Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAppendix B3 - Jurisdictional Delineation Report 1940 E Deere Avenue, Suite 250 ● Santa Ana, California 92705 ● 949.837.0404 October 22, 2021 Brian Caris IDI Logistics 840 Apollo Street, Suite 100 El Segundo, CA 90245 SUBJECT: Jurisdictional Delineation of the West Valley Logistics Center Project, a 215.71- Acre Property Located in the City of Fontana, San Bernardino County, California. Dear Mr. Caris: This letter report summarizes our preliminary findings of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Board), and California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) jurisdiction for the above-referenced property.1 The West Valley Logistics Center Project (Project) comprises approximately 215.71 acres and is generally located north of State Route 60, south of Interstate 10, west of Interstate 215, and east of Interstate 15 on the eastern foothills of the Jurupa Mountains in in the City of Fontana, San Bernardino County [Exhibit 1- Regional Map]. The majority of the site is located west of Locust Avenue, east of Alder Avenue, north and south of Armstrong Road, south of Jurupa Avenue, and north of the Riverside County boundary. The northeastern portion of the site is located north of 11th Street, south of Jurupa Avenue, east of Locust Avenue, and west of Linden Avenue at Latitude 34.040002 and Longitude -117.412932. The Project site is within Section 33, Township 1 South, and Range 5 West as depicted on the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5” Fontana, California topographic quadrangle map [Exhibit 2– Project Vicinity Map]. On September 28, 2021 and October 4, 2021, regulatory specialists of Glenn Lukos Associates, Inc. (GLA) examined the Project site to determine the presence and limits of (1) Corps jurisdiction pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), (2) Regional Board 1 This report presents our best effort at estimating the subject jurisdictional boundaries using the most up-to-date regulations and written policy and guidance from the regulatory agencies. Only the regulatory agencies can make a final determination of jurisdictional boundaries. Brian Caris October 22, 2021 DRAFT Page 2 jurisdiction pursuant to Section 401 of the CWA and Section 13260 of the California Water Code (CWC), and (3) CDFW jurisdiction pursuant to Division 2, Chapter 6, Section 1600-1617 of the Fish and Game Code. Enclosed are two 600-scale maps [Exhibits 3A and 3B] that depict the areas of Regional Board and CDFW jurisdiction. Photographs to document the topography, vegetative communities, and general widths of each of the waters are provided as Exhibit 4. No Corps jurisdiction is associated with the Project site. Regional Board jurisdiction at the Project site totals 0.69 acre of waters of the State, none of which consists of State wetlands. A total of 5,929 linear feet of ephemeral stream is present. CDFW jurisdiction at the Project site totals 0.91 acre, none one of which is riparian, and includes all areas within Regional Board jurisdiction. A total of 5,929 linear feet of ephemeral stream is present. I. METHODOLOGY Prior to beginning the field delineation, a color aerial photograph, a topographic base map of the property, the previously cited USGS topographic map, and a soils map were examined to determine the locations of potential areas of Corps, Regional Board, and CDFW jurisdiction. Suspected jurisdictional areas were field checked for evidence of stream activity and/or wetland vegetation, soils and hydrology. Where applicable, reference was made to the 2008 Field Guide to the Identification of the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) in the Arid West Region of the Western United States (OWHM Manual)2 to identify the width of Corps jurisdiction and suspected federal wetland habitats on the site were evaluated using the methodology set forth in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 1987 Wetland Delineation Manual3 (Wetland Manual) and the 2008 Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Supplement (Arid West Supplement).4 Reference was also made to the 2019 State Wetland Definition and Procedures for Discharges of Dredged or Fill Material to Waters of the State (State Board Wetland Definition and Procedures) to identify suspected State wetland 2 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2008. A Field Guide to the Identification of the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) in the Arid West Region of the Western United States 3 Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual, Technical Report Y-87-1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experimental Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi. 4 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 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. Noble. ERDC/EL TR-08-28. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center. Brian Caris October 22, 2021 DRAFT Page 3 habitats.5 While in the field the potential limits of jurisdiction were recorded with a sub-meter Trimble GPS device in conjunction with a color aerial photograph using visible landmarks. The National Cooperative Soil Survey (NCSS) has mapped the following soil types as occurring in the general vicinity of the Project (Exhibit 5):  Cieneba Sandy Loam, 9 to 15 percent slopes (CnD);  Cieneba-Rock Outcrop Complex (Cr);  Delhi Fine Sand (Db);  Hanford Coarse Sandy Loam, 9 to 15 percent slopes (HaD);  Hanford coarse sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, eroded (HcD2);  Quarries and Pits (GP); and  Tujunga Loamy Sand, 0 to 5 Percent Slopes (TuB) II. JURISDICTION A. Army Corps of Engineers Pursuant to Section 404 of the CWA, the Corps regulates the discharge of dredged and/or fill material into waters of the United States. The term "waters of the United States" is defined in Corps regulations at 33 CFR Part 328.3(a) as: (1) All waters which are currently used, or were used in the past, or may be susceptible to use in interstate or foreign commerce, including all waters which are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide; (2) All interstate waters including interstate wetlands; (3) All other waters such as intrastate lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams), mudflats, sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, or natural ponds, the use, degradation or destruction of which could affect foreign commerce including any such waters: (i) Which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes; or (ii) From which fish or shell fish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce; or (iii) Which are used or could be used for industrial purpose by industries in interstate commerce... 5 State Water Resources Control Board. 2019. State Wetland Definition and Procedures for Discharges of Dredged or Fill Material to Waters of the State. Brian Caris October 22, 2021 DRAFT Page 4 (4) All impoundments of waters otherwise defined as waters of the United States under the definition; (5) Tributaries of waters identified in paragraphs (a) (1)-(4) of this section; (6) The territorial seas; (7) Wetlands adjacent to waters (other than waters that are themselves wetlands) identified in paragraphs (a) (1)-(6) of this section. (8) Waters of the United States do not include prior converted cropland.6 Notwithstanding the determination of an area's status as prior converted cropland by any other federal agency, for the purposes of the Clean Water Act, the final authority regarding Clean Water Act jurisdiction remains with the EPA. Waste treatment systems, including treatment ponds or lagoons designed to meet the requirements of CWA (other than cooling ponds as defined in 40 CFR 123.11(m) which also meet the criteria of this definition) are not waters of the United States. In the absence of wetlands, the limits of Corps jurisdiction in non-tidal waters, such as intermittent streams, extend to the OHWM which is defined at 33 CFR 328.3(e) as: ...that line on the shore established by the fluctuation of water and indicated by physical characteristics such as 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. 1. Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. United States Army Corps of Engineers, et al. Pursuant to Article I, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution, federal regulatory authority extends only to activities that affect interstate commerce. In the early 1980s the Corps interpreted the interstate commerce requirement in a manner that restricted Corps jurisdiction on isolated (intrastate) waters. On September 12, 1985, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) asserted that Corps jurisdiction extended to isolated waters that are used or could be used by migratory birds or endangered species, and the definition of “waters of the United States” in Corps regulations was modified as quoted above from 33 CFR 328.3(a). 6 The term “prior converted cropland” is defined in the Corps’ Regulatory Guidance Letter 90-7 (dated September 26, 1990) as “wetlands which were both manipulated (drained or otherwise physically altered to remove excess water from the land) and cropped before 23 December 1985, to the extent that they no longer exhibit important wetland values. Specifically, prior converted cropland is inundated for no more than 14 consecutive days during the growing season….” [Emphasis added.] Brian Caris October 22, 2021 DRAFT Page 5 On January 9, 2001, the Supreme Court of the United States issued a ruling on Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v. United States Army Corps of Engineers, et al. (SWANCC). In this case the Court was asked whether use of an isolated, intrastate pond by migratory birds is a sufficient interstate commerce connection to bring the pond into federal jurisdiction of Section 404 of the CWA. The written opinion notes that the court’s previous support of the Corps’ expansion of jurisdiction beyond navigable waters (United States v. Riverside Bayview Homes, Inc.) was for a wetland that abutted a navigable water and that the court did not express any opinion on the question of the authority of the Corps to regulate wetlands that are not adjacent to bodies of open water. The current opinion goes on to state: In order to rule for the respondents here, we would have to hold that the jurisdiction of the Corps extends to ponds that are not adjacent to open water. We conclude that the text of the statute will not allow this. Therefore, we believe that the court’s opinion goes beyond the migratory bird issue and says that no isolated, intrastate water is subject to the provisions of Section 404(a) of the CWA (regardless of any interstate commerce connection). However, the Corps and EPA have issued a joint memorandum which states that they are interpreting the ruling to address only the migratory bird issue and leaving the other interstate commerce clause nexuses intact. 