JURISDICTIONAL DELINEATION NUEVO BRIDGE CROSSING IMPROVEMENT PROJECT CITY OF PERRIS RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA

Transcription

1 RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA December 2014

2 RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Prepared for: City of Perris Development Services Department Perris, California (951) Prepared by: LSA Associates, Inc Iowa Avenue, Suite 200 Riverside, California (951) LSA Project No. PIS1401 December 2014

3 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.0 INTRODUCTION REGULATORY BACKGROUND United States Army Corps of Engineers California Department of Fish and Wildlife Regional Water Quality Control Board METHODOLOGY RESULTS Existing Setting Potential Jurisdictional Waters CONCLUSION REFERENCES FIGURES Figure 1: Regional and Project Location Map... 2 Figure 2: Potential Jurisdictional Areas Figure 3: Site Photographs TABLES Table A: Hydrophytic Vegetation... 5 Table B: Potential Jurisdictional Waters R:\PIS1401_ZZZ4003D1\Biology\JD\JD_December2014.docx (12/1/2014) i

4 1.0 INTRODUCTION LSA Associates, Inc. (LSA) conducted a jurisdictional delineation for the Nuevo Bridge Crossing Improvement Project site located in the City of Perris, Riverside County California. The project study area is located on Nuevo Road at the existing Nuevo Bridge crossing over the Perris Valley Storm Drain (PVSD), as depicted on the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute Perris, California quadrangle in Sections 21 and 28, Township 4 South, Range 3 West (Figure 1). The City of Perris proposes to replace the existing undersized concrete slab bridge and pier system for the Nuevo Road crossing of the Perris Valley Storm Channel with a multi-cell reinforced concrete box system (RCB). The replacement facility will support the construction of Nuevo Road to the ultimate master planned 94-foot curb-to-curb street section with a 14-foot median and 10-foot sidewalks on either side. The proposed RCB will be designed to convey the 100-year storm flows under Nuevo Road as shown by the approved PVSD Alternative 5 Plan. The ultimate channel section will be constructed upstream and downstream of the RCB as development occurs in the future. LSA biologists visited the site and reviewed relevant information to evaluate areas potentially under the regulatory jurisdiction of the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), and the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) under Section 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act (CWA), Section 1600 et seq. of the California Fish and Game Code, and Section 401 of the CWA, respectively. This jurisdictional delineation is intended for use by the USACE, CDFW, and RWQCB as part of their evaluations for permit authorization, Streambed Alteration Agreement processing, and certification of Water Quality or Waste Discharge Requirements, respectively. 2.0 REGULATORY BACKGROUND 2.1 United States Army Corps of Engineers The USACE regulates discharges of dredged or fill material into waters of the U.S. These waters include wetland and nonwetland bodies of water that meet specific criteria. USACE regulatory jurisdiction pursuant to Section 404 of the CWA is founded on a connection, or nexus, between the water body in question and interstate commerce. This connection may be direct (through a tributary system linking a stream channel with traditional navigable waters used in interstate or foreign commerce) or may be indirect (through a nexus identified in USACE regulations). The following definition of waters of the U.S. is taken from the discussion provided at 33 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 328.3: The term waters of the United States means: (1) All waters which are currently used, or were used in the past, or may be susceptible to use in interstate or foreign commerce ; (2) All interstate waters including interstate wetlands; (3) All other waters such as intrastate lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams) the use, degradation or destruction of which could affect interstate or foreign commerce ; R:\PIS1401_ZZZ4003D1\Biology\JD\JD_December2014.docx (12/1/2014) 1

