Issuu

A TRN D A N L A P L E R E V T O L AS M

S L I

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

S W E E T WAT E R A U T H O R I T Y REVIEWED BY: Xochitl Aranda, Director of Engineering and Operations Kyehee Kim, Engineering Manager-Water Resources & Environmental Israel Marquez, Land and Environmental Manager

P R E PA R E D BY KTUA Mark Carpenter Marina Varano Ashlie Zinn Isabel Pérez Nicole Rogge

AECOM Andrew Borcher

CONTENTS 1

2 3 4

INTRODUCTION........................................... 1

Plan Overview....................................................................................................... 3 Plan Contents......................................................................................................... 6 Background............................................................................................................ 7 Relevant Plans & Documents............................................................................. 13 Community Engagement................................................................................... 13

EXISTING CONDITIONS........................... 17

Planning Context................................................................................................. 19 Environmental Context....................................................................................... 29 Recreational Context......................................................................................... 48 Summary of Key Planning Considerations.....................................................53

RECOMMENDATIONS..............................55

Potential Future Trail System.............................................................................. 57 Trail Planning and Design Guidelines.............................................................73 Trail Operations and Maintenance................................................................79 Additional Considerations.................................................................................82

FUTURE ACTIONS.......................................83

Trail Prioritization..................................................................................................85 Partnership Opportunities................................................................................. 89 Permitting & Future Studies................................................................................ 90 Estimated Costs....................................................................................................92 Potential Funding Sources................................................................................ 94 References............................................................................................................97

APPENDICES................................................99 A Appendix A: Relevant Plans and Documents..............................................101 Appendix B: Sensitive Species with Potential to Occur........................... 106 Appendix C: Potential Future Trail Prioritization Analysis.......................... 109 Appendix D: Anticipated Environmental Surveys & Permitting.................111 Appendix E: Comment Letters & Community Input......................................113

FIGURES Figure 1-1: Study Area within the Sweetwater River Watershed ��4 Figure 1-2: Loveland Reservoir Recreation Area ��12 Figure 2-1: Community Plan Areas.............................................................................................................. 20 Figure 2-2: Existing Land Use........................................................................................................................ 22 Figure 2-3: Planned Land Use....................................................................................................................... 23 Figure 2-4: Circulation and Access.............................................................................................................. 26 Figure 2-5: Ownership.................................................................................................................................... 28 Figure 2-6: Slope Ranges............................................................................................................................... 32 Figure 2-7: Conserved Lands........................................................................................................................ 36 Figure 2-8: Vegetation Communities............................................................................................................ 43 Figure 2-9: Critical Habitat............................................................................................................................ 45 Figure 2-10: Sensitive Species...................................................................................................................... 47 Figure 2-11: Existing and Previously Proposed Trails �� 52 Figure 2-12: Planning Considerations for Outdoor Recreation �� 54 Figure 3-1: Potential Future Trail System...................................................................................................... 58 Figure 3-2: Japatul Road Eastern Staging Area �� 64 Figure 3-3: Lawson Valley Staging Area.................................................................................................... 68 Figure 3-4: Loveland Overlook Staging Area ��72

III

TABLES Table 2-1: Slope Sustainability Matrix.......................................................................................................31 Table 2-2: Summary of Permitted Public Uses within Study Area......................................................... 37 Table 2-3: Vegetation Communities and Other Cover Types............................................................... 44 Table 2-4: FESA and CESA Sensitive Species with Potential to Occur.............................................. 46 Table 2-5: Existing and Previously Proposed Trails...................................................................................51 Table 3-1: Potential Future Trail System...................................................................................................... 59 Table 3-2: Potential Future Staging Areas................................................................................................. 60 Table 3-3: Design Guidelines by Trail Type.............................................................................................. 77 Table 5-1: Prioritization Criteria................................................................................................................... 86 Table 5-2: Potential Future Trails Grouped by Priority, Opportunities................................................. 88 Table 5-3: Potential Future Trails Grouped by Priority, Constraints...................................................... 88 Table 5-4: Planning-Level Cost Estimates for Trail Projects..................................................................... 93 Table 5-5: Potential Funding Sources......................................................................................................... 94 Table A: Sensitive Species with Potential to Occur in Study Area.......................................................106 Table B: Trail Network Prioritization Analysis...........................................................................................109 Table C: Anticipated Environmental Assessments, Surveys, and Permitting........................................ 112 Table D: Trail Ranking Results from Community Meeting #2................................................................ 135

T N

O R

U D

I T C

N O

LOVELAND TRAILS MASTER PLAN | INTRODUCTION

PLAN OVERVIEW

The Loveland Reservoir Trails Master Plan (LRTMP) was developed by the Sweetwater Authority (Authority) to identify conceptual opportunities for safe, sustainable, and feasible outdoor recreation around the Loveland Reservoir. The LRTMP, which identifies 28 potential future trails and three staging areas within a 4,360acre study area, is the culmination of a yearlong collaborative planning effort with relevant agencies, stakeholders, and community members. The potential future trail system identified in the LRTMP is designed to highlight opportunities for expanded hiking, wildlife viewing, fishing, and nature connection opportunities in east San Diego County, while also ensuring the continued protection of drinking water and the preservation of open space habitats. Ultimately, the LRTMP sets the framework for realistic outdoor recreation around the Loveland Reservoir and initiates the multi-agency collaboration needed for potential future implementation. However, it is important to note that while the LRTMP explores opportunities for outdoor recreation, the Authority lacks the resources to implement them. As a result, any implementation of the potential future trail network outlined in the LRTMP will require additional resources and collaboration from partner agencies and stakeholder groups.

STUDY AREA

The LRTMP study area (study area) spans approximately 4,360 acres of unincorporated land in east San Diego County (Figure 1). Most of the study area sits in the unincorporated community of Alpine, with small portions located within the Crest-Dehesa and Jamul-Dulzura communities. The study area includes the Loveland Reservoir Property and a 500-foot buffer to capture the land immediately adjacent to it. The 500-foot buffer is included in the study area to provide surrounding context and ensure connectivity between potential future trails within the Loveland Reservoir Property and nearby trails, supporting a broader network of outdoor recreation opportunities. By demonstrating trail connections that extend beyond the Loveland Reservoir Property, the LRTMP enables other agencies to use the document as a tool to secure funding for future trail implementation. Loveland Reservoir is owned and operated by the Authority for water storage and flood control. Loveland Reservoir has a capacity of approximately 25,400 acre-feet and serves as a holding area for water before it is released downstream to the Sweetwater Reservoir for treatment and distribution. The Authority owns 79 percent of the land within the study area (3,463 acres). The remaining parcels are composed of public and private ownerships and include lands owned and managed by the United States Forest Service (USFS), the United States Bureau of Land Management (BLM), the State of California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), and San Diego Gas and Electric (SDG&E).

LOVELAND TRAILS MASTER PLAN | INTRODUCTION

Figure 1-1: Study Area within the Sweetwater River Watershed

PURPOSE AND OBJECTIVES

The purpose of the LRTMP is to establish a realistic vision for outdoor recreation and public access around Loveland Reservoir. The LRTMP identifies a potential future trail system with specific trail alignments, connections, staging areas, and amenities within the study area. The LRTMP was designed to achieve the following objectives: 1. Continue to provide a safe and reliable water

supply. 2. Protect water quality and sensitive environmental resources, including biological, cultural, and scenic resources. 3. Identify potential opportunities for safe and sustainable outdoor recreational activities, including hiking, fishing, and wildlife viewing. 4. Explore opportunities for future partnership for the potential implementation, management, operations, and maintenance of conceptual recreational trails and amenities.

PLANNING PROCESS

The LRTMP identifies conceptual trail alignments for potential expanded outdoor recreation in the vicinity of Loveland Reservoir. However, implementation of the trail network is not guaranteed and the LRTMP is not intended to identify a Lead Agency for the implementation of any of these trails. Implementation of any future trail is contingent upon additional planning and environmental review, Authority Governing Board approval, agreements with other agencies as needed, permitting, funding, and resources for construction, operations, and long-term management. Phase 1: Policy Review and Existing Conditions Analysis

» Review relevant local and regional policies and

evaluate the existing conditions of the LRTMP study area.

Phase 2: Community Engagement

» Engage community members, key stakeholders, and agency representatives in the planning process through collaborative meetings.

Phase 3: Recommendations

» Identify potential opportunities to improve

LOVELAND TRAILS MASTER PLAN | INTRODUCTION

and expand recreational trails around Loveland Reservoir.

Phase 4: Board Plan Review

» Present the completed LRTMP to the Authority

Board of Directors as an informational item and receive and file the document for future reference.

PLAN CONTENTS The LRTMP contains a summary of existing planning efforts, an analysis of existing conditions, input from the community and stakeholders, and recommendations for a potential future trail system. The LRTMP is organized into four chapters and an appendix, all of which are described below.

CHAPTER 1: INTRODUCTION

Chapter 1 provides an overview of the LRTMP, including the planning process, objectives, study area, background information, public input, and relevant local and regional planning documents. This foundational chapter introduces the purpose of the LRTMP and sets the stage for the rest of the document.

CHAPTER 2: EXISTING CONDITIONS ANALYSIS

Chapter 2 documents and analyzes the existing site conditions of the LRTMP study area. It includes geospatial analyses of several relevant datasets, such as land use, ownership, circulation, conservation, vegetation habitats, biological resources, and existing and previously proposed trails. Chapter 2 findings were used alongside community and stakeholder input to develop the potential future trail system. Chapter 3 presents a potential future trail system for the study area, including trailhead improvements, staging areas, and other amenities to support safe and sustainable outdoor recreation. Chapter 3 also includes biological, cultural, and trail design and construction guidelines to support responsible operations and management.

CHAPTER 4: FUTURE ACTIONS

Chapter 4 outlines future actions to support implementation, potential future projects ranked by priority, planning-level cost estimates, an overview of the permitting process, and opportunities for future partnership and funding.

APPENDIX

The Appendix contains a high-level summary of relevant planning documents (Appendix A), a list of sensitive species with potential to occur in the study area (Appendix B), prioritization analysis results (Appendix C), anticipated environmental surveys and permitting (Appendix D), and public and agency comment letters (Appendix E).

LOVELAND TRAILS MASTER PLAN | INTRODUCTION

CHAPTER 3: RECOMMENDATIONS

BACKGROUND SWEETWATER AUTHORITY

The Authority is a publicly owned water agency that provides safe, reliable water service to approximately 200,000 people in a 36-square-mile service area, which includes National City, San Diego County’s unincorporated community of Bonita, and the western and central portions of Chula Vista, CA. The sevenmember Authority Governing Board (Board of Directors) is composed of five directors elected by the citizens of South Bay Water, and two directors appointed by the Mayor of National City, subject to City Council confirmation. The Authority owns and operates most of the land within the study area and developed this LRTMP in an effort to support a reliable water supply, protect water quality and environmental resources, and identify potential opportunities for safe and sustainable recreation, while defining responsibilities for the planning, operation, and maintenance of recreational trails and amenities around Loveland Reservoir.

HISTORY

LOVELAND TRAILS MASTER PLAN | INTRODUCTION

Formed in 1972, the Authority is a public water utility established through a joint powers agreement between the South Bay Irrigation District and National City. From 1972 until 1977, the Authority initially served as a financing vehicle to support the public acquisition of the water system from the California American Water Company. After a public vote approved authorization of bonds, the South Bay Irrigation District (now known as South Bay Water) purchased the water system. In 1977, the Authority began operating the water utility with a commitment to retire the South Bay Irrigation District debt and assume ownership. Full ownership of the water system was transferred to the Authority in 1990.

DRINKING WATER SYSTEM

The Authority’s drinking water system provides water to customers via nearly 400 miles of pipeline, with water procured from four sources: 1. Deep freshwater wells located in National City 2. Capture of local runoff from the Sweetwater

River with subsequent storage in Loveland Reservoir in Alpine, and Sweetwater Reservoir in Spring Valley 3. Brackish groundwater wells in the lower Sweetwater River basin 4. Purchase of imported water delivered by the San Diego County Water Authority and the Metropolitan Water District

LOVELAND TRAILS MASTER PLAN | INTRODUCTION

MISSION

The mission of the Authority is to provide its current and future customers with a safe and reliable water supply through the use of the best available technology, sound management practices, public participation, and a balanced approach to human and environmental needs. When the Authority assumed operation of the privately owned water system in 1977, its focus became very local, with the long-term health of the infrastructure becoming a top priority. Locally elected and appointed directors, and the management team of Garry Butterfield and Al Sorensen, determined that the agency must fulfill its mission to provide safe, reliable water. The guiding four words, “provide safe, reliable water,” have shaped every policy decision at the agency since its inception.

LOVELAND RESERVOIR

The Authority captures local runoff from the Sweetwater River Watershed in two reservoirs: (1) the Loveland Reservoir in Alpine and (2) the Sweetwater Reservoir in Spring Valley. The LRTMP focuses on a study area around the Loveland Reservoir. The Loveland Reservoir, constructed in the 1940s and operational since 1945, serves as a holding area for water released to the Sweetwater Dam. It has a storage capacity of 25,400 acre-feet, and its dam is 203 feet high and 765 feet wide.

LOVELAND TRAILS MASTER PLAN | INTRODUCTION

The primary purpose of Loveland Reservoir is to provide safe and reliable drinking water for the Authority’s drinking water system. Additional benefits associated with the Authority’s ownership of the Loveland Reservoir include flood control, habitat preservation, and outdoor recreation. Recreational use is currently limited to the Loveland Reservoir Recreation Area (Recreation Area) and segments of the California Riding and Hiking Trail (CRHT).

CALIFORNIA RIDING AND HIKING TRAIL HISTORY

In 1945, the California Riding and Hiking Trails Act was passed, which envisioned a statewide system of riding and hiking trails, including a plan for a 3,000-mile loop trail extending from the Mexican border to the Oregon border. Though segments of the CRHT system were developed throughout the state, including in San Diego, a lack of consistent funding and interest in the continuous trail system led to the dissolution of the CRHT Act in 1974. The original act was replaced by the California Recreational Trails Act in 1974, which created the 1978 California Recreational Trails Plan, a statewide document that promotes the creation of trail corridors and provides general guidelines for future trail growth and development. Though additional trails were proposed in the 1978 California Recreational Trails Plan, none are within the Loveland Reservoir study area. Segments of the CRHT that were constructed prior to the cessation of the CRHT Act in 1974 still exist in San Diego County and are named as such, including in the LRTMP study area. The existing CRHT segments in the study area primarily lie in the northeastern portion of the site, where a two- to three-mile stretch of the CRHT runs east to west. A smaller, quarter-mile segment of the CRHT runs north to south in the southwestern region of the study area.

HISTORY

The Recreation Area was born out of a unique partnership between the Authority and the USFS. The intent of the partnership was and is to protect and preserve water quality and natural habitat while also providing limited recreational access at Loveland Reservoir, including fishing, bird watching, and picnicking. In 1997, to consolidate Authority land ownership around the Loveland Reservoir, the Authority participated in a land exchange with the USFS. The Authority purchased 883 acres of land abutting Cuyamaca State Park and exchanged it with 1,550 acres of USFS-owned land on the eastern portion of the Loveland Reservoir. To ensure continued public access to the USFS-operated Fishing Program, a nonexclusive easement for limited recreation was provided to the USFS on the northeastern corner of the Loveland Reservoir property. The easement extends 50 feet above the reservoir’s high-water level and includes the parking area and the trail from the existing parking lot to the reservoir.

RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES

This land exchange increased the natural habitat and forest lands available to San Diego County and Southern California residents. Through the Recreation Area, visitors can fish, hike, and birdwatch in public access areas along the north shore of the Loveland Reservoir (shown in Figure 2). The Recreational Area opens to the public at 6:00 a.m. and closes at 5:00 p.m. (October through February) or 6:00 p.m. (March through September), except for certain holidays when the Recreation Area is closed. Since the 1997 land exchange, the Authority and community advocates have improved public access at Loveland Reservoir by securing a United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) grant to construct a Fishing Float. The Authority and community advocates also secured grant funding from the State Department of Water Resources to improve and expand recreation through the Loveland Reservoir Trail Safety Improvements Project (in progress) and the development of this LRTMP.

LOVELAND TRAILS MASTER PLAN | INTRODUCTION

LOVELAND RESERVOIR RECREATION AREA

MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONS

PROJECT SPOTLIGHT: LOVELAND RESERVOIR TRAIL SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT

LOVELAND TRAILS MASTER PLAN | INTRODUCTION

The Authority worked with Alpine community members to identify trail improvements for the Loveland Reservoir Recreation Area. Planned trail improvements that are currently under review include an observation/ activity deck (e.g., yoga, Tai Chi) and a bridge to facilitate safe crossing when the Loveland Reservoir is at its higher water levels. The project is currently in the design and permitting phase. Once constructed, the project will greatly improve access and safety and reduce negative impacts on habitat.

The Authority follows and complies with the State of California’s Division of Drinking Water (DDW) Guidelines for Recreational Facilities at Reservoirs, which establish general rules and regulations for the operation and maintenance of recreation at reservoirs. These guidelines protect the health and safety of residents as well as the potable water used for consumption. Within the Loveland Reservoir Recreation Area, the Authority maintains parking areas and access trails, conducts safety patrols by foot and boat, opens and closes the parking lot, and services portable restrooms and trash receptacles. Because the Authority’s primary responsibility is to provide safe and reliable drinking water, it has limited resources to manage, maintain, and operate outdoor recreation beyond what is currently allocated to the Recreation Area. The Authority maintains and manages the Recreation Area without financial or operational support from the USFS. Any expanded trails or amenities identified in the LRTMP would require additional funding, staffing, and organizational resources.

LOVELAND TRAILS MASTER PLAN | INTRODUCTION

Figure 1-2: Loveland Reservoir Recreation Area

RELEVANT PLANS & DOCUMENTS The planning team conducted a literature review of relevant plans and documents to analyze the current planning context and operational framework at the Loveland Reservoir. These documents were referenced throughout the planning process to ensure consistency between standing policies and guidelines and proposed recommendations. The planning team integrated pertinent information throughout the LRTMP where applicable. Additional information is provided in Appendix A.

SWEETWATER AUTHORITY

» Draft Technical Report for Sweetwater and Loveland Reservoirs Recreational Uses (2024) » Loveland Reservoir Fishing Program Relocation (1997)

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT

» Draft South Coast Resource Management Plan (1994)

COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

LOVELAND TRAILS MASTER PLAN | INTRODUCTION

» San Diego County Community Trails Master

Plan (2005) » Alpine Community Trails and Pathways Master Plan (2005) » Jamul-Dulzura Community Trails and Pathways Master Plan (2005) » Crest-Dehesa Community Trails and Pathways Master Plan (2005) » County of San Diego General Plan (2011) » Conservation & Open Space Element (2011) » Land Use Element (2011) » Mobility Element (2018) » County of San Diego Community Plans » Draft Alpine Community Plan (2020) » Jamul/Dulzura Subregional Plan (2016) » Crest/Dehesa/Harbison Canyon/Granite Hills Community Plan (2015) » County of San Diego Capital Improvement Plan (FY 2025-29)

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

» California Riding and Hiking Trail » California State Parks Revocable License

Agreement for a Staging Area (2002) » Title 14 of the California Public Resources Code » Division of Drinking Water (DDW) Draft Guidelines for Recreational Facilities at Reservoirs (2000)

UNITED STATES FOREST SERVICE

» Cleveland National Forest Land Management Plan (2005)

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT Engaging community members, stakeholders, neighboring property owners, and current and prospective recreational users in the planning process was essential to developing the LRTMP. Community engagement was conducted at key stages of the process to gather meaningful input from neighbors, stakeholders, and community members. The following methods were used to collect community input:

» Two (2) Community Meetings » Two (2) Agency Meetings » A Draft LRTMP Community Input Period Summaries of each engagement activity are provided below. These findings were used to develop and modify the recommendations presented in Chapter 3.

COMMUNITY MEETINGS

Two community meetings were held for the LRTMP. The meetings were designed to be accessible, inclusive, and approachable opportunities for community members to learn about and provide input on a potential future trail system around the Loveland Reservoir.

COMMUNITY MEETING #1: ALPINE

» General improvements to facilitate easier

» When asked, “What outdoor recreation

Participant input from the first community meeting was used to modify and refine the potential future trail network presented in Chapter 3.

In addition to ranking priorities for outdoor recreation around the Loveland Reservoir, participants also reviewed and provided comments on a preliminary draft of the potential future trail network. Several key themes emerged from the written comments, including the desire for the following:

Community Meeting #1

activities would you like to see most at Loveland Reservoir?” participants ranked hiking and fishing as most important. Followed by mountain biking, wildlife viewing, and horseback riding. » When asked, “Where is public access for outdoor recreation most important to you?” participants ranked the northwest area of the study area as most important.

» Public access to the SDG&E maintenance roads for

hiking, which would provide additional recreation options for people with limited mobility who may currently struggle to use the existing Recreation Area trails due to steep slopes. » Please note: Upon reviewing the draft LRTMP, SDG&E clarified that allowing public access to these facilities would introduce substantial public health and safety risks, including potential conflicts with heavy equipment, emergency operations, and energized electrical infrastructure. SDG&E access roads/ routes may be narrow roads or paths that are traversed by vehicles. Accordingly, SDG&E does not support the use of its utility access roads for hiking or general public access. » Public access to the previously planned Japatul Road staging area, as well as the installation of a safe road crossing from the previously planned staging area to the Recreation Area.

public access to existing recreation areas around the Loveland Reservoir. » Easier and more accessible trails leading to the Loveland Reservoir, which would provide greater trail options for people with limited mobility. » Relocation of the CRHT segment that currently runs along the Sequan Truck Trail to an off-road location within the study area.

COMMUNITY MEETING #2: ALPINE

The Authority hosted a second community meeting on June 16th, 2026, at the Alpine Woman’s Club to provide the public with an update on the LRTMP and present the potential future trail network. Attendees asked questions about the LRTMP and use stickers to vote for the three potential future trails most important to them (see Appendix E for results). The trails that received the most votes were the Western Overlook Trail (#21) and the Northern Overlook Trail (#22).

Community Meeting #2

LOVELAND TRAILS MASTER PLAN | INTRODUCTION

The Authority hosted a community meeting on August 28th, 2025, at the Alpine Woman’s Club to introduce and collect input on the LRTMP. The meeting included an informational presentation and several interactive exhibits designed to capture meaningful feedback from community members about recreation issues and opportunities around the Loveland Reservoir. The following feedback was provided:

AGENCY MEETINGS

Two agency meetings were held to gather targeted input from key stakeholders and technical experts. Agency meetings were composed of representatives from the County of San Diego (County), California State Parks, CDFW, SDG&E, and USFS. Agency meetings were designed to facilitate technical discussions related to the feasibility, funding, implementation, operations, and maintenance of a trail system around the Loveland Reservoir.

LOVELAND TRAILS MASTER PLAN | INTRODUCTION

AGENCY MEETING #1

The planning team met with County staff on May 28th, 2025, to determine if any previously proposed trails from the County’s Community Trails Master Plan (CTMP) should be modified, replaced, or removed based on opportunities and constraints identified in the LRTMP’s existing conditions analysis. County staff noted that the CTMP and the Community Trails and Pathways Plans identify general trail alignments as concepts and not fixed routes so modifications could be made within reason. County staff also clarified that it does not have authority over trail development on land owned by other agencies, and that any CTMP concept would require further planning before a conceptual alignment could be refined into a build-ready design. During the meeting, County staff expressed willingness to participate in future engagement led by the Authority and noted additional agencies such as California State Parks as important stakeholders.

AGENCY MEETING #2

The planning team met with representatives from the County, California State Parks, and neighboring agency property owners, including CDFW, SDG&E, and USFS, on April 20th, 2026. The planning team presented the draft potential future trail network and asked for input on trail alignments and opportunities for future collaboration. Agency representatives generally welcomed the concept of expanded outdoor recreation around Loveland Reservoir and the CRHT, with some expressing support for future trail opportunities. Others raised concerns about the suitability of certain access routes, including potential trails on private property, through

infrastructure easements, and near sensitive habitats for endangered and endemic species. Representatives also noted limited available resources to support future implementation and maintenance. The planning team used this input to revise the draft LRTMP.

DRAFT LRTMP INPUT PERIOD

A draft version of the LRTMP was made available for community and agency review between May 18th and June 5th, 2026. Three members of the public and the following agencies submitted comment letters:

» California Department of Fish and Wildlife » California Department of Parks and Recreation » County of San Diego » San Diego Gas & Electric » U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Community and agency input was used to refine the LRTMP before it was finalized. Appendix E contains all comment letters received during this period.

LOVELAND TRAILS MASTER PLAN | INTRODUCTION

S G N N O I I T T I S I D X E ON C

LOVELAND TRAILS MASTER PLAN | EXISTING CONDITIONS

Understanding the existing planning, environmental, and recreational context within and surrounding the study area is essential to planning a potential future trail system. Each dataset in this chapter provides valuable information that contributes to the comprehensive understanding of opportunities and constraints for outdoor recreation around the Loveland Reservoir. The findings of the existing conditions analysis, combined with the input from the community engagement process, were used to develop the potential future trail system presented in Chapter 3.

PLANNING CONTEXT The study area is located in eastern San Diego County within the unincorporated communities of Alpine, Crest-Dehesa, and Jamul-Dulzura. The County General Plan, CTMP, and associated community plans outline the framework for future growth and development within and surrounding the study area. A highlevel subregional planning context, including community plan areas, land use, circulation and access, and ownership, is presented on the subsequent pages.

COMMUNITY PLAN AREAS

LOVELAND TRAILS MASTER PLAN | EXISTING CONDITIONS

The County General Plan and community plans for specific geographic areas guide future growth and development in San Diego County. Community plans are tools used to implement the General Plan and provide more site-specific policy recommendations that address community concerns. Three of the County’s community plan areas touch the study area: Alpine, Crest-Dehesa, and Jamul-Dulzura. Figure 2-1 shows that most of the study area is within the Alpine Community Plan Area. However, small portions of the study area are also within the Crest-Dehesa and Jamul-Dulzura Community Plan Areas. To ensure consistency with planning efforts in the surrounding areas, the planning team referenced the following documents during the development of the LRTMP:

COMMUNITY PLANS » Draft Alpine Community Plan (2020) » Jamul/Dulzura Subregional Plan (2016) » Crest/Dehesa/Harbison Canyon/Granite Hills Community Plan (2015)

COMMUNITY TRAILS AND PATHWAYS PLANS » Alpine Community Trails and Pathways Master Plan (2005) » Jamul-Dulzura Community Trails and Pathways Master Plan (2005) » Crest-Dehesa Community Trails and Pathways Master Plan (2005) Summaries of these documents are in Appendix A.

LOVELAND TRAILS MASTER PLAN | EXISTING CONDITIONS

Figure 2-1: Community Plan Areas

LAND USE

Existing and planned land uses within and adjacent to the study area are shown in Figure 2-2 and Figure 2-3, respectively. Existing land uses within the study area are primarily Undevelopable Natural Area and Lake/Reservoir/Large Pond, with some Vacant and Undeveloped Land, Spaced Rural Residential, Open Space Park or Preserve, and Communications and Utilities land uses. Planned land uses within the study area are similarly dominated by Open Space Park or Preserve and Lake/Reservoir/Large Pond uses, with Spaced Rural Residential and Communications and Utilities uses located around the edges of the study area. These existing and planned land uses are generally conducive to and compatible with outdoor recreation.

LOVELAND TRAILS MASTER PLAN | EXISTING CONDITIONS

In particular, the County’s General Plan Conservation and Open Space Element (2011) states that the primary objective of open space is biological conservation. It also defines ‘preserves’ as areas of environmental significance and beauty. The dual purpose of a preserve is to protect biological, cultural, and historical resources, as well as community character, and to make these resources available for public recreation. Typically, only minimal improvements, such as trails, parking, and restroom facilities are found in preserves. Some preserves may also provide interpretive or educational amenities. Preserves vary in size, and public access can be limited depending on the type and sensitivity of protected resources.

LOVELAND TRAILS MASTER PLAN | EXISTING CONDITIONS

Figure 2-2: Existing Land Use

LOVELAND TRAILS MASTER PLAN | EXISTING CONDITIONS Figure 2-3: Planned Land Use

LOVELAND TRAILS MASTER PLAN | EXISTING CONDITIONS

CIRCULATION & ACCESS

Figure 2-4 displays existing circulation and access to the study area. Three paved public roads provide vehicular access to the study area: Japatul Road, Sequan Truck Trail, and Montiel Truck Trail. Japatul Road provides access to the existing Recreation Area parking lot and trails in the northeastern perimeter of the site. There are no sidewalks, bicycle facilities, or street parking along Japatul Road. Sequan Truck Trail and Montiel Truck Trail are primarily used by landowners for property access, some commuters, and by Authority staff for patrolling. However, like Japatul Road, these roads also provide access to existing trails (shown in dashed green lines), like the CRHT.

LOVELAND TRAILS MASTER PLAN | EXISTING CONDITIONS

While vehicular public access to the Recreation Area is limited to Japatul Road, several maintenance and utility access roads exist throughout the site. For example, Authority staff use the Sequan Truck Trail, Forest Route 16Sd1, and unnamed dirt roads on the north side of the Loveland Reservoir for maintenance and operations. Additionally, SDG&E and the Authority share control of maintenance roads near the north shore. There is no authorized road or trail access along the south shore.

