curtailing sources of
disturbance beyond the limits of established sheep home ranges largely centered along the
bordering mountain sides, and absence of recognized trails and high recreational use levels, to
Field Manager, BLM (FWS-ERIV-2735.3)
Area Manager, BOR
date. As an apparent result, sheep population levels in this ewe group have been more stable,
without the dramatic declines observed in more urbanized areas to the north.
Err✓ECTS OF THE ACTION
29
Direct Effects
For the purposes of this analysis, all references to bighorn sheep habitat below also pertain to
designated critical habitat for Peninsular bighom sheep; in other words, loss of lands outside
critical habitat were not considered to represent a loss of bighom sheep habitat because the
critical habitat designation in this area was sufficiently robust to capture those areas typically
expected to be used by bighorn sheep.
The proposed project would directly eliminate about 267 acres of designated critical habitat for
Peninsular bighorn sheep and permanently conserve a minimum of about 290 acres of on-site
and off-site critical habitat in sections 4 and 5. The reconfiguration of the project footprint
discussed above under the project description was designed to avoid the most biologically
valuable portions of the project site and reduce the intrusion of development into bighorn sheep
habitat. By scaling back the project along its southern boundaries on the eastern and western
sides of the Martinez Rockslide, the revised project boundary now largely avoids the canyon
mouths with alluvial fan plant communities (primarily desert dry wash woodland), thereby
maintaining a portion of this habitat type available to bighorn sheep in the project area. Radio -
collar data indicate that the alluvial habitat avoided in the southwestern corner of the project site
occurs within the northernmost portion of a ewe home range that otherwise extends over the
rockslide south into Martinez Canyon. Field work by biological contractors of the project
proponent also located bighorn sign in this area, as referenced above.
The loss of desert dry wash woodland would primarily affect bighorn sheep by further reducing
the seasonal availability of nutritious forage found in this increasingly scarce alluvial fan plant
community. However, the extent to which this area has been used by bighorn sheep is not
known because of the limited amount of field work on sheep that has been conducted in the
project vicinity. CDFG data (K. Brennan, in litt) documented sheep use in the northwestern
corner of Section 4, which indicates that sheep occasionally venture far into the fan, well away
from the closest escape terrain. Extensive use of alluvial slopes distant from escape terrain also
has been documented repeatedly in portions of Anza-Borrego Desert State Park, which suggests
that regular use in areas without nearby escape terrain can be expected in remote areas with a
general absence of human -related disturbance. Though this loss of foraging habitat represents a
reduction in ecological value for bighorn sheep in the general area, redesign of the project
configuration, as discussed above, retained about 110 acres of alluvial habitat on-site for the
benefit of sheep, which would continue to help meet the nutritional needs of current and future
sheep generations inhabiting the project area, provided that cross-country hiking and
proliferation of trails are effectively prevented so that bighorn sheep will continue to feel secure
Field Manager, BLM (FWS-ERIV-2735.3) 30
Area Manager, BOR
in using these foraging areas more distant from available escape cover (see the Indirect Effects
section below for more detail).
Travertine's stated off-site habitat conservation strategy of acquiring discontinuous parcels in
Section 5 also is designed to protect valuable alluvial foraging habitat, as well as indirectly
protecting even more such habitat on intervening parcels by reducing their development potential
through fragmentation of land into smaller units with reduced economic development potential.
To date, Travertine has acquired over 20 acres of scattered parcels for conservation of bighorn
sheep critical habitat and has committed to purchase an additional approximately 100 acres in
some of the more developable portions of Section 5. In addition, Travertine has agreed to loan
CVAG or CVCC $2 million for additional habitat acquisition in Section 5 if the CVMSHCP is
approved. When combined with a recent parcel acquisition by the Friends of the Desert
Mountains, BLM and Coachella Valley Mountains Conservancy land acquisition programs, and
grant -in -aide funding from the Service through CDFG for acquiring bighorn sheep habitat, the
emerging pattem of conservation in Section 5 can be expected to continue. Please see below for
expanded discussion on this topic.
Indirect Effects
For the purposes of this analysis, indirect effects are defined as those that are caused by the
proposed action and are later in time but still are reasonably certain to occur (50 CFR 402.02).