5 Figure 1: Regional and Project Location Map R:\PIS1401_ZZZ4003D1\Biology\JD\JD_December2014.docx (12/1/2014) 2

6 (4) All impoundments of waters otherwise defined as waters of the United States under the definition; and (5) Tributaries of waters defined in paragraphs (a) (1) (4) of this section. The USACE typically regulates as waters of the U.S. any body of water displaying an ordinary high water mark (OHWM). USACE jurisdiction over nontidal waters of the U.S. extends laterally to the OHWM or beyond the OHWM to the limit of any adjacent wetlands, if present (33 CFR 328.4). The OHWM 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 area. (33 CFR 328.3) Jurisdiction typically extends upstream to the point where the OHWM is no longer perceptible. As discussed above, USACE regulatory jurisdiction under Section 404 of the CWA is founded on a connection between the water body in question and interstate commerce. In the past, an indirect nexus could potentially be established if isolated waters provided habitat for migratory birds, even in the absence of a surface connection to a navigable water of the United States. The 1984 rule that enabled the USACE to expand jurisdiction over isolated waters of this type became known as the Migratory Bird Rule. However, on January 9, 2001, the United States Supreme Court narrowly limited the USACE jurisdiction of nonnavigable, isolated, intrastate waters based solely on the use of such waters by migratory birds and particularly, the use of indirect indicators of interstate commerce (e.g., use by migratory birds that cross state lines) as a basis for jurisdiction. The Court s ruling derives from the case Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, No (SWANCC). The Supreme Court determined that the USACE exceeded its statutory authority by asserting CWA jurisdiction over an abandoned sand and gravel pit in northern Illinois, which provides habitat for migratory birds. In 2006, the United States Supreme Court further considered the USACE jurisdiction of waters of the United States in the consolidated cases Rapanos v. United States and Carabell v. United States (126 S. Ct. 2208), collectively referred to as Rapanos. The Supreme Court concluded that wetlands are waters of the United States if they significantly affect the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of other covered waters more readily understood as navigable. On June 5, 2007, the USACE issued guidance regarding the Rapanos decision. This guidance states that the USACE will continue to assert jurisdiction over traditional navigable waters, wetlands adjacent to traditional navigable waters, relatively permanent nonnavigable tributaries that have a continuous flow at least seasonally (typically three months), and wetlands that abut relatively permanent tributaries. The USACE will determine jurisdiction over waters that are nonnavigable tributaries that are not relatively permanent and wetlands adjacent to nonnavigable tributaries that are not relatively permanent only after making a significant nexus finding. According to the guidance, the USACE generally will not assert jurisdiction over the following features: swales or erosional features (e.g., gullies, small washes characterized by low volume, infrequent, or short duration flow); and ditches (including roadside ditches) excavated wholly in and draining only uplands and that do not carry a relatively permanent flow of water. Furthermore, the preamble to USACE regulations (Preamble Section 328.3, Definitions) states that the USACE does not generally consider the following waters to be waters of the U.S. The USACE does, however, reserve the right to regulate these waters on a case-by-case basis. R:\PIS1401_ZZZ4003D1\Biology\JD\JD_December2014.docx (12/1/2014) 3

7 Nontidal drainage and irrigation ditches excavated on dry land; Artificially irrigated areas that would revert to upland if the irrigation ceased; Artificial lakes or ponds created by excavating and/or diking dry land to collect and retain water and which are used exclusively for such purposes as stock watering, irrigation, settling basins, or rice growing; Artificial reflecting or swimming pools or other small ornamental bodies of water created by excavating and/or diking dry land to retain water for primarily aesthetic reasons; and Water-filled depressions created in dry land incidental to construction activity and pits excavated in dry land for purposes of obtaining fill, sand, or gravel unless and until the construction or excavation operation is abandoned and the resulting body of water meets the definition of waters of the U.S. Waters found to be isolated and not subject to CWA regulation are often still regulated by the RWQCB under the State Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Porter-Cologne Act). Wetlands. Wetland delineations for Section 404 purposes must be conducted according to the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region (Regional Supplement) (USACE 2008) and the Corps of Engineers 1987 Wetland Delineation Manual (1987 Manual) (Environmental Laboratory 1987). Where there are differences between the two documents, the Regional Supplement takes precedence over the 1987 Manual. The USACE and United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) define wetlands as follows: Those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted to life in saturated soil conditions. In order to be considered a jurisdictional wetland under Section 404, an area must possess three wetland characteristics: hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland hydrology. Each characteristic has a specific set of mandatory wetland criteria that must be satisfied in order for that particular wetland characteristic to be met. Several indicators may be analyzed to determine whether the criteria are satisfied. Hydrophytic vegetation and hydric soils indicators provide evidence that episodes of inundation have lasted more than a few days or have occurred repeatedly over a period of years, but do not confirm that an episode has occurred recently. Conversely, wetland hydrology indicators provide evidence that an episode of inundation or soil saturation occurred recently, but do not provide evidence that episodes have lasted more than a few days or have occurred repeatedly over a period of years. Because of this, if an area lacks one of the three characteristics under normal circumstances, it is considered nonwetland under most circumstances. Determination of wetland limits may be obfuscated by a variety of natural environmental factors or human activities, collectively called difficult wetland situations, including cyclic periods of drought and flooding or highly ephemeral stream systems. During periods of drought, for example, bank return flows are reduced and water tables are lowered. This results in a corresponding lowering of R:\PIS1401_ZZZ4003D1\Biology\JD\JD_December2014.docx (12/1/2014) 4

