HomeMy WebLinkAboutMSHCP Consistency Analysis, Habitat Assessment (Burrowing Owl), & Jurisdictional Deliniation
MSHCP Consistency Analysis and Habitat Assessment (Burrowing Owl) City of Temecula, Riverside County, California PA12-0033/-0034 APN 944-060-006
Section 12, Township 8 South, Range 3 West Murrieta, California USGS CA 7.5-minute Topographic Quadrangle Prepared for: City of Temecula Community Development P.O. Box 9033 Temecula,
CA 92589-9033 Contact: Cheryl Kitzerow Prepared by: Michael Brandman Associates 621 E. Carnegie Drive, Suite 100 San Bernardino, California 92408 909.884.9033 Author: Dale Hameister,
Regulatory Specialist /Biologist Survey Date: June 28, 2012 Report Date: August 15, 2012
Rancho Vista Village Habitat Assessment, MSHCP Consistency Analysis, and Burrowing Owl Assessment Table of Contents Michael Brandman Associates ii H:\Client (PN-JN)\1264\12640029\MSHCP\12640029
MSHCP Rancho Vista 08-15-2012.doc Table of Contents Section 1: Summary..............................................................................................................1
Section 2: Introduction .........................................................................................................2 2.1 -Project Location ..............................................
.................................................... 2 2.2 -Project Description .............................................................................................. 2 Section
3: Methodology........................................................................................................7 3.1 -Western Riverside County MSHCP Consistency Analysis ......................
........... 7 3.1.1 -Literature Review ................................................................................. 7 3.1.2 -Habitat Assessment Field Investigation ..............................
................. 8 3.1.3 -Plant Communities ............................................................................... 8 3.1.4 -Plants ..........................................................
......................................... 8 3.1.5 -Wildlife.................................................................................................. 8 3.1.6 -Jurisdictional
Areas .............................................................................. 8 Section 4: Existing Conditions .................................................................................
.........10 4.1 -Environmental Setting ....................................................................................... 10 4.1.1 -Plant Communities ............................................
................................. 11 4.2 -Sensitive Species Habitat ................................................................................. 16 Section 5: Western Riverside
County MSHCP Consistency Analysis ...........................17 5.1 -Overview ...........................................................................................................
17 5.2 -Habitat Assessment Results ............................................................................. 17 5.2.1 -Burrowing Owl (BUOW) .......................................................
.............. 17 5.2.2 -Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools ......................................... 19 5.2.3 -Jurisdictional Drainages ........................................................
............. 19 5.2.4 -Nesting Birds ...................................................................................... 20 Section 6: Recommendations.............................................
...............................................21 6.1 -MSHCP Criteria Cell ......................................................................................... 21 6.2 -Burrowing
Owl (BUOW) .................................................................................... 21 6.3 -Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools.......................................................
. 21 6.4 -Jurisdictional Drainages .................................................................................... 21 6.5 -Nesting Birds..........................................................
........................................... 21 Section 7: Conclusions ......................................................................................................23 Section
8: Certification.......................................................................................................24 Section 9: References........................................................
.................................................25 Appendix A: Riverside County Integrated Project (RCIP) Conservation Summary Report Appendix B: Floral and Faunal Compendia Appendix
C: Site Photographs Appendix D: Jurisdictional Delineation Report Appendix E: Regulatory Background
Rancho Vista Village Habitat Assessment, MSHCP Consistency Analysis, and Burrowing Owl Assessment Table of Contents Michael Brandman Associates iii H:\Client (PN-JN)\1264\12640029\MSHCP\12640029
MSHCP 08-15-2012.doc List of Exhibits Exhibit 1: Regional Location Map............................................................................................ 3 Exhibit 2: Local
Vicinity Map -Topographic Base ................................................................... 4 Exhibit 3: Local Vicinity Map -Aerial Base........................................................
...................... 5 Exhibit 4: Site Plan .................................................................................................................. 6 Exhibit 5: Soils Map................
............................................................................................... 13 Exhibit 6: Vegetative Communities ..................................................................
..................... 14 Exhibit 7: Vegetative Communities Impact Map.................................................................... 15 Exhibit 8: MSHCP Map .....................................