2. Rapanos v. United States and Carabell v. United States On June 5, 2007, the EPA and Corps issued joint guidance that addresses the scope of jurisdiction pursuant to the CWA in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in the consolidated cases Rapanos v. United States and Carabell v. United States (“Rapanos”). The chart below was provided in the joint EPA/Corps guidance. For project sites that include waters other than Traditional Navigable Waters (TNWs) and/or their adjacent wetlands or Relatively Permanent Waters (RPWs) tributary to TNWs and/or their adjacent wetlands as set forth in the chart below, the Corps must apply the significant nexus standard. For “isolated” waters or wetlands, the joint guidance also requires an evaluation by the Corps and EPA to determine whether other interstate commerce clause nexuses, not addressed in the SWANCC decision are associated with isolated features on project sites for which a jurisdictional determination is being sought from the Corps. Brian Caris October 22, 2021 DRAFT Page 6 The agencies will assert jurisdiction over the following waters:  Traditional navigable waters  Wetlands adjacent to traditional navigable waters  Non-navigable tributaries of traditional navigable waters that are relatively permanent where the tributaries typically flow year-round or have continuous flow at least seasonally (e.g., typically three months)  Wetlands that directly abut such tributaries The agencies will decide jurisdiction over the following waters based on a fact-specific analysis to determine whether they have a significant nexus with a traditional navigable water:  Non-navigable tributaries that are not relatively permanent  Wetlands adjacent to non-navigable tributaries that are not relatively permanent  Wetlands adjacent to but that do not directly abut a relatively permanent non-navigable tributary The agencies 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)  Ditches (including roadside ditches) excavated wholly in and draining only uplands and that do not carry a relatively permanent flow of water The agencies will apply the significant nexus standard as follows:  A significant nexus analysis will assess the flow characteristics and functions of the tributary itself and the functions performed by all wetlands adjacent to the tributary to determine if they significantly affect the chemical, physical and biological integrity of downstream traditional navigable waters  Significant nexus includes consideration of hydrologic and ecologic factors 3. Wetland Definition Pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act The term “wetlands” (a subset of “waters of the United States”) is defined at 33 CFR 328.3(b) as "those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support...a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions." In 1987 the Corps published a manual to guide its field personnel in determining jurisdictional wetland boundaries. The methodology set forth in the 1987 Wetland Delineation Manual and the Arid West Supplement generally require that, in order to be considered a wetland, the vegetation, soils, and hydrology of an area exhibit at least minimal hydric characteristics. While the manual and Supplement provide great detail in methodology Brian Caris October 22, 2021 DRAFT Page 7 and allow for varying special conditions, a wetland should normally meet each of the following three criteria:  more than 50 percent of the dominant plant species at the site must be typical of wetlands (i.e., rated as facultative or wetter in the Arid West 2016 Regional Wetland Plant List78);  soils must exhibit physical and/or chemical characteristics indicative of permanent or periodic saturation (e.g., a gleyed color, or mottles with a matrix of low chroma indicating a relatively consistent fluctuation between aerobic and anaerobic conditions); and  Whereas the 1987 Manual requires that hydrologic characteristics indicate that the ground is saturated to within 12 inches of the surface for at least five percent of the growing season during a normal rainfall year, the Arid West Supplement does not include a quantitative criteria with the exception for areas with “problematic hydrophytic vegetation”, which require a minimum of 14 days of ponding to be considered a wetland. B. Regional Water Quality Control Board The State Water Resource Control Board and each of its nine Regional Boards regulate the discharge of waste (dredged or fill material) into waters of the United States9 and waters of the State. Waters of the United States are defined above in Section II.A and waters of the State are defined as “any surface water or groundwater, including saline waters, within the boundaries of the state” (California Water Code 13050[e]). Section 401 of the CWA requires certification for any federal permit or license authorizing impacts to waters of the U.S. (i.e., waters that are within federal jurisdiction), such as Section 7 Lichvar, R.W., D.L. Banks, W.N. Kirchner, and N.C. Melvin. 2016. Arid West 2016 Regional Wetland Plant List. Phytoneuron 2016-30: 1-17. Published 28 April 2016. 8 Note the Corps also publishes a National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands (Lichvar, R.W., D.L. Banks, W.N. Kirchner, and N.C. Melvin. 2016. The National Wetland Plant List: 2016 wetland ratings. Phytoneuron 2016- 30: 1-17. Published 28 April 2016.); however, the Regional Wetland Plant List should be used for wetland delineations within the Arid West Region. 9 Therefore, wetlands that meet the current definition, or any historic definition, of waters of the U.S. are waters of the state. In 2000, the State Water Resources Control Board determined that all waters of the U.S. are also waters of the state by regulation, prior to any regulatory or judicial limitations on the federal definition of waters of the U.S. (California Code or Regulations title 23, section 3831(w)). This regulation has remained in effect despite subsequent changes to the federal definition. Therefore, waters of the state includes features that have been determined by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA) or the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) to be “waters of the U.S.” in an approved jurisdictional determination; “waters of the U.S.” identified in an aquatic resource report verified by the Corps upon which a permitting decision was based; and features that are consistent with any current or historic final judicial interpretation of “waters of the U.S.” or any current or historic federal regulation defining “waters of the U.S.” under the federal Clean Water Act. Brian Caris October 22, 2021 DRAFT Page 8 404 of the CWA and Section 10 of the Safe Rivers and Harbors Act, to ensure that the impacts do not violate state water quality standards. When a project could impact waters outside of federal jurisdiction, the Regional Board has the authority under the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act to issue Waste Discharge Requirements (WDRs) to ensure that impacts do not violate state water quality standards. Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certifications, WDRs, and waivers of WDRs are also referred to as orders or permits. 1. State Wetland Definition The State Board Wetland Definition and Procedures define an area as wetland as follows: An area is wetland if, under normal circumstances, (1) the area has continuous or recurrent saturation of the upper substrate caused by groundwater, or shallow surface water, or both; (2) the duration of such saturation is sufficient to cause anaerobic conditions in the upper substrate; and (3) the area’s vegetation is dominated by hydrophytes or the area lacks vegetation. The following wetlands are waters of the State: 1. Natural wetlands; 2. Wetlands created by modification of a surface water of the state;10 and 3. Artificial wetlands11 that meet any of the following criteria: a. Approved by an agency as compensatory mitigation for impacts to other waters of the state, except where the approving agency explicitly identifies the mitigation as being of limited duration; b. Specifically identified in a water quality control plan as a wetland or other water of the state; c. Resulted from historic human activity, is not subject to ongoing operation and maintenance, and has become a relatively permanent part of the natural landscape; or d. Greater than or equal to one acre in size, unless the artificial wetland was constructed, and is currently used and maintained, primarily for one or more of the following purposes (i.e., the following artificial wetlands are not waters of the state unless they also satisfy the criteria set forth in 2, 3a, or 3b): i. Industrial or municipal wastewater treatment or disposal, ii. Settling of sediment, 10 “Created by modification of a surface water of the state” means that the wetland that is being evaluated was created by modifying an area that was a surface water of the state at the time of such modification. It does not include a wetland that is created in a location where a water of the state had existed historically, but had already been completely eliminated at some time prior to the creation of the wetland. The wetland being evaluated does not become a water of the state due solely to a diversion of water from a different water of the state. 