Public access to non-recreational areas of the study area is prohibited. However, trespassing occasionally occurs through other areas, such as SDG&E maintenance roads or abandoned roads on the south side of the Loveland Reservoir near Jamul. While there is some community desire for increased access to the study area, the Authority does not currently have the resources to monitor, maintain, and ensure safety at additional access points. In addition, any improvements to areas not owned by the Authority would require concurrence from the property owner. For safety, maintenance, and property ownership reasons, any new access points would require additional funding for expanded staffing and project partner resources, as well as concurrence from the applicable property owner.

LOVELAND TRAILS MASTER PLAN | EXISTING CONDITIONS

Figure 2-4: Circulation and Access

OWNERSHIP

LOVELAND TRAILS MASTER PLAN | EXISTING CONDITIONS

The study area is approximately 86 percent (3,744 acres) public ownership and 14 percent (616 acres) private ownership (Figure 2-5). Nearly all land within the study area (3,463 acres or 79 percent) is owned by the Authority, with some parcels around the perimeter owned by the USFS, CDFW, BLM, SDG&E, and private property owners. Coordination with landowners, including private property owners and other public agencies, will be necessary for any potential future public access or outdoor recreation opportunities on non-Authority-owned land. Engagement with stakeholders was initiated through the LRTMP planning process, setting the stage for future coordination.

LOVELAND TRAILS MASTER PLAN | EXISTING CONDITIONS

Figure 2-5: Ownership

ENVIRONMENTAL CONTEXT

LOVELAND TRAILS MASTER PLAN | EXISTING CONDITIONS

Because the study area contains a surface water reservoir and is mainly designated for open space preservation, it is largely undeveloped and provides important habitat for local flora and fauna. A high-level environmental review of water and biological resources, conserved lands, and vegetation habitats is included to ensure environmental resources are considered and protected through this planning effort.

GEOGRAPHY TOPOGRAPHY

The study area is a largely undeveloped open space that contains the Loveland Reservoir and surrounding valleys, hills, and mountainous terrain, ranging from 939 to 2,503 feet above mean sea level. The highest point is located in the southeast corner of the study area, near the Cleveland National Forest. Adjacent peaks situated near the Recreation Area are 1,800, 1,850, and 1,884 feet. The steep, rugged topography within the study area is a natural environmental constraint that affects the feasibility of expanding certain recreational opportunities.

SLOPES

Slopes affect both the feasibility and cost of trail construction because steeper terrain requires more excavation to create a stable trail tread. For example, for hillside trails that cross slopes greater than 10 percent, the trail tread is typically excavated into the hillside to provide a slightly out-sloped surface, with the downhill edge lower to promote drainage. This type of construction is often called a “full bench” trail.

FULL BENCH TRAILS

PARTIAL BENCH TRAILS

A partial bench trail is constructed by cutting a part or half of the trail tread into the hillside and using the cut material to fill the downhill slope. The outslope fill material is softer and less compacted, so it typically needs to be reinforced with crib or retaining walls to hold and support the downhill edge of the trail. Partial bench trails are typically more expensive and require greater maintenance, but they reduce excavation and keep the impact corridor narrow.

LOVELAND TRAILS MASTER PLAN | EXISTING CONDITIONS

A full bench trail is constructed by cutting the full width of the tread into the hillside and placing the excavated soil downslope of the trail. On steep slopes, using fill to support part of the trailbed without a structured retention is not recommended. Although full-bench trail construction requires more excavation and leaves a larger backslope than partial-bench construction, it produces a more durable trailbed that requires less maintenance.

SLOPE SUITABILITY ANALYSIS

Figure 2-6 demonstrates the suitability of slopes for different trail widths (two to six feet), indicating which can support full-bench and partial-bench construction depending on trail width and which would require retaining structures and railings.

» <35 percent slopes: Suitable for full-bench construction across all trail widths without retaining

structures. » 35–60 percent slopes: Supports full bench construction of two to four-foot trail widths and reduced partial bench construction for six-foot or wider trail widths, with some retaining structures needed. » 60–75 percent slopes: Supports full and partial bench trail construction for two to four-foot trail widths, and partial bench with retaining structures needed for six-foot trail widths » >75 percent slopes: Avoid for new trail construction. Most trail widths (except some two-foot trails) would require partial bench construction, retaining walls, and protective railings. Using Table 2-1 as the basis for a slope suitability analysis, the planning team mapped the range of slopes in the study area (Figure 2-6) to identify areas where constructing new trails would be cost-prohibitive due to the steep slopes. Most of the study area has slopes less than 60 percent, allowing full-bench construction for most trail types considered in the LRTMP. However, areas with slopes exceeding 75 percent should be minimized or avoided, if possible. Table 2-1: Slope Sustainability Matrix

LOVELAND TRAILS MASTER PLAN | EXISTING CONDITIONS

0-35% 35-60% 65-75% >75% 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 150 200

2’ 4’ 6’ Full Bench Construction Reduced Partial Bench Partial Bench with retaining structure Partial Bench with retaining structure and railing

LOVELAND TRAILS MASTER PLAN | EXISTING CONDITIONS

Figure 2-6: Slope Ranges

WATER RESOURCES SWEETWATER RIVER

LOVELAND TRAILS MASTER PLAN | EXISTING CONDITIONS

The study area is located entirely within the Sweetwater River Watershed, which spans approximately 230 square miles from the Cuyamaca Mountains to the San Diego Bay. The Sweetwater River is an approximately 40-milelong ephemeral river beginning at Cuyamaca Peak in eastern San Diego County, flowing westerly and terminating in the San Diego Bay. Within the Sweetwater River watershed, the upper reach of the river system, upstream of Loveland Reservoir, is an area transitioning from pristine mountain and woodland forests to rural development with some agricultural use.

LOVELAND RESERVOIR

The focal feature and water resource of the study area is the Loveland Reservoir, which is fed by the Sweetwater River, Taylor Creek, Viejas Creek, and other tributaries within the 102-square-mile upper Sweetwater River Watershed, primarily during winter and spring months. The Loveland Reservoir captures runoff from upstream communities, such as Pine Valley, Descanso, Viejas, Japatul Valley, and Alpine, as well as from open spaces such as Cuyamaca State Park, Cleveland National Forest, and Palo Verde Lake. When full, the Loveland Reservoir has a storage capacity of approximately 25,400 acre-feet. The high-water mark of the Loveland Reservoir is 1,355 feet. Water from the Loveland Reservoir is regularly transferred to the Sweetwater Reservoir via the Loveland Dam and the Sweetwater River channel.

GUIDELINES FOR RECREATIONAL USE

As described in Chapter 1, shoreline fishing, as well as passive recreation such as birdwatching, picnicking, and hiking, are permitted at the Loveland Reservoir Recreation Area. Hiking also occurs in segments of the CRHT. Because the Loveland Reservoir is part of a domestic water supply system, recreational use is prohibited unless authorized by a water supply permit. The California State Water Resources Control Board Division of Drinking Water (DDW), Draft Guidelines for Evaluating Applications for Recreational Use Permits at Domestic Water Supply Reservoirs (2000 Guidelines) outline procedures for recreational use permit applications. Per the 2000 Guidelines, the Authority developed a Draft Technical Report for Sweetwater and Loveland Reservoirs Recreational Uses in 2024, which outlines the rules and regulations for recreational use at the Loveland Reservoir. To protect the health and safety of residents and the quality of potable water used for consumption, current regulations limit the expansion of outdoor recreation, including but not limited to the following:

» The maximum daily visitor usage for the Loveland Reservoir is 200 persons and 50 vehicles. » Recreationalists are permitted access to trails and an area up to 50 feet (horizontal distance) from the

In addition to rules and regulations on recreation use type and location, Authority staff patrols, monitors, and maintains existing recreational areas to ensure user safety, protect water quality, prevent erosion, and prevent the spread or establishment of invasive species. In compliance with the 2000 Guidelines, the Authority has seven full-time watershed caretakers working rotating shifts, seven days a week. Additionally, the Authority provides and maintains portable toilets and trash receptacles to control waste. It has also installed fencing and signage to discourage trespassing into environmentally sensitive areas and other undeveloped lands within the Loveland Reservoir property.

LOVELAND TRAILS MASTER PLAN | EXISTING CONDITIONS

high-water mark of the Loveland Reservoir, within the Recreation Area boundaries. Public access to other non-recreational areas of the Loveland Reservoir property is strictly prohibited. » Recreational boating, kayaking, swimming, and horseback riding are prohibited. » On-site fish cleaning is prohibited. All fish must be taken off-site or transported home for cleaning. A California fishing license is required for all anglers.

CONSERVATION

LOVELAND TRAILS MASTER PLAN | EXISTING CONDITIONS

CONSERVED LANDS

Approximately 86.1 percent of the study area is conserved through public agencies and conservation easements with private landowners (Figure 2-7). Open space conservation designations protect biological, water, agricultural, cultural, paleontological, mineral, and visual resources by limiting allowable uses. Allowable uses on publicly owned open space conservation areas include habitat preserves, passive recreation, and reservoirs. Most of the study area (79 percent) is conserved through the Authority’s ownership of the Loveland Reservoir. Other portions of the study area are conserved by the USFS (Cleveland National Forest), BLM, CDFW (Sycuan Peak Ecological Reserve), and conservation easements with private landowners. Additionally, the Authority is currently developing a Natural Communities Conservation Plan / Habitat Conservation Plan (NCCP/HCP), which would assist with the dedication of land for conservation purposes and overall ecosystem protection at Loveland Reservoir and the entire region. Any potential future trails identified in the LRTMP should follow applicable conservation and land management plans for design and implementation. Coordination with landowners and agency staff is recommended to ensure compliance with applicable conservation and land management plans and practices.

CLEVELAND NATIONAL FOREST (USFS)

Approximately 227 acres of the study area are within the Cleveland National Forest. The Cleveland National Forest is owned and operated by the USFS. Cleveland National Forest covers 460,000 acres and offers diverse terrain and recreational opportunities, including camping and picnic areas, hiking, horseback riding, trail running, mountain biking, and scenic drives. When implementing recreational trails in the Cleveland National Forest, steps should be taken to maintain environmental sustainability and to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse impacts on threatened, endangered, proposed, candidate, or sensitive species and their habitats, as well as on soil, watershed, riparian, or heritage resources. Any future trails through the Cleveland National

Forest would require planning and evaluation to ensure consistency with the Cleveland National Forest Land Management Plan, as well as coordination with the appropriate USFS Descanso Ranger District staff.

SYCUAN PEAK ECOLOGICAL RESERVE (CDFW)

Approximately 27 acres of the study area are within the Sycuan Peak Ecological Reserve, which is owned and operated by CDFW. The property was designated as an ecological reserve by the Fish and Game Commission in 2000 to protect endangered and sensitive wildlife, native plants, and special habitats. It is part of an important wildlife corridor within the State’s Natural Community Conservation Planning program. Sycuan Peak Ecological Reserve is approximately 2,300 acres. The majority of the property south of the Sweetwater River consists of mafic southern mixed chaparral, a unique form of chaparral vegetation confined to mafic, or gabbro-derived, soils rich in ferromagnesian minerals. Sycuan Peak is used as foraging territory by peregrine falcons, as well as other raptors. The northern portion of the property consists of the Sweetwater River drainage and includes riparian woodland and willow riparian habitats. Sycuan Peak Ecological Reserve is subject to the provisions for ecological reserves contained in Title 14 of the California Public Resources Code (CDFW 2015). Per Section 550 of Title 14, passive recreation such as wildlife viewing, hiking, and photography is allowed on department land except when all or a portion of the property is closed. Sycuan Peak Ecological Reserve is not specified as closed to the public per Section 630 of Title 14. However, CDFW reserves the right to limit entry onto ecological reserves as it deems appropriate or require an entry permit for public access. Hunting, horses, pack stock, horseback riding, biking, and other pedaled vehicles are prohibited per Section 630 (CDFW 2015). Per Section 630, fishing for commercial purposes is prohibited. However, fishing for non-commercial purposes is allowed but is limited to angling from shore. Any future trails through the Sycuan Peak Ecological Reserve would require coordination with the appropriate CDFW District 5 staff.

LOVELAND TRAILS MASTER PLAN | EXISTING CONDITIONS

Figure 2-7: Conserved Lands

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT LANDS (BLM)

Approximately 25 acres of the study area are located on public BLM land. Generally, public BLM lands offer a variety of recreational opportunities, including hunting, fishing, hiking, OHV use, mountain biking, horseback riding, boating, and backcountry exploring. However, the BLM land within and adjacent to the study area does not have any existing recreation sites or opportunities. Any future trails on BLM land would require planning and evaluation to ensure consistency with the BLM South Coast Resource Management Plan, as well as coordination with the appropriate Palm Springs-South Coast Field Office staff.

LOVELAND TRAILS MASTER PLAN | EXISTING CONDITIONS

Table 2-2: Summary of Permitted Public Uses within Study Area

Permitted Recreational Uses Horseback Biking Fishing Riding

Conserved Lands

Acres

Percent of Study Area

Loveland Reservoir Recreation Area

3,463

79.4%

Yes

Yes*

Cleveland National Forest

227

5.2%

Yes

Yes*

Yes+

Sycuan Ecological Preserve

0.6%

Yes

Yes^

BLM

0.6%

Yes-

Yes+-

Private Open Space Easements

0.3%

Hiking

Unknown Unknown

Unknown

Hunting

Unknown Unknown

Total 3,755 86.1% * Designated trails and areas only. ^ Per Section 630, fishing for commercial purposes is prohibited. However, fishing for non-commercial purposes is allowed but is limited to angling from shore. + Hunting is permitted during hunting seasons and subject to CDFW regulations. - While broadly permitted on BLM lands, there are no existing recreational sites or information about recreation on the BLM lands within and adjacent to the study area.

MULTIPLE SPECIES CONSERVATION PROGRAM

The Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) Plan, adopted by the County in 1998, is a comprehensive, long-term habitat conservation planning program in San Diego County. The MSCP Plan addresses the needs of multiple species and the preservation of natural vegetation communities within 12 jurisdictions and several independent special districts in southwestern San Diego County. Local jurisdictions and special districts implement their respective portions of the MSCP Plan through subarea plans. While the study area is outside of the San Diego County MSCP, it is within the East County Multiple Species Conservation Plan (East County MSCP) area. However, development of the East County Plan is on hold, and it has not been released yet.

EAST COUNTY MULTIPLE SPECIES CONSERVATION PLAN (IN DEVELOPMENT)

The East County MSCP, currently in development, will expand the scope of the MSCP to support the conservation of sensitive species and habitats while providing a streamlined permitting process for landowners, agricultural operators, businesses, and residents in the unincorporated regions of eastern San Diego County. The East County MSCP Study Area covers approximately 1.6 million acres. It is bounded on the west by the western boundary of the Cleveland National Forest, on the north by Riverside County, on the east by Imperial County, and on the south by Mexico. As a joint Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP) and Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP), the East County MSCP will provide the basis for the County to receive a federal and state incidental take permit to “cover” specific animal and plant species. This joint format allows the incidental take permit to be extended to future development projects that comply with the MSCP, so these projects do not have to secure their own separate incidental take permit from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Through this

permitting mechanism, the East County MSCP will help conserve endangered species, streamline permitting, and facilitate economic growth in San Diego County. However, the East County MSCP development has been delayed and has not yet been released. Additional coordination and refinement of the potential future trail network shown in the LRTMP may be needed to abide by the East County MSCP once released.

SWEETWATER AUTHORITY NATURAL COMMUNITY CONSERVATION PLAN/ HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN (NCCP/HCP)

The Authority is currently working towards the development of the Sweetwater Authority Natural Community Conservation Plan and Habitat Conservation Plan (NCCP/HCP), which would cover an area of approximately 44 square miles of land in San Diego County, extending from San Diego Bay in the west to Loveland Reservoir in the east. A good portion of the land covered by the NCCP/HCP is owned, managed, and/or under easement by the Authority, including Sweetwater Reservoir and Loveland Reservoir. The NCCP/ HCP planning area is adjacent to and integrated with large blocks of land conserved as part of the Subregional Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) in San Diego County. Although not formally considered a subarea plan under the County MSCP, the NCCP/HCP would be implemented in coordination with the management and monitoring of several adjacent subarea plan preserves associated with the MSCP, which includes the San Diego National Wildlife Refuge and other nearby public lands. The NCCP/ HCP would support programmatic permitting for future capital improvements and operations and maintenance (O&M) activities. Development and adoption of the NCCP/HCP would help streamline regulatory approvals for the Authority, reduce uncertainties that can occur when activities are permitted on a case-by-case basis, and provide a framework for the long-term conservation and management of covered sensitive species and their habitats within the NCCP/HCP planning area. Once adopted, the NCCP/HCP will be able to fully contribute to existing regional conservation strategies for proposed covered species and

LOVELAND TRAILS MASTER PLAN | EXISTING CONDITIONS

CONSERVATION AND LAND MANAGEMENT PLANS

the natural communities that support them. Once completed, the NCCP/HCP will establish consistent, plan-wide conservation actions and avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures to be applied across the Plan Area. Additional coordination and refinement of the potential future trail network shown in the LRTMP may be needed to abide by the NCCP/HCP once released.

LOVELAND TRAILS MASTER PLAN | EXISTING CONDITIONS

CLEVELAND NATIONAL FOREST LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN

The USFS developed the Cleveland National Forest Land Management Plan in 2005 to outline the strategic direction for managing the land and its resources through 2030. Small portions of the LRTMP study area along the north and southeast perimeter include the Cleveland National Forest (owned and managed by the USFS) and fall under the purview of the 2005 Land Management Plan. The Land Management Plan is organized into three parts. Part 1 outlines an overarching vision, strategic goals, and desired long-term conditions. Parts 2 and 3 contain, respectively, the strategic management direction and guidance for designing actions and activities to make progress toward the vision and desired conditions described in Part 1. Some of the strategic actions outlined in Part 1 align with the LRTMP, such as goals to provide outdoor recreation opportunities, facilitate public use, and protect natural resources. Parts 2 and 3 contain policies and design guidelines to help achieve the recreational and public access goals established in Part 1, while also balancing natural resource protection, wildfire management and prevention, public safety, and improvements to watershed and riparian conditions. When implementing recreational trails in the Cleveland National Forest, steps should be taken to maintain environmental sustainability and to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse impacts on threatened, endangered, proposed, candidate, or sensitive species and their habitats, as well as on soil, watershed, riparian, or heritage resources. Any future trails through the Cleveland National Forest would require planning and evaluation to ensure consistency with the Cleveland National Forest Land Management Plan, as well as coordination with the appropriate USFS staff.

BUREAU OF LAND MANAGEMENT DRAFT SOUTH COAST RESOURCE MANAGEMENT PLAN

The draft South Coast Resource Management Plan (RMP) was developed in 1994 to guide future management of approximately 296,000 acres of BLM-administered land. The 40 acres of BLM land within the study area are listed in the RMP as Parcel 283-171 and identified for “Protective Disposal.” The RMP defines Protective Disposal as “Parcels containing sensitive resources, which, due to isolation from other public lands, are suitable for disposal, providing the sensitive resources will be compensated or protected by the new land owner/manager”. Disposal refers to the transfer of ownership of public land from the United States to another party. Any future trails through these areas would require planning and evaluation to ensure consistency with the final South Coast RMP.

SAN DIEGO GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY SUBREGIONAL NATURAL COMMUNITY CONSERVATION PLAN & HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN AMENDMENT

The SDG&E Subregional Natural Community Conservation Plan (SDG&E NCCP) was completed in 1995 to establish and implement a long-term agreement between SDG&E, CDFW, and the USFWS for the preservation and conservation of Covered Species and their habitat, while allowing SDG&E to develop, maintain, operate, and repair its facilities to provide electricity, natural gas, and other services to its customers in the SDG&E NCCP subregional plan area, which extends from southern Orange County south to the Mexico border. In 2023, SDG&E began operating under a Habitat Conservation Plan Amendment (SDG&E HCP), which modernized the company’s approach to habitat conservation planning to leverage more years of experience and expand environmental and species protections across the full-service territory. The SDG&E HCP Amendment expanded the 1995 SDG&E NCCP boundary to the entire 2,815,930acre SDG&E service area; sought authorization for an additional 400 acres of permanent impacts, 210 acres of temporary impacts, and 210 acres of

Wildfire Fuels Management impacts to habitat; updated the Covered Species list based on coordination with USFWS; and added new species specific protections and a process for providing species-specific compensatory mitigation as appropriate.

LOVELAND TRAILS MASTER PLAN | EXISTING CONDITIONS

SDG&E’s properties and easements, including those within the LRTMP study area, provide habitat connectivity in areas where little natural habitat remains, and are subject to the SDG&E HCP. New trails or improvements to existing maintenance roads to facilitate publicly accessible outdoor recreation (which is not currently authorized) on SDG&E property or easements may impact certain sensitive plant and animal species or their habitats, including species listed as threatened or endangered under the federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) or the California Endangered Species Act (CESA). The SDG&E HCP outlines appropriate measures for avoidance, minimization, and mitigation of potential impacts. Please note: SDG&E does not permit public recreation access to its roads or facilities. As a result, the LRTMP does not assign responsibility to SDG&E for any impacts that may result from activities outside of SDG&E’s control or authorized use.

LOVELAND TRAILS MASTER PLAN | EXISTING CONDITIONS

BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES VEGETATION COMMUNITIES

Vegetation communities are assemblages of plant species that usually coexist in the same area. These vegetation communities also provide habitat for wildlife species. The classification of vegetation communities is based upon the life form of the dominant species in that community and the associated flora. Figure 2-8 and Table 2-3 provide an overview of vegetation communities within the study area, respectively. Vegetation community data were gathered from the San Diego Geographic Information Source (SanGIS) and are based on the Holland vegetation community hierarchy (1986) as revised by Oberbauer et al. (2008). A total of 12 vegetation communities occur within the study area, with Chamise Chaparral (1,788 acres or 41 percent of the study area) and Chaparral (1,080 acres or 24.8 percent of the study area) being the dominant communities. This data is included to provide a broad ecological context for the study area and will not be used for in-depth analyses. Chaparral is one of the most widespread vegetation communities in San Diego County, comprising more than 630,000 acres. Chaparral is generally composed of hard-stemmed, leathery-leaved shrubs. However, cacti may also be present. Like many vegetation communities in San Diego County, Chaparral has adapted to tolerate wildfire by either resprouting from underground roots after a burn or producing prolific seedlings after a fire. When Chaparral is preserved, a wide assortment of plant and animal species can be found.

LOVELAND TRAILS MASTER PLAN | EXISTING CONDITIONS

Birds found in chaparral communities include the spotted towhee (Pipilo maculatus), wrentit (Chamaea fasciata henshawi), Bell’s sage sparrow (Amphispiza belli), and California thrasher. Several reptiles also inhabit this community, including western whiptail (Cnemidophorus tigris), granite spiny lizard (Sceloporus orcutti), San Diego horned lizard, and Pacific rattlesnake (Crotalus oreganus helleri). Mammals found in Chaparral communities include many species of bats, deer mice, pocket mice (Chaetodipus fallax), the desert cottontail, coyote, bobcat (Lynx rufus), mule deer, and mountain lion (Puma concolor).

LOVELAND TRAILS MASTER PLAN | EXISTING CONDITIONS Figure 2-8: Vegetation Communities

Table 2-3: Vegetation Communities and Other Cover Types

Total in Study Area Total in Study Area (Acres) (Percent) 37200 Chamise Chaparral 1,788 41.0% 37000 Chaparral 1,080 24.8% 64100 Open Water 384 8.8% 37120 Southern Mixed Chaparral 318 7.3% 32500 Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub 225 5.2% 37121 Granitic Southern Mixed Chaparral 208 4.8% 37G00 Coastal Sage-Chaparral Scrub 159 3.6% 62000 Riparian Woodlands 56 1.3% 12000 Urban/Developed 49 1.1% 61310 Southern Coast Live Oak Riparian Forest 47 1.1% 71120 Black Oak Woodland 29 0.7% 42000 Valley and Foothill Grassland 11 0.3% 18310 Field/Pasture 4 0.1% 42200 Non-Native Grassland 2 0.0% Total 4,360 100.0% Source: KTUA; Oberbauer, Thomas, Meghan Kelly, and Jeremy Buegge. March 2008. Draft Vegetation Communities of San Diego County. Based on “Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California”, Robert F. Holland, Ph.D., October 1986. Name

CRITICAL HABITAT

The variety of vegetation communities within the study area provides critical habitats for sensitive species. Critical habitat is defined as areas of land, water, and air space that contain the physical and biological features essential for the survival and recovery of endangered and threatened species. Designated critical habitat includes sites for breeding and rearing, movement or migration, feeding, roosting, cover, and shelter. Critical habitat is designated by the USFWS for endangered and threatened species per the FESA of 1973, to the extent prudent and determinable. Critical habitat designation delineates all suitable habitat for the species, whether the habitat is occupied or not. GIS data from the USFWS indicates that designated critical habitat for the federally endangered arroyo toad and the federally threatened Hermes copper butterfly is present within the study area (shown in Figure 2-9).

Critical habitat for the arroyo toad is found along creeks, tributaries, and riparian areas. Critical habitat for the Hermes copper butterfly spans the study area, particularly near and north of the Loveland Reservoir and its tributaries. Special management of critical habitat is required to ensure the long-term survival and recovery of the identified species. This management includes measures taken to protect water quality and quantity, host animals and plants, food availability, pollinators, sunlight, and specific soil types.

LOVELAND TRAILS MASTER PLAN | EXISTING CONDITIONS

Number

LOVELAND TRAILS MASTER PLAN | EXISTING CONDITIONS Figure 2-9: Critical Habitat

SENSITIVE SPECIES

A high-level desktop analysis was conducted to determine the likelihood of special-status species being present. The analysis was executed using data from the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), and SanGIS, as well as biological reports and special-status species observation data provided by the Authority within the study area. Special-status species are generally defined as any species considered endangered, threatened, rare, or sensitive according to the USFWS, CDFW, BLM, and/or County. A special status plant species may also be included in the California Native Plant Society Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants. Their status is often based on one or more of three distributional attributes: geographic range, habitat specificity, and/or population size.

Sensitive species listed as threatened, endangered, or candidate species under the FESA or the CESA have formal legal protections and significant regulations, as opposed to species listed as rare or of special concern. Sensitive species with formal legal protections (under FESA or CESA) observed or with potential to occur in the study area are listed in Table 2-4. In addition to the FESA and CESA species listed in Table 2-4, the desktop analysis identified a total of 67 sensitive plant and wildlife species with potential to occur within the study area (see Appendix B for the complete list), which are visualized broadly as areas of interest in Figure 2-10. Because the entire study area has not been surveyed, it may support additional species that have not been recorded. Therefore, the absence of sensitive species data is not proof of absence and does not necessarily mean that a species does not occur there.

Table 2-4: FESA and CESA Sensitive Species with Potential to Occur

Plants San Diego County Viguiera San Diego Sagewort Spiny Rush Invertebrates Crotch’s Bumble Bee Harbison’s Dun Skipper Hermes Copper Butterfly Monarch Butterfly Quino Checkerspot Butterfly Herps (Reptiles or Amphibians) Arroyo Toad Coast Horned Lizard Southwestern Pond Turtle Western Spadefoot Birds Bald Eagle Coastal California Gnatcatcher Least Bell’s Vireo Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Mammals Mountain Lion

Scientific Name

Status

Bahiopsis laciniata Artemisia palmeri Juncus acutus

RP 4.3 RP 4.2 RP 4.2

Bombus crotchii Euphyes vestris harbisoni Lycaena hermes Danaus plexippus plexippus Euphydryas editha quino

SC FPT, SC FT FPT FE

Anaxyrus californicus Phrynosoma blainvillii Actinemys pallida Spea hammondii

FE, SSC SSC FPT, SSC FPT, SSC

Haliaeetus leucocephalus Polioptila californica californica Vireo bellii pusillus Empidonax traillii extimus

SE, FP, FD FT, SSC FE, SE FE, SE

Puma concolor

LOVELAND TRAILS MASTER PLAN | EXISTING CONDITIONS

Common Name

LOVELAND TRAILS MASTER PLAN | EXISTING CONDITIONS Figure 2-10: Sensitive Species

The Wildlife Agencies emphasized that trail construction and increased visitor use can degrade ecological conditions through multiple pathways, including vegetation removal, soil disturbance, erosion, sedimentation, noise, wildlife displacement, and the spread of invasive species. Increased human activity near streams and lakes may also elevate turbidity and disturb riparian vegetation that provides critical shade and refuge for wildlife. Taken together, these direct and indirect effects could diminish the ecological integrity of currently undisturbed landscapes, especially where proposed trails approach riparian or aquatic systems or penetrate large habitat blocks. The Wildlife Agencies offered these comments to support the Authority in refining the LRTMP to better avoid and minimize impacts to sensitive plant and wildlife resources.

RECREATIONAL CONTEXT Before developing the potential future trail system presented in Chapter 3, the planning team consulted a variety of resources to identify opportunities for trail improvement and expansion. These resources included compiling an inventory of existing trails and evaluating the feasibility of previously proposed trails from other planning documents. The Authority used this initial inventory to initiate collaborative planning conversations with key stakeholders, such as the County.

EXISTING & PREVIOUSLY PROPOSED RECREATIONAL TRAILS

Figure 2-11 displays existing and previously proposed recreational trails from the County’s CTMP. The CTMP, adopted by the County in 2005, was created to identify opportunities for an interconnected regional network of trails and pathways. The CTMP depicts corridors of general alignments for previously proposed trails and pathways, several of which fall within the study area. The term “general alignment” refers to the general location of a future trail within a designated corridor so that the specific alignment can be determined at the time of actual acquisition, implementation, and/or construction. The LRTMP will assess and refine previously proposed alignments within the study area to more realistically and efficiently align with community priorities. The planning team met with County staff during the planning process to discuss necessary refinements to the portions of the previously proposed CTMP trail system located within the study area.