We anticipate three potential types of indirect effects from the proposed project that likely would
be minimized and partially avoided by die various conservation measures agreed to by the
project proponent: (1) construction/operation-related disturbance, (2) potential maladaptive
behaviors associated with bighorn sheep attraction to artificial sources of food and water on the
proposed golf course, and (3) inducement of future development on private lands in Section 5
adjoining the project site on the west.
The project reconfiguration discussed above was designed to minimize impacts to sheep use in
adjoining habitat. Nonetheless, project construction activities likely would disrupt sheep
behavior in surrounding areas by causing sheep to avoid using portions of their home ranges and
alluvial fan foraging habitat, on a temporary basis. Avoidance behavior would potentially
expose sheep to higher predation risk if sheep movement is restricted to smaller use areas. If
dust control measures during construction are not adequate or properly applied, airborne
particulates could be inhaled by bighorn sheep and cause adverse pulmonary reactions and health
effects, However, the project's construction must comply with the PM 10 regulations controlling
all grading activity in the Coachella Valley. Airborne dust from a major construction activity is
thought to have led to an all -age die -off of sheep in the Rocky Mountains (Spraker et al. 1984).
The proposed conservation measures of using passive design features, such as berms,
juxtaposition of golf and trail components to prevent off -trail excursions by recreationists, and
monitoring/trespass enforcement by golf course marshals should curtail most human disturbance
levels in adjoining bighorn sheep habitat, though some harassment of sheep by noncompliant
Field Manager, BLM (FWS-ERIV-2735.3) 31
Area Manager, BOR
individuals may be unavoidable. Overall, the proposed project design, including contingency
fencing measures, would effectively manage edge effects of the project to a level that would not
appreciably detract from sheep use in adjoining habitats, except for a typical pattern of apparent
avoidance of disturbance that is evident in the compilation of sheep data along the existing urban
interface north of the project site.
The fencing contingency plan also would minimize exposure of bighorn sheep to the hazards
associated with artificial sources of food and water on the golf course that fronts adjacent habitat.
Though sheep in this ewe group have not generally habituated to urban settings, a bighorn ewe
with a rumen full of green grass was recently found drowned in the Coachella Canal adjoining
PGA West (CDFG, unpubl. information). Thus, the initially unfenced golf course would pose a
risk of habituation and exposure to disease and parasite hazards that have been documented
elsewhere (DeForge and Ostermann 1998, as cited in Service 2000). However, we anticipate
that if sheep begin to habituate to on-site urban environments, the fencing committee (composed
of HOA, CDFG, and Service representatives) would oversee construction of a sheep -proof fence
along a predetermined easement with a funding source created prior to project construction, as
described in Conservation Measure 5.
A fence also would be constructed if recreational trespass occurs along the Rockslide Access
Trail into bighorn sheep habitat in the canyons bordering the east and west edges of the
rockslide, or creates spur trails upslope into the canyons west of the project site.
The last and potentially most damaging indirect effect of the project would be the extension of
(1) legal access across BLM and BOR lands that connects with an existing 30 -foot wide
easement along the northern boundary of sections 4 and 5 (Avenue 62), and (2) physical access
to a point in Section 4 about 100 yards east of the corner of sections 4, 5, 32, and 33. Currently.
there is no all-weather road access into Section 5, without which, development in Section 5
would not be possible. With access provided by the proposed rights-of-way across BLM and
BOR lands, the economics of delivering utilities and related infrastructure, and associated effects
to projected return on investment, would likely influence, as one of many development
considerations, future development patterns in Section 5.
As described above, legal access for Section 5 lies within an existing 30 -foot wide public right-
of-way easement along the northern border of Section 5. About 100 yards east of the
northwestern corner of Section 4, the easement largely lies in the main wash along Avenue 62
where it turns to Jefferson Street. Any future all-weather roadway to City standards within this
easement would have to be constructed in the bottom of that wash for about 0.25 mile due west
before the wash bends south out of the easement, at which point the access road would have to
be graded up the north cut bank of the wash.lf a construction design were physically and
economically feasible, which may be questionable, given the uneven terrain and hydrological
challenges of designing a roadway to City standards in a deeply incised major wash, a Streambed
Alteration Agreement with CDFG and a section 404 permit from the U.S. Army Corps of
Field Manager, BLM (FWS-ERIV-2735.3) 32
Area Manager, BOR
Engineers would be needed. Among other requirements, CDFG would typically examine the
effects on threatened and endangered species and the U.S. Army Corps would require a section 7
consultation with the Service. Moreover, both agencies typically require the loss of desert
washes and microphyllous woodland to be mitigated by the acquisition of equivalent value
habitat at a 3:1 acreage ratio. Access to individual parcels across the dissected surface of the
alluvial fan would require the crossing of numerous other washes as well. Any road construction
to the north of this existing easement in Section 32 would require BLM approval, as Section 32
is BLM ]and. Any road construction to the south of this easement would require approval of the
various owners of parcels within Section 5. Travertine owns several of these parcels and has
committed to not provide approval for right-of-way access rights outside of the existing
easement.