.................................................................... 18
Rancho Vista Village Habitat Assessment, MSHCP Consistency Analysis, and Burrowing Owl Assessment Summary Michael Brandman Associates 1 H:\Client (PN-JN)\1264\12640029\MSHCP\12640029
MSHCP 08-15-2012.doc SECTION 1: SUMMARY This report contains the results of a Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) Consistency Analysis and habitat
assessment, in order to obtain development and use approvals for the 7.25-acre Rancho Vista Village property located within the City of Temecula, Riverside County, California. The property,
hereinafter referred to as project site or site, is located within an MSHCP-designated habitat assessment survey area for burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia, BUOW). The project site lies
within the Southwest Area Plan. The project site is not part of a criteria cell and not part of a plan sub unit. The project site contains a limited amount of foraging habitat suitable
habitat for BUOW (4.27 acres). No suitable burrows were observed within the project area. There is no suitable habitat within the 500-foot buffer area outside of the project area as
the project site is surrounded by development. No BUOW were observed on site or within the 500-foot buffer area. The project area does not contain sufficient foraging habitat to support
a BUOW pair, is surrounded by development, and is not adjacent to any other suitable habitat. In addition to the MSHCP requirements, other biological constraints associated with the
project site were identified. There is one adjacent drainage feature located along the northeastern border of the site that appears to fall under the jurisdiction of the US Army Corps
of Engineers (USACE), Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), and California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) based on Natural Resources Assessment, Inc.’s Jurisdictional Delineation
(2012). The project was specifically designed to avoid the jurisdictional drainage areas. The project site does contain suitable avian nesting habitat for a variety of species. If any
construction activities for the project site occur during the avian breeding season (February to August), a pre-construction clearance survey for nesting birds will be required.
Rancho Vista Village Habitat Assessment, MSHCP Consistency Analysis, and Burrowing Owl Assessment Introduction Michael Brandman Associates 2 H:\Client (PN-JN)\1264\12640029\MSHCP\12640029
MSHCP 08-15-2012.doc SECTION 2: INTRODUCTION At the request of the City of Temecula, Michael Brandman Associates (MBA) conducted a MSHCP Consistency Analysis and Habitat Assessment to
comply with the Western Riverside County MSHCP. The assessment was conducted on the Rancho Vista Village project site, a 7.25-acre site, located in the City of Temecula, Riverside County,
California. This report contains the results of a habitat assessment for BUOW, an analysis of all applicable MSHCP requirements, an analysis of non-MSHCP biological constraints, and
a jurisdictional delineation of potential drainage features located within the project site. 2.1 -Project Location The project site is generally located north of State Route (SR) 79,
south of SR-74, and east of Interstate 15 (Exhibit 1). The property is depicted on the Murrieta, California, United States Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle
map in Section 12 of Township 8 South and Range 3 West (Exhibit 2). More specifically, the project site is located on the northeast corner of Mira Loma Drive and Rancho Vista Road (Exhibit
3). The site consists of Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 944-060-006 2.2 -Project Description The proposed apartment development includes eight apartment building structures, a clubhouse
and pool, and associated parking spaces. Development will involve the following related activities: mass grading, installation of required infrastructure, paving of proposed roads and
parking spaces, and landscaping. Exhibit 4 presents the site map for this commercial development.