LOVELAND TRAILS MASTER PLAN | EXISTING CONDITIONS

WILDLIFE AGENCY REVIEW

The USFWS and the CDFW (“Wildlife Agencies”) reviewed the 2026 Draft LRTMP and expressed concern about the scale and location of the proposed trail expansion. As described later in Chapter 3, the LRTMP outlines 28 new conceptual trails and three new staging areas across the 4,360 acre property, many of which would extend into large, intact habitat areas that currently experience minimal human disturbance. The Wildlife Agencies noted that expanding public access—particularly with added bicycle and equestrian use—could fragment high value habitat, undermine regional conservation goals, and increase the intensity and diversity of recreational pressures on sensitive biological resources.

EXISTING TRAILS

LOVELAND TRAILS MASTER PLAN | EXISTING CONDITIONS

Shoreline fishing and other passive recreational activities, such as birdwatching, picnicking, and hiking, are facilitated by the 9.61 miles of existing trails within the study area, including the CRHT (planned and managed by California State Parks) and the Recreation Area trails. Bodily contact, boating, and kayaking are prohibited in the Loveland Reservoir. The only trails regularly used are the Recreation Area trails near the north shore, and Authority staff maintains the trail from the parking lot to the edge of the Loveland Reservoir. The CRHT is located on the north and west sides of the Loveland Reservoir property and its maintenance is the responsibility of the State of California. In addition to official trails, there are authorized, user-defined paths along the north and south shorelines.

TRAIL SPOTLIGHT: LOVELAND RESERVOIR RECREATION AREA

The Authority monitors and maintains a 0.38-mile access trail from the parking lot off of Japatul Road to a fishing float on the north shore of the Loveland Reservoir. The Authority is in the process of permitting the installation of a bridge to safely cross a drainage, and potentially installing a secondary trail and observation deck off of the existing 0.38-mile access trail as part of the Loveland Reservoir Trails Improvement Project.

LOVELAND TRAILS MASTER PLAN | EXISTING CONDITIONS

PREVIOUSLY PROPOSED TRAILS

The CTMP proposed several new trails within the study area. These proposed trails represent conceptual general alignments desired by the community and require further evaluation of their feasibility. Many of the previously proposed trail alignments, as shown in the CTMP, are unfeasible due to constraints related to land ownership, topography, access, and biological and water resources. After assessing trail feasibility, the planning team met with County staff to discuss if any previously proposed trails should be modified, replaced, or removed based on opportunities and constraints identified in the existing conditions analysis. The planning team determined that the previously proposed trails labeled as A-21, A-29, A-39, and C-30 in Figure 2-11 should be removed or modified. The planning team used Figure 2-11 as the foundation for developing the potential future trail system presented in Chapter 3. Table 2-5: Existing and Previously Proposed Trails

Map ID

LOVELAND TRAILS MASTER PLAN | EXISTING CONDITIONS

G A-38 J-64 N/A N/A N/A

A-16 A-18 A-19 A-21 A-22 A-29 A-30 A-39 C-9 C-25 C-30 J-61 J-65

Name Existing Trails California Riding and Hiking Trail (CRHT) Glens Trail Spaceship Trail Fishing Pier Access Trail - Main Fishing Pier Access Trail - Secondary Fishing Pier Access Trail - User-defined Previously Proposed Trails Tavern Road Pathway Sequan Truck Trail Japatul Road Pathway South Loveland Reservoir Trail Japatul Trail South Shore Trail Lawson Valley Connector Trail North Loveland Reservoir Trail Loveland Reservoir Connection Trail Lawson Valley Trail North Loveland Reservoir Trail Montiel Truck Trail Pathway West Boundary Truck Trail

Source Alpine CTMP Alpine CTMP Jamul-Dulzura CTMP Authority Authority Authority Alpine CTMP Alpine CTMP Alpine CTMP Alpine CTMP Alpine CTMP Alpine CTMP Alpine CTMP Alpine CTMP Crest-Dehesa CTMP Crest-Dehesa CTMP Crest-Dehesa CTMP Jamul-Dulzura CTMP Jamul-Dulzura CTMP

Previously Proposed

LOVELAND TRAILS MASTER PLAN | EXISTING CONDITIONS

Figure 2-11: Existing and Previously Proposed Trails

SUMMARY OF KEY PLANNING CONSIDERATIONS Several planning considerations related to site context, organizational resources, and sensitive areas will impact the safe, feasible, and sustainable expansion of outdoor recreation around the Loveland Reservoir. The primary planning considerations considered when developing the LRTMP can be broadly categorized as:

» Water Quality/Security – Access Buffers &

LOVELAND TRAILS MASTER PLAN | EXISTING CONDITIONS

Regulations » Biological Resources – Sensitive Species & Critical Habitats » Cultural Resources – Prehistoric and Historic Sites » Geography – Topography & Drainage » Access – Circulation & Roads » Land Ownership & Easements » Organizational Resources – Funding & Staffing

The planning team utilized the findings from Chapter 2, particularly those illustrated in Figure 2-12, to identify viable areas for expanded outdoor recreation and to inform the development of the potential future trail system presented in Chapter 3. For example, areas with slopes greater than 75 percent (shown in orange in Figure 2-12) were generally avoided when siting potential future trails. Additionally, in accordance with

DDW guidelines for equestrian use at reservoirs, areas within the 100- and 200-foot high-water buffer were avoided when siting potential multiuse trails that would allow horseback riding. Given the topography, there are many smaller tributaries throughout the study area that will require additional small bridge crossings to cross over where water flows. Resource Sensitive Areas (shown in purple in Figure 2-12), areas where sensitive biological or cultural resources are known to occur based on available data, and Riparian Woodlands (shown in green in Figure 2-12) identify locations that may require mitigation measures to minimize impacts to critical habitat or sensitive species. Resource Sensitive Areas are based on available data from previously conducted and documented surveys from the Authority, the County, or other parties. It should be noted that the absence of data does not inherently indicate the absence of sensitive species and/or resources. Consequently, additional sensitive resource areas may be identified through further surveying, particularly on the south side of the Loveland Reservoir, which has limited available data. Given that sensitive species and critical habitat occur in much of the area north of the Loveland Reservoir, it is unlikely that impacts can be avoided entirely. However, future surveys and resource constraint analyses should be used to identify, avoid, and/or mitigate potential impacts to sensitive biological and cultural resources.

LOVELAND TRAILS MASTER PLAN | EXISTING CONDITIONS

Figure 2-12: Planning Considerations for Outdoor Recreation

thr

S N O I T A D N E M M O C E R

LOVELAND TRAILS MASTER PLAN | RECOMMENDATIONS

The Loveland Reservoir and surrounding open space present a promising environment for hiking, wildlife viewing, fishing, and connecting with nature. While the study area offers opportunities for enhanced and expanded outdoor recreation, many constraints must be considered when siting, planning, designing, and constructing new trails. Protecting water quality and security of water infrastructure and other utilities within the Loveland Reservoir is of primary importance, which places regulations and limitations on where and how people can recreate around the reservoir. Additionally, much of the study area is undisturbed and provides habitat for sensitive species. Protecting critical habitat and avoiding or minimizing negative impacts to biological, cultural, water, and other environmental resources are key considerations in trail planning and design. These constraints, among others, were considered in developing a potential future trail system around the Loveland Reservoir. Chapter 3 presents the potential future trail system and outlines planning and design guidelines for its development and construction.

POTENTIAL FUTURE TRAIL SYSTEM The LRTMP identifies a potential future trail system comprising 28 new trails and three staging areas around the Loveland Reservoir property, highlighting opportunities to enhance and expand outdoor recreation. The potential future trail system shown in Figure 3-1 and detailed in Table 3-1 was developed based on the following considerations:

LOVELAND TRAILS MASTER PLAN | RECOMMENDATIONS

» Previously proposed trails in the CTMP » Community input » Opportunities to expand or enhance access to the existing Recreation Area » Opportunities to bridge gaps between existing and previously proposed trails for an interconnected

trail system » Opportunities to provide a variety of outdoor recreation opportunities for varying abilities and interests, including scenic views » Desire to avoid or minimize negative impacts to biological, water, cultural, and other environmental resources » Feasibility of construction due to site conditions, including slope, access, and circulation The following potential future trail alignments are conceptual. As funding is secured and specific trails are identified for future design and construction, further refinement, based on a review and consideration of the policies and design criteria described later in this chapter, will confirm the final location of the trails.

LOVELAND TRAILS MASTER PLAN | RECOMMENDATIONS

Figure 3-1: Potential Future Trail System

Table 3-1: Potential Future Trail System TRAIL ID

0 1 2 3 4 5 6

LOVELAND TRAILS MASTER PLAN | RECOMMENDATIONS

TRAIL NAME

Current Trail Improvement Project Alpine Heights Community Access Trail Northern Reservoir Access Trail SDG&E Alignments to Reservoir Access Trail Option 1 SDG&E Alignments to Reservoir Access Trail Option 2 SDG&E Alignments to Reservoir SDG&E Alignments to Reservoir Access Trail Option 3 Northwest Reservoir Access Trail

TRAIL ALLOWED TRAIL WIDTH USERS LENGTH (FEET) (PROPOSED)

EXISTING CONDITION

OWNERSHIP

0.38 mi

Hike

Existing authorized trail

Authority

1.07 mi

Multi

New trail

Authority, USFS

1.14 mi

Hike

Authority

0.28 mi

Hike

0.44 mi

Hike

0.71mi

Hike

0.25 mi

Hike

New trail Existing dirt road, New trail Existing dirt road, New trail Existing dirt road, New trail Existing dirt road, New trail

0.64 mi

Hike

New trail

Authority

Authority, SDG&E Authority, SDG&E Authority, SDG&E Authority, SDG&E

Eastern Reservoir Access Trail

1.04 mi

Hike

Existing dirt road, New trail

Authority, SDG&E

Highwater Reservoir Crossing Bridge

~300 ft

Hike

New bridge

Authority

Southern Reservoir Access Trail

2.18 mi

Hike

Japatul Road Parkway Improvements

1.93 mi

Multi

Glen Lonely Connector Trail

4.55 mi

Multi

14 15

Glen Lonely Loop Trail Option 1 Glen Lonely Loop Trail Option 2 W Boundary Truck Trail Improvements Monteil Truck Trail Improvements

3.35 mi 0.98 mi

6 6

Multi Multi

0.54 mi

Multi

0.65 mi

Multi

19A Southern Overlook Trail

4.50 mi

Multi

19B

Southern Overlook Trail Alternative

4.86 mi

Multi

Southern Connector Trail

1.55 mi

Multi

New trail

Western Overlook Trail

2.24 mi

Multi

Existing dirt road, New trail

Northern Overlook Trail

2.34 mi

Multi

New trail

Sequan Truck Trail Improvements

2.94 mi

Multi

Existing paved road

16 17

Existing dirt road, New trail Existing paved road Existing dirt road, New trail New trail New trail Existing dirt road Existing dirt road Existing dirt road, New trail Existing dirt road, New trail

Authority, SDG&E County ROW Authority, SDG&E, USFS, Private Authority, USFS Authority, USFS Private Private Authority, CDFW Authority, BLM Authority, CDFW, Private Authority, SDG&E, Private Authority, Private, SDG&E Authority, County ROW, Private

TRAIL ID

24 25

TRAIL NAME

TRAIL ALLOWED TRAIL WIDTH USERS LENGTH (FEET) (PROPOSED)

EXISTING CONDITION

OWNERSHIP

Parallel Access Trail Sweetwater River Bridge Sequan Truck Trail to Peak Overlook Reservoir Rd to Shoreline & Overlooks

~400 ft 0.11 mi

6 8

Hike Multi

New trail New bridge/trail

Authority Authority

0.60 mi

Hike

New trail

Authority

1.58 mi

Same as road

Hike / Bike

22 down to Reservoir Rd

1.84 mi

Hike / Bike

Northeast Reservoir Access Trail

0.42 mi

Hike

CRHT Alt

1.17 mi

Multi

26 27

Existing paved road Existing paved road, New trail New trail Existing paved road, New trail

Authority Authority Authority Authority, Private

STAGING AREAS

Trailheads and staging areas are important components of a trail system because they provide amenities and information to facilitate safe, enjoyable outdoor recreation. Amenities at trailheads and staging areas may include, but are not limited to, informational and educational signage and kiosks, waste receptacles, portable restrooms or restroom facilities, and parking. Potential locations for trailheads and staging areas are identified in Figure 3-1 and Table 3-2. Figure 3-2 through Figure 3-4 show high-level conceptual diagrams at each potential staging area.

TRAIL ID

STAGING AREA NAME

AREA (ACRES)

ASSOCIATED TRAILS

OWNERSHIP

Japatul Road Eastern Staging Area

0.64

CRHT, 12, 9, 11, 13

Authority, County ROW

18 31

Lawson Valley Staging Area Loveland Overlook Staging Area

0.57 0.09

17, 19, 20 CRHT, 22, 23, 26, 27

Authority Authority

LOVELAND TRAILS MASTER PLAN | RECOMMENDATIONS

Table 3-2: Potential Future Staging Areas

TRAIL AND STAGING AREA DESCRIPTIONS TRAIL ID #0: CURRENT TRAIL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT

The Current Trail Improvement Project would provide trail safety improvements to existing trails in the north shore of the Loveland Reservoir within the Recreation Area, as well as a bridge. This project is currently in the design and permitting phase. Some components of this trail improvement, under the Loveland Reservoir Trails Improvements Project, will be dependent on feasibility, cost, permitting, and mitigation requirements.

TRAIL ID #1: ALPINE HEIGHTS COMMUNITY ACCESS TRAIL

The Alpine Heights Community Access Trail would be a new 1.07-mile, 6-foot-wide multiuse trail on USFS/Authority property, providing a connection to the existing CRHT. Roughly 68 percent of the trail would traverse slopes less than 50 percent, supporting full and reduced partial bench construction, with some retaining walls likely needed. Five percent of the trail would traverse steep, rocky slopes exceeding 90 percent, requiring retaining walls and potentially railings. One drainage crossing is expected to need a puncheon. The alignment would go through Coastal Sage Scrub and Chamise Chaparral vegetation communities. The lower section of the trail would cross critical habitat for the Hermes copper butterfly. This trail segment would overlap existing or planned Habitat Preserve commitments, making its refined planning and design subject to additional review by the Wildlife Agencies.

LOVELAND TRAILS MASTER PLAN | RECOMMENDATIONS

TRAIL ID #2: NORTHERN RESERVOIR ACCESS TRAIL

The Northern Reservoir Access Trail would provide a 1.14-mile, 2-foot-wide hiking-only trail to replace the user-created trails along the northern shoreline. Roughly 88 percent of the trail would be on slopes less than 100 percent, supporting full bench construction. While 12 percent of the trail would traverse steep, rocky slopes with grades exceeding 100 percent, requiring retaining walls. Two drainages are anticipated to need puncheon crossings. The alignment would go through Coastal Sage-Chaparral Scrub, Chaparral, and limited areas of Black Oak Woodland vegetation communities. It would be entirely within the established critical habitat for the Hermes copper butterfly, and the eastern half would be within critical habitat for the arroyo toad.

Trail ID #0: Current Trail Improvement Project

TRAIL ID #4: SDG&E ALIGNMENTS TO RESERVOIR ACCESS TRAIL OPTION 2

The SDG&E Reservoir Access Trail Option 1 would provide a 0.28-mile access trail from the existing Loveland Reservoir Recreation Area Parking Lot down to the shoreline. It would utilize 0.16 miles of a utility-only access road before splitting off as a 0.10-mile, 2-foot-wide hiking-only trail down to the shoreline trail. Most of the new trail section (91 percent) would traverse slopes less than 100 percent, supporting full bench construction, with nine percent on slopes up to or greater than 100 percent, requiring retaining walls. One drainage crossing is anticipated to need a puncheon crossing. The alignment would occur within the Coastal Sage-Chaparral Scrub vegetation community and would be entirely within critical habitat for the Hermes copper butterfly. Please note: Due to safety and access concerns associated with the existing utility-only access road, this trail would be challenging to approve and is considered an unlikely candidate for implementation.

The SDG&E Alignments to Reservoir Access Trail Option 2 would provide a 0.44-mile access trail from the existing Loveland Reservoir Recreation Area Parking Lot down to the shoreline. It would utilize 0.18 miles of a utility-only access road before splitting off into a 0.08-mile, 2-foot-wide hiking-only trail segment that forks to 0.13-mile and 0.15-mile 2-foot-wide segments down to the shoreline trail. Most of the new trail section (85 percent) would traverse slopes less than 100 percent, supporting full bench construction, with 15 percent on slopes greater than 100 percent, requiring retaining walls. No structured drainage crossings are anticipated. The alignment would occur within the Coastal Sage-Chaparral Scrub vegetation community and would be entirely within critical habitat for the Hermes copper butterfly. Please note: Due to safety and access concerns associated with the existing utility-only access road, this trail would be challenging to approve and is considered an unlikely candidate for implementation.

Trail ID #2: Northern Reservoir Access Trail

Trail ID #4: SDG&E Alignments to Reservoir Access Trail Option 2

LOVELAND TRAILS MASTER PLAN | RECOMMENDATIONS

TRAIL ID #3: SDG&E ALIGNMENTS TO RESERVOIR ACCESS TRAIL OPTION 1

TRAIL ID #5: SDG&E ALIGNMENTS TO RESERVOIR ACCESS TRAIL

LOVELAND TRAILS MASTER PLAN | RECOMMENDATIONS

The SDG&E Alignments to Reservoir Access Trail would provide a 0.73-mile access trail from the existing Loveland Reservoir Recreation Area Parking Lot down to the shoreline. It would utilize 0.64 miles of a utility-only access road before splitting off into a 0.08-mile, 2-foot-wide hikingonly trail down to the shoreline trail. All of the new trail would traverse slopes less than 100 percent, supporting full bench construction. No structured drainage crossings are anticipated. The alignment would occur within the Coastal Sage-Chaparral Scrub vegetation community and would be entirely within critical habitat for the Hermes copper butterfly. Please note: Due to safety and access concerns associated with the existing utility-only access road, this trail would be challenging to approve and is considered an unlikely candidate for implementation.

hiking-only trail down to the shoreline trail. Most of the new trail section (87 percent) would traverse slopes less than 100 percent, supporting full bench construction, with 13 percent on slopes up to 100 percent, requiring retaining walls. No structured drainage crossings are anticipated. The alignment would occur within the Chaparral Scrub vegetation community and would be entirely within critical habitat for the Hermes copper butterfly. Please note: Due to safety and access concerns associated with the existing utility-only access road, this trail would be challenging to approve and is considered an unlikely candidate for implementation.

Trail ID #6: SDG&E Alignments to Reservoir Access Trail Option 3

TRAIL ID #7: NORTHWEST RESERVOIR ACCESS TRAIL

Trail ID #5: SDG&E Alignments to Reservoir Access Trail

TRAIL ID #6: SDG&E ALIGNMENTS TO RESERVOIR ACCESS TRAIL OPTION 3

The SDG&E Alignments to Reservoir Access Trail Option 3 would provide a 0.25-mile access trail from the existing Loveland Reservoir Recreation Area Parking Lot down to the shoreline. It would utilize 0.05 miles of a utility-only access road before splitting off as a 0.20-mile, 2-foot-wide

The Northwest Reservoir Access Trail would provide a 0.64-mile, 2-foot-wide hiking-only trail replacing the user-created trails along the northwestern shoreline past the fishing pier. Most of the new trail section (81 percent) would traverse slopes less than 100 percent, supporting full bench construction, with 19 percent on very steep, rocky slopes greater than 100 percent, likely retaining walls. One drainage crossing is anticipated to need a puncheon crossing. The alignment would cross Chaparral, Southern Mixed Chaparral, Chamise Chaparral, and Coastal SageChaparral Scrub vegetation communities. The northern half of the alignment would be within critical habitat for the Hermes copper butterfly.

Figure 3-2: Japatul Road Eastern Staging Area

Trail ID #7: Northwest Reservoir Access Trail

Figure 3-2 shows the Japatul Road Eastern Staging Area that would complete the construction of a 0.64-acre staging area on the east side of Japatul Road. California State Parks originally planned the staging area as a right-in and rightout only configuration to provide user access to the adjacent CRHT. Traffic-related matters, such as a left turn into the staging area from Japatul Road and the current road speed, would need to be studied. An activated crossing on Japatul Road would also need to be studied. Figure 16 shows a concept with ten standard car/truck spaces and seven truck/trailer spaces for equestrians. This Staging Area would connect to the existing CRHT, Trail ID #9 and 12, and ease access to Trail ID #11 and 13. Please note that additional staging areas, including this staging area, may not be feasible unless it can be demonstrated that there is a clear recreational need, avoidance of steep slopes and sensitive habitats in coordination with the Wildlife Agencies, and allow for controlled access and patrolling.

LOVELAND TRAILS MASTER PLAN | RECOMMENDATIONS

TRAIL ID #8: JAPATUL ROAD EASTERN STAGING AREA

LOVELAND TRAILS MASTER PLAN | RECOMMENDATIONS

TRAIL ID #9: EASTERN RESERVOIR ACCESS TRAIL

TRAIL ID #10: HIGHWATER RESERVOIR CROSSING BRIDGE

The Eastern Reservoir Access Trail would provide up to a 1.04-mile, 2-foot-wide hiking-only trail for access along the northeastern shoreline. It would start at the proposed Japatul Road Eastern Staging Area (Trail ID #8) on the east side of Japatul Road. The trail would cross Japatul Road and continue south along the shoulder to the 0.24-mile utility-only access road. The trail would extend down to the shoreline and provide access under the Sweetwater River bridge, connecting to the CRHT that returns to the staging area. Most of the new trail section (98 percent) would be on slopes less than 100 percent, supporting full bench construction, with two percent on slopes greater than 100 percent, requiring retaining walls. No structured drainage crossings are anticipated. The alignment would cross Chamise Chaparral, Coastal Sage-Chaparral Scrub, and Black Oak Woodland vegetation communities and would be entirely within critical habitat for the Hermes copper butterfly and arroyo toad. The Authority also has recent sightings of least Bell’s vireo in the area. This trail segment would overlap existing or planned Habitat Preserve commitments, making its refined planning and design subject to additional review by the Wildlife Agencies. Please note: Due to safety and access concerns associated with the existing utility-only access road, this trail would be challenging to approve and is considered an unlikely candidate for implementation.

The Highwater Reservoir Crossing Bridge would provide an approximately 300-foot-long, 6-footwide hiking-only suspension bridge crossing the reservoir area. The bridge would have an approximately 500-foot-long, 2-foot-wide connecting trail at the northern shoreline. Roughly 86 percent of the trail would be on slopes less than 100 percent, supporting full bench construction, with 14 percent on slopes greater than 100 percent, requiring retaining walls. The bridge would cross the reservoir when water elevation is above 1,310 feet or higher, Chaparral and Coastal Sage-Chaparral Scrub vegetation communities and would be entirely within critical habitat for the Hermes copper butterfly and arroyo toad.

Trail ID #9: Eastern Reservoir Access Trail

Trail ID #10: Highwater Reservoir Crossing Bridge

The Southern Reservoir Access Trail would provide a 2.18-mile, 2-foot-wide hiking-only trail for access along the southern shoreline. It would utilize 0.25 miles of access road before splitting off as a 1.93mile hiking-only trail. Most of the new trail section (91 percent) would traverse slopes less than 100 percent, supporting full bench construction, with nine percent on slopes greater than 100 percent, requiring retaining walls. One 25-foot bridge and six puncheon drainage crossings are anticipated. The alignment would cross Chaparral, Chamise Chaparral, and Riparian Woodland vegetation communities. The alignment would be almost entirely within critical habitat for the Hermes copper butterfly, and the eastern half would be in critical habitat for the arroyo toad. This trail segment would overlap existing or planned Habitat Preserve commitments, making its refined planning and design subject to additional review by the Wildlife Agencies. Please note: Due to safety and access concerns associated with the existing utility-only access road, this trail would be challenging to approve and is considered an unlikely candidate for implementation.

bench construction; 25 percent on slopes up to 90 percent, likely requiring retaining walls; and 9 percent on slopes greater than 90 percent, requiring retaining walls and potentially railings. One 25-foot bridge and ten puncheon drainage crossings are anticipated. The alignment would cross Chaparral, Granitic Southern Mixed Chaparral, and Riparian Woodland vegetation communities. The eastern half of the alignment would be within critical habitat for the Hermes copper butterfly and the areas along the unnamed tributary are within critical habitat for the arroyo toad. This trail segment would overlap existing or planned Habitat Preserve commitments, making its refined planning and design subject to additional review by the Wildlife Agencies. Please note: Due to safety and access concerns associated with the existing utility-only access road, this trail would be challenging to approve and is considered an unlikely candidate for implementation.

TRAIL ID #12: JAPATUL ROAD PARKWAY IMPROVEMENTS

The Japatul Road Parkway Improvements would support the implementation of the paved, multiuse Japatul Road Pathway envisioned in the Alpine Community Trails Master Plan along the southern edge of Japatul Road from the intersection of Sequan Truck Trail east for approximately 1.93 miles. Street safety improvements conducted by the County may be needed to make the trail possible.

TRAIL ID #13: GLEN LONELY CONNECTOR TRAIL

The Glen Lonely Connector Trail would provide up to a 4.55-mile, 6-foot-wide multi-use trail connecting from Japatul Road to the Glen Lonely Trail. The trail would use 0.22 miles of access road and 0.11 miles of old roadbed, then split off for 4.22 miles of new trail. Approximately 66 percent of the new trail would traverse slopes less than 50 percent, supporting full and reduced partial

Trail ID #13: Glen Lonely Connector Trail

TRAIL ID #14: GLEN LONELY LOOP TRAIL OPTION 1

The Glen Lonely Loop Trail Option 1 would provide a 3.35-mile, 6-foot-wide multi-use trail that connects to the Glen Lonely Connector Trail and the Glen Lonely Trail, creating a roughly 7.5-mile loop. Approximately 59 percent of the trail would traverse slopes less than 50 percent, supporting full and reduced partial bench construction; 24 percent on slopes up to 90 percent, likely requiring retaining walls; and 17 percent on

LOVELAND TRAILS MASTER PLAN | RECOMMENDATIONS

TRAIL ID #11: SOUTHERN RESERVOIR ACCESS TRAIL

slopes greater than 90 percent, requiring retaining walls and potentially railings. Eight puncheon drainage crossings are anticipated. The alignment would cross Chaparral, Granitic Southern Mixed Chaparral, Riparian Woodlands, and Mule Fat Scrub vegetation communities. This trail segment would overlap existing or planned Habitat Preserve commitments, making its refined planning and design subject to additional review by the Wildlife Agencies.

TRAIL ID #16: W BOUNDARY TRUCK TRAIL IMPROVEMENTS

The W Boundary Truck Trail Improvements would support the implementation of the West Boundary Truck Trail envisioned in the JamulDulzura Community Trails Master Plan along the northern edge of W Boundary Truck Trail from the intersection of Monteil Truck Trail east for approximately 0.54 miles.

Trail ID #16: W Boundary Truck Trail Improvements

TRAIL ID #17: MONTEIL TRUCK TRAIL IMPROVEMENTS

LOVELAND TRAILS MASTER PLAN | RECOMMENDATIONS

Trail ID #14: Glen Lonely Loop Trail Option 1

TRAIL ID #15: GLEN LONELY LOOP TRAIL OPTION 2

The Glen Lonely Loop Trail Option 2 would provide a 0.98-mile, 6-foot-wide multi-use trail that connects to the Glen Lonely Connector Trail and the Glen Lonely Trail, creating a roughly 4.5-mile loop. Approximately 73 percent of the trail would traverse slopes less than 50 percent, supporting full and reduced partial bench construction; 22 percent on slopes up to 90 percent, likely requiring retaining walls; and five percent on slopes greater than 90 percent, requiring retaining walls and potentially railings. One puncheon drainage crossing is anticipated. The alignment would cross Chaparral and Granitic Southern Mixed Chaparral vegetation communities. This trail segment would overlap existing or planned Habitat Preserve commitments, making its refined planning and design subject to additional review by the Wildlife Agencies.

The Monteil Truck Trail Improvements, such as street safety measures, would support the implementation of the Monteil Truck Trail Pathway envisioned in the Jamul-Dulzura Community Trails Master Plan along the northern edge of Monteil Truck Trail from the intersection of W Boundary Truck Trail west for approximately 0.85 miles. Street safety improvements conducted by the County may be needed to make the trail possible.

Trail ID #17: Monteil Truck Trail Improvements

TRAIL ID #18: LAWSON VALLEY STAGING AREA

The Lawson Valley Staging Area would construct a 0.57-acre staging area on the north side of Loveland Lane, shown in Figure 3-3. The staging area would implement the envisioned Montiel Truck Trail staging area within the Jamul-Dulzura Community Trails Master Plan. Figure 3-3 shows a concept with 15 standard car/truck spaces and four truck/trailer spaces for equestrians. This Staging Area would provide connectivity to Trail ID #17, 19, and 20. Please note that additional staging areas, including this staging area, may not be feasible unless it can be demonstrated that there is a clear recreational need, avoidance of steep slopes and sensitive habitats in coordination with the Wildlife Agencies, and allow for controlled access and patrolling.