8 ordinary high water and invasion of upland plant species into wetland areas. Conversely, extreme flooding may create physical evidence of high water well above what might be considered ordinary and may allow the temporary invasion of hydrophytic species into nonwetland areas. In highly ephemeral systems typical of Southern California, these problems are encountered frequently. In these situations, professional judgment based on years of practical experience and extensive knowledge of local ecological conditions comes into play in delineating wetlands. The Regional Supplement provides additional guidance for difficult wetland situations. Hydrophytic Vegetation. Hydrophytic vegetation is plant life that grows and is typically adapted for life in permanently or periodically saturated soils. The hydrophytic vegetation criterion is met if more than 50 percent of the dominant plant species from all strata (tree, shrub, herb, and woody vine layers) are considered hydrophytic. Hydrophytic species are those included on the National Plant List ( Lichvar 2012). Each species on the list is rated according to a wetland indicator category, as shown in Table A. To be considered hydrophytic, the species must have wetland indicator status (i.e., be rated as OBL, FACW, or FAC). Table A: Hydrophytic Vegetation Category Probability Obligate Wetland OBL Almost always occur in wetlands (estimated probability > 99 percent) Facultative Wetland FACW Usually occur in wetlands (estimated probability percent)67 99 percent) Facultative FAC Equally likely to occur in wetlands and nonwetlands (estimated probability percent) Facultative Upland FACU Usually occur in nonwetlands (estimated probability percent) Obligate Upland UPL Almost always occur in nonwetlands (estimated probability > 99 percent) The delineation of hydrophytic vegetation is typically based on the most dominant species from each vegetative stratum (strata are considered separately); when more than 50 percent of these dominant species are hydrophytic (i.e., FAC, FACW, or OBL), the vegetation is considered hydrophytic. In particular, the USACE recommends the use of the 50/20 rule (also known as the dominance test) from the Regional Supplement for determining dominant species. Under this method, dominant species are the most abundant species that immediately exceed 50 percent of the total dominance measure for the stratum, plus any additional species comprising 20 percent or more of the total dominance measure for the stratum. In cases where indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology are present but the vegetation initially fails the dominance test, the prevalence index must be used. The prevalence index is a weighted average of all plant species within a sampling plot. The prevalence index is particularly useful when communities only have one or two dominants, where species are present at roughly equal coverage, or when strata differ greatly in total plant cover. In addition, USACE guidance provides that morphological adaptations may be considered when determining hydrophytic vegetation when indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology are present (USACE 2008). If the plant community passes either the dominance test or prevalence index after R:\PIS1401_ZZZ4003D1\Biology\JD\JD_December2014.docx (12/1/2014) 5

9 reconsidering the indicator status of any plant species that exhibit morphological adaptations for life in wetlands, then the vegetation is considered hydrophytic. Hydric Soils. 1 Hydric soils are defined as soils that formed under conditions of saturation, flooding, or ponding long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part. 2 Soils are considered likely to meet the definition of a hydric soil hydric when one or more of the following criteria are met: 1. All Histels except Folistels and Histosols except Folists; or 2. Soils that are frequently ponded for long duration or very long duration 3 during the growing season; or 3. Soils that are frequently flooded for long duration or very long duration during the growing season. Hydric soils develop under conditions of saturation and inundation combined with microbial activity in the soil that causes a depletion of oxygen. While saturation may occur at any time of year, microbial activity is limited to the growing season, when soil temperature is above biologic zero (the soil temperature at a depth of 50 centimeters, below which the growth and function of locally adapted plants are negligible). Biogeochemical processes that occur under anaerobic conditions during the growing season result in the distinctive morphologic characteristics of hydric soils. Based on these criteria, a National List of Hydric Soils was created from the National Soil Information System (NASIS) database and is updated annually. The Regional Supplement has a number of field indicators that may be used to identify hydric soils. Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS; 2003) has also developed a number of field indicators that may demonstrate the presence of hydric soils. These indicators include hydrogen sulfide generation, accumulation of organic matter, and the reduction, translocation and/or accumulation of iron and other reducible elements. These processes result in soil characteristics that persist during both wet and dry periods. Separate indicators have been developed for sandy soils and for loamy and clayey soils. Wetland Hydrology. Under natural conditions, development of hydrophytic vegetation and hydric soils are dependent on a third characteristic: wetland hydrology. Areas with wetland hydrology are those where the presence of water has an overriding influence on vegetation and soil characteristics due to anaerobic and reducing conditions, respectively (Environmental Laboratory 1987). The wetland hydrology parameter is satisfied if the area is seasonally inundated or saturated to the surface for a minimum of 14 consecutive days during the growing season in most years (USACE 2008) The hydric soil definition and criteria included in the 1987 Manual are obsolete. Users of the Manual are directed to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service Web site for the most current information on hydric soils. Current definition as of 1994 (FR July 13, 1994). Long duration is defined as a single event ranging from 7 to 30 days; very long duration is defined as a single event that lasts longer than 30 days. R:\PIS1401_ZZZ4003D1\Biology\JD\JD_December2014.docx (12/1/2014) 6