Michael Brandman Associates Riverside County San Diego County 74 79 76 15 78 76 79 74 215 P a c i f i c O c e a n Nuevo Vista Hemet Perris Bonsall Rainbow Menifee Murrieta
Wildomar Temecula Sun City Oceanside Fallbrook Winchester San Jacinto Valley Center Lake Elsinore Hidden Meadows Murrieta Hot Springs Camp Pendleton SouthCamp Pendleton North Cleveland
NF Cleveland NF Cleveland NF San Bernardino National Forest Lake ElsinoreRailroad Canyon Reservoir Lake Wohlford Lake Mathews
NOTTeTxOt SCALE
Michael
Brandman Associates �
� RANCHO VISTA VILLAGE
Michael Brandman
Associates RANCHO VISTA VILLAGE Rancho Vi sta Rd PaubaRd
Pauba Rd Santa Suzanne Pl Mira Loma Dr Santa Cecilia Dr Ynez Rd Cal ifornia Rancho California Rd Via Las Colinas Legend
Rancho Vista Village Habitat Assessment, MSHCP Consistency Analysis, and Burrowing Owl Assessment Methodology Michael Brandman Associates 7 H:\Client (PN-JN)\1264\12640029\MSHCP\12640029
MSHCP 08-15-2012.doc SECTION 3: METHODOLOGY 3.1 -Western Riverside County MSHCP Consistency Analysis The project site was assessed to determine consistency with the requirements set
forth in the Western Riverside County MSHCP. Geographic Information Systems (GIS) software was used to map the site in relation to MSHCP areas including Criteria Cells; conservation
areas and wildlife movement corridors and linkages; Criteria Area Species Survey Areas for plant, bird, mammal, and amphibian species; Narrow Endemic Plants Survey Area; and survey requirements
for inadequately covered species. The Riverside County Integrated Project (RCIP) Conservation Summary Report was queried to determine habitat assessment and potential survey requirements
for the site (Appendix A). The MSHCP also requires that an assessment be completed to determine the potentially significant effects of the project on riparian/riverine areas and vernal
pools. According to the MSHCP, the documentation for the assessment shall include mapping and a description of the functions and values of the mapped areas with respect to the species
listed in MSHCP Section 6.1.2, Protection of Species Associated with Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools. As part of the MSHCP requirements, an Urban/Wildlands Interface Analysis
is required to address the indirect effects associated with locating proposed development in proximity to MSHCP conservation areas. The development may result in edge effects, which
could potentially affect biological resources within the MSHCP Conservation Area. According to the MSHCP, the analysis should include an assessment of the potential indirect project
impacts that may result from drainage, toxics, noise, invasive species, barriers, access, and grading/development, as listed and described in the MSHCP’s Section 6.1.4, Guidelines Pertaining
to Urban/Wildlands Interface. 3.1.1 -Literature Review Prior to the field visit, a literature review was conducted to determine environmental conditions occurring on the project site.
Literature reviewed includes the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) (1971) Soil Survey, the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) (2009), and the habitat requirements
for RCIP designated species specific to the site. The MSHCP was also reviewed for habitat assessment requirements as well as habitat suitability elements for sensitive wildlife species,
Narrow Endemic plant species, and criteria area plant species. The primary objective of the review was to evaluate the potential for suitable habitat for sensitive plant and wildlife
species, to determine the applicability of other MSHCP and California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requirements for plant and wildlife species, and to determine the applicability
of other MSHCP and CEQA requirements as they pertain to the project site. A compilation of sensitive plant and wildlife species recorded in the vicinity of the project site was derived
from the CDFG’s CNDDB, a sensitive species and plant community account database.
Rancho Vista Village Habitat Assessment, MSHCP Consistency Analysis, and Burrowing Owl Assessment Methodology Michael Brandman Associates 8 H:\Client (PN-JN)\1264\12640029\MSHCP\12640029
MSHCP 08-15-2012.doc Additional recorded occurrences of plant species found on or near the site were derived from the California Native Plant Society’s (CNPS) Electronic Inventory of
Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California database. The CNDDB and CNPS search was based on the Murrieta, California USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle. Additional recorded
occurrences of these species found on or near the site were derived from biota studies conducted for the MSHCP. The CNDDB ArcGIS database was used, together with ArcGIS software, to
locate the nearest occurrence and determine the distance from the site. 3.1.2 -Habitat Assessment Field Investigation MBA biologist Dale Hameister assessed the project site on June 28,
2012 from 1030 to 1300 hours. Weather conditions during the survey included clear skies and temperature of 83° F (degrees Fahrenheit). The entire project site was surveyed to determine
the extent of plant communities and to assess the presence of suitable habitat for BUOW. Parameters assessed included soil conditions, presence of indicator species, slope, aspect, and
hydrology. 3.1.3 -Plant Communities Plant communities were mapped using 7.5-minute USGS topographic base maps and aerial photography. The plant communities within the project site were
classified according to CDFG’s List of Terrestrial Natural Communities (2003) and cross-referenced to descriptions provided in Holland’s Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural
Communities of California (1986 and 1992 update). The CDFG does not currently have a narrative description of the vegetation communities; therefore, the descriptions provided are according
to Holland. 3.1.4 -Plants Common plant species observed during the field survey were identified by visual characteristics and morphology in the field and recorded in a field notebook.