TRAIL ID #19A: SOUTHERN OVERLOOK TRAIL

The Southern Overlook Trail would provide a 4.5-mile multi-use trail from Loveland Lane to Sloane Canyon Road. It would utilize 1.39 miles of the old, abandoned road on the south side of the Loveland Reservoir and 2.33 miles of a new 6-foot-wide trail. The western section would use 0.78 miles of dirt road. Approximately 66 percent of the new trail would traverse slopes less than 50 percent, supporting full and reduced partial bench construction; 25 percent on slopes up to 90 percent, likely requiring retaining walls; and

15 percent on slopes greater than 90 percent, requiring retaining walls and potentially railings. Two 25-foot bridges and 12 puncheon drainage crossings are anticipated. The alignment would cross Chaparral, Granitic Southern Mixed Chaparral, Chamise Chaparral, Valley and Foothill Grassland, Southern Coast Live Oak Riparian Forest, Southern Cottonwood-Willow Riparian Forest, and Southern Riparian Woodland vegetation communities. The western third of the alignment would be within critical habitat for the Hermes copper butterfly and arroyo toad. This trail segment would overlap existing or planned Habitat Preserve commitments, making its refined planning and design subject to additional review by the Wildlife Agencies. Please note: There are access and maintenance issues with the abandoned road on Authority property and on CDFW property, as well as significant habitat impact concerns with this trail, making it an unlikely candidate for implementation.

Trail ID #19A: Potential west end of Southern Overlook Trail at CDFW property

LOVELAND TRAILS MASTER PLAN | RECOMMENDATIONS

Figure 3-3: Lawson Valley Staging Area

LOVELAND TRAILS MASTER PLAN | RECOMMENDATIONS

TRAIL ID #19B: SOUTHERN OVERLOOK TRAIL ALTERNATIVE

The Southern Overlook Trail Alternative (Trail ID #19B) provides an alternative option to consider, given the challenges associated with Trail #19A. Instead of traversing CDFW’s Sycuan Peak Ecological Reserve to connect with the CRHT (like Trail #19A), Trail #19B would provide a 4.9mile route from Loveland Lane to connect to the CRHT above Sloane Canyon Road on Authority and BLM property. It would utilize 0.82 miles of the old, abandoned road and 4.1 miles of a new 6-foot-wide trail. Approximately 56 percent would traverse slopes less than 50 percent, supporting full and reduced partial bench construction; 28 percent on slopes up to 90 percent, likely requiring retaining walls; and 16 percent on slopes greater than 90 percent, requiring retaining walls and potentially railings. A 400-foot-long, 6-footwide suspension bridge to cross the Sweetwater River below the dam, and 10 puncheon drainage crossings are anticipated. The western third of the alignment would be within critical habitat for the Hermes copper butterfly while minimally crossing that of the arroyo toad. This trail segment would overlap existing or planned Habitat Preserve commitments, making its refined planning and design subject to additional review by the Wildlife Agencies. Please note: Implementing this trail would be extremely costly, making it challenging to secure the budget needed for construction.

Trail ID #19B: Potential west end of Southern Overlook Trail at CRHT Trail

TRAIL ID #20: SOUTHERN CONNECTOR TRAIL

The Southern Connector Trail would provide a 1.55-mile, 6-foot-wide multi-use trail connection from the Southern Overlook Trail to the Lawson Valley staging area. Four puncheon drainage crossings are anticipated. Approximately 62 percent of the trail would traverse slopes less than 50 percent, supporting full and reduced partial bench construction; 27 percent on slopes up to 90 percent, likely requiring retaining walls; and 11 percent on slopes greater than 90 percent, requiring retaining walls and potentially railings. The alignment would cross Chaparral, Granitic Southern Mixed Chaparral, and Chamise Chaparral vegetation communities.

TRAIL ID #21: WESTERN OVERLOOK TRAIL

The Western Overlook Trail would provide a 2.24-mile, 6-foot-wide multi-use trail with an overlook along the western ridge above the Loveland Reservoir. It would depart from the Northern Overlook Trail (ID #22) and is a mix of old roads (0.49 miles) and new trail (1.75 miles). One puncheon drainage crossing is anticipated. Approximately 77 percent of the new trail would traverse slopes less than 50 percent, supporting full and reduced partial bench construction; 16 percent on slopes up to 90 percent, likely requiring retaining walls; and six percent of slopes greater than 90 percent, requiring retaining walls and potentially railings. The alignment would cross the Chamise Chaparral vegetation community and about half would be within critical habitat for the Hermes copper butterfly. This trail segment would overlap existing or planned Habitat Preserve commitments, making its refined planning and design subject to additional review by the Wildlife Agencies. Please note: Due to safety and access concerns associated with the existing utility-only access road, this trail would be challenging to approve and is considered an unlikely candidate for implementation.

TRAIL ID #23: SEQUAN TRUCK TRAIL IMPROVEMENTS

TRAIL ID #22: NORTHERN OVERLOOK TRAIL

The Northern Overlook Trail would provide a 2.34mile, 6-foot-wide multi-use trail with an overlook along the northwestern ridge above Loveland Reservoir. It would extend the Western Overlook Trail to the east and connect to the CRHT, where it would cross the Sequan Truck Trail. Two puncheon drainage crossings are anticipated. Approximately 78 percent of the trail would traverse slopes less than 50 percent, supporting full and reduced partial bench constructions; 17 percent on slopes up to 90 percent, likely requiring retaining walls; and five percent on slopes greater than 90 percent, requiring retaining walls and potentially railings. The alignment would cross Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub, Southern Mixed Chaparral, and Chamise Chaparral vegetation communities. A portion of the alignment would be within critical habitat for the Hermes copper butterfly. Please note: Due to safety and access concerns associated with the existing utility-only access road, this trail would be challenging to approve and is considered an unlikely candidate for implementation.

Trail ID #22: Northern Overlook Trail

TRAIL ID #24: PARALLEL ACCESS TRAIL

The Parallel Access Trail would provide a roughly 400-foot-long, 6-foot-wide hiking-only trail with parallel access to the existing Loveland Reservoir trail located from the parking lot to the edge of the reservoir. The general area where this parallel trail is being proposed has many constructability and environmental resources challenges. Segments of the trail may be within pronounced slopes and would potentially require the installation of retaining walls and relatively heavy grading. The alignment would also be within the Black Oak Woodland vegetation community, as well as critical habitat for the Hermes copper butterfly. Ultimately, construction of this parallel trail as part of the ongoing Loveland Reservoir Trails Improvement Project will be dependent on feasibility, cost, permitting, and mitigation requirements.

TRAIL ID #25: SWEETWATER RIVER BRIDGE

The Sweetwater River Bridge would provide a 250-foot-long, 8-foot-wide multi-use bridge and trail connections over the Sweetwater River to replace the current at-grade crossing that is impassable during periods of significant river flow. The connecting trail would be within the Chamise Chaparral vegetation community and riparian wetlands, as well as critical habitat for the arroyo toad. This segment would overlap existing or planned Habitat Preserve commitments, making its refined planning and design subject to additional review by the Wildlife Agencies.

LOVELAND TRAILS MASTER PLAN | RECOMMENDATIONS

Trail ID #21: Western Overlook Trail

The Sequan Truck Trail Improvements would support the implementation and expansion of the Sequan Truck Trail Pathway envisioned in the Alpine Community Trails Master Plan along the northern edge of Sequan Truck Trail from the intersection of Japatul Road south for approximately 2.94 miles. Street safety improvements conducted by the County may be needed to make the trail possible. This trail segment would overlap existing or planned Habitat Preserve commitments, making its refined planning and design subject to additional review by the Wildlife Agencies.

Recreation Area. The Reservoir Rd to Shoreline & Overlooks would open 1.58 miles of Authority service road, Forest Route 16Sd1, to provide 0.46 miles of hiking-only trail access to the northern shoreline for expanded reservoir access, and 1.12 miles of hiking and biking access to two western adjacent overlook spurs.

TRAIL ID #28: 22 DOWN TO RESERVOIR RD

Trail ID #25 Sweetwater River Bridge

LOVELAND TRAILS MASTER PLAN | RECOMMENDATIONS

TRAIL ID #26: SEQUAN TRUCK TRAIL TO PEAK OVERLOOK

The Sequan Truck Trail to Peak Overlook would provide a 0.60-mile, 4-foot-wide hiking-only trail from the proposed Loveland Overlook Staging Area (Trail ID #31) to the high northern peak at 1895’ elevation, overlooking the Loveland Reservoir. Most of the trail (91 percent) would traverse slopes less than 80 percent, supporting full and reduced partial bench construction; five percent on slopes up to 100 percent, likely require retaining walls; and four percent on slopes greater than 100 percent, requiring retaining walls and potentially railings. No structured drainage crossings are anticipated. The alignment would cross Southern Mixed Chaparral and Chamise Chaparral vegetation communities, as well as critical habitat for the Hermes copper butterfly. This trail segment would overlap existing or planned Habitat Preserve commitments, making its refined planning and design subject to additional review by the Wildlife Agencies.

TRAIL ID #27: RESERVOIR RD TO SHORELINE & OVERLOOKS If the Authority chooses to open public access to a portion of Reservoir Road on the north side of the reservoir, the Reservoir Rd to Shoreline & Overlooks would provide an opportunity for visual access to the reservoir and expanded access to the shoreline on the central portion of the reservoir. Depending on feasibility and cost for additional improvements, Trail ID #27 could potentially expand recreation opportunities at the reservoir, similar to those already approved at the

If the Authority chooses to open public access to a portion of Reservoir Road for Trail #27, it could consider opening an additional length of the road to provide access to the connector trail from the western ridgeline down to the road. The 22 down to Reservoir Rd would open 0.85 miles of Authority service road, providing a 0.99-mile, 4-foot-wide hiking and biking trail that connects down from the Northern Overlook Trail (Trail ID #22). No structured drainage crossings are anticipated. Most of the trail (95 percent) would traverse slopes less than 80 percent, supporting full and reduced partial bench construction; three percent on slopes up to 100 percent, likely to require retaining walls; and two percent on slopes greater than 100 percent, requiring retaining walls and potentially railings. The alignment would be within the Chamise Chaparral vegetation community, as well as critical habitat for the Hermes copper butterfly.

TRAIL ID #29: NORTHEAST RESERVOIR ACCESS TRAIL

The Northeast Reservoir Access Trail would provide a 0.42-mile, 2-foot-wide hiking-only trail from the existing Loveland Reservoir Recreation Area Parking Lot down to the shoreline. It would connect with the Northern Fishing Access Trail (Trail ID #2) to form loop access along the shoreline and back to the parking lot. Two puncheon drainage crossings are anticipated. Approximately 74 percent of the trail would traverse slopes less than 100 percent, supporting full bench construction, and 26 percent on slopes greater than 100%, likely requiring retaining walls. The alignment would cross Chaparral and Chamise Chaparral vegetation communities. The alignment would be entirely within critical habitat Hermes copper butterfly and the eastern end would be within critical habitat for the arroyo toad.

Figure 3-4: Loveland Overlook Staging Area

The CRHT Alt would open 0.58 miles of Authority service road and provide a 0.59-mile, 6-foot-wide multi-use trail to replace a section of erosive and unmaintained CHRT. Two puncheon drainage crossings are anticipated. Approximately 59 percent of the trail would traverse slopes less than 50%, supporting full and reduced partial bench construction; 27 percent on slopes up to 90 percent, likely requiring retaining walls; and 14 percent on slopes greater than 90 percent, requiring retaining walls and potentially railings. The alignment would be within the Chamise Chaparral vegetation community and the eastern end would be within critical habitat Hermes copper butterfly. This trail segment would overlap existing or planned Habitat Preserve commitments, making its refined planning and design subject to additional review by the Wildlife Agencies. Please note: The California Department of Parks and Recreation has managerial oversight and holds titles to the easements for the CRHT. As a result, it must be a part of the conceptual and evaluation process in determining any new locations for the trail.

TRAIL ID #31: LOVELAND OVERLOOK STAGING AREA

The Loveland Overlook Staging Area would construct a 0.09-acre staging area on the south side of Sequan Truck Trail at the Authority entrance gate, shown in Figure 3-4. The staging area would provide access to the Sequan TT to Peak Overlook (Trail ID #26). Figure 3-4 shows a concept with eight standard car/truck spaces.

LOVELAND TRAILS MASTER PLAN | RECOMMENDATIONS

TRAIL ID #30: CRHT ALT

TRAIL PLANNING AND DESIGN GUIDELINES Thoughtful trail siting and design are essential to ensuring maximum enjoyment for trail users, while also reducing impacts to the natural environment and minimizing future trail maintenance. Trail planning and design guidelines for the LRTMP were developed based on an extensive review of relevant planning documents, including the following:

» San Diego County Community Trails Master Plan (2005) » Draft Technical Report for Sweetwater and Loveland Reservoirs Recreational Uses (2024) » Division of Drinking Water (DDW) Guidelines for Recreational Facilities at Reservoirs (2000 Guidelines) » Otay Regional Trail Alignment Study (2020) » County of San Diego Preserve Trail Guidelines: Resource Management Guidelines for Trails in Preserves (2018)

LOVELAND TRAILS MASTER PLAN | RECOMMENDATIONS

The planning team used the guidelines on the following pages to develop the conceptual alignments for the potential future trail system shown in Figure 3-1. The Authority and future project partners should utilize these guidelines for the planning, design, construction, use, and management of all trails around the Loveland Reservoir. To the extent possible, guidelines should be followed to ensure consistency with applicable federal, state, regional, and local laws, regulations, and best practices.

When siting and selecting the final alignment of new trails, the implementing party should:

» Prioritize

trail alignments that avoid significant impacts to sensitive environmental, biological, or cultural resources, or design trail alignments in such a way that will minimize the environmental impact and preserve the resource(s). » Locate non-shoreline fishing trails at least 100 feet (horizontal distance) from the high-water mark of the reservoir, and 50 feet from natural tributaries. Use bridges to cross tributaries perpendicularly, to the maximum extent possible. » Provide trails that connect to existing and planned regional trails, as well as existing and planned park facilities. » Prioritize using lands already in public ownership or proposed for public acquisition for trail alignments. If necessary, establish a fair and reasonable method for acquiring trails through easements, dedications, purchases, or by other means from a willing property owner/ seller. » Consider trail siting and design modifications to address concerns from existing landowners regarding privacy, security, safety, noise, and trespassing.

TRAIL DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION

Trails should be designed and constructed to facilitate user enjoyment and safety, while also protecting biological, cultural, water, and other environmental resources.

SUSTAINABLE DESIGN » Establish and designate trails, whenever feasible, to correspond with existing (nondesignated) trails, paths, or unpaved roadbeds where disturbed tread is already present, so long as using the disturbed tread is sustainable.

» Note:

Consider the long-term sustainability of using an existing disturbed tread before utilizing. Reuse of old road cuts or utility access roads with unsustainable alignments can worsen environmental impacts and require extensive maintenance.

» Identify and connect positive control points,

like rock outcrops, trees, or prominent features, to avoid user-created trails. » Follow existing land contours and avoid using existing fall line or flat ground trails. » Maintain sustainable grades. For example, strive for average running grades under 10 percent. Prioritize following “half rule”, to avoid constructing a trail running grade greater than half of the natural cross slope. » Use frequent rolling grade dips or grade reversals (approximately every 50 to 100 feet) to control water runoff and allow sheet flow across the trail instead of downward. » Decommission unauthorized user-created trails and close off for restoration.

LOVELAND TRAILS MASTER PLAN | RECOMMENDATIONS

TRAIL SITING AND FINAL ALIGNMENT

USER SAFETY

To facilitate a safe outdoor recreation environment, trails should:

» Provide adequate lines of sight based upon

user type. » Be wide enough to accommodate expected levels and types of use, including space for safe passing and periodic turnouts, typically twice the tread width. » Control speeds by avoiding long, straight, downhill stretches. » Provide adequate trailhead facilities for all user types. » Post trail use regulations and hazards prominently at trailheads and other appropriate locations, and include them in trail brochures and on maps.

LOVELAND TRAILS MASTER PLAN | RECOMMENDATIONS

2-FT TRAIL EXAMPLE

TRAIL TYPES

The trails outlined in the potential future trail network are broadly categorized into three trail types (2 ft., 4 ft., 6+ ft) with general design guidelines, to support future design and construction. Each trail type has optimum guidelines (displayed in Table 3-3), including tread width, permitted uses, running grade, cross-slope, surface material, and horizontal and vertical clearances.

LOVELAND TRAILS MASTER PLAN | RECOMMENDATIONS

4-FT TRAIL EXAMPLE

6-FT TRAIL EXAMPLE

Table 3-3: Design Guidelines by Trail Type TRAIL DESIGN GUIDELINES

Trail Tread Width (Feet) Permitted Uses

HIKING TRAIL

HIKE + BIKE TRAIL

MULTI-USE TRAIL

PATHWAY

Hiking

Running Grade

Cross Slope Surface Material

LOVELAND TRAILS MASTER PLAN | RECOMMENDATIONS

Vegetation Management Vertical Clearance Full Bench

Hiking + Biking Multi-Use Minimum: 3% Average: 10% Max: 25-40% Minimum: 3% Average: 5% Max: 10%

Multi-Use Follows adjacent road conditions

Suitable Native Soil, existing road

Suitable Native Soil 2’, either side of the tread 12’ <100%

<65% <35% 65-75% 35-50% Reduced Partial Bench N/A (3’ cut:1’ fill) (5’ cut:1’ fill) Follows adjacent Partial Bench, with >100% >75% >50% road conditions Retaining (1’ cut:1’ fill) (2’ cut:2’ fill) (3’ cut:3’ fill) Retaining Height 1-1.5’ 1.5-4’ 1.5-6’ Protective Railing N/A >100% >90% Grade Criteria: 0 - 8% ideal; 10% or less for distances over 200 feet; 15% or less for distances under 200 feet; 20% or less for distances under 100 feet; >20% for short distances under 50 feet. Trails may exceed 20% grade due to existing conditions or environmental constraints, but for running grades of only brief distances. Average trail grade over the length of the trail should be 10% or less. Pathways within the road right-of-way, or at the edge of the existing road, should follow the road grade.

RESOURCE PROTECTION BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES

» All activities related to trail design, construction,

use, and maintenance should incorporate appropriate methods to avoid or minimize potential impacts to sensitive habitats and species. » Establish final trail designs away from sensitive riparian vegetation, and ephemeral drainages, and with sufficient buffers from rivers and reservoirs to the extent feasible. » Focused plant surveys shall be conducted before determining final trail locations and all efforts should be taken to avoid impacts. Prior to trail construction, survey, flag, and avoid sensitive plant populations.

» For construction within or adjacent to suitable

nesting habitat for sensitive avian species, conduct all construction work outside the breeding season. If construction is to be completed within the bird breeding season, nest surveys and biological monitoring may be required. » Conduct focused surveys for federally listed species prior to trail implementation to ensure final trail alignments avoid impacts to the species. If the species is present, consult with USFWS to determine the appropriate permitting strategy. Implement avoidance and minimization measures to reduce potential impacts to “less than significant”.

species, wildlife, and sensitive habitats, via relocation or restoration, as applicable. » Where feasible, trail tread should be constructed with natural materials (e.g., native soil, decomposed granite) to complement the surrounding landscape. » Trail width should be minimized to reduce impacts to critical habitat and resources. Delineate trail width before conducting vegetation removal or maintenance, to ensure planned trail widths are not exceeded. » When deemed necessary, signage and physical and/or visual barriers may be incorporated to protect sensitive habitats, sensitive species, and wetland habitats. » When applicable, trail grading, clearing, or construction shall follow distance, season, and impact-avoidance requirements to reduce detrimental effects on vegetation and species. » Trails should conform to applicable conservation and land management plans, including but not limited to the Authority Natural Community Conservation Plan/Habitat Conservation Plan (NCCP/HCP) CTMP, the East County MSCP, the Draft South Coast Resource Management Plan, the Cleveland National Forest Land Management Plan, SDG&E HCP, and other similar regional planning efforts.

CULTURAL RESOURCES

» All feasible efforts shall be made to avoid

cultural resources when designing trail routes. Consultation with Native American tribal representatives shall occur early in the planning process. » In instances where a cultural resource or tribal cultural resource cannot be avoided, mitigation measures shall be developed based on the applicable jurisdiction’s guidelines in consultation with the appropriate tribal representatives. Measures shall mitigate all direct and indirect impacts to below a level of significance. Mitigation measures may include preservation in place, fencing, signage, revegetation, and other access control measures to deter access to and/or hide and protect the resource. Resources may also be incorporated into the trail design for educational or interpretive purposes.

» For trails proposed to follow existing

disturbances, impacts shall remain within the extent or width of the existing disturbance. » During construction of new trails that require grading and brush removal, Environmentally Sensitive Area fencing shall be installed along the edges of the proposed disturbance, and monitoring from an archaeologist or Native American monitor may be guaranteed. » If impacts are required beyond disturbed footprints, an archaeological testing program shall be implemented to determine significance for resources that have not yet been evaluated. If impacts to significant resources are proposed, a data recovery program may be implemented to mitigate the determined impacts, as identified by the lead agency.

ADDRESSING CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

A feasible and effective strategy to minimize cumulative impacts from the potential trail system is to substantially reduce the overall spatial footprint of new trails and concentrate all future public access within a defined low impact recreation zone located near existing disturbed areas and outside existing or proposed habitat preserves. Clustering recreational use in a limited portion of the property—rather than dispersing trails across large, intact habitat blocks— significantly reduces habitat fragmentation, limits the spread of invasive species, and avoids bisecting wildlife movement corridors. This approach also minimizes noise, human presence, and repeated disturbance within core habitat areas that currently support high ecological integrity. By focusing new or improved trails, staging areas, and multi-use access points in areas already influenced by past development or existing infrastructure, the Authority can provide meaningful recreational opportunities while preserving the biological function of the broader Loveland Reservoir landscape. This concentrated use model is consistent with current research on sustainable trail planning and aligns with the Wildlife Agencies’ emphasis on protecting large, undisturbed habitat blocks and sensitive riparian and aquatic systems.

LOVELAND TRAILS MASTER PLAN | RECOMMENDATIONS

» Mitigate unavoidable impacts to sensitive plant

LOVELAND TRAILS MASTER PLAN | RECOMMENDATIONS

Similarly, reducing the total number of potential future trails would substantially decrease cumulative impacts by limiting the overall disturbance footprint, reducing habitat fragmentation, and avoiding the proliferation of new access points into currently undisturbed habitat blocks. Fewer trails also reduce long term maintenance needs, minimize the spread of invasive species along trail edges, and lessen the frequency and distribution of human presence across sensitive wildlife areas. By prioritizing only those trails that serve essential recreational or operational functions—and removing or deferring those that would penetrate intact habitat or approach sensitive riparian and aquatic systems— the Authority can meaningfully reduce ecological impacts while still providing a functional and sustainable trail network.

Close coordination with the Wildlife Agencies is essential to ensuring that trail planning, siting, and design avoid and minimize impacts to sensitive biological resources and habitat preserves. Early and ongoing consultation allows the Authority to incorporate agency expertise regarding habitat sensitivity, species movement patterns, and appropriate avoidance buffers, thereby reducing the risk of inadvertently fragmenting intact habitat or disturbing riparian and aquatic systems. Collaborative review of trail alignments, staging areas, and access management strategies also helps ensure that the final trail network is consistent with regional conservation priorities and aligns with established recovery and management objectives for sensitive species. By working closely with the Wildlife Agencies throughout project refinement and implementation, the Authority can develop a trail system that provides recreational opportunities while maintaining the ecological integrity of the Loveland Reservoir property. Close coordination with Tribal representatives, qualified archaeologists, and cultural resource specialists is essential to ensuring that trail planning and design avoid impacts on cultural and archaeological resources. Early consultation allows the Authority to incorporate site specific knowledge regarding culturally sensitive areas, traditional use locations, and previously

recorded archaeological sites, thereby reducing the risk of inadvertent disturbance during trail construction or public access. Collaborative review of proposed trail alignments, staging areas, and ground disturbing activities also helps ensure that the final trail network respects Tribal cultural values, complies with applicable state and federal cultural resource protection laws, and avoids areas with high potential for buried or undocumented resources. By working closely with Tribal governments and cultural resource professionals throughout project refinement and implementation, the Authority can develop a trail system that provides recreational opportunities while safeguarding the cultural heritage of the Loveland Reservoir landscape.

TRAIL OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE The Authority implements a variety of standard avoidance and minimization measures as part of the existing operations and maintenance (O&M) of the Loveland Reservoir Recreation Area. The measures listed below emphasize avoidance (e.g., flagging sensitive areas), minimization (e.g., seasonal restrictions), and mitigation (e.g., habitat compensation). Continued implementation of these measures, along with any new trail projectspecific measures that result from future studies and permitting, is recommended to reduce or avoid various impacts on sensitive resources.

ENVIRONMENTAL MEASURES

Recreation operations and maintenance (O&M) activities often include ground disturbance, vegetation clearing, and work near environmentally sensitive areas or in the vicinity of waterways. Implementation of O&M activities may have an impact on sensitive resources or receptors. Depending on the O&M activity being performed, project partner staff and Authority field staff, in coordination with environmental and land management staff, will select environmental measures to implement in the field that avoid or minimize environmental impacts and ensure compliance with design features or approved measures associated with each individual O&M action. Environmental measures include: Training. Provide training specific to the O&M task being conducted to all workers. 2. Limits of Disturbance (LOD). Limit any O&M activity to operational areas and field maintenance areas. Install temporary LOD flagging or fencing, as appropriate, and ensure all workers understand work limits. Vehicles are to remain within approved roads and previously disturbed areas; avoid driving, parking, or staging on undeveloped lands or environmentally sensitive areas. 3. Industry Standard Best Management Practices (BMPs). Refer to industry standard BMPs for selection and installation of appropriate erosion and sediment controls. Direct any questions to a staff stormwater professional (i.e., QSD/QSP). 4. Housekeeping BMPs. The following housekeeping BMPs are to be followed at all times: 1.

used as necessary to reduce airborne dust; » Do not store or stage hazardous materials (paint, concrete, oil, gas, etc.) near reservoirs, streams, wetlands, natural drainages, or storm drains. Report all spills within the same day to the Authority’s Water Quality Department and environmental staff. Fueling of equipment or staging of equipment is to occur within designated areas, at least 100 feet away (horizontal distance) from any identified waterway; » Littering is strictly prohibited. All O&M-generated waste shall be removed from work sites and properly disposed; » All construction equipment, fixed or mobile, shall be equipped with properly operating and maintained mufflers. Construction noise reduction methods, such as shutting off idling equipment and the use of electric air compressors and similar power tools rather than diesel equipment, shall be used where feasible. Stationary construction equipment shall be placed such that emitted noise is directed away from, or shielded from, residential properties. Where applicable, ensure compliance with noise requirements near sensitive habitat/species; » Minimize the use of herbicides in the watershed, wetlands, and waters. Only use approved herbicides. Vegetation outside the approved limits will not be cut or sprayed with herbicide. Only aquatic or wetland-approved herbicides are used in or near active waterways, including rivers, streams, ponds, and reservoirs. Follow federal, state, and local regulations regarding herbicide use. Read and follow product labels. Environmental Monitoring. If impacts to, or work within, undeveloped lands or environmentally sensitive areas cannot be avoided, coordinate with environmental staff as soon as possible. Give reasonable advance notification to environmental staff, since activities within environmentally sensitive areas or undeveloped lands may require a pre-activity biological survey, installation of BMPs, delineation of LODs, and/or biological monitoring. For grubbing, excavation, or grading on undeveloped lands or environmentally sensitive areas, coordinate a month in advance with environmental staff, as these activities may require archaeological monitoring. 6. Habitat Preserves. Coordinate any O&M activity within a habitat preserve with the staff biologist. 5.

LOVELAND TRAILS MASTER PLAN | RECOMMENDATIONS

» Ensure compliance with the 15 miles per hour (mph) speed limit when driving on unpaved roads; » During clearing, grading, excavation, or hauling of excavated materials, water trucks or trailers shall be

Brush Management. Routine brush management in previously disturbed and approved areas is allowed after supervisor’s approval. Brush management is to be conducted as follows:

» Request environmental clearance if brush management is to be conducted during the nesting season. Nesting windows are typically as follows:

• Trees/Woodland: January 15 - July 15 • Uplands: February 15 - August 31 • Riparian/Marsh: March 1 - September 15;

» Vegetation removal methods include cutting, trimming using hand or mechanical tools, and

mowing. » Vegetation removal should leave the roots of plants intact and 3-to-6 inches of plant trunk or stalk, where possible. If plants are invasive, a trip hazard, or roots can damage a facility, full mechanical removal or herbicide treatment is recommended. » Add temporary and permanent stormwater BMPs as needed. Add a layer of mulch or other stormwater BMP on pronounced, unvegetated slopes to prevent erosion. » Remove all dead vegetation and dispose of it at approved vegetation disposal sites. » If brush management is conducted for defensible space or fuel break compliance, ensure consistency with the applicable Fire Authority Having Jurisdiction (FAHJ) requirements. 8.