10 Hydrology is often the most difficult criterion to measure in the field due to seasonal and annual variations in water availability. Some of the indicators that are commonly used to identify wetland hydrology include visual observation of inundation or saturation, watermarks, recent sediment deposits, surface scour, and oxidized root channels (rhizospheres) resulting from prolonged anaerobic conditions. 2.2 California Department of Fish and Wildlife The CDFW, through provisions of the California Fish and Game Code (Section 1600 et seq.), is empowered to issue agreements for any alteration of a river, stream, or lake where fish or wildlife resources may be adversely affected. Streams (and rivers) are defined by the presence of a channel bed and banks and at least an intermittent flow of water. The CDFW regulates wetland areas only to the extent that those wetlands are part of a river, stream, or lake as defined by the CDFW. In obtaining CDFW agreements, the limits of wetlands are not typically determined. The reason for this is that the CDFW generally includes, within the jurisdictional limits of streams and lakes, any riparian habitat present. Riparian habitat includes willows, mule fat, and other vegetation typically associated with the banks of a stream or lake shorelines and may not be consistent with USACE definitions. In most situations, wetlands associated with a stream or lake would fall within the limits of riparian habitat. Thus, defining the limits of CDFW jurisdiction based on riparian habitat will automatically include any wetland areas and may include additional areas that do not meet USACE criteria for soils and/or hydrology (e.g., where riparian woodland canopy extends beyond the banks of a stream away from frequently saturated soils). 2.3 Regional Water Quality Control Board The California RWQCB is responsible for the administration of Section 401 of the CWA. Typically, the areas subject to RWQCB jurisdiction coincide with those of the USACE (i.e., waters of the United States, including any wetlands). Although the SWANCC decision limited USACE jurisdiction over isolated wetlands and other waters (collectively called isolated waters), the courts reiterated that it is the states responsibility to protect these isolated waters. The RWQCB has not provided any public guidance on how this protection will be carried out; however, the State Water Resource Control Board (SWRCB) issued in September 2004 a workplan titled Filling the Gaps in Wetland Protection (September 2004 Workplan). In this workplan, the SWRCB recommended adopting the Federal definition for wetlands and adopt a State version of the CWA Section 404 guidelines making minimal revisions. The RWQCB also asserts authority over waters of the State under waste discharge requirements pursuant to the Porter-Cologne Act, which establishes a regulatory program to protect water quality and to protect beneficial uses of State waters. The Porter-Cologne Act empowers the RWQCB to formulate and adopt, for all areas within the regions, a Water Quality Control Plan (Basin Plan) that designates beneficial uses and establishes such water quality objectives that in its judgment will ensure reasonable protection of beneficial uses. Each RWQCB establishes water quality objectives that will ensure the reasonable protection of beneficial uses and the prevention of water quality degradation. The Water Code provides flexibility for some change in water quality, provided that beneficial uses are not adversely affected. Waters of the State are presently defined by the Porter- R:\PIS1401_ZZZ4003D1\Biology\JD\JD_December2014.docx (12/1/2014) 7