Unusual Unusual and less familiar plants were identified in the laboratory using taxonomical guides. A list of all species observed on the project site was compiled from the survey data
and is provided in Appendix B of this report. Taxonomic nomenclature used in this study follows that used by CNPS. In this report, scientific names are provided immediately following
common names of plant species for the first reference only. 3.1.5 -Wildlife Wildlife species detected during field surveys by sight, calls, tracks, scat, or other sign were recorded
during surveys in a field notebook. Field guides were used to assist with identification of species during surveys. Although common names of wildlife species are fairly well standardized,
scientific names are used in this report and are provided in Appendix B. 3.1.6 -Jurisdictional Areas Aerial photography was reviewed prior to conducting general surveys. The photographs
were used to locate and inspect any potential natural drainage features and water bodies that may be consi
dered Rancho Vista Village Habitat Assessment, MSHCP Consistency Analysis, and Burrowing Owl Assessment Methodology Michael Brandman Associates 9 H:\Client (PN-JN)\1264\12640029\MSHCP\12640029
MSHCP 08-15-2012.doc under the jurisdiction of either USACE and/or CDFG. In general, surface drainage features indicated as blue-line streams on USGS maps that are observed or expected
to exhibit evidence of flow are considered potentially subject to state and federal regulatory authority as “waters.” The project site was evaluated for jurisdictional drainage features
during the habitat assessment.
Rancho Vista Village Habitat Assessment, MSHCP Consistency Analysis, and Burrowing Owl Assessment Existing Conditions Michael Brandman Associates 10 H:\Client (PN-JN)\1264\12640029\MSHCP\12640029
MSHCP 08-15-2012.doc SECTION 4: EXISTING CONDITIONS 4.1 -Environmental Setting The project site is located on the northeast corner of Mira Loma Drive and Rancho Vista Road in the City
of Temecula, California. Topographically, the site has a steep slope below Mira Loma Drive and flattens out for the majority of the project site. Elevation ranges from approximately
1,095 to 1,144 feet above mean sea level (AMSL). A small drainage feature occurs adjacent to the project site along the northeastern boundary of the project site. The project site is
surrounded by residential development including several single-family residences, apartment buildings and a school, which is on the eastern side of the drainage. There is a great deal
of evidence of development within the project site. The buildings have been removed, but some some foundations, driveway, and landscaping remain in place. The project site consists of
four distinct soil series. Three of these soils series are evenly represented within the project site including Arlington and Greenfield fine sandy loam, Hanford coarse sandy loam, and
Pachappa fine sandy loam, with a small inclusion of Ramona and Butten sandy loams and Riverwash within the southwestern and southeastern corners of the project site respectively (Exhibit
5). The Arlington and Greenfield series consists of deep, well-drained soils that formed in moderately coarse and coarse textured alluvium derived from granitic and mixed rock sources.
This soil is located along the western portion of the project site. The Hanford series consists of very deep well drained soils that formed in moderately coarse textured alluvium dominantly
from granite. Hanford soils are on stream bottoms, floodplains, and alluvial fans. This soil is located within the central portion of the project site. The Pachappa series consists of
well-drained (minimal) non-calcic soils developed from moderately coarse textured alluvium. They occur on gently sloping alluvial fans and flood plains under annual grass-herb vegetation.
This soil is located along the eastern portion of the project site. The Ramona and Buren series consists of well drained slow to moderately slowly permeable soils. These soils are on
gently to strongly sloping alluvial fans and terraces. Typically these soils have brown, slightly and medium acid, sandy loam and fine sandy loam. This soil is located in the southwestern
portion of the project site. The Riverwash areas are generally not considered soil, but are more closely described as a landscape feature. These typically contain sandy soils with cobbles
and boulders associated with an active riverine system. This soil is located along the southeastern portion of the project site.