Associated with the potential growth inducement associated with its proposed action, Travertine
Corporation assessed the feasibility of residential construction in Section 5 by conducting an
investigation into the economic and regulatory logistics of delivering necessary infrastructure to
this section (Section 5 Addendum to the Travertine Biological Assessment), including roads,
water, sewer, electricity, gas, and telephone/cable. Because Travertine has agreed not to provide
additional capacity or discretionary hookups to meet potential infrastructural needs in Section 5,
any future development would have to tap into utility trunk lines down-slope from Travertine,
more than 1.5 miles away, or potentially north of Travertine in the Green Specific Plan area,
about 1 mile way. The estimated costs of extending infrastructural capacity from the valley
floor, through Travertine, and up to the eastern boundary of Section 5, and of extending Avenue
62 from Section 4 into Section 5 by 1,100 and 2,350 lineal feet, totaled about $8.8 and $11.9
million, respectively. Prorated over a hypothetical 80 -unit subdivision, these off-site
infrastructural costs added about $148,000 per house. If only 40 units are built, these off-site
cost double to nearly $300,000 per lot. This estimate does not include the substantial costs
related to development of on-site water retention, water improvements, sewer improvements, off-
site drainage and hillside grading. By agreeing not to provide infrastructural capacity for
additional development beyond the needs of Travertine itself, the proposed project likely would
partially subsidize possible development in Section 5 for transportation (legal and physical
access) costs only, but would increase the other development costs, due to the need for re -
excavation and installation of greater capacity within utility easements that already would have
been installed for the proposed Travertine project.
Whether this partial transportation subsidy would tip the economic balance in favor of
development in Section 5, despite the other substantial development costs involved, is arguable.
All else being equal, a reduction in transportation -related costs would be an appreciable
inducement to development. However, as discussed in the Section 5 Addendum to the Travertine
Biological Assessment, numerous other substantial economic and regulatory issues would
remain. Legal access along the possible extension of Avenue 62 into Section 5 would be
constrained to an existing 30 -foot wide public right-of-way easement, given Travertine's
commitment to not grant access to prospective developers. However, a subdivision would
Field Manager, BLM (FWS-ERIV-2735.3) 33
Area Manager, BOR
typically require a collector street (74 feet wide) or a secondary arterial (88 feet wide) (La Quinta
Municipal Code 13.24.070 Street Design—Generally, & Table 13.24.060). But since the
potential Avenue 62 extension is not a General Plan street, the City typically would not use
eminent domain to condemn private property in Section 5 to provide a developer with a right-of-
way wide enough to meet City codes. Therefore, assuming a developer could not obtain
necessary additional right-of-way width from certain landowners in Section 5, such a developer
would likely seek a right-of-way expansion into Section 32 and initiate a grant application with
BLM. However, with legal access already provided on private lands in Section 5, BLM would
not be under a legal obligation to grant a license on public lands. If BLM were so inclined to
grant a right-of-way easement, BLM would be required to consult with the Service under section
7 of the Act. Such consultation likely would incur a variety of minimization, conservation, or
compensation measures to offset adverse effects. Thus, the commitment of Travertine to not sell
or otherwise provide approval on its lands for an expanded easement, would appear to restrict
future development in Section 5 to an unknown but limited number of units that could be safely
served under the existing 30-foot wide easement. Considering the extraordinary infrastructural
costs needed to meet City codes for residential development, the regulatory delays and cost to
comply with CDFG and the Corps requirements, and the strategic conservation acquisitions
proposed by Travertine to breakup large blocks of potentially developable lands, any
development that might still occur likely would be substantially less than current City zoning.