11 Cologne Act as any surface or subsurface water or groundwater, including saline waters, within the boundaries of the State. 3.0 METHODOLOGY The fieldwork for this jurisdictional delineation was conducted on May 22, 2014, by LSA Biologists Denise Woodard and Claudia Bauer. The study area was surveyed on foot with the objective of identifying potential jurisdictional areas. A routine wetland delineation was conducted and areas of potential USACE and CDFW jurisdiction were evaluated using the following: Corps of Engineers 1987 Wetland Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987), Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region (USACE 2008), the current wetland indicator plant list (Lichvar et al. 2014), current hydric soils list and criteria (U.S. Department of Agriculture [USDA] 2006), Munsell soil color charts, Field Guide to Identification of the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) in the Arid West Region of the Western United States (Lichvar and McColley 2008), the CWA Guidance for implementing Rapanos and Carabell Cases (USACE 2007), and current guidance from the CDFW. The boundaries of potential jurisdictional waters were observed in the field and mapped on an aerial photograph covering the study area (1 inch = 150 feet). The limits of jurisdictional areas were digitized using geographic information system (GIS) software based on the plotted locations of measured widths from data collected. The jurisdictional areas were calculated using GIS to measure the extent of the plotted areas. All areas of potential jurisdiction in the study area were delineated according to the current USACE and CDFW criteria as described above. The boundaries of the potential jurisdictional areas were observed in the field and mapped on aerial photographs. Limits of Federal and State jurisdictional areas mapped during the course of the field investigation were determined by a combination of direct measurements taken in the field and measurements taken from aerial photographs. Hydrological conditions, including any surface inundation, saturated soils, groundwater levels, and/or other wetland hydrology indicators, were noted. In areas of the study area supporting species of plant life potentially indicative of wetlands areas, representative observation plots (sample points) were selected and examined in the field to document the presence or absence of wetlands. At each sample point, the dominant and subdominant plant species were identified, and their wetland indicator status noted. Wetland Determination Data Forms (Arid West Region) were completed for each of these areas to determine the presence or absence of USACE-defined wetlands. The study area was also thoroughly inspected for the occurrence of any riparian habitat associated with any streambed, river, or lake that might be subject to CDFW jurisdiction. 4.0 RESULTS 4.1 Existing Setting Existing and Adjacent Land Use. The study area is located at the intersection of Nuevo Road and the PVSD. The PVSD runs north to south through the study area, and Nuevo Road is an east-to-west R:\PIS1401_ZZZ4003D1\Biology\JD\JD_December2014.docx (12/1/2014) 8

12 arterial within the study area. Murrieta Road, a north-south arterial, is also present in the westerly portion of the study area. The study area is highly disturbed by existing roadway and flood control infrastructure as well as adjacent land uses. The westerly half of the study area is bordered primarily by residential and commercial development, while the easterly half is primarily bordered by vacant land utilized for agricultural activities. Along with the PVSD, five other storm drain features are present in the study area. Topography and Soils. The topography of the project site is relatively flat and the elevation is approximately 1,420 feet above mean sea level. The soils within the project site include the following: Domino silt loam, saline-alkali; Domino silt loam, strongly saline-alkali; Domino fine sandy loam, saline-alkali; and Water. Domino silt loam, saline-alkali is the dominant soil within the study area. Domino silt loam, strongly saline-alkali occurs on the extreme easterly boundary of the study area and Domino fine sandy loam, saline-alkali is present along the southern portion of Murrieta Road. The two Domino silt loam soils are identified as hydric soils on the Natural Resource Conservation Service (2014), National Hydric Soils List ( The Water classification is located within the PVSD and is not classified as a hydric soil on the National Hydric Soils List. Vegetation. The study area is highly disturbed by existing land use practices as described above. As a result of this disturbance, the vegetation on the project site is dominated by non-native grasslands and ruderal plant species. Dominant non-native grassland species identified include ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus), rescue grass (Bromus catharticus), mouse barley (Hordeum murinum), Italian ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum), Russian thistle (Salsola tragus), English plantain (Plantago lanceolata), and mayweed (Anthemis cotula). One tree species, an elm (Ulmus sp.) is present in the drainage in the southwesterly portion of the study area. 4.2 Potential Jurisdictional Waters U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Six potentially jurisdictional drainage features are present within the study area: PVSD and five tributaries, identified here as A, B, C, D, and E (Figures 2 and 3). All the drainage features within the study area were created to divert localized and regional storm flows. None of the features within the study area contained dominant wetland (hydric) vegetation. Due to the lack of wetland vegetation, Wetland Data Forms were not completed and all drainages are considered to be non-wetland waters. R:\PIS1401_ZZZ4003D1\Biology\JD\JD_December2014.docx (12/1/2014) 9

13 Figure 2: Potential Jurisdictional Areas R:\PIS1401_ZZZ4003D1\Biology\JD\JD_December2014.docx (12/1/2014) 10

14 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. Figure 3: Site Photographs (Page 1 of 2) R:\PIS1401_ZZZ4003D1\Biology\JD\JD_December2014.docx (12/1/2014) 11