Rancho Vista Village Habitat Assessment, MSHCP Consistency Analysis, and Burrowing Owl Assessment Existing Conditions Michael Brandman Associates 11 H:\Client (PN-JN)\1264\12640029\MSHCP\12640029
MSHCP 08-15-2012.doc 4.1.1 -Plant Communities Six plant communities occur within the 7.5-acre project site: California buckwheat scrub, disturbed, landscaping, paved, ruderal, and southern
willow-cottonwood riparian (Exhibit 6). The names and definitions of plant communities discussed below are based upon descriptions provided by Holland (1986) and MBA. A complete list
of all plant and wildlife species observed during the habitat assessment for the project site is included in Appendix B. California Buckwheat Scrub (0.24 Acre, 0.24 Acre To Be Impacted)
California buckwheat was observed on in a few areas on the slopes of the project site. This community typically consists of low-growing, drought deciduous and evergreen shrubs that occur
on steep and/or gentle sloping topography. It is typically found on xeric sites with severely drained soils, or clays that release stored soil moisture slowly. Stands range from fairly
open to dense, and are almost solely dominated by California buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum), and are often found integrated with chaparral, grasslands, and/or ruderal plant communities
(Holland 1986). The stands within the project site consist primarily of California buckwheat and include non-native grasses including ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus), compact brome (Bromus
madritensis). Disturbed (0.15 Acre, 0.08 Acre To Be Impacted) Areas mapped as disturbed are characterized mostly by bare soil and do not contain much vegetation. The disturbed areas
are generally free of vegetation due to human disturbance. Within the northern area of the project site, the disturbed area consists of a BMX track. Landscaping (1.78 Acres, 1.78 Acres
to be impacted) The majority of the trees and scrubs within the project area are remnant landscaping plants from the previous use of the property. Species observed within the areas mapped
as landscaping include river red gum (Eucalyptus camaldulensis), blue gum (Eucalyptus globulus), white ash (Fraxinus americana), Chinese elm (Ulmus parvifolia), London plane tree (Platanus
acerifolia), Japanese privet (Ligustrum japonicum), Acacia (Acacia sp.). The majority of the landscaping plants are located within the area of the project site that was a previously
developed school site. The northeast facing slope above the adjacent drainage is dominated by acacia shrubs. Paved (0.43 Acre, 0.39 Acre To Be Impacted) Areas mapped as paved include
the circular driveway and the concrete foundations of the previous development. The paved area also includes the concrete infrastructure associated with the drainage adjacent to Mira
Loma Drive in the northeast corner of the project site. These areas provide little to no habitat for any plant and/or wildlife species. Ruderal (4.27 Acres, 4.06 Acres To Be Impacted)
The dominant plant community within the project area consists of disturbed areas that are are dominated by non-native ruderal vegetation. Dominant species observed include wild oat (Avena
fatua), ripgut
Rancho Vista Village Habitat Assessment, MSHCP Consistency Analysis, and Burrowing Owl Assessment Existing Conditions Michael Brandman Associates 12 H:\Client (PN-JN)\1264\12640029\MSHCP\12640029
MSHCP 08-15-2012.doc brome, compact brome, short-podded mustard (Hirschfeldia incana), telegraphweed (Heterotheca grandiflora), horseweed (Conyza canadensis), prickly lettuce (Lactuca
serriola), cocklebur (Xanthium strumarium), and slender woolly buckwheat (Eriogonum gracile). Southern Willow-Cottonwood Riparian Woodland (0.29 Acre, 0.1 Acre To Be Impacted) There
is a small drainage dominated by southern willow-cottonwood riparian woodland with flows from northwest to southeast along the northeastern border of the project site. The riparian area
is dominated by narrow-leaved willow (Salix exigua), arroyo willow (Salix lasiolepis), and Fremont cottonwood (Populus fremontii). The layout of the development was designed to avoid
the drainage and riverine-riparian habitat. There are two small areas of willows that are not connected to the riparian along the drainage that will be impacted by the development.
Rancho Vista Village Habitat Assessment, MSHCP Consistency Analysis, and Burrowing Owl Assessment Existing Conditions Michael Brandman Associates 16 H:\Client (PN-JN)\1264\12640029\MSHCP\12640029
MSHCP 08-15-2012.doc 4.2 -Sensitive Species Habitat Burrowing Owl (BUOW) The project site contains marginal suitable habitat for BUOW, which is a California Species of Special Concern,
within the ruderal area in the southern portion of the project site. No BUOWs and no suitable burrows sites were observed during the survey. The project area does not contain sufficient
foraging habitat to support a BUOW pair, is surrounded by development, and is not adjacent to any other suitable habitat.