Drainage Facilities. Maintenance and repairs of existing drainage facilities is to be reported to environmental staff as noted below. Replacements and installation of drainage facilities are to be coordinated with environmental staff and approved by the staff engineer. A hydraulic analysis for installation of new facilities or replacements may be required:

» Maintenance and repairs: one month in advance notification. » Replacements and installations: two months in advance notification. LOVELAND TRAILS MASTER PLAN | RECOMMENDATIONS

Roads and Trails. Maintenance and repairs of unpaved roads and trails are conducted using appropriate stormwater and dust control BMPs. Modifications to an unpaved road or trail shall occur within the appropriate corridor and with the appropriate drainage improvements. Installation or realignments of unpaved roads or operational trails are approved by the Director of Engineering and Operations, and shall occur with the following environmental issues in mind:

» Soils, topography, and the potential for soil erosion issues. » Avoidance/minimization of impacts to Authority facilities and other utilities. » Avoidance/minimization of impacts to cultural resources, aquatic resources, environmentally

sensitive areas, and sensitive species. » Coordination with environmental staff in advance when requesting realignments or installation of a new dirt road or trail. For temporary trail closures, a notice shall be posted a week in advance. 10. Notification. Notify and coordinate with affected landowners and neighbors, if needed, to consider

any special features that may be needed. 11. Training. Authority staff should attend an employee-training program annually. The training program will include an overview of sensitive biological, cultural, and water resources in Authority recreational programs; summary and application of the relevant environmental regulations; discussion of standard and relevant BMPs; and procedures to address and resolve potential issues or other conflicts that are not specifically addressed in the Recreation O&M Plan. A similar educational program is held for all contractors participating in O&M.

» De-berming trail tread edges, especially the

downhill edge, by removing, redistributing, and recompacting the berm material back onto the trail to allow water to sheet flow off the trail. » Cleaning up the trail tread slough and redistributing and recompacting it back onto the tread. This may be used to recreate grade reversals and manage water flow. » Reshaping the trail tread for positive drainage and restoring the out-slope of the trail. » Clearing and/or repairing drainage structures. » Maintaining trail tread width by clearing brush and pruning vegetation within the determined horizontal and vertical clearance zone.

ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS The DDW 2000 Guidelines and the Draft Technical Report for Sweetwater and Loveland Reservoirs Recreational Uses should be followed when planning, designing, and constructing future trails. The Authority should continue to refer to those documents for procedures and guidance on permitted uses, signage, fencing, patrolling, waste receptacles, public education, and other restrictions related to recreational use in proximity to a public water supply.

LOVELAND TRAILS MASTER PLAN | RECOMMENDATIONS

MAINTENANCE MEASURES

Additional trail maintenance measures include:

T U

R U

C A E

O I T

S N

LOVELAND TRAILS MASTER PLAN | FUTURE ACTIONS

The Authority manages the Loveland Reservoir for the primary purpose of protecting the quality and security of the water supply. While the Authority recognizes the potential for outdoor recreation at the Loveland Reservoir and currently operates the Loveland Reservoir Recreation Area, providing outdoor recreation opportunities is subordinate to ensuring the safety and reliability of the public water supply. As a result, the Authority has limited resources to maintain current recreation levels and no resources to design, construct, operate, maintain, and manage any additional outdoor recreation at Loveland Reservoir. Additional funding, resources, and partnerships will be needed to implement any additional trails, as outlined in Chapter 3, and determine long-term management responsibility. To help facilitate incremental progress toward expanding outdoor recreation around the Loveland Reservoir, Chapter 4 outlines future actions the Authority and partners can take to advance the LRTMP over time.

TRAIL PRIORITIZATION A prioritization analysis was conducted to rank potential future trails in terms of importance and ease of implementation. The prioritization analysis, designed to guide implementation decisions, ranks trails based on their opportunities to:

» Address community desires » Expand recreational access to the existing Recreation Area » Improve existing trail system or advance prior planning efforts The prioritization analysis also evaluates trails based on constraints that may impact feasibility, such as if trails:

» Overlap with sensitive resources or habitat preserves » Have high estimated implementation costs » Require coordination with other agencies or private property owners » Have potential conflicts with existing land uses or policies, including safety and operational considerations

LOVELAND TRAILS MASTER PLAN | FUTURE ACTIONS

PRIORITIZATION ANALYSIS METHODOLOGY

Table 5-1 displays the prioritization criteria used to rank each potential future trail. Depending on the unique characteristics of the trail, each “Opportunities” criterion provided zero to four points, and each “Constraints” criterion subtracted zero to five points. The prioritization criteria shown in Table 5-1 were used to generate an “opportunity” score and a “constraints” score for each trail, demonstrating the cumulative benefits or challenges associated with each. Please note that the prioritization analysis methodology and associated criteria shown in Table 5-1 may be adjusted based on future stakeholder or partner input, changing needs, emerging trends, or other factors, to guide decision-making.

Table 5-1: Prioritization Criteria PRIORITIZATION CRITERIA

SCORE

OPPORTUNITY CRITERIA

Addresses Community Input Priorities Refines NE recreation area access Improves pedestrian safety surrounding reservoir access Creates multi-use trail connections in SE Reservoir Does not address community input Expands Recreational Access to the Recreation Area Provides direct connection to access the existing Recreation Area Provides an indirect connection to extend access to the existing Recreation Area Provides expanded recreational opportunities within reservoir No significant impact on Reservoir Access Improves Existing Trail Network / Advances Previous Planning Efforts Connects to two or more existing trails within the network Connects to one existing trail within the network Remediates existing user/environmental safety concerns Trail alignments identified in previous planning efforts Trail does not connect to existing trails within network

3 2 1 0 3 2 1 0 4 3 2 1 0

CONSTRAINT CRITERIA

-5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 -5 -3 0 -4 -3 -2 -1 0

LOVELAND TRAILS MASTER PLAN | FUTURE ACTIONS

Overlaps with Sensitive Resources Overlaps five or more known resource constraints Overlaps four resource constraints Overlaps three known resource constraints Overlaps two known resource constraints Overlaps one known resource constraint No initial assessment of significant impact to sensitive resource Considers Estimated Implementation Costs Cost estimated to implement is greater than $3m Cost estimated to implement is between $2m and $3m Cost estimated to implement is between $1m and $2m Cost estimated to implement is between $350k and $800k Cost estimated to implement is between $100k and $350k Cost estimated to implement is less than $100k Requires Coordination with Other Agencies or Private Property Owners Requires coordination between agencies and private owners Requires coordination between agencies or private owners Trail belongs to one agency/owner Has Potential Conflicts with Existing Uses or Policies Trail use conflicts with nature preserve policies and guidelines Trail shares use of a utility road with overhead transmission lines and may have safety or operational conflicts Trail falls in the County ROW and/or would require street safety improvements Trail shares use of Authority maintenance roads and areas Trail shows no major land use conflicts

PRIORITIZED TRAIL SYSTEM

Comparing opportunities and constraints associated with each potential future trail can help potential partners with future decision-making. Table 5-2 and Table 5-3 lists potential future trails in order of greatest opportunity (in green) and in order of fewest constraints (orange) for a side-by-side comparison. Table 5-2 and Table 5-3 can be used to direct the pursuit and allocation of funding and other resources toward the highest-impact and most feasible trail projects. Full prioritization scoring results, alongside a combined score (for both opportunities and constraints), are provided in Appendix C. While potential future trails may offer substantial opportunities to support the community’s desired recreational vision, they may also have major implementation and management constraints that affect their feasibility. For example, trails #3-6 rank among the highest in terms of opportunities, but face major implementation challenges due to potential conflicts with uses along SDG&E’s utility easements. Due to the community’s desire for an less strenuous trail to the Loveland Reservoir from the existing staging area and the need to provide connectivity to the potential bridge (#10), if the alignments on SDG&E access roads are infeasible (#3-#6), then a new trail alignment should be developed to avoid the use of the SDG&E access roads. By contrast, trail #13 ranks among the lowest in constraints due to its high implementation cost, but it would need to be implemented before trails #14 and #15 to avoid any “trails to nowhere.”

LOVELAND TRAILS MASTER PLAN | FUTURE ACTIONS

The ranking process prioritizes projects based on quantitative data analysis and qualitative community engagement, making it a useful, objective decision-making tool. However, trail projects can also be chosen to move forward for future design and construction based on other factors. Other factors that may dictate design and implementation decisions include funding and partnership opportunities, maintenance and operations resources, logical phasing, and more.

Trail ID #13: Glen Lonely Connector Trail

Table 5-2: Potential Future Trails Grouped by

Table 5-3: Potential Future Trails Grouped by

Priority, Opportunities

TRAIL NAME

SCORE

OPPORTUNITIES RANKING

10 24 22 2 7 9 11 29 8 12 13 1

Highwater Reservoir Crossing Bridge Parallel Access Trail Northern Overlook Trail Northern Reservoir Access Trail Northwest Reservoir Access Trail Eastern Reservoir Access Trail Southern Reservoir Access Trail Northeast Reservoir Access Trail Japatul Road Eastern Staging Area Japatul Road Parkway Improvements Glen Lonely Connector Trail Alpine Heights Community Access Trail SDG&E Alignments to Reservoir Access 5 Trail SDG&E Alignments to Reservoir Access 3 #1 SDG&E Alignments to Reservoir Access 4 #2 SDG&E Alignments to Reservoir Access 6 #3 14 Glen Lonely Loop Trail Option 1 30 CRHT Alt 19A Southern Overlook Trail 19B Southern Overlook Trail Alternative 15 Glen Lonely Loop Trail Option 2 31 Loveland Overlook Staging Area 28 22 down to Reservoir Rd 26 Sequan Truck Trail to Peak Overlook 27 Reservoir Rd to Shoreline & Overlooks 18 Loveland Lane Staging Area 21 Western Overlook Trail 23 Sequan Truck Trail Improvements 25 Sweetwater River Bridge 16 W Boundary Truck Trail Improvements 17 Monteil Truck Trail Improvements 20 Southern Connector Trail

TRAIL NAME

SCORE

CONSTRAINTS RANKING

10 9 9 8 8 8 8 8 7 7 7 6 6 6 6 6 6 5 5 5 4 4 4 3 3 2 2 2 2 1 1 1

18 31 24 7 29 9 27 2 11 15 16 26 28 10 23 12 8 17 22 25 30 1

Loveland Lane Staging Area Loveland Overlook Staging Area Parallel Access Trail Northwest Reservoir Access Trail Northeast Reservoir Access Trail Eastern Reservoir Access Trail Reservoir Rd to Shoreline & Overlooks Northern Reservoir Access Trail Southern Reservoir Access Trail Glen Lonely Loop Trail Option 2 W Boundary Truck Trail Improvements Sequan Truck Trail to Peak Overlook 22 down to Reservoir Rd Highwater Reservoir Crossing Bridge Sequan Truck Trail Improvements Japatul Road Parkway Improvements Japatul Road Eastern Staging Area Monteil Truck Trail Improvements Northern Overlook Trail Sweetwater River Bridge CRHT Alt Alpine Heights Community Access Trail SDG&E Alignments to Reservoir Access 5 Trail SDG&E Alignments to Reservoir Access 3 #1 SDG&E Alignments to Reservoir Access 6 #3 14 Glen Lonely Loop Trail Option 1 SDG&E Alignments to Reservoir Access 4 #2 20 Southern Connector Trail 19B Southern Overlook Trail Alternative 13 Glen Lonely Connector Trail 21 Western Overlook Trail 19A Southern Overlook Trail

0 -2 -4 -5 -5 -6 -6 -7 -7 -7 -7 -7 -7 -8 -8 -8 -9 -9 -9 -9 -9 -10 -10 -10 -10 -10 -11 -11 -13 -15 -15 -18

Please note: The prioritization results shown in Table 5-2 and Table 5-3 may be revised in the future to further incorporate environmental, safety, and operational considerations as primary evaluation criteria.

LOVELAND TRAILS MASTER PLAN | FUTURE ACTIONS

Priority, Constraints

PARTNERSHIP OPPORTUNITIES PARTNERING WITH PUBLIC AGENCIES

The potential future trail network presented in Chapter 3 aligns with the County’s regional goals for outdoor recreation, as well as those of many adjacent public landowners, including the USFS, CDFW, and BLM. As a result, the LRTMP presents a promising opportunity for future design, construction, operation, and maintenance collaboration with the following public agencies:

» County of San Diego Parks and Recreation » California State Parks » United States Forest Service - Descanso Ranger District If there is substantial interest in implementing larger portions of a trail network in this area, then the development of a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the Authority and interested partners, agencies, and landowners may be considered. Furthermore, it is not the purpose of this document to identify a lead agency for the funding and implementation of any of the trails described herein.

BUILDING COMMUNITY

LOVELAND TRAILS MASTER PLAN | FUTURE ACTIONS

Through the LRTMP community engagement process, it became clear that there is a strong community of people who share a deep connection and appreciation for Loveland Reservoir. People have been coming to the Loveland Reservoir to hike, fish, and connect with nature for many years, and have expressed their desires to see outdoor recreation access enhanced and expanded. Continuing to build relationships with community-based organizations, such as the Friends of Loveland Reservoir, current Recreational Area users, neighboring landowners, and residents of the surrounding communities, can help build and maintain additional mechanisms to support outdoor recreation opportunities at Loveland Reservoir. For example, volunteers can help with fundraising, grant writing, trail building and maintenance, leading environmental education tours, or launching an Adopt-a-Trail program. While the Authority lacks the resources to lead a community-building effort, another interested party or stakeholder may consider employing this strategy to advance the LRTMP.

Community Meeting #1

PERMITTING & FUTURE STUDIES Future trail implementation must comply with applicable federal, state, and local laws, ordinances, and regulations throughout design, construction, and operation. Future studies and permits will be needed to ensure trail implementation is compliant with applicable plans and policies, and avoids, minimizes, or mitigates adverse environmental impacts. While Chapter 2 identifies preliminary resources, constraints, and planning considerations for future trail planning and design, further environmental analysis and review will be needed to determine potential impacts associated with future trail implementation and to identify appropriate mitigation measures. Future studies and permits may include, but are not limited to:

» Resource Constraints Assessment Report: A Resource Constraints Assessment Report will be needed

LOVELAND TRAILS MASTER PLAN | FUTURE ACTIONS

to identify potential impacts to sensitive biological and cultural resources along each potential trail project. This report will identify potential impacts and provide recommendations for state and federal permitting, as well as avoidance and minimization measures for sensitive resources. See Appendix D for a list of potential habitat assessments, biological reports, species surveys, and permitting that may be necessary for each respective trail. Actual assessments, surveys, and permitting needed will vary and are dependent on which species are found and the permitting approach of relevant state and federal agencies. » Recreational Use Permits at Domestic Water Supply Reservoirs: The main purpose of Loveland Reservoir is to store water, for future treatment and distribution as drinking, potable water. Since the Loveland Reservoir is part of a domestic water supply system, recreational use is prohibited unless authorized by a water supply permit. The Authority’s Draft Technical Report for Sweetwater and Loveland Reservoirs Recreational Uses, which contains rules and regulations for recreational use at the Loveland Reservoir per DDW’s 2000 Guidelines, may require amendments to incorporate potential future trails and new uses outlined in the LRTMP. For example, if the Authority chooses to open multi-use trails that allow horseback riding or mountain biking, the permit will require updates to ensure compliance with the 2000 Guidelines.

» Permitting for Equestrian Activities: Per the 2000 Guidelines, equestrian activities are subject to the following controls:

● Prior to construction, the local health department must approve the location and operating plans

for all corrals, stables, staging areas, and trails. ● Before an area is open to equestrian use, a suitable ordinance or regulation acceptable to the local health department must be established. ● Horses must be prohibited from entering the reservoir or any tributary stream within 200 feet of the reservoir shoreline. The operator of the equestrian recreation facility must implement fencing, posting, and patrolling to accomplish this objective. ● All trails must be set back at least 100 feet from the reservoir high-water level. ● The operator of the equestrian facilities must provide the public with copies of all applicable ordinances in a brochure that prominently states that the reservoir is a source of domestic water supply and must be protected. ● Stables or corrals should not be located on the reservoir watershed. If this is not possible, the following restrictions apply:

ჿ These facilities must be set back at least 1,000 feet from the high-water level of the reservoir. ჿ The maintenance program for stables and corrals must provide daily collection of manure at all corrals and stable areas, and transportation to a storage or disposal area off the watershed. ჿ Stormwater drainage from stables and corrals must be prevented entering the reservoir insofar as feasible. Stormwater from adjacent areas should be diverted away from stables and corrals.

LOVELAND TRAILS MASTER PLAN | FUTURE ACTIONS

Future implementation should be consistent with applicable federal, state, and local laws, ordinances, plans, and regulations. If a future trail is not consistent with applicable plans, an amendment or exemption may be required from the agency that owns the land on which the trail is located.

Preliminary, planning-level cost estimates were developed for the potential future trail system (shown in Table 5-4). These costs are for planning purposes only and are subject to further evaluation. The cost estimates shown in Table 5-4 include a 25 and 50 percent contingency intended to provide estimated low and high ranges for each trail project and to compensate for the use of preliminary and limited information.

METHODOLOGY ENVIRONMENTAL SURVEYS AND PERMITTING ESTIMATES

Cost estimates for initial environmental assessments for each potential future trail were developed based on recent costs for similar tasks in the study area (i.e., $500 per acre for a 500foot buffer along the trail length). Actual costs can vary substantially and will depend on the findings from the initial environmental assessments. There may be additional costs associated with species surveys and permitting. Appendix D lists the anticipated environmental habitat assessments, biological reports, species surveys, and permitting that may be necessary for each respective trail based on the findings of the existing conditions analysis presented in Chapter 2.

CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATES

Trail construction costs can vary substantially within a single trail segment because different terrain conditions affect the amount and type of work required. For example, the trail tread width and the existing cross-slope determine the cubic yards of cut and fill needed and whether retaining structures or protective railings must be installed. For this reason, construction costs were estimated by trail tread width and by slope category (e.g., 5–10 percent, 10–15 percent, etc.). Labor and material costs increase as slopes become steeper and as geology, soil type, vegetation density, and distance from staging areas change. Under prevailing wage requirements, labor costs include hourly wages for multiple field positions as well as costs associated with operating heavy equipment, such as track loaders and excavators. The amount of trail a field crew can construct per day also varies by width and slope range. For example, slopes exceeding 100 percent may yield only about 25 percent of the linear feet (LF) that can be completed on 0–10 percent slopes. The estimated construction costs presented for each trail are based on a detailed analysis of the specific tread conditions and the labor required to address them. LOVELAND TRAILS MASTER PLAN | FUTURE ACTIONS

ESTIMATED COSTS

Table 5-4: Planning-Level Cost Estimates for Trail Projects ESTIMATED COSTS TRAIL ID

TRAIL NAME

TRAIL INITIAL LENGTH ENVIRONMENTAL (MILES) ASSESSMENTS

CONSTRUCTION

PROJECT TOTAL ESTIMATE

25% 50% 25% 50% CONTINGENCY CONTINGENCY CONTINGENCY CONTINGENCY (LOW) (HIGH) (LOW) (HIGH) 1 Alpine Heights Community Access Trail 1.07 $62,670 $825,000 $990,000 $887,670 $1,052,670 2 Northern Reservoir Access Trail 1.14 $69,900 $316,250 $379,500 $386,150 $449,400 3 SDG&E Alignments to Reservoir Access Trail Opt 1 0.28 $22,360 $41,250 $49,500 $63,610 $71,860 4 SDG&E Alignments to Reservoir Access Trail Opt 2 0.44 $27,590 $96,250 $115,500 $123,840 $143,090 5 SDG&E Alignments to Reservoir Access Trail 0.71 $50,485 $13,750 $16,500 $64,235 $66,985 6 SDG&E Alignments to Reservoir Access Trail Opt 3 0.25 $18,350 $55,000 $66,000 $73,350 $84,350 7 Northwest Reservoir Access Trail 0.64 $44,715 $247,500 $297,000 $292,215 $341,715 8 Japatul Road Eastern Staging Area 0.64 ac $14,975 $156,186 $187,424 $171,161 $202,399 9 Eastern Reservoir Access Trail 1.04 $56,355 $68,750 $82,500 $125,105 $138,855 10 Highwater Reservoir Crossing Bridge 0.09 $14,475 $1,783,750 $2,140,500 $1,798,225 $2,154,975 11 Southern Reservoir Access Trail 2.18 $121,770 $508,750 $610,500 $630,520 $732,270 12 Japatul Road Parkway Improvements 1.93 $125,350 $508,750 $610,500 $634,100 $735,850 13 Glen Lonely Connector Trail 4.55 $200,040 $2,860,000 $3,432,000 $3,060,040 $3,632,040 $2,795,675 $3,326,425 14 Glen Lonely Loop Trail Option 1 3.35 $141,925 $2,653,750 $3,184,500 15 Glen Lonely Loop Trail Option 2 0.98 $57,420 $495,000 $594,000 $552,420 $651,420 16 W Boundary Truck Trail Improvements 0.54 $41,680 $233,750 $280,500 $275,430 $322,180 17 Monteil Truck Trail Improvements 0.65 $46,190 $96,250 $115,500 $142,440 $161,690 18 Lawson Valley Staging Area 0.57 ac $13,395 $61,586 $73,903 $74,981 $87,298 19A Southern Overlook Trail 4.50 $218,530 $3,547,500 $4,257,000 $3,766,030 $4.475.530 19B Southern Overlook Trail Alternative 4.86 $225,730 $5,798,750 $6,958,500 $6,024,480 $7,184,230 20 Southern Connector Trail 1.55 $76,510 $1,100,000 $1,320,000 $1,176,510 $1,396,510 21 Western Overlook Trail 2.24 $123,140 $990,000 $1,188,000 $1,113,140 $1,311,140 22 Northern Overlook Trail 2.34 $114,485 $1,031,250 $1,237,500 $1,145,735 $1,351,985 23 Sequan Truck Trail Improvements 2.94 $186,010 $2,241,250 $2,689,500 $2,427,260 $2,875,510 24 Parallel Access Trail 0.05 $11,990 $41,250 $49,500 $53,240 $61,490 25 Sweetwater River Bridge 0.11 $15,140 $2,103,750 $2,524,500 $2,118,890 $2,539,640 26 Sequan Truck Trail to Peak Overlook 0.60 $40,160 $151,250 $181,500 $191,410 $221,660 27 Reservoir Rd to Shoreline & Overlooks 1.58 $87,630 N/A (Existing road) $87,630 $87,630 28 22 down to Reservoir Rd 1.84 $96,805 $137,500 $165,000 $234,305 $261,805 29 Northeast Reservoir Access Trail 0.42 $32,525 $220,000 $264,000 $252,525 $296,525 30 CRHT Alt 1.17 $61,505 $467,500 $561,000 $529,005 $622,505 31 Loveland Overlook Staging Area 0.09 ac $10,750 $26,524 $31,829 $37,274 $42,579 Note: Planning-level cost estimates do not include environmental mitigation, such as habitat mitigation credits or restoration, which may be deemed necessary in future project phases, or trail operations and maintenance after implementation.

POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES Table 5-5 lists potential funding sources that may be pursued to advance the trail network identified in the LRTMP. These funding sources serve as a starting point for the Authority to consider applying for when seeking potential funding opportunities. Funding sources shown in Table 5-5 are subject to change. Further research should be done prior to applying to confirm that the source is appropriate for the desired project. Table 5-5: Potential Funding Sources PROGRAM NAME

SOURCE / ADMINISTRATOR

DESCRIPTION

PROJECT TYPE CONSTRUCTION

PLANNING

FEDERAL PROGRAMS

Active Transportation Infrastructure Investment Program (ATIIP)

Transportation Alternatives (TA) Set-Aside

U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT)

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)

ATIIP funds projects that will help improve the safety, efficiency, and reliability of active transportation networks and communities; improve connectivity between active transportation modes and public transportation; enhance the resiliency of on- and off-road active transportation infrastructure; help protect the environment; and improve quality of life in disadvantaged communities through the delivery of connected active transportation networks and expanded mobility opportunities. Note: Program is funded through the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, also known as the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), and does not have permanent, entitled funding. The IIJA would need to be renewed or reauthorized for the program to continue past 2026. The Transportation Alternatives (TA) Set-Aside from the Surface Transportation Block Grant (STBG) Program provides funding for a variety of generally smaller-scale transportation projects. Note: Program is funded through the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, also known as the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA), and does not have permanent, entitled funding. The IIJA would need to be renewed or reauthorized for the program to continue past 2026.

PROGRAMMING

PROGRAM NAME

SOURCE / ADMINISTRATOR

DESCRIPTION

PROJECT TYPE CONSTRUCTION

PLANNING

PROGRAMMING

STATE PROGRAMS

Land and Water Conservation Fund - State and Local Assistance Program

Recreational Trails Program (RTP) Non-Motorized

Wildlife Conservation Board Grants

Youth Community Access Grant Program

California Department of Parks and Recreation & National Park Service (NPS)

The Land and Water Conservation Fund State and Local Assistance Program (‘LWCF Stateside’) provides matching grants to state, local, and tribal governments to create and expand parks, develop recreation facilities, and further local recreation plans.

The Recreational Trails Program (RTP) is a federal U.S. Department of Transportation grant program administered by the California Department of Parks and Recreation. The RTP provides funding to develop and maintain recreational trails and trail-related facilities for both non-motorized and motorized recreational trail uses. The Wildlife Conservation Board provides funding for fish and wildlife habitat acquisition, conservation, and restoration, as well as development of compatible public access facilities. Projects should focus on creating Wildlife meaningful outdoor experiences for all Californians. Project Conservation Board benefits should include one or more of the following: protected biodiversity, increased climate resilience, enhanced public access, conserved/enhanced working landscapes, conserved/enhanced water-related projects, and/or support of the State Wildlife Action Plan. The Youth Community Access Grant Program funds projects that support youth access to natural or cultural California Natural resources with a focus on low-income and disadvantaged Resources Agency communities. This includes, but is not limited to, community education and recreational amenities to support youth substance use prevention and early intervention. California Department of Parks and Recreation & USDOT

PROGRAM NAME

SOURCE / ADMINISTRATOR

DESCRIPTION

PROJECT TYPE CONSTRUCTION

PLANNING

PROGRAMMING

PHILANTHROPIC PROGRAMS

Arts in California Parks Grant Program

The Arts in California Parks Grants Program revitalizes local parks with diverse experiences that foster creativity and community connection, transforming them into vibrant hubs of art, culture, and nature. Planning, development, and implementation grants are available. Arts in CA Parks

Energize the Environment Grant Quadratec Cares Program PeopleForBikes Community Grant Program

PeopleForBikes

Planning and development grants support early-stage project development, including partnership building, artist selection, and the development of project plans. Implementation grants support the execution of art and cultural programs with community engagement and welldefined partnerships. Quadratec offers small one-time grants for projects that promote environmental connection, responsibility, and/or stewardship. The PeopleForBikes Community Grant Program supports bicycle infrastructure projects and targeted initiatives that make it easier and safer for people of all ages and abilities to ride.

References

AECOM. (2025). Draft Biological Constraints Assessment Report for the Loveland Reservoir Trail Improvements Project. Bureau of Land Management. (1994). Draft South Coast Resource Management Plan. https://www.blm. gov/programs/planning-and-nepa/plans-in-development/california/south-coast-rmp Bureau of Land Management. (n.d.). National Recreation Opportunities: Interactive Map. https:// webmaps.blm.gov/program_apps/BLM_Natl_Recreation_Opportunities/ California Department of Fish and Wildlife. (n.d.). Sycuan Peak Ecological Reserve. https://wildlife.ca.gov/ Lands/Places-to-Visit/Sycuan-Peak-ER California Office of Administrative Law. (n.d.). California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 630. https:// govt.westlaw.com/calregs/Document/I7800E6C028A311EF9244C896CBDA1E2C?viewType=FullText California Office of Administrative Law. (n.d.). California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Section 630. https:// govt.westlaw.com/calregs/Document/IC9D7380028A311EF9400EB52E2514C67?viewType=FullText County of San Diego. (2005). San Diego County Community Trails Master Plan. https://www.sandiegocounty. gov/content/sdc/pds/community-trails-master-plan.html County of San Diego. (2011). County of San Diego General Plan. https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/ sdc/pds/generalplan.html County of San Diego. (2015). Crest/Dehesa/Harbison Canyon/Granite Hills Community Plan. https://www. sandiegocounty.gov/content/sdc/pds/gpupdate/comm/crest.html County of San Diego. (2016). Jamul/Dulzura Subregional Plan. https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/ dam/sdc/pds/docs/CP/Jamul_CP.pdf

LOVELAND TRAILS MASTER PLAN | FUTURE ACTIONS

County of San Diego. (2020). Alpine Community Plan Update. https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/ sdc/pds/CommunityGroups/AlpineCommunityPlanUpdate.html

County of San Diego. (2018). Preserve Trail Guidelines: Resource Management Guidelines for Trails in Preserves. https://www.sdparks.org/content/dam/sdparks/en/pdf/Resource-Management/Final%20 Preserve%20Trail%20Guidelines_April%202018.pdf County of San Diego. (2020). Otay Regional Trail Alignment Study. https://www.sdparks.org/content/ sdparks/en/park-pages/eastotaytrailalignmentstudy.html County of San Diego. (n.d.). East County Plan. https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/sdc/pds/mscp/ ec.html County of San Diego. (n.d.). Multiple Species Conservation Program. https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/ content/sdc/pds/mscp.html County of San Diego. (n.d.). County of San Diego Capital Improvement Plan (FY 2025–29). County of San Diego Department of Planning and Land Use. (n.d.). Chaparral Vegetation Community. https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/dam/sdc/pds/mscp/docs/Biodiversity/handoutvegcomm3. pdf Division of Drinking Water. (2000, November 15). Draft guidelines for evaluating applications for recreational use permits at domestic water supply reservoirs. California State Water Resources Control Board. https://www.waterboards.ca.gov/drinking_water/certlic/drinkingwater/documents/dwdocuments/ reservoirguidelines-draft-11-15-00.pdf

Holland, R. (1986). Preliminary descriptions of the terrestrial natural communities of California. State of California Department of Fish and Game. https://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/dam/sdc/pds/ceqa/ JVR/AdminRecord/IncorporatedByReference/Section-2-3---Biological-Resources-References/Holland%20 1986.pdf Oberbauer, T., Thomas, M., & Buegge, J. (2008). Draft vegetation communities of San Diego County. https:// www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/dam/sdc/pds/ceqa/Soitec-Documents/Final-EIR-Files/references/ rtcref/ch9.0/rtcrefaletters/O14%202014-12-19_OberbauerTM2008.pdf San Diego Gas & Electric Company. (1995). San Diego Gas & Electric Company Subregional Natural Community Conservation Plan. https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=115861&inline Sweetwater Authority. (2024). Technical report for Sweetwater and Loveland Reservoirs recreational uses. U.S. Forest Service. (2000). Trail construction and maintenance notebook. https://www.fs.usda.gov/eng/ pubs/htmlpubs/htm00232839/page05.htm U.S. Forest Service. (2005). Cleveland National Forest land management plan. https://www.fs.usda.gov/ r05/cleveland/planning U.S. Forest Service. (2007). Trail construction and maintenance notebook. https://www.fs.usda.gov/t-d/ pubs/htmlpubs/htm07232806/toc.htm U.S. Forest Service. (2025). Hunting, fishing, and shooting – Cleveland National Forest. https://www. fs.usda.gov/r05/cleveland/recreation/opportunities/hunting-fishing-and-shooting

LOVELAND TRAILS MASTER PLAN | FUTURE ACTIONS

U.S. Forest Service. (2025). Trail maintenance notebook. https://www.fs.usda.gov/sites/default/files/fs_ media/fs_document/trail-maintenance-notebook.pdf

P A

N E P

I D

S E C

100

LOVELAND TRAILS MASTER PLAN | APPENDICES

APPENDIX A: RELEVANT PLANS AND DOCUMENTS As part of the background research for the LRTMP, the planning team reviewed relevant planning documents and policies. The most pertinent information to the Loveland Reservoir Trails Master Plan is summarized below or included in Chapters 1 through 4 of the LRTMP. The planning team referred to the documents throughout the planning process to ensure consistency and awareness of standing policies and guidelines.