Regardless, even a few residences if constructed at the mid- to upper elevations of Section 5, would
render most or all down-slope habitat largely unusable because bighorn sheep typically avoid areas
separated by sources of disturbance from the nearest escape terrain. This avoidance reaction by
sheep would also eliminate most or all habitat value on the approximately 120 acres of conserved
lands acquired by Travertine for the benefit of sheep in Section 5. Moreover, the urban interface
design of the Travertine project that prevents human intrusion into bighorn sheep habitat, and sheep
from accessing urban sources of food and water, would prove largely pointless and ineffective if
incremental development were permitted in Section 5.
A scenario where exclusive homes on large lots are scattered across the hillsides of Section 5
would extend the familiar pattern found along much of the urban interface to the north, where
trails would proliferate off vehicular access points (in this case the extension of Avenue 62),
creating an unplanned network up the numerous canyons and ridgelines along the toe of slope,
which provide essential lambing, rearing and escape habitat, seasonal/perennial water, and other
vital resources for sheep. As a result, sheep home ranges would withdraw upslope as human
disturbance dramatically increased along lower elevation canyons and ridgelines, thereby
diminishing seasonal/perennial resources essential to sustain stable population levels.
Sheep populations in the Deep Canyon and Martinez Canyon areas have been stable over the
known past, in contrast to the ewe groups in the northern Santa Rosa and San Jacinto Mountains
that declined to near extinction but were then rescued by release of captive-reared animals. This
pattern of population decline in ewe groups where development encroaches to the toe of slope
Field Manager, BLM (FWS-ERN-2735.3) 34
Area Manager, BOR
and consequently results in extensive cross country hiking and trails proliferation, likely would
be repeated in this area as well, unless Section 5 is protected with more space for sheep at the
lower elevations of their home ranges along the alluvial fan up to the western edge of the
Travertine project. As Krausman et al. (2003) have observed, "Avoiding extinction for the
northern Santa Rosa population and other mountain sheep populations faced with urban
expansion will require aggressive management. If encroachment is unavoidable because of
political or economic pressures, then every action should be taken to minimize mountain sheep
and human encounters When development occurs adjacent to and in mountain sheep habitat,
the sheep eventually decline and ultimately become extinct. Society is faced with a difficult
choice: either restrict suburban expansion and control human activities within sheep habitat or
accept the reality that sheep and expanding developments are simply not compatible."
As explained in detail in the Section 5 Addendum to the Travertine Biological Assessment, the
combined effects of Travertine's targeted conservation acquisitions in Section 5, the high cost to
bring road access and utilities up the slope into Section 5 west of Travertine's development
boundary, and the numerous regulatory requirements, arguably would not make future
development in Section 5 more likely as a result of the Travertine project. Were it not for
Travertine's proposed strategic conservation acquisitions, a developer potentially could assemble
enough acreage in the areas outside of La Quinta's Hillside Conservation Overlay District over
which to spread the costs of development and still leave the project economically viable.
Consequently, the development potential of Section 5 has been significantly diminished. Thus,
as reconfigured through this section 7 consultation, the Travertine project would minimize the
potential growth-inducing effects in Section 5 and potentially accelerate the dynamics for
permanent conservation of this area for bighorn sheep.
Summary: All the effects to bighorn sheep described in the above analysis pertain to areas
designated as critical habitat. Therefore, the various direct and indirect effects, together with the
associated conservation measures in the proposed action that would avoid, minimize, and
compensate for adverse effects to bighorn sheep, also pertain to designated critical habitat.
Overall, the direct elimination of about 267 acres of critical habitat was designed in a way that
retained most of the foraging habitat in close proximity to escape habitat. Thus, the conservation
strategy agreed to by the project proponent was to protect those foraging areas used most
frequently by bighorn sheep, and to allow the loss of those foraging areas farthest from escape
terrain that are used the least by sheep. By reconfiguring the project design in this way, the
primary role and function of critical habitat on and adjacent to the project site can be conserved
without appreciably diminishing the carrying capacity for bighorn sheep in the project area.
Field Manager, BLM (FWS-ERIV-2735.3) 35
Area Manager, BOR
CUMULATIVE EFFECTS
Cumulative effects include the effects of future State, tribal, local, or private actions that are
unrelated to the proposed action and reasonably certain to occur in the action area considered in
this biological opinion, Future Federal actions that are unrelated to the proposed action are not
considered in this section because they require separate consultation pursuant to section 7 of the
ESA.