Rancho Vista Village Habitat Assessment, MSHCP Consistency Analysis, Western Riverside County and Burrowing Owl Assessment Rancho Vista Village MSHCP Consistency Analysis Michael Brandman
Associates 17 H:\Client (PN-JN)\1264\12640029\MSHCP\12640029 MSHCP 08-15-2012.doc SECTION 5: WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY MSHCP CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS 5.1 -Overview The project site lies within
the Southwest Area Plan. The project site is not part of a criteria cell and not part of a plan sub unit (Exhibit 8). This Habitat Assessment report addresses the potential for sensitive
biological resources defined by the RCIP Conservation Summary Report, Appendix A, to occur within the project site. Based on the generated report, a habitat assessment is required for
BUOW. The Habitat Assessment also addresses the presence/absence of riparian/riverine areas and vernal pools on the site. 5.2 -Habitat Assessment Results 5.2.1 -Burrowing Owl (BUOW)
BUOW, a state species of concern, occurs in grasslands, lowland scrub, agricultural lands (particularly rangelands), and some artificial, open areas as a yearlong resident. BUOW use
habitat with sparse vegetation and open areas as well as rocky outcrops, which provide them with unobstructed visibility. The BUOW may also use golf courses, cemeteries, road allowances
within cities, airports, vacant lots in residential areas and university campuses, fairgrounds, abandoned buildings, and irrigation basins. As a critical habitat feature, they require
rodent or other fossorial burrows for roosting and nesting cover, with the preferred burrow being the California ground squirrel. They may also use pipes, culverts, and nest boxes where
burrows are scarce. One burrow is typically selected for use as the nest; however, satellite burrows are
usually found within the defended territory. Reasons for their decline include habitat destruction, insecticide poisoning, rodenticide (particularly squirrel eradication), and shooting.
The project site contains marginal suitable habitat for BUOW within the ruderal area in in the southern portion of the project site. No BUOWs and no suitable burrows sites were observed
during the survey. The project area does not contain sufficient foraging habitat to support a BUOW pair, is surrounded by development, and is not adjacent to any other suitable habitat.
Michael Brandman Associates �
� RANCHO VISTA VILLAGE Pauba Rd Santa
Cecilia Dr Ynez Rd Rancho California Rd Core 2 Constrained Linkage A Constrained Linkage E Core G Core J Linkage A 13 4 15 14 10
Temecula Murrieta Hot Springs
Legend
�
�
Rancho Vista Village Habitat Assessment, MSHCP Consistency Analysis, Western Riverside County and Burrowing Owl Assessment Rancho Vista Village MSHCP Consistency Analysis Michael Brandman
Associates 19 H:\Client (PN-JN)\1264\12640029\MSHCP\12640029 MSHCP 08-15-2012.doc 5.2.2 -Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools Section 6.1.2 of the Western Riverside County MSHCP
describes the process to protect species associated with riparian/riverine areas and vernal pools. The purpose is to ensure that the biological functions and values of these areas throughout
the MSHCP Plan Area are maintained such that habitat values for species inside the MSHCP Conservation Area are maintained. This assessment is independent from considerations given to
waters of the U.S. and waters of the State under the Clean Water Act (CWA) and the California Fish and Game Code (CFG Code). As defined in the MSHCP, riparian/riverine areas are lands
that contain habitat dominated by trees, shrubs, persistent emergents, or emergent mosses and lichens, occur close to or depend upon a nearby freshwater source, or areas with fresh water
flow during all or a portion of the year. These habitats support one or more of the species listed in Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP. Vernal pools are seasonal wetlands that occur in depression
areas that have wetlands indicators of all three parameters, soils, vegetation, and hydrology, during the wetter portion of the growing season but normally lack wetlands indicators of
hydrology and/or vegetation during the drier portion of the growing season. MBA conducted a riparian/riverine habitat assessment of the project site concurrent with the habitat assessment.