DRAFT TECHNICAL REPORT FOR SWEETWATER AND LOVELAND RESERVOIRS RECREATIONAL USES (2024)

In 2024, the Authority, operating under Irrigation District law, prepared a draft Technical Report for Sweetwater and Loveland Reservoirs Recreational Uses, which provides information on the provision and management of recreational activities conducted at both the Sweetwater and Loveland Reservoirs. Shoreline fishing, as well as passive recreation such as birdwatching, picnicking, and hiking, are permitted at Loveland Reservoir. Visitors at Loveland Reservoir may access trails and an area up to 50 feet (horizontal distance) from the high-water mark of the lake. Trails are patrolled, monitored, and maintained to control erosion, prevent the spread of invasive species, and ensure user safety. The report notes that the California Riding and Hiking Trail in the Loveland Reservoir area is not owned or managed by the Authority, but coordination between the Authority and the State of California may occur as needed. Daily visitor counts are limited to 200 persons and 50 vehicles. The access roads on the northwestern side of the reservoir are not open to the public due to the area’s rough terrain, steepness, and environmental sensitivities. The Authority is considering trail upgrades near the parking lot and fishing areas at Loveland Reservoir, including the addition of a parallel trail, observation deck, and bridge, as well as improvements to the existing trails. In general, protection of Loveland Reservoir trails and lands is facilitated through staff patrolling, seasonal restrictions, fencing, and education. Recreational trails are seen as subordinate to the health and safety of the water quality at the Reservoir, and as such, trails may be closed if and when a threat to water quality is apparent.

LOVELAND TRAILS MASTER PLAN | APPENDICES

DIVISION OF DRINKING WATER (DDW) DRAFT GUIDELINES FOR RECREATIONAL FACILITIES AT RESERVOIRS (2000)

101

The Division of Drinking Water Guidelines for Recreational Facilities at Reservoirs, written in 2000, establishes guidelines and regulations for the operation and maintenance of recreation at reservoirs to protect the health and safety of residents and the potable water used for consumption. The California Code of Regulations requires that a water supply permit be issued to any domestic water supply reservoirs seeking to use the reservoir for recreational purposes. Recreational facilities and programming regulations apply to activities and issues such as boating, swimming, toilets, trailer sanitation stations, sewage systems, and equestrian activities. Visitor counts must be limited to ensure that no health and safety hazards are present in or around the reservoir. Additionally, full-time patrol personnel must be provided to supervise and manage visitor activities to ensure the health and safety of visitors and the reservoir itself.

LOVELAND RESERVOIR FISHING PROGRAM RELOCATION (1997)

In 1997, the Authority participated in a land exchange with the USFS to consolidate Authority land ownership around the Loveland Reservoir. To perform the land exchange, the Authority purchased 883 acres of land abutting Cuyamaca State Park and exchanged it with 1,550 acres of USFS land on the eastern portion of the Loveland Reservoir. To ensure continued public access to the Loveland Reservoir Fishing Program (now called the Loveland Reservoir Recreation Area), an easement for recreation was provided to the USFS on the northeastern corner of the Loveland Reservoir property. The easement covers the area 50 feet above the high-water level, as measured annually, and includes the parking area and the trail to the reservoir. The Authority currently maintains and manages the Loveland Reservoir Recreation Area and receives no financial or management support from the USFS.

In 1945, the California Riding and Hiking Trails Act was passed, which envisioned a statewide system of riding and hiking trails, including a plan for a 3,000-mile loop trail extending from the Mexican border to the Oregon border. Though segments of the California Riding and Hiking Trail (CRHT) system were developed throughout the state, including in San Diego, a lack of consistent funding and interest in the continuous trail system led to the dissolution of the CRHT Act in 1974. The original act was replaced by the California Recreational Trails Act in 1974, which created the 1978 California Recreational Trails Plan, a statewide document that promotes the creation of trail corridors and provides general guidelines for future trail growth and development. Though additional trails were proposed in the 1978 California Recreational Trails Plan, none are within the Loveland Reservoir study area. Segments of the CRHT that were constructed prior to the cessation of the CRHT Act in 1974 still exist in San Diego County and are named as such, including in the Loveland Reservoir study area. The existing CRHT segments in the Loveland Reservoir study area primarily sit in the northeastern portion of the site, where a two-tothree-mile portion of the CRHT runs east to west. A smaller, quarter-mile segment of the CRHT runs north to south in the southeastern region of the Loveland Reservoir study area.

CALIFORNIA STATE PARKS REVOCABLE LICENSE AGREEMENT FOR A STAGING AREA (2002)

A Revocable License Agreement was granted by the Authority to the State of California (State) in 2002, permitting the State to use a portion of the Authority property for the public parking of horse trailers. The agreement established that the parking area facility and associated gates, located on Japatul Road, would be constructed by the State and operated by the Authority.

COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO COMMUNITY TRAILS MASTER PLAN (2005)

On January 12, 2005, the San Diego County Board of Supervisors unanimously approved the adoption of the County Trails Program and the Community Trails Master Plan (CTMP). Since its adoption, the County Trails Program has been utilized to develop a system of interconnected regional and community trails and pathways. The system of trails and pathways is intended to address an established public need for recreation and transportation while also providing health and quality of life benefits associated with hiking, mountain biking, and horseback riding throughout the County’s biologically diverse environments. The County Trails Program involves both trail development and management on public, semi-public, and private lands. The CTMP is a conceptual document that guides and informs planning that supports implementation for the trails program and contains individual community trails and pathways plans. The maps shown in the CTMP depict corridors of general alignments for proposed trails and pathways, including several within the Loveland Reservoir study area. The term “general alignment” is used to describe the general location of a future trail within a designated corridor so that the specific alignment can be determined at the time of actual acquisition, implementation, and/or construction. The concept of general alignments is especially useful in planning so that adjustments can be made to accommodate extreme topographical or other site-specific constraints, and input from property owners and responsible parties when determining the final and precise trail location.

LOVELAND TRAILS MASTER PLAN | APPENDICES

CALIFORNIA RIDING AND HIKING TRAIL

102

ALPINE COMMUNITY TRAILS AND PATHWAYS MASTER PLAN (2005)

The Alpine Community Trails and Pathways Plan identifies a need for 24 miles of community trails, based on the estimated population projections of 29,300 residents in 2020. Within the Loveland Reservoir study area, the plan’s Trails Index shows four existing and five proposed trails. The existing trails include a segment of the CRHT, as well as the North Loveland Reservoir Trail, Glens Trail, and Bell Bluff Trail. The plan refers to the CTMP for design and construction guidelines of all trails.

JAMUL-DULZURA COMMUNITY TRAILS AND PATHWAYS MASTER PLAN (2005)

The Jamul-Dulzura Community Trails and Pathways Master Plan identifies a need for 17 miles of community trails, based on the estimated population projections of 21,400 residents in 2020. Most existing and proposed trails in the plan exist outside of the Loveland Reservoir study area. However, one existing and two proposed trails fall within the Loveland Reservoir study area. The plan refers to the CTMP for design and construction guidelines of all trails.

LOVELAND TRAILS MASTER PLAN | APPENDICES

CREST-DEHESA COMMUNITY TRAILS AND PATHWAYS MASTER PLAN (2005)

103

The Crest-Dehesa Community Trails Master Plan identifies a need for 9 miles of trails, based on the estimated population projections of 11,110 residents in 2020. Within the Loveland Reservoir study area, the plan’s Trails Index shows one existing and three proposed trails. The existing trail is a segment of the CRHT. The plan lists several implementation strategies for acquiring trails, including using alternative funding sources, such as grants from organizations working to protect wildfire, open spaces, and public health, as well as soliciting easement dedications from private property owners. An implementation strategy for trail management includes the provision of a County-maintained management structure (enhanced by volunteers), as well as access and oversight from community planning groups/ advisory groups to maintain and comment on trails. The plan refers to the CTMP for design and construction guidelines of all trails.

COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO GENERAL PLAN (2011)

The San Diego County General Plan is a legally required regional document established to guide policy decisions regarding the development and growth of unincorporated areas within county boundaries. A theme of responsible environmental stewardship runs throughout the vision and guiding principles of the Plan, as a significant portion of the region is within MSCP Preserve Areas. Within the document, the ‘Conservation & Open Space’, ‘Land Use’, and ‘Mobility’ elements each touch upon aspects related to the provision and management of land, trails, and mobility within the Loveland Reservoir study area.

CONSERVATION & OPEN SPACE ELEMENT (2011)

The Conservation and Open Space Element of the General Plan establishes guidelines and general direction for the future growth and development in San Diego County (County) with specific emphasis on the conservation and management of natural resources, the protection and preservation of open space, and the provision of park and recreation services and resources. One goal of the Element relates to the interconnected nature of the open space preservation system. Collaboration with other jurisdictions and federal and state agencies to identify long-term funding sources and establish common management goals is encouraged. Additionally, the Element identifies the goal of providing public access to natural resources through effective planning, specifically aiming to enhance and restore the continuous network of connected natural habitats.

LAND USE ELEMENT (2011)

The Land Use Element of the General Plan serves as a detailed framework to guide land use development and planning in the County of San Diego. The Element covers a variety of land use designations and provides regulations as well as best practices. The Element also notes that the City of San Diego owns and operates seven reservoirs within the County, which County residents use for recreation. Additionally, the maintenance and enhancement of public infrastructure, such as roads, pathways, and trails, are identified as essential to community wellbeing.

The Mobility Element of the General Plan is used to guide the operation, maintenance, and management of transportation throughout the region. Non-motorized modes of transportation, including trail management, are included in this Element. For example, the Element identifies the purpose of the regional trail system as enhancing circulation while providing connections to recreation opportunities within parks, open space preserves, and other public lands. The Element encourages the implementation of a County Trails Program, utilizing goals and policies identified in the Community Trails Master Plan. Additionally, collaborative trail planning, acquisition, development, and management among other government, public, or semi-public agencies is encouraged, including obtaining easements, dedications, license agreements, or joint-use agreements in an effort to promote the expansion of trail opportunities.

trends in the unincorporated San Diego County region. Similar to a General Plan, this Community Plan contains several elements related to various aspects of urban planning and development. The plan identifies two regional trails within the community: the Trans-County Trail and the California Riding and Hiking Trail. Per the Plan’s trails map, proposed community trails are located on the northern and southern borders of the Loveland Reservoir study area. The plan establishes a goal to create an open space system that provides connectivity for the community and wildlife, specifically encouraging the preservation and conservation of open space corridors that connect the community to the Loveland Reservoir. Cross-jurisdictional partnerships are encouraged to expand recreational access to Alpine park and recreation services and facilities. Specifically, coordination with the Authority is recommended to encourage and maximize recreational activities at Loveland Reservoir, such as hiking and fishing.

COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO COMMUNITY PLANS

JAMUL/DULZURA SUBREGIONAL PLAN (2016)

San Diego County Community Plans serve the purpose of providing more specific guidance and direction for geographic areas within the larger County region. These Community Plans advance the implementation of County General Plan policies by providing more targeted recommendations and policies at the community level. The unincorporated communities of Alpine, Jamul-Dulzura, Crest/Dehesa/Harbison Canyon/Granite Hills border and/or overlap with the Loveland Reservoir study area. Future development within these communities is guided more specifically by these Community Plans. As a result, consultation with the community plans located in or adjacent to the Loveland Reservoir study area is essential to ensuring consistency with County plans and policies.

DRAFT ALPINE COMMUNITY PLAN (2020)

The draft Alpine Community Plan, initiated in 2017 and released in 2020, was developed to address the ongoing changes to population, climate, infrastructure needs, and other planning

The Jamul/Dulzura Subregional Plan, adopted as part of the San Diego County General Plan, identifies the Jamul/Dulzura Subregion as a 168-square-mile area located south of the Loveland Reservoir. This Subregional Plan identifies the Loveland Reservoir as being within a Resource Conservation Area, a designated region that County departments and associated agencies must give special environmental consideration to when analyzing projects and conservation actions.

CREST/DEHESA/HARBISON CANYON/GRANITE HILLS COMMUNITY PLAN (2015)

The Crest/Dehesa/Harbison Canyon/Granite Hills Community Plan encompasses roughly 33 square miles and is located to the south of Lakeside, west of Alpine, and north of Jamul. The Loveland Reservoir sits directly east of the region. This Plan also identifies the Loveland Reservoir area as part of a Resource Conservation Area. Within the Open Space & Conservation Element, coordination with the Authority is encouraged for the provision of trails, day-use facilities, and access to the lake for recreational uses at the Loveland Reservoir.

LOVELAND TRAILS MASTER PLAN | APPENDICES

MOBILITY ELEMENT (2018)

104

COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN (FY 2025-29)

LOVELAND TRAILS MASTER PLAN | APPENDICES

The San Diego County Capital Improvement Plan encompasses partially or fully funded public infrastructure projects to restore and/ or supplement aging infrastructure. Capital Improvement Projects are identified within the context of the County’s 5-year fiscal plan, and individual projects are updated on an annual basis. Of the projects listed in San Diego County’s Capital Improvement Plan (Fiscal Year 2025-29), only one is adjacent to the project study area. The partially-funded project, titled ‘Tavern Road Pathway’, is located on Tavern Road in the Alpine community, and is scoped to replace the eroded decomposed granite with a new decomposed granite pathway. Outside of this project, no other applicable projects are located in or around the study area boundary.

105

CLEVELAND NATIONAL FOREST LAND MANAGEMENT PLAN (2005)

The USFS developed the Cleveland National Forest Land Management Plan in 2005 to outline the strategic direction for managing the land and its resources through 2030. Small portions of the LRTMP study area along the north and southeast perimeter include the Cleveland National Forest (owned and managed by the USFS) and fall under the purview of the Land Management Plan. The Land Management Plan is organized into three parts. Part 1 outlines an overarching vision, strategic goals, and desired long-term conditions. Parts 2 and 3 contain, respectively, the strategic management direction and guidance for designing actions and activities to make progress toward the vision and desired conditions described in Part 1. Some of the strategic actions outlined in Part 1 align with the LTRMP, such as goals to provide outdoor recreation opportunities, facilitate public use, and protect natural resources. Parts 2 and 3 contain policies and design guidelines to help achieve the recreational and public access goals established in Part 1 while also balancing natural resource protection, wildfire management and prevention, public safety, and improvements to watershed and riparian conditions. When implementing recreational trails in the Cleveland National Forest, steps should be taken to maintain environmental sustainability and to avoid, minimize, or mitigate adverse impacts on threatened, endangered, proposed, candidate, or sensitive species and their habitats, as well as on soil, watershed, riparian, or heritage resources. Refer to Appendix D for Adaptive Mitigation for Recreation Uses. For any potential future trails identified in the LRTMP that extend into the Cleveland National Forest, the Authority should consult the Cleveland National Forest Land Management Plan and coordinate with the appropriate USFS staff.

APPENDIX B: SENSITIVE SPECIES WITH POTENTIAL TO OCCUR Table A lists the 67 sensitive plant and wildlife species with potential to occur within the study area based on a desktop analysis. Because the entire study area has not been surveyed, it may support additional species that have not been recorded. The absence of sensitive species data does not confirm absence and does not indicate that a species is not present. Table A: Sensitive Species with Potential to Occur in Study Area COMMON NAME

SCIENTIFIC NAME

STATUS

California Adder’s Tongue Cedros Island Oak Chaparral Nolina Dean’s Milk-vetch Delicate Clarkia Dunn’s Mariposa-lily Felt-Leaved Monardella Gander’s Ragwort Hammitt’s Clay-cress Lakeside Ceanothus Long-spined Spineflower Moreno Currant Munz’s Sage Nuttall’s Scrub Oak Orcutt’s Brodiaea Palmer’s Goldenbush Palmer’s Grapplinghook Parry’s Tetracoccus Ramona Horkelia Robinson’s Pepper-grass San Diego County Viguiera San Diego Goldenstar San Diego Milk-vetch San Diego Sagewort San Luis Obispo Sedge Southern Mountains Skullcap Spiny Rush Vanishing Wild Buckwheat Viejas Mountain Ceanothus Yucaipa Onion

Ophioglossum californicum Quercus cedrosensis Nolina cismontana Astragalus deanei Clarkia delicata Calochortus dunnii Monardella hypoleuca ssp. lanata Packera ganderi Sibaropsis hammittii Ceanothus cyaneus Chorizanthe polygonoides var. longispina Ribes canthariforme Salvia munzii Quercus dumosa Brodiaea orcuttii Ericameria palmeri var. palmeri Harpagonella palmeri Tetracoccus dioicus Horkelia truncata Lepidium virginicum var. robinsonii Bahiopsis laciniata Bloomeria clevelandii Astragalus oocarpus Artemisia palmeri Carex obispoensi Scutellaria bolanderi ssp. austromontana Juncus acutus Eriogonum evanidum Ceanothus foliosus var. viejasensis Allium marvinii

RP 4.2 RP 2B.2 RP 1B.2, USFS:S RP 1B.1, BLM:S, USFS:S RP 1B.2, BLM:S SR, 1B.2, BLM:S, USFS:S RP 1B.2, BLM:S, USFS:S CR, RP 1B.2, BLM:S, USFS:S RP 1B.2, USFS:S RP 1B.2, BLM:S, USFS:S RP 1B.2 RP 1B.3, BLM:S, USFS:S RP 2B.2 RP 1B.1, USFS:S RP 1B.1, BLM:S, USFS:S RP 1B.1, BLM:S RP 4.2 RP 1B.2, BLM:S, USFS:S RP 1B.3, USFS:S RP 4.3 RP 4.3 RP 1B.1, BLM:S RP 1B.2, BLM:S, USFS:S RP 4.2 RP 1B.2, BLM:S, USFS:S RP 1B.2, USFS:S RP 4.2 RP 1B.1, USFS:S RP 1B.2 RP 1B.2, USFS:S

LOVELAND TRAILS MASTER PLAN | APPENDICES

PLANTS

106

INVERTEBRATES

Crotch’s Bumble Bee Harbison’s Dun Skipper Hermes Copper Butterfly Monarch Butterfly Quino Checkerspot Butterfly Thorne’s Hairstreak

Bombus crotchii Euphyes vestris harbisoni Lycaena hermes Danaus plexippus plexippus Euphydryas editha quino Callophrys thornei

Anaxyrus californicus Rana aurora draytonii Phrynosoma blainvillii Salvadora hexalepis virgultea Aspidoscelis tigris Plestiodon skiltonianus interparietalis Aspidoscelis hyperythra Crotalus ruber Anniella stebbinsi Actinemys pallida Thamnophis hammondii Spea hammondii

FE, SSC SSC SSC SSC SSC WL WL SSC SSC FPT, SSC SSC FPT, SSC

Haliaeetus leucocephalus Polioptila californica californica Accipiter cooperii Eremophila alpestris actia Vireo bellii pusillus Lanius ludovicianus Amphispiza belli (Artemisiospiza belli) Aimophila ruficeps canescens

SE, FP, FD FT, SSC WL WL FE, SE SSC WL WL

Empidonax traillii extimus Setophaga petechia Icteria virens

FE, SE SSC SSC

Taxidea taxus Puma concolor Antrozous pallidus Nyctinomops femorosaccus Odocoileus hemionus fuliginatus Corynorhinus townsendii Eumops perotis californicus Lasiurus frantzii

SSC

FT FPT FE BLM:S

HERPS (REPTILES OR AMPHIBIANS)

Arroyo Toad California Red Legged Frog Coast Horned Lizard Coast Patch-nosed Snake Coastal Whiptail Coronado Skink Orange-throated Whiptail Red-Diamond Rattlesnake Southern California Legless Lizard Southwestern Pond Turtle Two-striped Garter Snake Western Spadefoot

LOVELAND TRAILS MASTER PLAN | APPENDICES

BIRDS

107

Bald Eagle Coastal California Gnatcatcher Cooper’s Hawk Horned Lark Least Bell’s Vireo Loggerhead Shrike Sage Sparrow (Bell’s Sparrow) Southern California RufousCrowned Sparrow Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Yellow Warbler Yellow-breasted Chat MAMMALS

American Badger Mountain Lion Pallid Bat Pocketed Free-Tailed Bat Southern Mule Deer Townsend’s Bigeared Bat Western Mastiff Bat Western Red Bat

SSC, S SSC SSC, S SSC SSC

Status Abbreviations: FE: Federally Endangered; FT: Federally Threatened, FPT: Federally Proposed for Threatened listing; FD: Federally Delisted, SE: State Endangered; ST: State Threatened; SR: State Rare; SC: State Candidate Species; FP: State Fully Protected; WL: Watch List; SSC: Species of Special Concern; BLM:S: Bureau of Land Management Sensitive Species; USFS:S: U.S. Forest Service Sensitive Species; CRPR: California Rare Plant Rank.

LOVELAND TRAILS MASTER PLAN | APPENDICES

Page intentionally left blank.

108

APPENDIX C: POTENTIAL FUTURE TRAIL PRIORITIZATION ANALYSIS Table B shows the potential future trail system ranked by priority based on a combination of opportunities and constraints for each trail. Table B: Trail Network Prioritization Analysis

TRAIL NAME

Parallel Access Trail Northwest Reservoir Access Trail Northeast Reservoir Access Trail Eastern Reservoir Access Trail Highwater Reservoir Crossing Bridge Loveland Lane Staging Area Loveland Overlook Staging Area Northern Reservoir Access Trail Southern Reservoir Access Trail Northern Overlook Trail Japatul Road Parkway Improvements Japatul Road Eastern Staging Area Glen Lonely Loop Trail Option 2 Reservoir Rd to Shoreline & Overlooks 22 down to Reservoir Rd

7 29 9 10 18 31 2 11 22 12 8 15 27 28

OVERLAPS ESTIMATED OPPORTUNITY WITH COST TO SCORE SENSITIVE IMPLEMENT RESOURCES

REQUIRES COORDINATION WITH OTHER PROPERTY OWNERS

ADDRESSES COMMUNITY INPUT

EXPANDS RECREATION ACCESS

BUILDS ON EXISTING NETWORK & EFFORTS

HAS POTENTIAL CONSTRAINT USE SCORE CONFLICT

-4

-1

-5

-4

-1

-5

-1

-6

-4

-8

-2

-5

-2

-7

-5

-2

-7

-3

-9

-1

-2

-3

-2

-8

-3

-1

-3

-2

-9

-2

-3

-7

-3

-6

-3

-1

-3

-7

TRAIL NAME

Alpine Heights Community Access Trail SDG&E Alignments to 5 Reservoir Access Trail SDG&E Alignments to 3 Reservoir Access Trail #1 SDG&E Alignments to 6 Reservoir Access Trail #3 Glen Lonely Loop Trail 14 Option 1 Sequan Truck Trail to Peak 26 Overlook 30 CRHT Alt SDG&E Alignments to 4 Reservoir Access Trail #2 W Boundary Truck Trail 16 Improvements Sequan Truck Trail 23 Improvements 25 Sweetwater River Bridge Glen Lonely Connector 13 Trail Monteil Truck Trail 17 Improvements Southern Overlook Trail 19B Alternative 20 Southern Connector Trail 19A Southern Overlook Trail 21 Western Overlook Trial 1

OVERLAPS ESTIMATED OPPORTUNITY WITH COST TO SCORE SENSITIVE IMPLEMENT RESOURCES

REQUIRES COORDINATION WITH OTHER PROPERTY OWNERS

ADDRESSES COMMUNITY INPUT

EXPANDS RECREATION ACCESS

BUILDS ON EXISTING NETWORK & EFFORTS

HAS POTENTIAL CONSTRAINT USE SCORE CONFLICT

-4

-3

-10

-3

-4

-10

-3

-4

-10

-3

-4

-10

-2

-5

-3

-10

-3

-1

-3

-7

-1

-2

-3

-9

-3

-1

-3

-4

-11

-1

-5

-1

-7

-1

-4

-3

-8

-5

-4

-9

-5

-15

-2

-1

-5

-1

-9

-5

-3

-13

0 0 2

1 1 0

0 4 0

1 5 2

-3 -5 -3

-5 -3 -5

0 -5 -4

-11 -18 -15

Please note: The prioritization results shown in Table B may be revised in the future to further incorporate environmental, safety, and operational considerations as primary evaluation criteria.

APPENDIX D: ANTICIPATED ENVIRONMENTAL SURVEYS & PERMITTING Table C displays the anticipated environmental habitat assessment, biological reports, species surveys, and permitting that may be necessary for each respective trail based on the findings of the existing conditions analysis presented in Chapter 2. Actual assessments, surveys, and permitting needed will vary and depend on which species are found and the permitting approach of relevant state and federal agencies. Please note that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (“Wildlife Agencies”) jointly submitted a comment letter expressing the concern that the LRTMP conflicts with existing and proposed regional conservation commitments, including those of the East County MSCP and the Authority’s NCCP/HCP. The Wildlife Agencies pointed out that the proposed network of 28 trails and three staging areas would likely bisect large, undisturbed habitat blocks, encroach upon highly protected lands, and overlay designated and proposed Preserve Areas. In addition, the Wildlife Agencies cautioned that physical construction and intensified recreational use—including bike and equestrian traffic—could cause native vegetation loss, soil erosion, wildlife displacement, and the spread of invasive species. To protect the ecological integrity of the 4,360-acre property, the Wildlife Agencies strongly urge the Sweetwater Authority to develop a single, reduced-trail alternative that avoids sensitive preserves, strictly justify or eliminate new staging areas, prove long-term enforcement capacity, and prohibits the use of e-bikes. The comment letter can be found on Appendix E.