We are aware that CVWD is intending to construct water percolation basins behind the existing
dike to the east of the Travertine project site; however, these sites occur outside critical habitat
and per our understanding of how they would be constructed and maintained, likely would not
adversely affect bighorn sheep.
If the CVMSHCP is approved, any potential development within Section 5 would be regulated
under what is termed under the CVMSHCP as the HANS process, which is designed to
determine whether all or parts of individual parcels are needed to meet the various conservations
goals and objectives of the plan, and to provide an acquisition mechanism for those parcels
needed for conservation. For the reasons discussed above, Section 5 west of the proposed
Travertine site is essential for the conservation of Peninsular bighorn sheep, and therefore, would
need to be conserved under the CVMSHCP.
CONCLUSION
After reviewing the current status and environmental baseline of the species, effects of the
proposed action, and cumulative effects, it is our biological opinion that the proposed action is
not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the Peninsular bighorn sheep, or adversely
modify designated critical habitat. This biological opinion does not rely on the regulatory
definition of "destruction or adverse modification" of critical habitat at 50 CFR 402.02. Instead,
we have relied upon the statutory provisions of the Act to reach these conclusions, which are
based on the following reasons:
1. The proposed project design has been substantially altered to better protect important
habitat features and primary constituent elements of critical habitat on the project site.
2. The numerous conservation measures would (a) minimize human intrusion into adjoining
critical habitat, (b) strategically acquire conservation lands to fragment otherwise
developable, larger blocks of land in Section 5, thereby temporarily/indirectly protecting
additional critical habitat from development until conservation funding becomes
available to permanently conserve these intervening private lands, (c) permanently
protect 290 acres of critical habitat, and (d) provide funding for bighorn sheep recovery
implementation.
Field Manager, BLM (FWS-ERN-2735.3)
Area Manager, BOR
3. The proposed project site is located along the edge of designated critical habitat, and
consequently would not fragment habitat, disrupt connectivity, or displace individual
sheep from current home ranges.
INCIDENTAL TAKE STATEMENT
36
Sections 7(b)(4) and 7(o)(2) of the Act do not apply to the incidental take of listed plant species.
However, protection of listed plants is provided in that the Act to the extent that removal or
reduction to possession of endangered or threatened plants from Federal lands requires a Federal
permit. it is unlawful for any person to remove, cut, dig up, damage or destroy a listed plant
species in knowing violation of any law or regulation of any state or in the course of any
violation of a State criminal trespass law [section 9(a)(2)(B) of the Act].
Sections 4(d) and 9 of the Act, as amended, prohibit taking (harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot,
wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or attempt to engage in any such conduct) of listed species
of fish and wildlife without a special exemption. Hann is further defined to include significant
habitat degradation or modification that results in death or injury to listed species by significantly
impairing behavioral patterns such as breeding, feeding, or sheltering, Harass is defined as
actions that significantly disrupt normal behavioral patterns which include, but are not limited to,
breeding, feeding, or sheltering. Incidental take is any take of listed animal species that results
from, but is not the purpose of, carrying out an otherwise lawful activity conducted by the
Federal agency or the applicant.
The measures described below are non -discretionary, and must be undertaken by the BLM and
BOR for the exemption in 7(o)(2) to apply. The BLM and BOR have a continuing duty to
regulate the activity covered by this incidental take statement. If the BLM and BOR fail to
assume and implement the terms and conditions, the protective coverage of 7(o)(2) may lapse.
To monitor the impact of the incidental take, the BLM and BOR must report the progress of the
action and its impact on species to the Service as specified in this incidental take statement [50
CFR 402.14(i)(3)].