The riparian/riverine habitat assessment focused on the drainage feature adjacent to the project site that was considered to meet the minimum criteria to be considered riparian/riverine
habitat per the definition provided within the MSHCP. The targeted drainage feature was carefully inspected for the presence of riparian habitat characteristics and suitability to support
associated species, including a dominance of hydrophytic vegetation, suitable topography and hydrology, and suitable soil substrate where necessary. The project site contains 0.1 acre
of riparian habitat that will be impacted, but these areas do not contain any riverine connectivity. The willows to be impacted are within upland areas and are not connected to the riparian
area northeast of the project site. There are no vernal pools, or areas suitable for support sensitive fairy shrimp species within the property. The total area of riparian within the
project site is 0.29 acre. A single ephemeral drainage occurs along the northeastern project site boundary and contains narrow-leaved willows, arroyo willows, and Fremont cottonwood
trees. The majority of this riparian area is outside of the project parcel. The project site does not contain habitat that supports any of the sensitive species contained in Section
6.1.2 of the MSHCP; contains no vernal pool areas; and does not contain any areas capable of supporting any fairy shrimp species. 5.2.3 -Jurisdictional Drainages A jurisdictional delineation
was conducted on the drainage feature that occurs along the northeastern boundary of the site. Based on the findings of Natural Resources Assessment, Inc.’s Jurisdictional Delineation
(2012) (Appendix D), the adjacent unnamed ephemeral feature connects to the Margarita
Rancho Vista Village Habitat Assessment, MSHCP Consistency Analysis, Western Riverside County and Burrowing Owl Assessment Rancho Vista Village MSHCP Consistency Analysis Michael Brandman
Associates 20 H:\Client (PN-JN)\1264\12640029\MSHCP\12640029 MSHCP 08-15-2012.doc River. The drainage contains areas under CDFG and USACE jurisdiction. The project was designed to avoid
the areas of the drainage. The 0.1 acre areas of willows to be impacted are located within uplands, are not connected to the channel or the associated riparian corridor and are therefore
not under any regulatory agency jurisdiction. 5.2.4 -Nesting Birds Certain areas across the project site and in the immediate vicinity of the project site are relatively undisturbed,
and many of the trees and shrubs provide good quality, suitable nesting habitat for a number of avian species. Further recommendations regarding nesting birds and the project site are
provided in Section 6 of this report.
Rancho Vista Village Habitat Assessment, MSHCP Consistency Analysis, and Burrowing Owl Assessment Rancho Vista Village Recommendations Michael Brandman Associates 21 H:\Client (PN-JN)\1264\12640029\M
SHCP\12640029 MSHCP 08-15-2012.doc SECTION 6: RECOMMENDATIONS 6.1 -MSHCP Criteria Cell The project site lies within the Southwest Area Plan. The project site is not part of a criteria
cell and not part of a plan sub unit. The project site is also not within any designated corridor, potential corridors, core areas or potential core areas. 6.2 -Burrowing Owl (BUOW)
The project site contains a limited amount of suitable foraging habitat for BUOW. No suitable burrows were observed within the project area. The project area does not contain sufficient
foraging habitat to support a BUOW pair, is surrounded by development, and is not adjacent to any other suitable habitat. It was determined that this species has no potential to occur
on the site. 6.3 -Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools The project site contains 0.1 acre of riparian habitat that will be impacted, but does not contain any riverine connectivity.
The willows to be impacted are within an upland area outside of the active drainage area and or not connected to the riparian area northeast of the project site. There are no vernal
pools, or areas suitable for support sensitive fairy shrimp species within the property. Due to the limited impacts to riparian areas, no further action or mitigation measures are recommended.
6.4 -Jurisdictional Drainages Based on the findings of Natural Resources Assessment, Inc.’s Jurisdictional Delineation the adjacent unnamed ephemeral feature connects to the Margarita
River. The drainage contains areas under CDFG and USACE jurisdiction. The project was designed to avoid the areas of the drainage. The 0.1 acre area of willows to be impacted are not
connected to the channel or the associated riparian corridor and are therefore not under CDFG jurisdiction. The construction of the project, including retaining walls, will be done adjacent
to and within close proximity to the channel and riparian area. However, no impacts to the riparian area or drainages are permitted without obtaining appropriate regulatory permits from
USACE, CDFG, and RWQCB. 6.5 -Nesting Birds There is suitable avian nesting habitat throughout and directly adjacent to the project site. If the clearance of vegetation is required and
occurs during the avian nesting season, from February to August, it is recommended that a pre-construction nesting bird survey be conducted prior to any vegetation disturbance activities.
If passerine birds are found to be nesting or there is evidence of nesting behavior inside or within 250 feet of the impact area, a 250-foot buffer will be required
Rancho Vista Village Habitat Assessment, MSHCP Consistency Analysis, and Burrowing Owl Assessment Rancho Vista Village Recommendations Michael Brandman Associates 22 H:\Client (PN-JN)\1264\12640029\M
SHCP\12640029 MSHCP 08-15-2012.doc around the nest where no vegetation disturbance would be permitted. For birds of prey, such as hawks and owls, this buffer is expanded to 500 feet.