Table C: Anticipated Environmental Assessments, Surveys, and Permitting TRAIL ID

TRAIL NAME

TRAIL LENGTH (MILES)

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTS HABITAT BIOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT REPORT

RARE PLANTS

SPECIES SURVEYS QCB

CBB

HCB

LBV CAGN ARTO WESP

WETLAND WATERS DELINEATION PERMITTING

1 Alpine Heights Community Access Trail 1.07 X X X X X X X 2 Northern Fishing Access Trail 1.14 X X X X X X X X 3 SDG&E Fishing Access Trail 0.28 X X X X X X 4 SDG&E Fishing Access Trail 0.44 X X X X X X 5 SDG&E Fishing Access Trail 0.71 X X X X X X 6 SDG&E Utility Access Road 0.25 X X X X X X 7 Northwest Fishing Access Trail 0.64 X X X X X X X X X X X 8 Japatul Road Eastern Staging Area 0.64 ac 9 Eastern Fishing Access Trail 1.04 X X X X X X X X 10 Highwater Fishing Access Bridge 0.09 X X X X X X 11 Southern Fishing Access Trail 2.18 X X X X X X X X X X 12 Japatul Road Parkway Improvements 1.93 X X X 13 Glen Lonely Connector Trail 4.55 X X X X X X X X X X 14 Glen Lonely Loop Trail Option 1 3.35 X X X X 15 Glen Lonely Loop Trail Option 2 0.98 X X X X 16 W Boundary Truck Trail Improvements 0.54 X X X 0.65 X X X X 17 Monteil Truck Trail Improvements 18 Lawson Valley Staging Area 0.57 ac X X 19A Southern Overlook Trail 4.50 X X X X X X X X 19B Southern Overlook Trail Alternative 4.86 X X X X X X X X 20 Southern Connector Trail 1.55 X X X X X 21 Western Overlook Trail 2.67 X X X X X X 22 Northern Overlook Trail 1.90 X X X X X X 23 Sequan Truck Trail Improvements 2.94 X X X X 24 Parallel Access Trail 0.05 X X X 0.11 X X X X X X X X 25 Sweetwater River Bridge 26 Sequan TT to Peak Overlook 0.60 X X X X X X 27 Reservoir Rd to New Fishing & Overlooks 1.58 X X X X X X 28 22 down to Reservoir Rd 1.84 X X X X X X 29 Northeast Fishing Access Trail 0.42 X X X X X X X 30 CRHT Alt 1.17 X X X X 31 Loveland Overlook Staging Area 0.09 ac X X Species Abbreviations: QCB: Quino Checkerspot Butterfly, CBB: Crotch’s Bumble Bee, HCB: Hermes Copper Butterfly, LBV: Least Bell’s vireo, CAGN: California Gnatcatcher, ARTO: Arroyo Toad, WESP: Western Spadefoot

APPENDIX E: COMMENT LETTERS & COMMUNITY INPUT COMMENT LETTERS

A draft version of the LRTMP was made available for community and agency review and input between May 18 and June 5, 2026. Appendix E contains all comment letters received during this period. Docusign Envelope ID: CD6E15E7-3F4C-8AAC-811E-ECDD09F5120E

In Reply Refer to: 2026-0093916-INFO-SD

June 2, 2026 Sent Electronically Israel Marquez Land and Environmental Manager Sweetwater Authority 100 Lakeview Avenue Spring Valley, California 91977 Subject:

Comments on the Draft Loveland Reservoir Trails Master Plan, San Diego County, California

LOVELAND TRAILS MASTER PLAN | APPENDICES

Dear Israel Marquez:

113

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (Department), hereafter the Wildlife Agencies, appreciate the opportunity to review and comment on the Draft 2026 Loveland Reservoir Trails Master Plan (LRTMP or Plan), prepared by KTUA in collaboration with the Sweetwater Authority (Authority). The draft LRTMP describes an extensive conceptual trail network of 28 potential future trails and three new staging areas across the 4,360-acre Loveland Reservoir property that would expand both the extent and level of recreational use on site. The Wildlife Agencies have concerns regarding the potential for an expanded trail network to impact sensitive biological resources and fragment large, intact habitat blocks that support regional conservation efforts in San Diego County. We provide the following comments to help the Authority minimize impacts to plant and wildlife resources from a trail system and associated expanded recreational activity in and around the Loveland Reservoir. The draft LRTMP identifies numerous potential trails extending throughout currently intact habitat that is currently subject to minimal human disturbance. The Plan also identifies new staging areas that would increase and possibly diversify trail use by adding bike and equestrian uses, thereby intensifying impacts from public access. Trail development and recreational use can adversely affect plant and wildlife resources through a variety of direct and indirect pathways. Physical trail construction removes native vegetation, disturbs soils, and accelerates erosion, delivering sediment and pollutants to adjacent streams and water bodies. Recreational traffic generates noise and human presence that can displace wildlife from core habitat areas, fragment movement corridors, and facilitate the spread of invasive plant species along disturbed trail margins. Elevated visitor use near streams and lakes can increase turbidity and directly disturb riparian vegetation that provides shade and wildlife refuge. Cumulatively, these impacts can reduce the ecological integrity of otherwise intact landscapes, particularly where trails penetrate large undisturbed habitat blocks or are sited in proximity to sensitive riparian and aquatic systems.

Israel Marquez (2026-0093916-INFO-SD)

The Potential Future Trail System shown in Figure 31 of the draft LRTMP depicts numerous new trails that would bisect large, undisturbed habitat blocks and cross riparian areas around the reservoir. Many of these lands are within regionally significant conservation designations. Multiple trails north and south of the reservoir directly overlay lands designated as Preserve Areas in the Sweetwater Authority's draft Natural Community Conservation Plan/Habitat Conservation Plan (NCCP/HCP). These lands are intended to ensure the long-term persistence of covered species and natural communities. The Loveland Reservoir lies immediately east of San Diego Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) Plan Core Area 8, a regionally significant Biological Core Area that supports landscape-level connectivity. Trails extending into adjacent intact habitat risk diminishing the ecological function of this core preserve complex. Habitats immediately south of the reservoir are classified as RMS-1 ("Highest Level of Ecological Protection") under the Draft East County MSCP, reflecting their exceptional conservation priority. RMS-1 areas are intended to be maintained with minimal disturbance. Introduction of multiple trails into these blocks would reduce core habitat area, generate edge effects, expand the potential for destructive off-trail use, and degrade wildlife movement and ecological function. The draft LRTMP does not identify an alternative that focuses on ecological integrity and consistency with the draft NCCP/HCP. As the Authority works to finalize the LRTMP, we strongly suggest prioritizing consideration of current and proposed conservation designations to adequately assess the potential impacts of proposed trail locations and recreational uses to regional conservation efforts. Specifically, the next plan iteration should identify a single reduced-trail alternative that eliminates new intrusions into NCCP/HCP Preserve Areas and minimizes impacts adjacent to MSCP Core Area 8 and within RMS-1 lands. Any new staging area should be justified based on demonstrated recreational need, distance from core habitat and riparian areas, avoidance of slope-sensitive terrain, and the ability to enforce controlled access. Staging areas that cannot meet these criteria should be eliminated from the Plan.

The Wildlife Agencies recognize and support Sweetwater Authority's interest in providing sustainable public access around Loveland Reservoir. As currently drafted, however, the draft LRTMP's conceptual trail network poses substantial risk to some of the region's most valuable Docusign Envelope ID: CD6E15E7-3F4C-8AAC-811E-ECDD09F5120E remaining intact habitat and directly conflicts with the Sweetwater Authority's own NCCP/HCP conservation commitments, the San Diego MSCP Core Area 8 framework, and the East County MSCP RMS-1 network. The Wildlife Agencies appreciate the opportunity to provide these comments and welcome the3 Israel Marquez (2026-0093916-INFO-SD) chance to collaborate on refining alternatives, reviewing biological constraints, and providing technical assistance as the Plan moves toward the next draft. If you have any questions, please contact Eric Porter1 of the Service or Heather Schmalbach2 of the Department. Sincerely,

SUSAN WYNN

Digitally signed by SUSAN WYNN Date: 2026.06.02 15:23:43 -07'00'

for Jonathan Snyder Acting Field Supervisor U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

Glen M. Lubcke Environmental Program Manager California Department of Fish and Wildlife

LOVELAND TRAILS MASTER PLAN | APPENDICES

The Authority should also consider its capacity to effectively enforce restrictions designed to limit impacts from expanded recreational use at Loveland Reservoir. Sufficient levels of trail maintenance and enforcement are crucial to minimizing the impacts of recreation on sensitive species and preserve areas. In addition, the Plan must consider the anticipated impacts to sensitive biological resources from each form of allowed recreation (e.g., hiking, biking, and equestrian) and assess the Authority's ability to minimize impacts from each. Although not proposed in the draft LRTMP, the Wildlife Agencies strongly advise that use of e-bikes should be prohibited on any trail alignments at Loveland Reservoir.

114

Cc: Subject: Date: Attachments:

Bendrick, Lizzy [Ext.] RE: Draft Loveland Reservoir Trails Master Plan - Public Comment Thursday, June 4, 2026 2:27:00 PM image001.png image002.png Draft LRTMP County DPR Comment Table_060326.pdf

Dear Mr. Marquez, The County of San Diego Department of Parks and Recreation (County DPR) sincerely thanks Sweetwater Authority (Authority) for the opportunity to review and comment on the Draft Loveland Reservoir Trails Master Plan (LRTMP). County DPR’s comments are attached for your consideration as you prepare the next version of the LRTMP. Generally, the comments focus on clarifying the intent of Community Trails Master Plan (CTMP) and County DPR’s role in the LRTMP effort as an invited participant in stakeholder meetings rather than a defined formal consultation or decision-making role in the project. We appreciate the Authority’s engagement with County DPR throughout the development of the plan. County DPR recognizes the thoughtful work that has gone into developing the Draft LRTMP and supports the inclusion of multi-use trail concepts that align with the spirit and goals of the CTMP. Please reach out to Lizzy.Bendrick@sdcounty.ca.gov or me if you have any questions. Respectfully, Shannon Quigley-Raymond (she/her) Land Use/Environmental Planner Resource Management Division Cell 619.694.6801

LOVELAND TRAILS MASTER PLAN | APPENDICES

www.sdparks.org

115

From: Marquez, Israel <imarquez@sweetwater.org> Sent: Monday, May 18, 2026 9:33 AM To: Environmental Programs <environmental@sweetwater.org> Subject: [External] Draft Loveland Reservoir Trails Master Plan - Public Comment Good morning,

The link below provides access to the initial draft of the Loveland Reservoir Trails Master Plan (LRTMP), prepared by KTUA in collaboration with Sweetwater Authority staff. The draft LRTMP is a planning‑level document intended to share early concepts and gather

County of San Diego Department of Parks and Recreation Comments on the Draft Loveland Reservoir Trails Master Plan

LRTMP

Page(s) Subsection(s) 10

Quote/Referenced Excerpt

Recreational Opportunities

Recreational Area closing times

Agency Meeting #1

“County staff shared that they have no issues with modifications to the previously proposed trails from the CTMP and will look to the LRTMP when evaluating future trail opportunities in the area.”

LRTMP

Agency Meeting #1

“The planning team used County staff input to inform later community engagement efforts, as well as the development of the potential future trail system.”

LRTMP

48, 5152

Recreational Context Table 2-5 and Figure 2-11

Sub header on P 48, paragraph on P 51 and Table and Map Title and Legend entries “Previously Planned”

LRTMP

Previously Proposed Trails

Paragraph under “Previously Proposed Trails” sub header

County of San Diego Department of Parks and Recreation Comments on the Draft Loveland Reservoir Trails Master Plan Document

Page(s) Subsection(s)

Quote/Referenced Excerpt

June 4, 2026 LRTMP

Appendix A Relevant Plans and Documents Appendix A Relevant Plans and Documents

Comment Stakeholders have noted to County DPR staff that the USFS land exchange and easement stipulate hours for the recreational area as sunrise to sunset. County DPR recommends briefly acknowledging this difference in the LRTMP to support public understanding and reduce potential confusion. For accuracy purposes, please consider modifying the text to say something such as: “County staff noted that the CTMP and the Community Trails and Pathways Plans identify general trail alignments as concepts and not fixed routes so modifications could be made within reason. County staff also clarified that it does not have authority over trail development on land owned by other agencies, and that any CTMP concept would require further planning before a conceptual alignment could be refined into a build-ready design.” To clarify the County’s role, please consider modifying the text to say something such as: “During the meeting, County staff expressed willingness to participate in future engagement led by the Authority and noted additional agencies such as California State Parks as important stakeholders.” Please refer to the CTMP as “proposed” rather than planned in these specific sections as it is in the rest of the document. Staff also suggest citing CA State Parks as a source since the CRHT was first planned by the State in the 1940’s. County staff suggest the following changes to this paragraph to clarify County DPR’s role and outcomes from discussion. “The CTMP proposed several new trails within the study area. These proposed trails represent conceptual general alignments desired by the community and require further evaluation of their feasibility. Many of the previously planned trail alignments, as shown in the CTMP, are unfeasible due to constraints related to land ownership, topography, access, and biological and water resources. After assessing trail feasibility, the planning team met with County staff to discuss if any previously proposed trails should be modified, replaced, or removed based on Comment opportunities and constraints identified in the existing conditions analysis. The planning team determined that the previously proposed trails labeled as A-21, A-29, A-39, and C-30 in Figure 2-11 should be removed or modified.”

Partnering with Public Agencies

“If there is substantial interest…the development of a… (MOU) between the Authority and interested partners, such as the County, may be considered.”

102

County of San Diego Community Trails Master Plan (2005)

“The CTMP is the implementing document for the trails program and contains adopted individual community trails and pathways plans.”

103

County of San Diego Community Trails Master Plan (2005)

“One outcome of the LRTMP is to assess the feasibility of previously proposed alignments…”

Though County staff are open to future collaboration opportunities, please consider removing the phrase “such as the County” or please consider including all agencies and landowners that could potentially be involved. Please consider revising this sentence to characterize the CTMP accurately, such as: “The CTMP is a conceptual document that guides and informs planning that supports implementation for the trails program and contains individual community trails and pathways plans.”

Consider deleting this sentence because this section describes the documents, rather than outcomes/next steps of the LRTMP.

LOVELAND TRAILS MASTER PLAN | APPENDICES

Document

116

Brett Gamble Mgr, Environmental Programs 8326 Century Park Court San Diego, CA 92123 (619) 540-2639 BGamble@sdge.com

June 5, 2026 Mr. Israel Marquez Land and Environmental Manager Sweetwater Authority 100 Lakeview Ave. Spring Valley, CA 91977 Subject: San Diego Gas & Electric Comments on the Draft Loveland Trails Master Plan Dear Mr. Marquez: San Diego Gas & Electric (“SDG&E”) appreciates the opportunity to provide comments on the Draft Loveland Trails Master Plan (the “Draft Document”).

LOVELAND TRAILS MASTER PLAN | APPENDICES

SDG&E provides the following comments to clarify and address public safety and operational considerations associated with the conversion of or the concurrent use of existing SDG&E access roads for public use as hiking trails.

117

In general, the use of SDG&E access roads and routes for public recreational activities poses concern to SDG&E for a variety of reasons: (1) the concurrent use of these roads and routes can present a safety concern to both SDG&E personnel and the public (these routes may be narrow roads/paths that are traversed by vehicles); (2) the use of these roads and routes for recreational purposes may interfere with SDG&E’s rights to fully utilize those roads and routes; and (3) the use of these roads and routes for public recreation may result in damage to those roads and routes or to other SDGE facilities or result in a delayed response if SDG&E is unable to quickly access its facilities due to the presence of recreational users. There is also the practical situation of who is responsible for maintaining and repairing these roads and routes if they are damaged or destroyed by recreational users. Lastly, regulatory approvals may be needed. Specific SDG&E comments to the Draft Document are as follows:

Page 2

Page 15 of the Draft Document The Draft Document references a community comment suggesting that SDG&E utility access roads could be used to provide additional recreational opportunities, including hiking access for individuals with disabilities. SDG&E respectfully clarifies that its access roads are not designed, constructed, or maintained for public recreational use. These roads serve a critical operational function, including providing access to infrastructure inspection, maintenance, and emergency response. Allowing public access to these facilities would introduce substantial public health and safety risks, including potential conflicts with heavy equipment, emergency operations, and energized electrical infrastructure. SDG&E access roads/routes may be narrow roads/paths that are traversed by vehicles. Accordingly, SDG&E does not support the use of its utility access roads for hiking or general public access. The Draft Document should be revised to remove or clarify any language suggesting that such use is appropriate or feasible. Page 41 Conservation and Land Management Plans (NCCP References) The Draft Document’s discussion of the SDG&E Natural Community Conservation Plan (“NCCP”) is no longer accurate. The SDG&E NCCP has been formally closed out; therefore, references to the NCCP throughout the document are outdated and not applicable. SDG&E currently operates under its approved Habitat Conservation Plan (“HCP”) Amendment for federally listed species and complies with applicable State laws and regulations for state-listed species. The Draft Document should be revised to remove references to NCCP Operational Protocols and replace them with accurate descriptions of the currently applicable regulatory framework to ensure consistency with existing environmental compliance obligations.

The Draft Document includes a statement regarding responsibility for impacts in the event that public access to SDG&E access roads is permitted. As written, the statement is unclear and may be interpreted to suggest that SDG&E would be responsible for environmental impacts, including impacts on protected species, resulting from thirdparty public use. As noted in the Draft Document, the use of these roads and routes for public recreation may result in damage to those roads and routes or to other SDGE facilities or result in a delayed response if SDGE is unable to quickly access its facilities due to the presence of recreational users.

LOVELAND TRAILS MASTER PLAN | APPENDICES

Page 42 – Clarification of Responsibility for Potential Impacts

118

Page 3

SDG&E requests clarification to ensure that the Draft Document does not improperly assign responsibility for impacts that may result from activities outside SDG&E’s control or authorized use. The language should be revised to accurately reflect applicable legal and operational responsibilities as well as who would be responsible for maintaining and repairing these roads and routes if they are damaged or destroyed. Page 61 – Trail and Staging Area Descriptions SDG&E concurs with the following statement in the Draft Document: “Due to safety and access concerns associated with the existing utility-only access road, this trail would be challenging to approve and is considered an unlikely candidate for implementation.” This statement appropriately reflects the operational and safety constraints associated with utility access roads. Pages 87–88 – Prioritized Trail System and Table 5-2 SDG&E recommends that the prioritization methodology presented in Table 5-2 be revised to incorporate safety and operational considerations as primary evaluation criteria. The safety of the public, as well as SDG&E personnel who rely on these access roads for essential maintenance, inspection, and emergency response activities, must be treated as a primary concern.

LOVELAND TRAILS MASTER PLAN | APPENDICES

Public use of SDG&E access roads is incompatible with their intended purpose and presents inherent safety risks. These considerations should be explicitly incorporated into the ranking framework.

119

Appendix C outlines the criteria used for prioritization; however, safety is not currently included as a distinct evaluation factor. This represents a significant omission. It is important to identify and address potential hazards and safety risks; safety should be incorporated as a primary criterion and given substantial weight in evaluating all proposed trail facilities. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on this Draft Document. SDG&E requests that these comments be incorporated into the final master plan. Further, SDG&E reserves the right to supplement these comments, particularly if proposed locations are modified. Page 4

We are available to discuss and to coordinate further to ensure the safety of the public and SDG&E’s personnel and facilities. Sincerely,

Brett Gamble Manager, Environmental Programs

State of California • Natural Resources Agency

Gavin Newsom, Governor

DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION P.O. Box 942896 • Sacramento, CA 94296-0001

Armando Quintero, Director

June 9, 2026 Israel Marquez Land and Environmental Manager 100 Lakeview Avenue Spring Valley, CA 91977

Comments submitted via email: environmental@sweetwater.org

Subject: Comments on the Initial Draft of the Loveland Reservoir Trails Master Plan Dear Mr. Marquez, The California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR), Statewide Trails Office, appreciates the opportunity to comment on the draft of the Loveland Reservoir Trails Master Plan (LRTMP). DPR has managerial oversight and holds titles to the easements for the California Riding and Hiking Trail (CRHT). As noted in the LRTMP, segments of the CRHT lie within the LRTMP study area. The Statewide Trails Office appreciates that the trail was referenced in the LRTMP, and that it was acknowledged that there is community support for this trail in the area. Continuing to provide access to this trail is a priority for the Statewide Trails Office. Following are the Statewide Trails Office comments on the draft Loveland Reservoir Trails Master Plan: From page 72:

The CRHT Alt would open 0.58 miles of Authority service road and provide a 0.59-mile, 6-foot-wide multi-use trail to replace a section of erosive and unmaintained CHRT. Two puncheon drainage crossings are anticipated. Approximately 59 percent of the trail would traverse slopes less than 50%, supporting full and reduced partial bench construction; 27 percent on slopes up to 90 percent, likely requiring retaining walls; and 14 percent on slopes greater than 90 percent, requiring retaining walls and potentially railings. The alignment would be within the Chamise Chaparral vegetation community and the eastern end would be within critical habitat Hermes copper butterfly. Comment: DPR understands that there are sections of the CRHT that may have erosion or may otherwise lie in areas that are not easily accessed or maintained. DPR is supportive of looking at options for adjusting the alignment of the CRHT, but as the

LOVELAND TRAILS MASTER PLAN | APPENDICES

Trail ID #30: CRHT ALT

120

holder of the easements, DPR must be a part of the conceptual and evaluation process in determining any new locations for the trail. Additionally, the Recommendations section of the document references many new trail opportunities that would connect with the CRHT in the study area. DPR encourages regional trail connectivity and looks forward to further conversations regarding these new opportunities. Thank you again for the opportunity to review and provide feedback on the draft Loveland Reservoir Trails Master Plan. DPR and the Statewide Trails Office look forward to future discussions and working cooperatively with the Sweetwater Authority on new projects developed from this plan. Sincerely,

LOVELAND TRAILS MASTER PLAN | APPENDICES

Noelle Breitenbach, Statewide Trails Manager Strategic Planning and Recreation Services Division California Department of Parks and Recreation

121

From: To: Subject: Date: Attachments:

Russell Walsh Marquez, Israel <<EXTERNAL>>Re: Draft Loveland Reservoir Trails Master Plan - Public Comment Monday, May 18, 2026 9:52:24 AM image001.png

WARNING - This email originated from UNTRUSTED SOURCE. Do not click any links and do not open attachments unless you can confirm the sender. PLEASE REPORT SUSPECTED PHISHING EMAILS by using the Phishing Alert Button

Dear Mr. Marquez, I am writing regarding Sweetwater Authority’s recent actions affecting public access and recreation at Loveland Reservoir, including changes to the fishing program and related facilities. Please explain how the recent actions and decisions of Sweetwater Authority have effectively terminated or appropriated the fishing program at Loveland Reservoir, and how the current trails program is connected to or used in place of the original Forest Service fishing easement. In addition, please provide an update on the progress of Senator Jones’ funded structural projects, such as the bridge at the bottom of the quarter‑mile trail from the parking lot, or any alternate public benefits that are being provided from those funds. Finally, I want to be clear that I am not a conspiracy theorist. Rather, I believe I have been harmed by an unethical, captured system that defaults against the public interest, including Loveland advocates like myself, Loveland recreational users, and environmental protections.

On Monday, May 18, 2026 at 09:32:54 AM PDT, Marquez, Israel <imarquez@sweetwater.org> wrote:

Good morning, The link below provides access to the initial draft of the Loveland Reservoir Trails Master Plan (LRTMP), prepared by KTUA in collaboration with Sweetwater Authority staff. The draft LRTMP is a planning‑level document intended to share early concepts and gather community input. It outlines a long‑term vision for safe, sustainable outdoor recreation around Loveland Reservoir and identifies a range of potential future trails and staging areas within a 4,360‑acre study area. https://www.sweetwater.org/364/Projects-under-Public-Review To ensure full transparency for all community members:

LOVELAND TRAILS MASTER PLAN | APPENDICES

Sincerely, Russell Walsh

122

From: To: Subject: Date: Attachments:

Karen W Marquez, Israel <<EXTERNAL>>Improvements at Loveland for $750K Grant Thursday, May 28, 2026 2:10:54 PM image.png

Hello Israel, I have reviewed the proposed projects to improve trails at Loveland, and I'm a bit disappointed to see two of the original projects eliminated (the alternate trail and the viewing platform). Because some of the promised projects have been eliminated due to environmental constraints, FOLR is advocating for installing a pedestrian gate at the East end of the parking lot. A vehicle gate already exists, and a pedestrian gate would cost very little. This would allow hikers and anglers with limited mobility access to the less strenuous graded power pole access road.

LOVELAND TRAILS MASTER PLAN | APPENDICES

This is already on the master trail plan, but it is a low-cost, high-benefit project that can be completed now with some of the grant funds already in Sweetwater Authority's hands.

123

Additionally, I hiked down to the water at Loveland with my Son recently and agree that handrails at the steps would be helpful. However, I think that handrails at each end of the steps are overkill, and a single rail in the middle would be sufficient and more cost-effective. The savings could help fund the pedestrian gate I suggested. Thanks for your consideration and I look forward to seeing you at the master trails meeting in June. Respectfully, Karen Wood for

From: To: Subject: Date: Attachments:

Libby Lucas Environmental Programs [Ext.] Draft Loveland Reservoir Trails Master Plan - Public Comment Friday, June 5, 2026 1:25:58 PM 20260605 Draft Loveland Reservoir Trails Master Plan - Libby Lucas Comments.docx 20260605 Draft Loveland Reservoir Trails Master Plan - Libby Lucas Comments.pdf image001.png

Dear Sweetwater Authority, The comments below are based on a time-limited cursory review of the draft LRTMP, with appreciation that much work, including community engagement, has gone into its preparation. The Sweetwater Authority’s (SWA) emphasis on your website and May 18 email below that the draft LRTMP does not approve or authorize any new trails or facilities, etc. is highly commendable, and is necessary to temper the recreating public’s future expectations. It also allows for full consideration of the following comments for possible revisions to the final LRTMP, or, at the very least, in any further consideration of future trails and recreation.

1. Under the first NCCP / HCP plans adopted in San Diego County in the mid-1990s, passive recreation was assumed to be conditionally compatible with conservation. Since then, advances in the study of the effects of recreational activities on wildlife behavior and health have shown that the majority of documented responses of wildlife species to recreation are negative. Please take the opportunity to avoid or minimize such negative effects by using the best available science in the field of recreation ecology to inform the finalization and implementation of the LRTMP and the SWA’s NCCP / HCP in preparation. 2. The draft LRTMP contains text regarding resource protection, namely avoiding damage to the terrain, plant species, avian species during breeding season, and selecting trail alignments that avoid impacts to species. The text includes nothing about the (a) ongoing indirect effects of recreationists on wildlife or (b) trail-related habitat fragmentation that can compromise protected areas’ ability to sustain sensitive species. Please add to the draft LRTMP text that acknowledges these issues, the need to account for them in future consideration of trails and recreation, and commits to monitoring recreationists’ effects on wildlife and adaptively managing for the negative effects as needed.

3. With respect to the potential for trail-related habitat fragmentation and its associated negative effects to wildlife, the potential future trails identified in the draft LRTMP include several loop trails. Loop trails can be particularly detrimental in this regard. As with all trails, their effects can penetrate into adjacent areas such that their ecological footprint of several hundred meters on either side of trails can encompass a substantial proportion of land; thus, the ecological footprint of loop trails can render some or all of the habitat they surround functionally unsuitable - habitat that wildlife may avoid.

a. Several of the potential future trails would create loops less than 1/8 mile across at their widest points (e.g., trails 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 29). For some of these, the draft LRTMP explains that they would be challenging to approve and are considered unlikely candidates for implementation due to safety and access concerns associated with the existing utility-only access road. Please add the biological constraints of loop trails to this explanation, particularly for those whose alignments are within the critical habitat of the Hermes copper and / or the Arroyo toad. b. The draft LRTMP notes that its trail prioritization analysis methodology and associated criteria may be adjusted based on future stakeholder or partner input, changing needs, emerging trends, or other factors, to guide decision-making (pdf page 90). The ecological footprint of any trail and in particular loop trails is a factor to consider in reprioritizing the trails.

4. The draft LRTMP states, that the SWA "has limited resources to manage, maintain, and operate outdoor recreation beyond what is currently allocated to the Recreation Area.… Any expanded trails or amenities identified in the LRTMP would require additional funding staffing in organizational resources.”

a. Please make sure that future cost calculations account for using the best available science to assess, avoid, minimize, and adaptively manage for trail- and recreation-related negative effects on wildlife, considering the information provided in these comments and the attached documents. b. Likewise for SWA’s future NCCP/HCP’s funding analysis for plan implementation. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the draft LRTMP. Just as the SWA’s planning team used input from the agency meeting on April 26, 2026, to revise the draft LRTMP (pdf page 21), please consider revising the draft LRTMP to incorporate acknowledgement of the issues addressed herein and the need for the SWA to account for them in any future planning of trails and recreation.

Libby Lucas Retired Staff Environmental Scientist, CDFW, NCCP Program

The two attached documents have the same content; the one in Word is provided in case one or more of the links in the pdf file does not work.

From: Marquez, Israel <imarquez@sweetwater.org> Sent: Monday, May 18, 2026 9:32 AM To: Environmental Programs <environmental@sweetwater.org> Subject: [EXTERNAL] Draft Loveland Reservoir Trails Master Plan - Public Comment

This email has been received from outside of DOI - Use caution before clicking on links, opening attachments, or responding. Good morning, The link below provides access to the initial draft of the Loveland Reservoir Trails Master Plan (LRTMP), prepared by KTUA in collaboration

LOVELAND TRAILS MASTER PLAN | APPENDICES

Please confirm your receipt of this email.

124

Draft Loveland Reservoir Trails Master Plan Analysis of operational (indirect) recreational effects on wildlife is necessary. June 5, 2026, from Libby Lucas This document provides supporting information for the comments in the related June 5, 2026, email.

Introduction Under the Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP), “passive” recreation is considered conditionally compatible with conservation. For this to be true, the biological compatibility of passive recreation must be considered on the basis of objective analyses - the actual impacts of recreation on wildlife must first be documented, recognized, disclosed, avoided, minimized, and mitigated like any other impact. 1 In the ~30 years since the adoption of the MSCP, the quantity and characteristics of recreational demand have increased and expanded beyond that anticipated under the MSCP. And, recreation ecology has burgeoned in the last 20 years. Studies in recreation ecology have shown that the majority of documented responses of wildlife species to recreation are negative (Steven et al. 2011; Larson et al. 2016; Hennings 2017; Patten and Burger 2018).

LOVELAND TRAILS MASTER PLAN | APPENDICES

The information here is about authorized trails and recreation on lands conserved primarily or solely (in some cases) to ensure the perpetuation of viable populations of sensitive species. In the case of the MSCP, the conserved lands and their resident biota are mitigation for the impacts of development and infrastructure. Often, a secondary purpose of these lands is to provide recreational opportunities to the public. Yet, authorized trails and recreation, even with sound planning in full consideration of the biological resources, are not free from the potential for negative effects on wildlife. Animals are blind to whether or not trails and recreation are authorized. 2

125

Which types of recreation are passive requires thought. Section IV.B.2. of San Diego County’s Framework Management Plan (FRMP) includes the following as passive recreation: hiking, scientific research, bird management plans, mountain biking, horseback riding, bird-watching, photography, sailing, sun bathing, fishing, and swimming. But, the FRMP does not define “passive.” From wildlife’s perspective, some types of recreation typically considered passive may not be depending on their: a. intensity; b. timing; c. duration; d. frequency; e. level (#s of humans); and f. locations relative to the sensitive species.