11 Artificial wetlands are wetlands that result from human activity. Brian Caris October 22, 2021 DRAFT Page 9 iii. Detention, retention, infiltration, or treatment of stormwater runoff and other pollutants or runoff subject to regulation under a municipal, construction, or industrial stormwater permitting program, iv. Treatment of surface waters, v. Agricultural crop irrigation or stock watering, vi. Fire suppression, vii. Industrial processing or cooling, viii. Active surface mining – even if the site is managed for interim wetlands functions and values, ix. Log storage, x. Treatment, storage, or distribution of recycled water, or xi. Maximizing groundwater recharge (this does not include wetlands that have incidental groundwater recharge benefits); or xii. Fields flooded for rice growing.12 All artificial wetlands that are less than an acre in size and do not satisfy the criteria set forth in 2, 3.a, 3.b, or 3.c are not waters of the state. If an aquatic feature meets the wetland definition, the burden is on the applicant to demonstrate that the wetland is not a water of the state. C. California Department of Fish and Wildlife Pursuant to Division 2, Chapter 6, Sections 1600-1617 of the California Fish and Game Code, the CDFW regulates all diversions, obstructions, or changes to the natural flow or bed, channel, or bank of any river, stream, or lake, which supports fish or wildlife. CDFW defines a stream (including creeks and rivers) as "a body of water that flows at least periodically or intermittently through a bed or channel having banks and supports fish or other aquatic life. This includes watercourses having surface or subsurface flow that supports or has supported riparian vegetation." CDFW's definition of "lake" includes "natural lakes or man- made reservoirs." CDFW also defines a stream as “a body of water that flows, or has flowed, 12 Fields used for the cultivation of rice (including wild rice) that have not been abandoned due to five consecutive years of non-use for the cultivation of rice (including wild rice) that are determined to be a water of the state in accordance with these Procedures shall not have beneficial use designations applied to them through the Water Quality Control Plan for the Sacramento and San Joaquin River Basins, except as otherwise required by federal law for fields that are considered to be waters of the United States. Further, agricultural inputs legally applied to fields used for the cultivation of rice (including wild rice) shall not constitute a discharge of waste to a water of the state. Agricultural inputs that migrate to a surface water or groundwater may be considered a discharge of waste and are subject to waste discharge requirements or waivers of such requirements pursuant to the Water Board’s authority to issue or waive waste discharge requirements or take other actions as applicable. Brian Caris October 22, 2021 DRAFT Page 10 over a given course during the historic hydrologic regime, and where the width of its course can reasonably be identified by physical or biological indicators.” It is important to note that the Fish and Game Code defines fish and wildlife to include: all wild animals, birds, plants, fish, amphibians, invertebrates, reptiles, and related ecological communities including the habitat upon which they depend for continued viability (FGC Division 5, Chapter 1, section 45 and Division 2, Chapter 1 section 711.2(a) respectively). Furthermore, Division 2, Chapter 5, Article 6, Section 1600 et seq. of the California Fish and Game Code does not limit jurisdiction to areas defined by specific flow events, seasonal changes in water flow, or presence/absence of vegetation types or communities. III. RESULTS The Project site occurs at the base of the Jurupa Mountains and consists of partially reclaimed land that has been significantly disturbed as a result of illegal trespass and dumping, off-road use, and past mining activities that occurred in the late 1990’s/early 2000’s. Prior to mining, the land was used for agriculture and ranching activities. The site is routinely disked and maintained with a majority of the habitat dominated by disturbed areas, non-native grassland, and weedy ruderal species. Patchy Riversidean sage scrub occurs along a portion of the western foothills. An ornamental wind row of planted olive trees extends across the western and northern portions of the site from north to south and east to west, respectively. The area west of Locust Avenue/Armstrong Road contains several temporary catch basins constructed in the uplands that do not support a relatively permanent flow of water and/or abandoned mining pits and tailings that are periodically maintained. A relict housing foundation occurs in in the northwest portion of site. The eastern portion of the site north of 11th Street was excavated as part of the mining operation and currently functions as an infiltration/catch basin. No outlets are associated with this feature. A summary of jurisdiction associated with the Project site is discussed below. A. Corps Jurisdiction No Corps jurisdiction is associated with the Project site. The Project site contains several erosional drainage features (Drainages A, B, C, D, E, E-1, E-2) and various erosional rills that were constructed in, and drain, wholly upland areas and do not convey a relatively permanent flow of water. These features are characterized by infrequent duration flow and do not exhibit a surface water connection to any downstream tributary or Brian Caris October 22, 2021 DRAFT Page 11 traditionally navigable water. The Project site also contains several maintained temporary catch basins, abandoned mining pits, and an infiltration basin. These features were excavated in wholly upland areas, lack habitat value, and do not connect to any downstream water. As these features do not carry a relatively permanent flow of water and/or are isolated, they are not subject to Corps jurisdiction under Section 404 of the CWA. Refer to Section B below for a description of Drainages A, B, C, D, E, E-1, and E-1. The Corps previously issued a non-jurisdictional determination and no permit needed letter (File Number SPL-2013-00403) to the previous property owner, UST-CB Partners, LP. A copy of this letter is attached as Appendix A. B. Regional Water Quality Control Board Jurisdiction Regional Board jurisdiction at the Project site totals 0.69 acre of waters of the State, none of which consists of State wetlands. A total of 5,929 linear feet of ephemeral stream is present. Regional Board jurisdiction is limited to seven drainage features, referenced herein as Drainages A, B, C, D, E, E-1, and E-2. As described above, these features do not convey a relatively permanent flow of water and/or are considered isolated. As such, these features are not considered waters of the U.S. and would not be regulated by the Regional Board under Section 401 of the CWA. However, since these features convey surface flow with the potential to support beneficial uses, they are considered to be waters of the State that would be regulated by the Regional Board pursuant to Section 13260 of the CWC/the Porter-Cologne Act. There are also several topographic features in the uplands that do not convey adequate flow sign and do not support any beneficial uses identified in the Regional Board Basin Plan. These include several maintained temporary catch basins, abandoned mining pits and its tailings, an infiltration basin, and areas lacking a defined stream course. Areas lacking a defined stream course include topographic features such as swales, erosional rills, and erosional areas that do not convey adequate flow sign or a discernable bed, bank, and channel. As these areas lack a discernable stream course, they are not considered waters of the State and would not be regulated under Section 13260 of the CWC. The temporary catch basins, abandoned mining pits, and the infiltration basin were created for the purpose of mining and/or storm water runoff and are regularly maintained. As these features do not support beneficial uses and/or do not satisfy the criteria set forth in 2, 3a, or 3b of the State Wetland Definition as described in Section II.B.1 above, these features area not subject to regulation under Section 13260 of the CWC. Brian Caris October 22, 2021 DRAFT Page 12 Graphics depicting the limits of Regional Board jurisdiction are provided as Exhibit 3A and site photographs are provided as Exhibit 4. Table 1 below summarizes Regional Board jurisdiction at the Project site, followed by a description of each feature. Table 1: Regional Board Jurisdiction – Waters of the State Drainage Name Regional Board Non-Wetland Waters of the State (Acres) Regional Board State Wetland Waters (Acres) Total Regional Board Jurisdiction (Acres) Total Length (Linear Feet) Federal Water of the U.S.? Drainage A 0.03 0 0.03 562 No Drainage B 0.02 0 0.02 274 No Drainage C 0.14 0 0.14 1,757 No Drainage D 0.01 0 0.01 207 No Drainage E 0.46 0 0.46 2,766 No Drainage E-1 0.01 0 0.01 135 No Drainage E-2 0.02 0 0.02 228 No Total* 0.69 0 0.69 5,929 *Individual totals have been rounded up; therefore, Total may not equal sum of individual parts due to rounding error Drainage A Regional Board jurisdiction associated with Drainage A totals 0.03 acre, none of which consists of State wetlands. A total of 562 linear feet of drainage is present. This feature is considered a water of the State that is subject to Section 13260 of the CWC/the Porter-Cologne Act. Drainage A is an ephemeral feature that originates at the base of the Jurupa foothills. This feature enters the project site from the southwest and extends in an easterly direction for approximately 562 linear feet before terminating onsite at a windrow and topographic low point that has been disturbed by off-road vehicle use. Drainage A ranges between two and three feet in width as evidenced by the presence drainage patterns and bent vegetation. This feature conveys flow only in direct response to precipitation and was completely dry during the field investigation. Drainage A is isolated and does not exhibit a downstream connection to any on or off-site waters. Vegetation associated with this feature is comprised predominantly of invasive upland species that includes common sunflower (Helianthus annus), telegraph weed (Heterotheca grandiflora), London rocket (Sisymbrium irio), and various bromes (Bromus ssp.). No soil pits were excavated due to a lack of wetland hydrology and a lack of riparian/wetland vegetation. Brian Caris October 22, 2021 DRAFT Page 13 Drainage B Regional Board jurisdiction associated with Drainage B totals 0.02 acre, none of which consists of State wetlands. A total of 274 linear feet of drainage is present. This feature is considered a water of the State that is subject to Section 13260 of the CWC/the Porter-Cologne Act. Drainage B is an ephemeral feature that originates onsite at the base of the Jurupa foothills. This feature enters the project site from the southwest and extends in an easterly/southeasterly direction for approximately 274 linear feet before terminating onsite at a windrow and topographic low point that has been disturbed by off-road vehicle use. Drainage B ranges between two and three feet in width as evidenced by the presence