15 LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. Figure 3: Site Photographs (Page 2 of 2) R:\PIS1401_ZZZ4003D1\Biology\JD\JD_December2014.docx (12/1/2014) 12

16 The PVSD associated flood control, storm drain channels (A and B) were created as part of a master drainage plan for the Perris Valley. The PVSD drains generally north to south and is tributary to the San Jacinto River, which is tributary to Canyon Lake. The San Jacinto River drains from Canyon Lake and is tributary to Temescal Canyon Wash, which is tributary to Lake Elsinore. Lake Elsinore is tributary to the Santa Ana River, which is a direct tributary to the Pacific Ocean. Dominant plant species within the vegetated portions of the PVSD and storm drain channels A and B include Italian ryegrass, English plantain, and mayweed. The indicators identifying the limits of the OHWM were examined and plotted on aerial photograph. Drainages C, D, and E are smaller soft-bottomed roadside drainage features that carry localized runoff. Drainages C and E parallel the north side of Nuevo Road west of the PVSD, and Drainage D parallels the south side of Nuevo Road, also east of the PVSD. Vegetation within the drainages is highly ruderal and dominated by ripgut brome, rescue grass, mouse barley, Italian ryegrass, and Russian thistle. Several ornamental plant species were found within Drainage D and include an elm tree, honey suckle (Lonicera sp.), and hollyhock (Alcea sp.). The OHWMs for these drainages were measured in the field. Previously referenced Figure 2 shows the OHWM for each drainage. California Department of Fish and Wildlife. All six drainages are considered to be streambeds regulated by the CDFW. The drainages exhibited beds and banks and were vegetated by upland plant species as identified above. No riparian habitat is present within the study area. The CDFW jurisdictional limits (bank to bank) for the PVSD and drainages A and B were evaluated in the field and mapped on aerial photograph. The jurisdictional limits of drainages B, C, D, and E were measured in the field. Previously referenced Figure 2 shows the streambed widths for each drainage. Based on the evaluation above, the total potential USACE jurisdiction within the study area is 0.6 acre of non-wetland waters, and the total CDFW jurisdiction within the study area is 1.3 acres of streambed. Since there is currently no public guidance on determining RWQCB jurisdictional areas, potential jurisdiction was determined based on the Federal definition of wetlands and other waters of the U.S. Therefore, the total area of potential RWQCB jurisdiction within the study area is the same as for the USACE. Table B shows the acreage of potential USACE and CDFW jurisdictional waters for each drainage feature. Table B: Potential Jurisdictional Waters Drainage Feature Drainage Length (feet) U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Non-Wetland Waters (acres) California Department of Fish and Wildlife Streambed (acres) PVSD, A, and B C 634 < D 548 < E 571 < Total R:\PIS1401_ZZZ4003D1\Biology\JD\JD_December2014.docx (12/1/2014) 13

17 5.0 CONCLUSION The findings and conclusions presented in this report, including the location and extent of wetlands and other waters subject to USACE and/or CDFW regulatory jurisdiction (or lack thereof), represent the professional opinion of LSA. These findings and conclusions should be considered preliminary until verified by the USACE and CDFW. R:\PIS1401_ZZZ4003D1\Biology\JD\JD_December2014.docx (12/1/2014) 14

18 6.0 REFERENCES Environmental Laboratory Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y United States, Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. Lichvar, Robert W., and Shawn M. McColley Field Guide to Identification of Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) in the Arid West Region of the Western United States, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, ERDC/EL TR-08-12, August. Lichvar, R.W., M. Butterwick, N.C. Melvin, and W.N. Kirchner The National Wetland Plant List: 2014 Update of Wetland Ratings. Phytoneuron : Munsell Color (rev. ed.). Munsell Soil Color Charts. Macbeth Division of Kollmorgen Instruments Corporation, New Windsor, NY. State Water Resources Control Board. Workplan: Filling the Gaps in Wetland Protection. September 2004.United States Army Corps of Engineers 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. Noble. Vicksburg, MS: United States Army Engineer Research and Development Center CECW-OR Memorandum: Clean Water Act Jurisdiction Following the United States Supreme Court s Decision in Rapanos v. United States & Carabell v. United States. United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service Field indicators of hydric soils in the United States, (Version 6.0). ed. G. W. Hurt and L. M. Vasilas. Fort Worth, TX: USDA NRCS in cooperation with the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils. United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service National Hydric Soils List. ( Soil Data Mart. R:\PIS1401_ZZZ4003D1\Biology\JD\JD_December2014.docx (12/1/2014) 15