Amount or Extent of Take
Though we do not anticipate that any Peninsular bighorn sheep would be directly injured or
killed as a result of the proposed project, we do anticipate that sheep in the vicinity of the project
would be harmed as a result of (1) project construction, (2) potential habituation to the initially
unfenced golf course, with consequent health and safety effects, and (3) disturbance by
recreational trespass from the proposed trail and improved public access to the site. Harm would
result from sheep avoiding and withdrawing from these sources of disturbance and noise
associated with the project and project -associated recreational -associated disturbance within
sheep habitat. Avoidance reactions and habituation to the same stimulus can both occur within a
given population of bighorn sheep due to behavioral variances among individuals. The scientific
Field Manager, BLM (FWS-ERIV-2735.3) 37
Area Manager, BOR
literature shows that not all bighorn sheep react in the same way to human disturbance, and a
portion of the individuals in the same population do not react as strongly and can habituate to
certain human activities (see for example 1-Iicks and Elder 1979, Leslie and Douglas 1980,
Papouchis et al, 2001); therefore it is not possible to quantify to number of individuals that
would he affected, but it is reasonable to conclude that it would be at least one, Take is given in
acres of disturbed habitat. Two hundred and sixty seven acres containing one or more primary
constituent elements of designated critical habitat will be permanently lost or altered due to the
proposed project and associated edge effects.
Reasonable ar:d Prudent Measures
This reasonable and prudent measure, with its accompanying term and condition, arc necessary
and appropriate to minimize the impact of the incidental take associated with the proposed
project.
BLM and 13OR shall ensure that the conservation obligations described in the biological
opinion are fully implemented over the life of the project.
Terms and Conditions
To be exetnpt from the prohibitions of section 9 of the Act, BLM and BOR must comply with
the following terms and condition, which implements the reasonable and prudent measure
described above. This term and condition is non -discretionary and requires that implementation
details are subject to the continuing oversight and concurrence of the Service.
BLM and BOR shall require in all access approvals crossing Federal lands that Travertine
Corporation and successors, and/or City of La Quinta, as appropriate (1) implement the
project description and conservation measures as described in this biological opinion, and
(2) submit all project design drawings, trail alignments, landscape plans, and grading
plans along the development: habitat edge, for Service review and approval, and ensure
that any Service -required modifications to these plans be incorporated into the final
approvals before the beginning of each phase of project constriction. BLM and BOR
shall immediately notify the Service of any noncompliance with adherence to the project
description and conservation measures described in the biological opinion. BLM and
BOR shalt require corrective measures where direct jurisdiction exists. Where direct
BLM and BOR jurisdiction does not exist, BLM and 1308 shall direct the City to rectify
any compliance issues. if not rectified per the above, noncompliance shall be regarded as
new information or a project modification that requires reinitiation of formal consultation
under 50 CFR 402.16.
These incidental take measures and conditions are designed to minimize the impact of incidental
take that might otherwise result from the proposed action. If during the course of the action, the
Field Manager, BINE (FW S-ERIV-2735.3) 38
Area Manager, BOR
level of take is exceeded or the terms and conditions are not complied with, these circumstances
would constitute new information requiring reinitiation of consultation and review of the
reasonable and prudent measures. I3LM and 13OR must immediately provide an explanation for
the causes of the taking or noncompliance with the terms and conditions and review with the
Service the need for possible modification of the reasonable and prudent measures.
RE]NITIATION NOTICE
This concludes formal consultation on the proposed action. As provided in 50 CFR 402.16,
reinitiation of formal consultation is required where discretionary Federal agency involvement or
control over the action has been retained (or is authorized by law) and if: (1) the amount or
extent of incidental lake is exceeded; (2) new information reveals effects of the agency action
that may affect listed species or critical habitat in a inanner or to an extent not considered in this
opinion; (3) the agency action is subsequently modified in a manner that causes an effect to the
listed species or critical habitat not considered in this opinion; or (4) a new species is listed or
critical habitat designated may be affected by the action
If you have any questions regarding this biological and conference opinion, please contact Pete
Sorensen at (760) 431-9440.
Attachment (Figure 1)
LITERATURE CITED
The literature cited in this biological opinion is available upon request to the Carlsbad Fish and
Wildlife Office.
ilhq
® ; O
-a o -o -o
[� j 7 O 0 0
_ 0 O O O
c- C 2 N ▪ N
Q� 0.) a a a Tj
6, ° n o 0 CLT
CD0 m ; v o C CD
o 0 jT
a o o
m 3 m 2 O
a m 0 E7 a) 1:3
m p p 3 0
o a C. = a
O R
m O a 0 W
0 Q7 CD 0
N y W
{ ds m�oc c -
m a-, Q�,oN-Nn g "C
d0 �Si n'Kn' z 0•
or 0 IdN n
RR g -Das . -
n_ �� No m
34 q a� m
�� N' c
c< RE n
ca a m
nw 11.:
I
rye
...-.4:-.-.:" s
~iA
O
0 O