of banks, drainage patterns, and bent vegetation. This feature conveys flow only in direct response to precipitation and was completely dry during the field investigation. Drainage B is isolated and does not exhibit a downstream connection to any on or off-site waters. Vegetation associated with this feature is comprised predominantly of invasive upland species that includes common sunflower, telegraph weed, London rocket, and various bromes. No soil pits were excavated due to a lack of wetland hydrology and a lack of riparian/wetland vegetation. Drainage C Regional Board jurisdiction associated with Drainage C totals 0.14 acre, none of which is State wetland. A total of 1,757 linear feet of stream is present. This feature is considered a water of the State that is subject to Section 13260 of the CWC/the Porter-Cologne Act. Drainage C is an ephemeral drainage that originates at the base of the Jurupa foothills in western portion of the Project site. The drainage meanders across the site in a general west to east direction for approximately 1,757 linear feet before eroding and dissipating as sheet flow in the central portion of the property. The central portion of the drainage is bisected by a dirt road that interrupts the flow path, at which point, flow indicators re-emerge and continue its path downstream. Drainage C exhibits clear flow sign ranging from two to 12 feet wide as evidenced by lines impressed upon the banks, incision, soil deposition, and the presence of litter and debris. This feature conveys flow only in direct response to precipitation and was completely dry during the field investigation. Drainage C is isolated and does not exhibit a downstream connection to any on or off-site waters. Drainage C contains a sandy loam substrate and is generally unvegetated in the channel bottom. Vegetation associated with the upper reach of the channel banks is predominantly comprised of California sagebrush (Artemisia californica), buckwheat (Eriogonum sp.), California brittle brush (Encelia californica) common sunflower, fiddleneck (Sisymbrium irio), upland bromes, Brian Caris October 22, 2021 DRAFT Page 14 and olive tree (Olea europaea). Vegetation associated with the central and downstream portions of the channel consists of upland weedy species that includes castor bean (Ricinis communis), summer mustard (Hirschfeldia incana), telegraph weed, common sunflower, summer mustard, and upland bromes. No soil pits were excavated due to a lack of wetland hydrology and a lack of riparian/wetland vegetation. Drainage D Regional Board jurisdiction associated with Drainage D totals 0.01 acre, none of which is State wetland, and a total of 207 linear feet of drainage is present. This feature is considered a water of the State that is subject to Section 13260 of the CWC/the Porter-Cologne Act. Drainage D is a small isolated erosional feature located in the northwestern portion of the property and east of Alder Avenue. This feature is unvegetated, conveys brief ephemeral flow during high storm events, and was completely dry during the field investigation. Drainage D originates onsite and extends for approximately 207 linear feet before dissipating as sheet flow and infiltrating into the ground. This feature averages two feet wide and does not exhibit a downstream connection to any on or off-site waters. Adjacent upland species include doveweed (Croton setigerus), star thistle (Centaurea sp.), and various non-native grasses and bromes. No soil pits were excavated due to a lack of wetland hydrology and a lack of riparian/wetland vegetation. Drainage E Regional Board jurisdiction associated with Drainage E totals 0.46 acre, none of which is State wetland. A total of 2,766 linear feet of stream is present. This feature is considered a water of the State that is subject to Section 13260 of the CWC/the Porter-Cologne Act. Drainage E is an ephemeral drainage that originates on the south side of Jurupa Avenue in the northeastern portion of the Project site. The drainage conveys flows across the property in a general southerly to easterly direction before continuing south offsite and re-emerging in the property parcel north of 11th Street. At this point, the drainage continues its course southeasterly and then forks westerly before dissipating into an infiltration basin that was excavated in the uplands as part of the previous mining operation. The upstream portion of the channel is eroded and is generally unvegetated with a loamy channel bottom. The central offsite portion of the channel is heavily disturbed due to homeless encampments, illegal dumping, and adjacent agriculture activities. As the drainage meanders towards the infiltration basin, the substrate Brian Caris October 22, 2021 DRAFT Page 15 transitions to sandy loam with pebbles and cobbles along the remainder of its reach. OHWM indicators range from two to 20 feet in width as evidenced by the presence of defined channel banks, water marks, changes in soil characteristics, and debris wracks. Drainage E is isolated and does not exhibit a downstream connection to any on or off-site waters. Vegetation within and adjacent to the upstream and middle portions of the drainage includes summer mustard, buckwheat, annual bursage (Ambrosia acanthicarpa), western sunflower, ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus), wild oat (Avena fatua), Mediterranean grass (Schismus barbatus), telegraph weed, tree of heaven (Ailanthus altissima), eucalyptus (Eucalyptus ssp.), castor bean, and oleander (Nerium oleander). Vegetation associated with the downstream portion of the drainage is comprised primarily of buckwheat, jimson weed (Datura ssp.), annual bursage, Mediterranean grass, and ripgut brome. Drainage E conveys flow only in direct response to precipitation and was completely dry during the field investigation. No soil pits were excavated due to a lack of wetland hydrology and a lack of riparian/wetland vegetation. Drainages E-1 and E-2 Regional Board jurisdiction associated with Drainages E-1 and E-2 totals 0.03 acre collectively, none of which is State wetland. A total of 363 linear feet of drainage is present. These features are considered waters of the State that are subject to Section 13260 of the CWC/the Porter- Cologne Act. Drainages E-1 and E-2 are comprised of a series of two ephemeral tributaries that originate on the south side of Jurupa Avenue in the northeastern portion of the Project site. Drainage E-1 conveys surface runoff from Jurupa Avenue and Drainage E-2 originates from a small concrete pipe that conveys flows from beneath Jurupa Avenue. Both features flow in a south/southwesterly direction for a collective 363 linear feet before connecting to Drainage E. These features average two to three feet in width as evidenced by the presence of channel banks, changes in soil characteristics, and scouring. These features are well-drained and were completely dry during the field investigation. Dominant vegetation associated with these features include tree of heaven, summer mustard, Spanish sunflower, and annual bursage. No soil pits were excavated due to a lack of wetland hydrology and a lack of riparian/wetland vegetation. Brian Caris October 22, 2021 DRAFT Page 16 C. CDFW Jurisdiction CDFW jurisdiction at the Project site totals 0.91 acre, none one of which is riparian, and includes all areas within Regional Board jurisdiction. A total of 5,929 linear feet of ephemeral stream is present. CDFW jurisdiction is limited to seven drainage features, referenced herein as Drainages A, B, C, D, E, E-1, and E-2. These features convey surface water only in direct response to precipitation (i.e., rain). Flow sign indicators include break in bank slope, changes in soil characteristics, and sediment sorting. As such, these features are subject to CDFW jurisdiction under Section 1602 of the Fish and Game Code. There are also several features in the uplands where the width of its course cannot reasonably be identified by physical or biological indicators and/or are not considered rivers, streams, or lakes. Areas lacking a defined stream course include topographic features including swales, rills, and erosional areas that do not convey adequate flow sign or a defined bed, bank, and channel. As these areas lack a discernable stream course, they are not subject to regulation by the CDFW under Section 1602 of the Fish and Game Code. Additional features excluded from CDFW jurisdiction include several maintained temporary catch basins, abandoned mining pits, and an infiltration basin. These features are regularly maintained features that were created in the uplands for the purpose of mining and/or storm water runoff. These features do not support aquatic resources and/or are not associated with any river, stream, or lake. As such, these features are not subject to CDFW jurisdiction under Section 1602 of the Fish and Game Code. Graphics depicting the limits of CDFW jurisdiction are provided as Exhibit 3B and site photographs are provided as Exhibit 4. Table 2 below summarizes CDFW jurisdiction at the Project site, followed by a description of each feature. Brian Caris October 22, 2021 DRAFT Page 17 Table 2: CDFW Jurisdiction Drainage Name Total CDFW Non-Riparian Stream (Acres) Total CDFW Riparian Stream (Acres) Total CDFW Jurisdiction (Acres) Total Length (Linear Feet) Drainage A 0.03 0 0.03 562 Drainage B 0.02 0 0.02 274 Drainage C 0.15 0 0.15 1,757 Drainage D 0.02 0 0.02 207 Drainage E 0.65 0 0.65 2,766 Drainage E-1 0.01 0 0.01 135 Drainage E-2 0.03 0 0.03 228 Total* 0.91 0 0.91 5,929 *Individual totals have been rounded up; therefore, Total may not equal sum of individual parts due to rounding error Drainage A CDFW jurisdiction associated with Drainage A totals 0.03 acre, none of which is riparian. A total of 562 linear feet of drainage is present. Drainage A is an ephemeral feature that originates at the base of the Jurupa foothills. This feature enters the project site from the southwest and extends in an easterly direction for approximately 562 linear feet before terminating onsite at a windrow and topographic low point that has been disturbed by off-road vehicle use. Drainage A ranges between two and three feet in width as evidenced by the presence drainage patterns and bent vegetation. This feature conveys flow only in direct response to precipitation and was completely dry during the field investigation. Drainage A is isolated and does not exhibit a downstream connection to any on or off-site waters. Vegetation associated with this