This is not to discount the recreation-related effects of unauthorized activities, but instead to emphasize that authorized activities can be just as or more impactful. The degree to which authorized or unauthorized trails and recreation cause negative indirect effects depends on many factors. The proliferation of unauthorized trails in San Diego County of course commands and warrants attention, but should not detract from properly planning, monitoring, and managing the authorized trails and recreational activities.

Information for Comments on the Sweetwater Authority’s Draft Loveland Reservoir Trails Master Plan - 6/5/2026

1 of 10

Recreation-related Effects on Wildlife Here, the term “recreation-related effects” encompasses the direct and indirect effects on wildlife (and plants to a lesser extent) from trails themselves and the recreational activities on them. Beyond the direct recreation-related effects of habitat loss and fragmentation from trails and wildlife injury or death from trampling by or collisions with recreationists, potential indirect recreation-related effects include several types of disturbance such as but not limited to: ➢ physiological effects on growth, immune system function, levels of stress hormones; ➢ changes to alert and flight distances; ➢ disruptions to breeding activities, movement patterns, foraging/hunting, predator prey dynamics due to diel shifts; and ➢ due to the above disturbances, survival of individual animals and persistence of wildlife populations and communities. The documented evidence of these disturbances to wildlife reveals the flaws in the prevalent assumption that recreation is generally compatible with biological conservation. This assumption usually rests on the expectations of (1) allowing only ecologically sound siting of recreational areas and ecologically acceptable types, levels, and timing of recreation, and (2) providing sufficient monitoring, management, and enforcement of recreation to ensure the perpetuation of viable populations of focal sensitive species. However, it is rare that these expectations are met. Information from the Recreation Ecology Literature

The following infromation pertains. Animal movement Read the article at Human disturbance causes widespread disruption of animal movement Doherty et al. 2021 and refer to the information at Movement Ecology Journal – search on "recreation" or variations thereof. Trail-related disturbance: fragmentation, edge effects, and expansion of the effect zone Refer to page 97 (3) in the article at A review of trail-related fragmentation etc in protected areas. Do studies on the recreation-related effects on common species inform us about sensitive species? Research on recreation-related effects on wildlife includes few species of conservation concern (Larson et al. 2016). However, sensitive species may experience greater levels of recreation-related disturbance than described for common species in the literature of recreation ecology. This is because many rare and isolated species are specialists, and they may be more sensitive to anthropogenic disturbance, including recreational activities, than common and widely distributed species (Bennett et al. 2013; Reilly et al. 2017). RecreationInformation for Comments on the Sweetwater Authority’s Draft Loveland Reservoir Trails Master Plan - 6/5/2026

2 of 10

LOVELAND TRAILS MASTER PLAN | APPENDICES

A prevalent conclusion in the recreation ecology literature is that causing animals to disrupt their daily activities can negatively affect them. This is especially true if the disruptions involve: expenditure of energy; interference with breeding, foraging, or resting; or causing wildlife to continually contract or expand their territories. The more the disruptions occur, the more negative the effects, and chronic disruptions can eventually lead to disruptions to wildlife communities and wildlife populations. Therefore, assertions sometimes made that impacts on the wildlife species are less than significant because they are “highly mobile animals” is inadequate with respect to recreation.

126

related declines of common species warrant attention because of their functional ecological importance local depletions of common species can have broad consequences within the food web (Säterberg et al. 2013; Baker et al. 2018; Reed et al. 2019; Larson et al. 2024). Recreation-related declines or disturbance in an important common prey species may affect the species in higher trophic levels (Reed et al. 2019). More than a quarter of species become functionally extinct before losing 30% of their individuals (Säterberg et al. 2013; Baker et al. 2018; Reed et al. 2019; Larson et al. 2024). Disruptions to any species within a wildlife community can reverberate throughout the community, as well illustrated under the heading Responses to human voice below.

LOVELAND TRAILS MASTER PLAN | APPENDICES

Study done in 14 NCCP/HCP preserves in San Diego County - 1 In a study to systematically assess recreationists’ direct and indirect effects on sensitive wildlife species in 14 NCCP/HCP protected areas in San Diego County, Reed et al. (2019) integrated monitoring of both wildlife species and recreationists (e.g., hikers, mountain biker, horseback riders). Using data from camera traps and BACI experiment, Reed et al. found that bobcat, gray fox, mule deer, and northern raccoon were less active in areas with higher levels of human recreation.

127

Bobcat habitat use was more strongly negatively associated with human recreation than urban development, which also decreased the probability of habitat use. The collective results for mule deer among the four studies suggest that mule deer may stop using some areas altogether if human recreation is too high. Reed et al. (2019) did not detect negative associations between human recreation and the habitat use or relative activity of the six following mammalian species of the 12 observed: coyote, striped skunk, ground squirrel, jackrabbit, brush rabbit and desert cottontail. However, of special note are results from the protected area with the highest level of recreation (i.e., an average of 1,797 people per day) observed in the study, where the cameras captured only rabbits, and no other mid-to large-bodied wildlife species during 7.5 weeks of monitoring. Yet, this 2,449-ha protected area [Mission Trails Regional Park] is considered a core biological area and regional wildlife corridor targeted for conservation (City of San Diego 2019). The BACI experiment conducted in another protected area showed a significant decrease in bobcat detection probability in a four-week period following a trail re-opening, suggesting that this species can modify its behavior (e.g., shift its activity patterns) rapidly after a change in human recreation. This is evidence that temporal closures have the potential to reduce disturbance during critical periods for some species. Although human recreation may not often extirpate mammalian species from urban habitat fragments, it can reduce habitat suitability and carrying capacity (Reed et al. 2019). The authors also found that recreation was associated with declines in reptilian species’ richness, occupancy, habitat use, and relative activity in the NCCP/HCP protected areas. Of the three species (all lizards) for which statistical analyses were feasible, two exhibited negative relationships between occupancy and human recreation—the orangethroated whiptail (an MSCP covered species) and common side-blotched lizard. The authors concluded that, “Ultimately, for animals that avoid human activity, it is unlikely that dual-use protected areas will be entirely sufficient, and limiting recreation in strategic locations and circumstances will be necessary to achieve conservation objectives.” Two of the authors, Reed and Larson, provide further insights in grey literature at Don’t hike so close to me: How the presence of humans can disturb wildlife up to half a mile away 2021. For more information about this study, refer to https://sdmmp.com/view_project.php?sdid=SDID_201612021615.115.

Information for Comments on the Sweetwater Authority’s Draft Loveland Reservoir Trails Master Plan - 6/5/2026

3 of 10

Study done in 14 NCCP/HCP preserves in San Diego County - 2 : Reptiles Refer to the 2024 article titled Reptile responses to outdoor recreation in urban habitat fragments at https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1pxEb3iOAj-b12A3fu3I3LxLKchpk9nNJ?usp=sharing.

Study done in NCCP/HCP preserves in Orange County In series of three studies about the responses of mammals to hikers and runners, bikers, horseback riders, dog walkers, and motorized vehicles, George and Crooks (2006), Patten et al. (2017), and Patten and Burger (2018) analyzed camera-trap data captured throughout areas protected under the 1995 County of Orange Central and Coastal NCCP/HCP (Orange County NCCP/HCP). All studies analyzed bobcat, coyote, and mule deer, and Patten et al.’s (2017) analysis also considered mountain lion, gray fox striped skunk and northern raccoon. The authors found that: (1) mammal detections were negatively correlated with all types of recreationists; hikers and runners had the greatest negative association with wildlife, and equestrians had the least; (2) the overall trend is sharply negative: as human activity increased, mammalian activity decreased, regardless of species, type of human activity, or camera placement; (3) mammals were nearly four times as likely to be detected on days with no human activity than on days with human activity at the same site; (4) detections of mammals decreased incrementally as the number of humans increased within a day, and fell to near zero probability at >60 humans per day; and (5) all seven species listed above exhibited short-term spatial displacement in response to events with more than 100 visitors.

Despite these studies’ results, no evidence was found suggesting mammalian populations have declined in the Orange County NCCP/HCP protected areas between 2007 and 2016, even as human activity increased markedly across the study period. However, it is important to consider this observation in light of: (1) the fact that, at least for the years 2007-2011, public access was controlled across most of the study area by permit-only entry, regular docent-led programs, and monthly self-guided wilderness access days - much stronger restrictions on public access than for most protected areas; (2) the authors’ assertion that various mammalian species’ avoidance behavior may yet drive mammalian populations downward upon further increase in human disturbance; and (3) the status of the Vail Colorado elk herd as recounted below under Ungulates - once a herd of 1,000 head diminished to 53 due to steadily increasing levels of recreation. Eagles In a study along the Boise River in Idaho examining flight initiation distances of bald eagles in response to actual and simulated walkers, joggers, anglers, bikers, and vehicles, found that the highest frequency of eagle flushing was associated with walkers, followed by anglers, bikers, joggers, and vehicles Spahr (1990). Eagles were most likely to flush when recreationists approached slowly or stopped to observe them, and Information for Comments on the Sweetwater Authority’s Draft Loveland Reservoir Trails Master Plan - 6/5/2026

4 of 10

LOVELAND TRAILS MASTER PLAN | APPENDICES

Bobcats’ negative associations were strongest with bikers, hikers, and domestic dogs. In areas of higher human activity, bobcat were detected less frequently along trails and appeared to show temporal displacement, becoming more nocturnal. Coyotes’ overall activity was lower at the sites with the most recreation and was negatively associated with overall human, hiker, and biker visitations; and, a trend of temporal displacement in response to dogs was also evident. Generally, both bobcats and coyotes displayed a relatively wide range of activity levels at sites with low human use, but a lower and markedly restricted range of activity at those sites with the highest levels of recreation. Both coyotes and mule deer shifted their activities temporally over the long term. The mule deer’s (a primary consumer) marked shift brought it into closer temporal alignment with its main predator (mountain lion) and the coyote’s marked shift (secondary consumer) brought it into closer temporal alignment with a chief prey species (gray fox). These humaninduced diel shifts involving animals in two trophic levels have important ramifications for predator–prey dynamics.

128

were less alarmed when bikers or vehicles passed quickly at constant speeds. However, the longest flight initiation distance was in response to bikers, followed by vehicles, walkers, anglers, and joggers. Hennings’ (2017) literature review provides the following about bald eagles: pedestrians within 275 m caused a 79% eagle response rate; eagles did not resume eating for four hours after disturbance by walkers; a suggested minimum 600-m buffer around breeding eagles, beyond which response frequency dropped below 30%; an apparent threshold of about 20 daily recreational events after which eagles were slow to resume feeding, and after 40 events, feeding was uncommon; sub-adults were less tolerant of disturbance than adult eagles; and recreation-related long-term effects can include reductions in survival, particularly during winter and especially for juveniles. With respect to the tolerance (through habitat imprinting, genetic inheritance, or habituation) of golden eagle for recreational disturbance, Pauli et al. (2017) used an individual-based model to assess the effects of walkers and off-highway vehicles on golden eagle populations. The primary modeling results indicated that, while golden eagles can develop tolerance for recreational disturbance, tolerance for even moderate levels of disturbance may not develop within a population at a sufficient rate to offset the effects of increased recreation on breeding golden eagles, particularly because this is a long-lived species with low recruitment. Pauli et al. (2017) conclude that, taken together, the simulation results suggest that recreation-related disturbance has a substantial effect on golden eagle populations and that increased recreation activity will exacerbate such effects. Given the results and the fact that non-motorized recreation decreases the probability of egg-laying in golden eagles (Spaul and Heath 2016), the authors asserted that trail management and a reduction in recreation activity within eagle territories are necessary to maintain golden eagle populations in locations where levels of recreation are increasing. Reptiles

LOVELAND TRAILS MASTER PLAN | APPENDICES

Refer to the 2024 article titled Reptile responses to outdoor recreation in urban habitat fragments at https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1pxEb3iOAj-b12A3fu3I3LxLKchpk9nNJ?usp=sharing.

129

Responses of the common wall lizard to tourism In a study of common wall lizards conducted in areas with high and low levels of tourism within the same habitat in the Guadarrama Mountains in central Spain, Amo et al. (2006) examined whether the lizards differed in several parameters upon each human approach. The authors found that: (1) regardless of the level of tourism, lizards usually exhibited anti-predator behavior by fleeing to hide in refuges upon approach of a human; (2) in comparison to lizards inhabiting areas of low tourism pressure, lizards inhabiting areas with high tourism pressure, and therefore presumably escaping to hide in refuges more often, showed a poorer body condition and higher intensity of tick infection at the end of the breeding period; and (3) the intensity of tick infection was higher in male than in female lizards. The authors speculated that the higher intensity of infection probably resulted from the cumulative costs of high frequency of flight, since antipredatory behaviors such as flight are costly in terms of losing time for other activities, including feeding nutritional status can affect the capacity. Butterflies In a study of the effects of walkers, runners, and runners with dogs on the federally endangered Karner blue butterfly (Karners) at the Indiana Dunes National Lakeshore, Bennett et al. (2013) found that (1) Karners flushed in the presence of recreationists as they would respond to natural agents, such as predators; (2) recreation restricted host-plant choice by reducing host-plant availability, effectively rendering the quality of habitat within 10 m of the trail unsuitable; (3) recreation had the potential to reduce oviposition rate of Information for Comments on the Sweetwater Authority’s Draft Loveland Reservoir Trails Master Plan - 6/5/2026

5 of 10

virtual females by 50%, and therefore population growth rates; (4) the frequency at which recreationists negatively affected the females (including their oviposition) varied substantially with habitat extent, number of recreationists, and sensitivity; and (5) habitat extent was the primary predictor variable. The authors concluded that Karners will experience less recreation-related disturbance the farther their habitat extends beyond trails. Mammalian Carnivores’ Responses to the human voice Suraci et al. (2019) tested whether mammalian carnivores’ responses to human voices alone can result in landscape-scale effects across wildlife communities, including cascading effects on the behavior of lower trophic level animals. The results of the study, which was conducted in the Santa Cruz Mountains of central California, indicate that human voice alone does result in such effects. Where humans are absent or rare, large and medium-sized carnivores exhibit greater movement, activity, and foraging, while small mammals use less space and forage less. Where humans are present, the activity, foraging, and/or habitat use of large and medium-sized carnivores are suppressed, while small mammals increase their total space use and foraging intensity.

Ungulates This information is provided because mule deer occur on the Preserve; the eastern border of the Preserve is remote, prime historical bedding and breeding deer habitat. Unfortunately, corridor constraints from SR-67, Scripps Poway Parkway, and internal Sycamore Park Drive are already detrimental to wildlife movement (San Diego Tracking Team wildlife surveys 2003-2023). The account below provides insights about the effects to elk from chronic exposure to humans recreating. In a two-year study of an elk herd near Vail in central Colorado, Shively et al. (2005) found that elk reproductive success rebounded to pre-disturbance levels after the cessation of their exposure to backcountry hikers during the calving season over the previous three years. The study provides evidence that elk reproduction can rebound from depressed levels when human disturbances are removed or reduced. However, there had been a linear decline in calf production in response to increasing levels of disturbance compared to controls without such disturbance; and, it is not known if there is a threshold level of reproductive depression from which elk cannot recover. Recognizing that it is seldom easy to curb human activities that have become traditional, or to restore wildlife habitats once they have been developed, Shively et al. concluded that, it seemed prudent to protect elk during calving seasons, and they recommended the continuation of some closures imposed on parts of both the Vail and control elk herd study areas. However, it was reported in 2019 that the number of elk in this same Vail herd dropped precipitously since the early 2010s with the steady increase in human recreation; once a herd of 1,000 head Information for Comments on the Sweetwater Authority’s Draft Loveland Reservoir Trails Master Plan - 6/5/2026

6 of 10

LOVELAND TRAILS MASTER PLAN | APPENDICES

The implications of these results are far-reaching, and include that, even in the absence of land development or habitat fragmentation, increased human presence can: (1) affect large carnivore movement, which could eventually limit carnivores’ hunting and feeding behavior or force individuals to abandon high risk areas of their home range; (2) suppress activity of medium-sized carnivorous species; and (3) increase the abundance of small mammals that are prey to the large- and medium-sized predators, which could ultimately increase the abundance of small mammals in wildlife areas people visit (Suraci et al. 2019, citing other authors). Moreover, if the sublethal effects observed in the study in response to human voices alone are comparable to those effects (e.g., increased physiological stress, reduced reproductive success) that fear has been demonstrated to cause in predator-prey systems, they may amount to additional widespread but largely unmeasured effects of humans on wildlife populations (Suraci et al. 2019, citing other authors). Hennings (2017) provides additional insights about and citations for studies on the effects on wildlife from the human voice, concluding that conversational noise along trails can be very disturbing to wildlife.

130

of elk, it had decreased to 53 at last count in February of 2019. A 2019 article in the grey literature explains that, for one of the authors of the 2005 study, there is no explanation other than the increased levels of hiking, biking, and skiing in the area that supports this elk herd (Peterson 2019). This outcome adds to the already ample evidence that pregnant animals or those with young - especially mammals - are particularly sensitive to human disturbance (Hennings 2017).

For more studies in the recreation ecology literature, please use the following links. There may be some duplication of information at linked webpages. ➢ https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1pxEb3iOAj-b12A3fu3I3LxLKchpk9nNJ?usp=sharing ➢ https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1_rGvYIFDdLTRVefTm2_QcoolHrIAgfte?usp=sharing

➢ the literature cited section of the article at Recreation-related disturbance to wildlife - better planning for & management of recreation are vital to conservation in protected areas; ➢ Hiking, mountain biking and equestrian use in natural areas: A recreation ecology literature review 2017 ➢ SDMMP’s website at the following hyperlinks (can be slow to load). https://sdmmp.com/upload/threats/threats_background/MSP%20Vol2B%20HumanUse%202017_1494454044.pdf https://sdmmp.com/view_project.php?sdid=SDID_201612021615.115#files-documents-tab https://sdmmp.com/view_threat.php?threatid=TID_20160304_1452#overview-tab https://sdmmp.com/tracker.php?Target=threat&Species=TID_20160304_1452&ActionStatus=&ManagementUnit= &ObjectiveType=&Year=&Preserve=&Short=Long&submit=Submit

LOVELAND TRAILS MASTER PLAN | APPENDICES

Examples of Monitoring of and Mitigation Measures / Management for Negative Recreational Effects on Wildlife

131

1. Because the draft LRTMP doesn’t acknowledge potential ongoing recreation-related effects on

wildlife, it also lacks measures to address them. In recreation ecology, monitoring for baseline conditions is best done prior to the onset of trail use. The SWA should apply this approach to all proposed new trails on its intended MSCP preserve land. In order to adaptively manage authorized trail use to ensure the preserve’s ability to support viable populations of the sensitive species occupying it, the SWA should collaborate with biologists (whether in an advisory capacity or otherwise) who have done work in recreation ecology to do the following. A.

Establish: a. thresholds for the initiation of trail closures (see NOTE 1), and b. protocols for action should the thresholds be exceeded.

Information for Comments on the Sweetwater Authority’s Draft Loveland Reservoir Trails Master Plan - 6/5/2026

7 of 10

Prepare: a. a strategy to monitor the trail use to assess the effects of recreation on the wildlife (see NOTES 2 and 3); b. methodology(ies) to analyze the data collected from the studies; and c. a plan for the iterative adaptive management to be done in response to the data analyses, and consistent with the thresholds and protocols developed in #1 (see NOTE 4).

Conduct the monitoring, analyses, and iterative adaptive management as described in B.

Formally integrate the above actions the SWA’s monitoring plan(s) for the trails and recreation.

NOTE 1 For insights on thresholds, refer to the articles at the following hyperlinks.

Recreation effects on wildlife: a review of potential quantitative thresholds 2021 Reserves as double-edged sword: Avoidance behavior in an urban-adjacent wildland 2018 Effects of Human Use of NCCP Reserves on Reptile and Mammal Species in San Diego 2019 A meta-analysis of recreation effects on vertebrate species richness and abundance 2019 3

The dilemma presented in the last paragraph of this article is real, and planning for recreational access should be at the regional level for the reasons given. But, the reality is that it is too late for this in San Diego County and the great demand for recreation is ever growing and further complicates the matter.

In recreation ecology, before-and-after-control-impact (BACI) methodology (typically using camera trap data) is often used to assess recreation-related effects. Managing recreation adaptively in response to the monitoring results is the cornerstone of large-scale multi-species conservation (CDFW 2014). BACI studies provide information on wildlife habitat use and relative activity. Per Reed et al. (2019), “The relative [wildlife] activity results can be used to assess the level of recreation that is associated with unacceptable declines in mammal activity rates;” they therefore can be useful in (a) determining if thresholds based on relative activity (as an indicator of habitat suitability) are exceeded and, (b) assuming visitation rates are simultaneously monitored, if the thresholds have been exceeded. Other monitoring methodologies may warrant consideration, as long as they provide the data necessary for the needed purpose. Great care must be taken in assigning thresholds based on relative wildlife activity monitoring results.

Information for Comments on the Sweetwater Authority’s Draft Loveland Reservoir Trails Master Plan - 6/5/2026

8 of 10

LOVELAND TRAILS MASTER PLAN | APPENDICES

NOTE 2 The monitored trails should be: o the proposed new trails - they should be monitored for at least a year prior to opening to the public and any illegal use should be quickly stopped; o any unauthorized trails proposed to be formalized - their closure prior to onset of formalization must be enforced and last at least 1 year from the onset of monitoring; and o any other trails deemed suitable for the monitoring strategy NOTE 3 Consider BACI studies and other methodologies the collaborating biologists utilize. 4 NOTE 4 Effective iterative adaptive management requires timely responses to negative trends to prevent population-level effects that are unrecoverable. Wildlife activity patterns should be assessed annually for inferred population and activity trajectories, and trends should be reviewed more thoroughly on a 3-5 year basis, with consideration of larger regional patterns (Burger 2012). Baseline survey data need to be sufficiently robust, intended to assess the effects of recreation.

132

2. Any species-specific mitigation must address both the grading and clearing etc. for new trails, and

the ongoing recreational effects. If the species already occurs within what will be the recreational effect zone of the future trails, the mitigation should minimally include measures to avoid disruption of the breeding behaviors.

3. Hermes copper butterfly. Recreation can disturb butterfly behavior in ways that negatively affect their daily activities and reproduction (Bennett et al. 2013 - see information above). Therefore, please require measures to avoid / minimize impacts to this species during building / modifying trails, maintaining trails, and during ongoing recreation during the butterfly’s egg-laying period, unless it is determined prior to each flight season that no Hermes are present.

Conclusion

Decisions now about: if and where to site trails on the SWA’s future MSCP preserve lands; what types, levels, and timing (diel, seasonal) of recreation are acceptable; and how to manage the recreation should be based on the current science in the field of recreation ecology because what may have been considered in the 1990s as conditionally compatible with conservation is likely to warrant more constraints/limitations than we thought back then.

LOVELAND TRAILS MASTER PLAN | APPENDICES

Literature Cited

133

Amo, L., P. López, and J. Martín, J. 2006. Nature-based tourism as a form of predation risk affects body condition and health state of Podarcis muralis lizards. Biological Conservation 131:402–409. Baker, D. J., S. T. Garnett, J. O’Connor, G. Ehmke, R. H. Clarke, J. C. G. Woinarski, and M. A. McGeoch. 2018. Conserving the abundance of nonthreatened species. Conservation Biology 33:319–328. Bennett V. J., V. S. Quinn, and P. A. Zollner. 2013. Exploring the implications of recreational disturbance on an endangered butterfly using a novel modelling approach. Biodiversity and Conservation 22:1783– 1798. Burger, J. C. 2012. An efficient monitoring framework and methodologies for adaptively managing human access on NCCP lands and other reserves in southern California. Final report to California Department of Fish and Wildlife for LAG #PO982014. California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2014. Incorporation of Adaptive Management into Conservation Planning and Resource Management. Available from: https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=86989&inline City of San Diego. 2019. Natural Resources Management Plan for Mission Trails Regional Park, San Diego, California. Prepared by RECON Environmental, Inc., San Diego, CA, USA. George, S. L., and K. R. Crooks. 2006. Recreation and large mammal activity in an urban nature reserve. Biological Conservation 133:107–117. Hennings, L. 2017. Hiking, mountain biking and equestrian use in natural areas: a recreation ecology literature review. Metro Parks and Nature, Portland, OR, USA. Larson, C. L., S. E. Reed, A. M. Merenlender, and K. R. Crooks. 2016. Effects of recreation on animals revealed as widespread through a global systematic review. PLoS ONE 11(12):e0167259. Larson, C. L., S. E. Reed, A. M. Merenlender, and K. R. Crooks. 2024. Reptile responses to outdoor recreation in urban habitat fragments. Urban Ecosystems 27:453–468. Monz, C. A., C. M. Pickering, and W. L. Hadwen. 2013. Recent advances in recreation ecology and the implications of different relationships between recreation use and ecological impacts. Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment 11:441–46. Information for Comments on the Sweetwater Authority’s Draft Loveland Reservoir Trails Master Plan - 6/5/2026

9 of 10

Information for Comments on the Sweetwater Authority’s Draft Loveland Reservoir Trails Master Plan - 6/5/2026

10 of 10

LOVELAND TRAILS MASTER PLAN | APPENDICES

Patten, M., and J. Burger. 2018. Reserves as double-edged sword: avoidance behavior in an urban-adjacent wildland. Biological Conservation 18:233–239. Patten, M., J. Burger, and M. Mitrovich. 2017. Assessing Effectiveness of Adaptive Recreation Management Strategies and Evaluation of Core NCCP/HCP Habitat Areas. Final Report for California Department of Fish and Wildlife Local Assistance Grant #P1482109. Pauli, B. P., R. J. Spaul, and J. A. Heath. 2017. Forecasting disturbance effects on wildlife: tolerance does not mitigate effects of increased recreation on wildlands. Animal Conservation 20:251–260. Peterson, C. 2019. Americans’ love of hiking has driven elk to the brink, scientists say. The Guardian. August 25. Available from: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2019/aug/25/hiking-elk-driven-to-brink-colorado-vail Reed, S. E., C. L. Larson, and K. R. Crooks. 2019. Effects of Human Use of NCCP Reserves on Reptile and Mammal Species in San Diego. Wildlife Conservation Society Agreement No/LAG #: P1582100. Säterberg, T., S. Sellman, and B. Ebenman. 2013. High frequency of functional extinctions in ecological networks. Nature 499:468–470. Shively, K. J., A. W. Alldredge, and G. E. Phillips. 2005. Elk reproductive response to removal of calving season disturbance by humans. Journal of Wildlife Management 69:1073–1080. Spahr, R. 1990. Factors affecting the distribution of bald eagles and effects of human activity on bald eagles wintering along the Boise River. Thesis, Boise State University, ID, USA. Spaul, R. J., and Heath, J. A. 2016. Non-motorized and motorized recreation in shrub- steppe habitats affects the breeding behavior and reproductive outcome of a protected species. Ecology and Evolution 6:8037–8049. Steven, R., C. Pickering, and J. G. Castley. 2011. A review of the impacts of nature-based recreation on birds. Journal of Environmental Management 92:2287–2294. Suraci, J. P., M. Clinchy, L. Y. Zanette, and C. W. Wilmers. 2019. Fear of humans as apex predators has landscape-scale impacts from mountain lions to mice. Ecology Letters 22:1578–1586.

134

COMMUNITY MEETING #2: TRAIL RANKING RESULTS

The Authority hosted a final community meeting on June 16th, 2026, at the Alpine Woman’s Club to provide the public with an update on the LRTMP and present the potential future trail network. Attendees asked questions about the LRTMP and used stickers to vote for the three potential trails most important to them. Results (ranked by number of votes received) are shown in Table D. Trail ranking exhibit from Community Meeting #2 Table D: Trail Ranking Results from Community Meeting #2

LOVELAND TRAILS MASTER PLAN | APPENDICES

TRAIL ID

135

21 22 4 11 26 28 29 0 2 8 9 10 13 19B 25 1 3 5 6 7 12 14 15 16 17 18 19A 20 23 24 27 30 31

TRAIL NAME

Western Overlook Trail Northern Overlook Trail SDG&E Alignments to Reservoir Access Trail Opt 2 Southern Reservoir Access Trail Sequan Truck Trail to Peak Overlook 22 down to Reservoir Rd Northeast Reservoir Access Trail Current Trail Improvement Project Northern Reservoir Access Trail Japatul Road Eastern Staging Area Eastern Reservoir Access Trail Highwater Reservoir Crossing Bridge Glen Lonely Connector Trail Southern Overlook Trail Sweetwater River Bridge Alpine Heights Community Access Trail SDG&E Alignments to Reservoir Access Trail Opt 1 SDG&E Alignments to Reservoir Access Trail SDG&E Alignments to Reservoir Access Trail Opt 3 Northwest Reservoir Access Trail Japatul Road Parkway Improvements Glen Lonely Loop Trail Option 1 Glen Lonely Loop Trail Option 2 W Boundary Truck Trail Improvements Monteil Truck Trail Improvements Lawson Valley Staging Area Southern Overlook Trail Southern Connector Trail Sequan Truck Trail Improvements Parallel Access Trail Reservoir Rd to Shoreline & Overlooks CRHT Alt Loveland Overlook Staging Area

NUMBER OF VOTES

5 4 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

LOVELAND TRAILS MASTER PLAN | APPENDICES

Page intentionally left blank.

136