feature is comprised predominantly of invasive upland species that includes common sunflower, telegraph weed, London rocket, and various bromes. Drainage B CDFW jurisdiction associated with Drainage B totals 0.02 acre, none of which is riparian. A total of 274 linear feet of drainage is present. Drainage B is an ephemeral feature that originates onsite at the base of the Jurupa foothills. This feature enters the project site from the southwest and extends in an easterly/southeasterly direction for approximately 274 linear feet before terminating onsite at a windrow and Brian Caris October 22, 2021 DRAFT Page 18 topographic low point that has been disturbed by off-road vehicle use. Drainage B ranges between two and three feet in width as evidenced by the presence of banks, drainage patterns, and bent vegetation. This feature conveys flow only in direct response to precipitation and was completely dry during the field investigation. Drainage B is isolated and does not exhibit a downstream connection to any on or off-site waters. Vegetation associated with this feature is comprised predominantly of invasive upland species that includes common sunflower, telegraph weed, London rocket, and various bromes. Drainage C CDFW jurisdiction associated with Drainage C totals 0.15 acre, none of which is riparian. A total of 1,757 linear feet of stream is present. Drainage C is an ephemeral drainage that originates at the base of the Jurupa foothills in western portion of the Project site. The drainage meanders across the site in a general west to east direction for approximately 1,757 linear feet before eroding and dissipating as sheet flow in the central portion of the property. The central portion of the drainage is bisected by a dirt road that interrupts the flow path, at which point, flow indicators re-emerge and continue its path downstream. Drainage C exhibits clear flow sign ranging from two to 12 feet wide as evidenced by lines impressed upon the banks, incision, soil deposition, and the presence of litter and debris. This feature conveys flow only in direct response to precipitation and was completely dry during the field investigation. Drainage C is isolated and does not exhibit a downstream connection to any on or off-site waters. Drainage C contains a sandy loam substrate and is generally unvegetated in the channel bottom. Vegetation associated with the upper reach of the channel banks is predominantly comprised of California sagebrush, buckwheat, California brittle brush, common sunflower, fiddleneck, upland bromes, and olive tree. Vegetation associated with the central and downstream portions of the channel consists of upland weedy species that includes castor bean, summer mustard, telegraph weed, common sunflower, summer mustard, and upland bromes. Drainage D CDFW jurisdiction associated with Drainage D totals 0.02 acre, none of which is riparian, and a total of 207 linear feet of drainage is present. Drainage D is a small isolated erosional feature located in the northwestern portion of the property and east of Alder Avenue. This feature is unvegetated, conveys brief ephemeral flow during high storm events, and was completely dry during the field investigation. Drainage D Brian Caris October 22, 2021 DRAFT Page 19 originates onsite and extends for approximately 207 linear feet before dissipating as sheet flow and infiltrating into the ground. This feature averages four feet wide and does not exhibit a downstream connection to any on or off-site waters. Adjacent upland species include doveweed, star thistle, and various non-native grasses and bromes. Drainage E CDFW jurisdiction associated with Drainage E totals 0.65 acre, none of which is riparian. A total of 2,766 linear feet of stream is present. Drainage E is an ephemeral drainage that originates on the south side of Jurupa Avenue in the northeastern portion of the Project site. The drainage conveys flows across the property in a general southerly to easterly direction before continuing south offsite and re-emerging in the property parcel north of 11th Street. At this point, the drainage continues its course southeasterly and then forks westerly before dissipating into an infiltration basin that was excavated in the uplands as part of the previous mining operation. The upstream portion of the channel is eroded and is generally unvegetated with a loamy channel bottom. The central offsite portion of the channel is heavily disturbed due to homeless encampments, illegal dumping, and adjacent agriculture activities. As the drainage meanders towards the infiltration basin, the substrate transitions to sandy loam with pebbles and cobbles along the remainder of its reach. The drainage ranges from three to 40 feet in width as evidenced by break in bank slope, changes in soil characteristics, and debris wracks. Drainage E is isolated and does not exhibit a downstream connection to any on or off-site waters. Vegetation within and adjacent to the upstream and middle portions of the drainage includes summer mustard, buckwheat, annual bursage, western sunflower, ripgut brome, wild oat, Mediterranean grass, telegraph weed, tree of heaven, eucalyptus, castor bean, and oleander (. Vegetation associated with the downstream portion of the drainage is comprised primarily of buckwheat, jimson weed, annual bursage, Mediterranean grass, and ripgut brome. Drainage E conveys flow only in direct response to precipitation and was completely dry during the field investigation. Drainages E-1 and E-2 CDFW jurisdiction associated with Drainages E-1 and E-2 totals 0.03 acre collectively, none of which is State wetland. A total of 363 linear feet of drainage is present. Drainages E-1 and E-2 are comprised of a series of two ephemeral tributaries that originate on the south side of Jurupa Avenue in the northeastern portion of the Project site. Drainage E-1 conveys surface runoff from Jurupa Avenue and Drainage E-2 originates from a small concrete Brian Caris October 22, 2021 DRAFT Page 20 pipe that conveys flows from beneath Jurupa Avenue. Both features flow in a south/southwesterly direction for a collective 363 linear feet before connecting to Drainage E. These features average two to three feet in width as evidenced by the presence of channel banks, changes in soil characteristics, and scouring. These features are well-drained and were completely dry during the field investigation. Dominant vegetation associated with these features include tree of heaven, summer mustard, Spanish sunflower, and annual bursage. IV. DISCUSSION Impact Analysis An analysis of impacts will be performed based upon this delineation and the current project design (or design alternative) upon the client’s request. This analysis will be provided as a separate memo and accompanying map. If you have any questions about this letter report, please contact me at (949) 340-3968 or at llokovic@wetlandpermitting.com. Sincerely, GLENN LUKOS ASSOCIATES, INC. Lesley Lokovic Gamber Regulatory Specialist p: 1532-1a.JD Source: ESRI World Street Map 0 2 4 8 MilesRegional Map^_Exhibit 1±WEST VALLEY LOGISTICS CENTER PROJECTPROJECTLOCATION Adapted from USGS Fontana, CA quadrangle Vicinity Map0 1,000 2,000 4,000 Feet±WEST VALLEY LOGISTICS CENTER PROJECTExhibit 2Service Layer Credits: Copyright:© 2013 National Geographic Society, i-cubedPROJECTLOCATION X:\1100 AFTER THE REST\1532-01WEST\1532-1_GIS\DelineationGIS\1532-1_RWQCBLayout.mxd Exhibit 3A 0 600 1,200300 Feet ± 1 inch = 600 feet WEST VALLEY LOGISTICS CENTERRWQCB Jurisdictional Delineation MapArmstrong RoadAlder AvenueLocust Avenue7th Street Project Site RWQCB Waters of the State Width in Feet Drainage E-2 Drainage E-1 X:\1100 AFTER THE REST\1532-01WEST\1532-1_GIS\DelineationGIS\1532-1_CDFWLayout.mxd Exhibit 3B 0 600 1,200300 Feet ± 1 inch = 600 feet WEST VALLEY LOGISTICS CENTERCDFW Jurisdictional Delineation MapArmstrong RoadAlder AvenueLocust Avenue7th Street Project Site CDFW Non-Riparian Stream Width in Feet Photograph 1: View of Drainage A looking upstream. Taken from terminus of drainage. Photograph 3: View of Drainage C looking upstream. Taken from mid-upper reach of channel.Exhibit 4 –Page 1Site PhotographsWEST VALLEY LOGISTICS CENTERPhotograph 2: View of Drainage B looking upstream. Taken from terminus of drainage. Photograph 4: Upper-middle portion of Drainage C looking downstream. Photograph 5: Middle portion of Drainage C looking downstream. Photograph 7: Representative view of Drainage D looking upstream. Photo taken from adjacent dirt road next at downstream terminus of drainage. Exhibit 4 –Page 2Site PhotographsWEST VALLEY LOGISTICS CENTERPhotograph 6: Lower extent of Drainage C looking downstream towards terminus of stream flow. Photograph 8: Upstream extent of Drainage E looking north towards Jurupa Avenue. Photograph 9: Upper-middle reach of Drainage E looking downstream. Photograph 11: View depicting off-site segment of Drainage E looking downstream/south. Note the presence of debris piles and disturbance in channel bottom.Exhibit 4 –Page 3Site PhotographsWEST VALLEY LOGISTICS CENTERPhotograph 10: Middle portion of Drainage E facing upstream/west. Photograph 12: Lower portion of Drainage E looking downstream. Taken from edge of property boundary facing south. Photograph 13: Lower reach of Drainage E facing downstream/west. Photograph 15: Start of Drainage E-1 Tributary looking downstream. Photo taken from edge of Jurupa Avenue.Exhibit 4 –Page 4Site PhotographsWEST VALLEY LOGISTICS CENTERPhotograph 14: View depicting downstream extent of Drainage E facing west towards drainage terminus at relict mining pit/infiltration basin. Photograph 16: Start of Drainage E-2 Tributary looking downstream. Photo taken from edge of Jurupa Avenue. Photograph 17: General overview of non-jurisdictional upland area in project site. Photograph 19: View of non-jurisdictional relict mining pit/borrow area in project site.Exhibit 4 –Page 5Site PhotographsWEST VALLEY LOGISTICS CENTERPhotograph 18: General overview of non-jurisdictional relict mining pit/infiltration basin on north side of 11th Street looking east. No outlets are associated with this feature. Photograph 20: Representative view of non-jurisdictional temporary catch basin. This feature is maintained on an annual basis and no outlets are associated with this feature. X:\1100 AFTER THE REST\1532-01WEST\1532-1_GIS\SoilsGIS\1532-1_Soils.mxd0 600 1,200300Feet±WEST VALLEYLOGISTICS CENTER PROJECTSoils MapExhibit 5Coordinate System: State Plane 5 NAD 83Projection: Lambert Conformal ConicDatum: NAD 1983 2011Map Prepared by: B. Gale, GLADate Prepared: August 31, 20211 inch = 600 feetProject SiteCieneba Sandy Loam, 9 to 15 Percent SlopesCieneba-Rock Outcrop ComplexDelhi Fine SandHanford Coarse Sandy Loam,9 to 15 Percent SlopesQuarries and PitsTujunga Loamy Sand,0 to 5 Percent SlopesCnDCrDbHaDGPTuBArmstrong RoadAlder AvenueLocust Avenue7th Street11th StreetJurupa Avenue DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY LOS ANGELES DISTRICT, U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS 915 WILSHIRE BLVD STE 930 LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90017 JANUARY 21, 2016 Lance Fair UST-CB Partners, LP 4705 S. Apopka Vineland Road Ste 201 Orlando, Florida, 32819 DETERMINATION OF NEED FOR A DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PERMIT Dear Mr. Fair: I am responding to your request (File No. SPL-2013-00403) dated May 21, 2013, for clarification whether a Department of the Army Permit is required for the West Valley Logistics Center Project (at approximately 34.040615 latitude, -117.409480 longitude) located within the city of Fontana, San Bernardino County, California. The Corps' evaluation process for determining if you need a permit is based on whether or not the proposed project is located within or contains a water of the United States, and whether or not the proposed project includes an activity potentially regulated under Section 10 of the River and Harbor Act or Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. If both conditions are met, a permit would be required. Based on the attached approved jurisdictional determination dated January 4, 2016 it appears the West Valley Logistics Center Project site does not contain water(s) of the United States pursuant to 33 CFR Part 325.9, because the on-site features are isolated under SWANCC (see attached AJD form and figures). If you have any questions, please contact me at 213-452-3372 or via e-mail at Bonnie.L.Rogers@usace.army.mil. Thank you for participating in the Regulatory Program. Please help me to evaluate and improve the regulatory experience for others by completing the customer survey at http://corpsmapu.usace.army.mil/cm_apex/f?p=regulatory_survey. Sincerely, Bonnie L. Rogers Senior Project Manager L.A. and San Bernardino Section Regulatory Division APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM U.S. Army Corps of Engineers This form should be completed by following the instructions provided in Section IV of the JD Form Instructional Guidebook. SECTION I: BACKGROUND INFORMATION A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD): final January 4, 2016 B. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER: LAD, West Valley Logistics AJD, SPL-2013-00403-BLR C. PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION: State: California County/parish/borough: San Bernardino City: Fontana Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Lat.34.040615°, Long.-117.409480°. Name of nearest waterbody: Santa Ana River 3 miles, Pacific Ocean 43 miles Name of nearest Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) into which the aquatic resource flows: None, nearest is Pacific Ocean. Name of watershed or Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): East Etiwanda Creek HUC-12 1080702030804; HUC-10 18070203. Check if map/diagram of review area and/or potential jurisdictional areas is/are available upon request. Check if other sites (e.g., offsite mitigation sites, disposal sites, etc…) are associated with this action and are recorded on a different JD form. D. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY): Office (Desk) Determination. Date: Field Determination. Date(s): November 17, 2015 SECTION II: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS A. RHA SECTION 10 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION. There Are no “navigable waters of the U.S.” within Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 329) in the review area. [Required] Waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide. Waters are presently used, or have been used in the past, or may be susceptible for use to transport interstate or foreign commerce. Explain: . B. CWA SECTION 404 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION. There Are no “waters of the U.S.” within Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 328) in the review area. [Required] 1. Waters of the U.S. a. Indicate presence of waters of U.S. in review area (check all that apply): TNWs, including territorial seas – These waters are jurisdictional and do not require a SNE or coordination Complete Sections I, II, III.A, III.D.1 and IV. Wetlands adjacent to TNWs – These waters are jurisdictional and do not require a SNE or coordination Complete Sections I, II, III.A, III.D.1 and IV. Relatively permanent waters1 (RPWs) that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs – Waters with Perennial flow are jurisdictional and do not require a SNE or coordination – Complete Sections I, II, III.D.2 and IV. Non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs (no adjacent wetlands) – Complete Sections I, II, III.B.1, III.B.3, III.C, III.D.3 and IV – These waters may be jurisdictional and therefore, SNE and coordination is required. Wetlands directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs – Wetlands abutting waters with Perennial flow are jurisdictional and do not require a SNE or coordination – Complete Sections I, II, III.D.2, III.D.4 and IV. Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting RPWs (with a surface connection) that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs – These waters may be jurisdictional and therefore, SNE and coordination is required. Complete Sections I, II, III.B.1, III.C, III.D.2, III.D.5 and IV Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs– These waters may be jurisdictional and therefore, SNE and coordination is required – Complete Sections I, II, III.B, III.C, III.D.3, III.D.6 and IV Impoundments of jurisdictional waters – Complete III.D.7 and the appropriate sections for the impounded waters Isolated (interstate or intrastate) waters, including isolated wetlands – A SNE is not required but coordinationwith EPA and HQ is required Complete Sections I, II, III.E and IV b. Identify (estimate) size of waters of the U.S. in the review area: Non-wetland waters: linear feet: width (ft) and/or acres. Wetlands: acres. c. Limits (boundaries) of jurisdiction based on: Pick List Elevation of established OHWM (if known): . 1 For purposes of this form, an RPW is defined as a tributary that is not a TNW and that typically flows year-round or has continuous flow at least “seasonally” (e.g., typically 3 months). 2 2. Non-regulated waters/wetlands (check if applicable):2 Potentially jurisdictional waters and/or wetlands were assessed within the review area and determined to be not jurisdictional. Explain: The proposed project (SPL-2013-00403-blr) is located in Fontana, California at approximately 34.040615, -117.409480 in a highly disturbed open space. The natural hillsides adjacent to the property (west) currently drain onto the project site through four low elevation valleys. Overall, flow drains toward Locust Avenue. The entire site consists of 9 parcels and one lot. The on-site aquatic features include Drainage A (0.09 acre), Drainage A1 (0.005 acre), Drainage A2, B (0.11 acre), B1 (0.005 acre), and Wetland 1 (0.05 acres) (see Drainage Summary Table). Drainage A drains into an on-site topographic depression created from a historic borrow pit (34.039906, -117.413620). Drainage A1 (34.035577, -117.416351) has an OHWM but any flow would sheetflow and end at a large constructed percolation Basin (34.044993, -117.406161). Drainage A2 (34.035253, - 117.416526) does not show an OHWM. Drainage B flows to the southeast corner of the site, sheet-flowing through private property and ending at the Basin. The Basin does not contain any culverts or pipes which would allow any water to flow out of the basin. In addition the Basin receives minimal volumes of water which percolates into the ground. Drainage B1 is an ephemeral drainage tributary to Drainage B and therefore also terminates into the isolated Basin. Wetland 1 (34.043776, -117.415588) is created by drainage collecting from the surrounding hillsides and draining into the wetland depression on-site (also created from a historic borrow pit). While the above drainages contain ordinary high water marks, all ephemeral flows terminate at low elevations (borrow pits or the Basin) and have no outlet or connection to surrounding waters or any stormwater infrastructure. In addition, there is no connection to the Santa Ana River, which is located approximately 3 miles east. In summary, the project site is isolated under SWANCC and is not a water of the United States. SECTION III: CWA ANALYSIS A. TNWs AND WETLANDS ADJACENT TO TNWs The agencies will assert jurisdiction over TNWs and wetlands adjacent to TNWs. If the aquatic resource is a TNW, complete Section III.A.1 and Section III.D.1. only; if the aquatic resource is a wetland adjacent to a TNW, complete Sections III.A.1 and 2 and Section III.D.1.; otherwise, see Section III.B below. 1. TNW Identify TNW: . Summarize rationale supporting determination: . 2. Wetland adjacent to TNW Summarize rationale supporting conclusion that wetland is “adjacent”: . B. CHARACTERISTICS OF TRIBUTARY (THAT IS NOT A TNW) AND ITS ADJACENT WETLANDS (IF ANY): This section summarizes information regarding characteristics of the tributary and its adjacent wetlands, if any, and it helps determine whether or not the standards for jurisdiction established under Rapanos have been met. The agencies will assert jurisdiction over non-navigable tributaries of TNWs where the tributaries are “relatively permanent waters” (RPWs), i.e. tributaries that typically flow year-round or have continuous flow at least seasonally (e.g., typically 3 months). A wetland that directly abuts an RPW is also jurisdictional. If the aquatic resource is not a TNW, but has year-round (perennial) flow, skip to Section III.D.2. If the aquatic resource is a wetland directly abutting a tributary with perennial flow, skip to Section III.D.4. A wetland that is adjacent to but that does not directly abut an RPW requires a significant nexus evaluation. Corps districts and EPA regions will include in the record any available information that documents the existence of a significant nexus between a relatively permanent tributary that is not perennial (and its adjacent wetlands if any) and a traditional navigable water, even though a significant nexus finding is not required as a matter of law. If the waterbody3 is not an RPW, or a wetland directly abutting an RPW, a JD will require additional data to determine if the waterbody has a significant nexus with a TNW. If the tributary has adjacent wetlands, the significant nexus evaluation must consider the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands. This significant nexus evaluation that combines, for analytical purposes, the tributary and all of its adjacent wetlands is used whether the review area identified in the JD request is the tributary, or its adjacent wetlands, or both. If the JD covers a tributary with adjacent wetlands, complete Section III.B.1 for the tributary, Section III.B.2 for any onsite wetlands, and Section III.B.3 for all wetlands adjacent to that tributary, both onsite and offsite. The determination whether a significant nexus exists is determined in Section III.C below. 2 Supporting documentation is presented in Section III.F. 3 Note that the Instructional Guidebook contains additional information regarding swales, ditches, washes, and erosional features generally and in the arid West. 3 1. Characteristics of non-TNWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNW (i) General Area Conditions: Watershed size: Pick List Drainage area: Pick List Average annual rainfall: inches Average annual snowfall: inches (ii) Physical Characteristics: (a) Relationship with TNW: Tributary flows directly into TNW. Tributary flows through Pick List tributaries before entering TNW. Project waters are Pick List river miles from TNW. Project waters are Pick List river miles from RPW. Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from TNW. Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from RPW. Project waters cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain: . Identify flow route to TNW4: . Tributary stream order, if known: . (b) General Tributary Characteristics (check all that apply): Tributary is: Natural Artificial (man-made). Explain: . Manipulated (man-altered). Explain: . Tributary properties with respect to top of bank (estimate): Average width: feet Average depth: feet Average side slopes: Pick List. Primary tributary substrate composition (check all that apply): Silts Sands Concrete Cobbles Gravel Muck Bedrock Vegetation. Type/% cover: Other. Explain: . Tributary condition/stability [e.g., highly eroding, sloughing banks]. Explain: . Presence of run/riffle/pool complexes. Explain: . Tributary geometry: Pick List Tributary gradient (approximate average slope): % (c) Flow: Tributary provides for: Pick List Estimate average number of flow events in review area/year: Pick List Describe flow regime: . Other information on duration and volume: . Surface flow is: Pick List. Characteristics: . Subsurface flow: Pick List. Explain findings: . Dye (or other) test performed: . Tributary has (check all that apply): Bed and banks OHWM5 (check all indicators that apply): clear, natural line impressed on the bank the presence of litter and debris changes in the character of soil destruction of terrestrial vegetation shelving the presence of wrack line vegetation matted down, bent, or absent sediment sorting leaf litter disturbed or washed away scour 4 Flow route can be described by identifying, e.g., tributary a, which flows through the review area, to flow into tributary b, which then flows into TNW. 5A natural or man-made discontinuity in the OHWM does not necessarily sever jurisdiction (e.g., where the stream temporarily flows underground, or where the OHWM has been removed by development or agricultural practices). Where there is a break in the OHWM that is unrelated to the waterbody’s flow regime (e.g., flow over a rock outcrop or through a culvert), the agencies will look for indicators of flow above and below the break. 4 sediment deposition multiple observed or predicted flow events water staining abrupt change in plant community other (list): Discontinuous OHWM.6 Explain: . If factors other than the OHWM were used to determine lateral extent of CWA jurisdiction (check all that apply): High Tide Line indicated by: Mean High Water Mark indicated by: oil or scum line along shore objects survey to available datum; fine shell or debris deposits (foreshore) physical markings; physical markings/characteristics vegetation lines/changes in vegetation types. tidal gauges other (list): (iii) Chemical Characteristics: Characterize tributary (e.g., water color is clear, discolored, oily film; water quality; general watershed characteristics, etc.). Explain: . Identify specific pollutants, if known: . (iv) Biological Characteristics. Channel supports (check all that apply): Riparian corridor. Characteristics (type, average width): . Wetland fringe. Characteristics: . Habitat for: Federally Listed species. Explain findings: . Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings: . Other environmentally-sensitive species. Explain findings: . Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings: . 2. Characteristics of wetlands adjacent to non-TNW that flow directly or indirectly into TNW (i) Physical Characteristics: (a) General Wetland Characteristics: Properties: Wetland size: acres Wetland type. Explain: . Wetland quality. Explain: . Project wetlands cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain: . (b) General Flow Relationship with Non-TNW: Flow is: Pick List. Explain: . Surface flow is: Pick List Characteristics: . Subsurface flow: Pick List. Explain findings: . Dye (or other) test performed: . (c) Wetland Adjacency Determination with Non-TNW: Directly abutting Not directly abutting Discrete wetland hydrologic connection. Explain: . Ecological connection. Explain: . Separated by berm/barrier. Explain: . (d) Proximity (Relationship) to TNW Project wetlands are Pick List river miles from TNW. Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from TNW. Flow is from: Pick List. Estimate approximate location of wetland as within the Pick List floodplain. (ii) Chemical Characteristics: Characterize wetland system (e.g., water color is clear, brown, oil film on surface; water quality; general watershed characteristics; etc.). Explain: . Identify specific pollutants, if known: . 6Ibid. 5 (iii) Biological Characteristics. Wetland supports (check all that apply): Riparian buffer. Characteristics (type, average width): . Vegetation type/percent cover. Explain: . Habitat for: Federally Listed species. Explain findings: . Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings: . Other environmentally-sensitive species. Explain findings: . Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings: . 3. Characteristics of all wetlands adjacent to the tributary (if any) All wetland(s) being considered in the cumulative analysis: Pick List Approximately ( ) acres in total are being considered in the cumulative analysis. For each wetland, specify the following: Directly abuts? (Y/N) Size (in acres) Directly abuts? (Y/N) Size (in acres) Summarize overall biological, chemical and physical functions being performed: . C. SIGNIFICANT NEXUS DETERMINATION A significant nexus analysis will assess the flow characteristics and functions of the tributary itself and the functions performed by any wetlands adjacent to the tributary to determine if they significantly affect the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of a TNW. For each of the following situations, a significant nexus exists if the tributary, in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands, has more than a speculative or insubstantial effect on the chemical, physical and/or biological integrity of a TNW. Considerations when evaluating significant nexus include, but are not limited to the volume, duration, and frequency of the flow of water in the tributary and its proximity to a TNW, and the functions performed by the tributary and all its adjacent wetlands. It is not appropriate to determine significant nexus based solely on any specific threshold of distance (e.g. between a tributary and its adjacent wetland or between a tributary and the TNW). Similarly, the fact an adjacent wetland lies within or outside of a floodplain is not solely determinative of significant nexus. Draw connections between the features documented and the effects on the TNW, as identified in the Rapanos Guidance and discussed in the Instructional Guidebook. Factors to consider include, for example:  Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to carry pollutants or flood waters to TNWs, or to reduce the amount of pollutants or flood waters reaching a TNW?  Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), provide habitat and lifecycle support functions for fish and other species, such as feeding, nesting, spawning, or rearing young for species that are present in the TNW?  Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to transfer nutrients and organic carbon that support downstream foodwebs?  Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have other relationships to the physical, chemical, or biological integrity of the TNW? Note: the above list of considerations is not inclusive and other functions observed or known to occur should be documented below: 1. Significant nexus findings for non-RPW that has no adjacent wetlands and flows directly or indirectly into TNWs. Explain findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary itself, then go to Section III.D: . 2. Significant nexus findings for non-RPW and its adjacent wetlands, where the non-RPW flows directly or indirectly into TNWs. Explain findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands, then go to Section III.D: . 3. Significant nexus findings for wetlands adjacent to an RPW but that do not directly abut the RPW. Explain findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands, then go to Section III.D: . D. DETERMINATIONS OF JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS. THE SUBJECT WATERS/WETLANDS ARE (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY): 1. TNWs and Adjacent Wetlands. Check all that apply and provide size estimates in review area: 6 TNWs: linear feet width (ft), Or, acres. Wetlands adjacent to TNWs: acres. 2. RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs. Tributaries of TNWs where tributaries typically flow year-round are jurisdictional. Provide data and rationale indicating that tributary is perennial: . Tributaries of TNW where tributaries have continuous flow “seasonally” (e.g., typically three months each year) are jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.B. Provide rationale indicating that tributary flows seasonally: . Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply): Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft). Other non-wetland waters: acres. Identify type(s) of waters: . 3. Non-RPWs7 that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs. Waterbody that is not a TNW or an RPW, but flows directly or indirectly into a TNW, and it has a significant nexus with a TNW is jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.C. Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters within the review area (check all that apply): Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft). Other non-wetland waters: acres. Identify type(s) of waters: . 4. Wetlands directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs. Wetlands directly abut RPW and thus are jurisdictional as adjacent wetlands. Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow year-round. Provide data and rationale indicating that tributary is perennial in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is directly abutting an RPW: . Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow “seasonally.” Provide data indicating that tributary is seasonal in Section III.B and rationale in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is directly abutting an RPW: . Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres. 5. Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs. Wetlands that do not directly abut an RPW, but when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent and with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisidictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.C. Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres. 6. Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs. Wetlands adjacent to such waters, and have when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent and with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.C. Provide estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres. 7. Impoundments of jurisdictional waters.8 As a general rule, the impoundment of a jurisdictional tributary remains jurisdictional. Demonstrate that impoundment was created from “waters of the U.S.,” or Demonstrate that water meets the criteria for one of the categories presented above (1-6), or Demonstrate that water is isolated with a nexus to commerce (see E below). 7See Footnote # 3. 8 To complete the analysis refer to the key in Section III.D.6 of the Instructional Guidebook. 7 E. ISOLATED [INTERSTATE OR INTRA-STATE] WATERS, INCLUDING ISOLATED WETLANDS, THE USE, DEGRADATION OR DESTRUCTION OF WHICH COULD AFFECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE, INCLUDING ANY SUCH WATERS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):9 which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes. from which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce. which are or could be used for industrial purposes by industries in interstate commerce. Interstate isolated waters. Explain: . Other factors. Explain: . Identify water body and summarize rationale supporting determination: . Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply): Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft). Other non-wetland waters: acres. Identify type(s) of waters: . Wetlands: acres. F. NON-JURISDICTIONAL WATERS, INCLUDING WETLANDS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY): If potential wetlands were assessed within the review area, these areas did not meet the criteria in the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual and/or appropriate Regional Supplements. Review area included isolated waters with no substantial nexus to interstate (or foreign) commerce. Prior to the Jan 2001 Supreme Court decision in “SWANCC,” the review area would have been regulated based solely on the “Migratory Bird Rule” (MBR). Waters do not meet the “Significant Nexus” standard, where such a finding is required for jurisdiction. Explain: . Other: (explain, if not covered above): . Provide acreage estimates for non-jurisdictional waters in the review area, where the sole potential basis of jurisdiction is the MBR factors (i.e., presence of migratory birds, presence of endangered species, use of water for irrigated agriculture), using best professional judgment (check all that apply): Non-wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet width (ft). Lakes/ponds: acres. Other non-wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource: . Wetlands: acres. Provide acreage estimates for non-jurisdictional waters in the review area that do not meet the “Significant Nexus” standard, where such a finding is required for jurisdiction (check all that apply): Non-wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet, width (ft). Lakes/ponds: acres. Other non-wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource: . Wetlands: approximately 0.XX acre of isolated wetlands. SECTION IV: DATA SOURCES. A. SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for JD (check all that apply - checked items shall be included in case file and, where checked and requested, appropriately reference sources below): Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant: Vicinity map. Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant. Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report. Office does not concur with data sheets/delineation report. Data sheets prepared by the Corps: Wetland delineation data sheet. Corps navigable waters’ study: . U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas: . USGS NHD data. USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps. Watershed figure. U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name: . USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation: . National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name:Fontana. State/Local wetland inventory map(s): . 9 Prior to asserting or declining CWA jurisdiction based solely on this category, Corps Districts will elevate the action to Corps and EPA HQ for review consistent with the process described in the Corps/EPA Memorandum Regarding CWA Act Jurisdiction Following Rapanos. 8 FEMA/FIRM maps: . 100-year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Geodectic Vertical Datum of 1929) Photographs: Aerial (Name & Date): or Other (Name & Date): Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter: No previous determinations in or near are known. Applicable/supporting case law: . Applicable/supporting scientific literature: . Other information (please specify): Jurisdictional Review Area B. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS TO SUPPORT JD: See attached: * Drainage Summary Table – Provides a brief outline of the size, soils, existing hydrology, reference maps for each drainage, and photo documentation. * Exhibit 6A – Depiction of Drainage A within the project site. Photo locations and orientation. * Drainage A Topo Map – provides the approximate flow path of Drainage A into on-site topographic depression * Exhibit 6B – Depiction of Drainage B within the project site. Photo locations and orientation. * Drainage B Terminus Aerial Map – Provides an aerial view of the project site boundary, flow path of Drainage B, and the terminus of Drainage B. * Drainage B Terminus Topo Map – provides approximate flow path of Drainage B into on-site open space areas. Contour lines and elevation markers indicate terminus of Drainage B. * Photo Documentation – Image number and orientation is indicated on Exhibit 6A and 6B. The terminus of each drainage is identified. * Watersheds and Surface Waters within the Project Vicinity (Figure 4.2.8-1 ) – Ancillary supporting information indicating lack of major tributaries within the immediate vicinity of the project site. As noted previously, the Santa Ana River is approximately 10,000 to 13,000 feet away from the subject site. * Preliminary Hydrology & Detention Calculations Report – summary information is provided in the Drainage Summary Table. !(!( !(!(!( !( !("!( > > !( A Wetland 1 8 A1 PARCEL2 PARCEL 1 N.A.P. PARCEL 3 PARCEL 4 PARCEL5 PARCEL 6 PARCEL 8 A2 C 7 4 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 -117.417434.035636 -117.41538334.043288 WEST VALLEY LOGISTICSCENTER Jurisdictional Map Exhibit 6A !0 300150 Feet Source:EagleAerialImaging--2012 Exhibit6a SeeExhibit6b RegionalBoard/CDFW Jurisdictional Drainage(Isolated Drainage) CDFWAssociated Vegetation CDFWand RegionalBoardWetland Site Boundary Legend CDFW/Regional Board Jurisdictional Drainage(Non-Impacted) Picture Point" Non-JurisdictionalFeature (No OWHM) Soil Pit!( Photo Documentation West Valley Logistics Center IMG_1 –View of Drainage B looking northeast in the northeastern portion of the project site. IMG_2 –View of Drainage B1 looking north (upstream) in the northeastern portion of the project site. Photo Documentation West Valley Logistics Center IMG_3 –View of Drainage B looking north (upstream) in the northeastern portion of the project site. IMG_4 –View of Drainage B looking north (upstream) in the northeastern portion of the project site. Photo Documentation West Valley Logistics Center IMG_5 –View of Drainage B looking west (upstream) in the northeastern portion of the project site. IMG_6 –View of Drainage B looking south (downstream) in the northeastern portion of the project site. Photo Documentation West Valley Logistics Center IMG_13 –View of Drainage A looking southeast (downstream) in the western portion of the project site. IMG_14–View of Drainage A looking northwest (upstream) in the western portion of the project site. Photo Documentation West Valley Logistics Center IMG_15 –View of the terminus of Drainage A into the topographic depression in the central portion of the project site. IMG_10 –View of Drainage A1 looking n northwest (upstream)in the western portion of the project site. Photo Documentation West Valley Logistics Center IMG_11 –View of Drainage A1 looking southeast (downstream) in the western portion of the project site. IMG_8 –View of Drainage A2 looking northwest (upstream) in the western portion of the project site. Photo Documentation West Valley Logistics Center IMG_9 –View of Drainage A2 looking southeast (downstream) in the western portion of the project site. K:\Irvine\GIS\Projects\City_of_Fontana\00920_11\mapdoc\Fig4_2_8_1_Watersheds.mxd Date: 1/17/2014 24991