A qualified biologist would be required to monitor closely the nest until it is determined that the nest is no longer active, at which time vegetation removal could continue.
Rancho Vista Village Habitat Assessment, MSHCP Consistency Analysis, and Burrowing Owl Assessment Conclusions Michael Brandman Associates 23 H:\Client (PN-JN)\1264\12640029\MSHCP\12640029
MSHCP 08-15-2012.doc SECTION 7: CONCLUSIONS A MSHCP Consistency Analysis and Habitat Assessment was conducted to obtain approval for a Zone Change, Development Plan, and Tentative Map
for a 7.25-acre site located in the City of Temecula, Riverside County, California. The project site is located within an MSHCP-designated habitat assessment survey area for BUOW. Marginally
suitable habitat occurs on site for BUOW; however, there were no suitable burrows present, there is not sufficient habitat within the project area to support BUOW, and the project site
surrounded by development and isolated from other suitable habitat. Based on the habitat assessment it was determined that focus surveys for BUOW were not required. Based on the disturbed
nature of the site and the lack of sensitive species, no significant impacts are anticipated that would jeopardize the County’s ability to achieve its conservation goals. Minimal riparian
vegetation will be impacted; however, it is not connected to the adjacent drainage and riparian area. The project was designed specifically to avoid the drainage and riparian area. Adherence
with the above recommendations, and resulting additional actions, if required, and acceptance of the project by the County of Riverside and the Regional Conservation Authority RCA would
fulfill requirements for biological resources pursuant to CEQA, Federal Endangered Species Act, California Endangered Species Act, and the MSHCP.
Rancho Vista Village Habitat Assessment, MSHCP Consistency Analysis, and Burrowing Owl Assessment Conclusions Michael Brandman Associates 24 H:\Client (PN-JN)\1264\12640029\MSHCP\12640029
MSHCP 08-15-2012.doc SECTION 8: CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present data and information required for this biological
evaluation, and that the facts, statements, and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Date: August 15, 2012 Signed: Dale Hameister Michael
Brandman Associates San Bernardino, CA
Rancho Vista Village Habitat Assessment, MSHCP Consistency Analysis, and Burrowing Owl Assessment References Michael Brandman Associates 25 H:\Client (PN-JN)\1264\12640029\MSHCP\12640029
MSHCP 08-15-2012.doc SECTION 9: REFERENCES Barbour, M.J. and J. Major. 1977. Terrestrial Vegetation of California. Wiley Press. New York, New York. 1002 pp. California Department of
Fish and Game (CDFG). 2012. Endangered and Threatened Animals List. The Resources Agency of California, Department of Fish and Game, Natural Heritage Division, Natural Diversity Data
Base. Sacramento, California. California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 2012. Special Animals List. The Resources Agency of California, Department of Fish and Game, Natural Heritage
Division, Natural Diversity Data Base. Sacramento, California. California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 2012. State and Federally Listed Endangered, Threatened, and Rare Plants
of California. The Resources Agency State of California, Department of Fish and Game, Natural Heritage Division, Natural Diversity Data Base. Sacramento, California. California Department
of Fish and Game (CDFG). 2003. Natural Communities. California Department of Fish and Game, Natural Diversity Data Base. The Resources Agency of California. Sacramento, CA. September
California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 2012. Special Vascular Plants, Bryophytes, and Lichens List. California Department of Fish and Game, Natural Diversity Data Base. The Resources
Agency of California. Sacramento, California. California Department of Fish and Game. 1988. California’s Wildlife. Volume I: Amphibians and Reptiles. State of California Resources Agency.
Sacramento, California. California Department of Fish and Game. 1990a. California’s Wildlife. Volume II: Birds. State of California Resources Agency. Sacramento, California. California
Department of Fish and Game. 1990b. California’s Wildlife. Volume III: Mammals. State of California Resources Agency. Sacramento, California. California Native Plant Society (CNPS).
2007. California Native Plant Society’s Electronic Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California. David C. Hudson & Associates and the Information Center for the Environment.
U.C. Davis. Retrieved from: http://cnps.web.aplus.net/cgi-bin/inv/inventory.cgi. Hall, E.R. 1981. The Mammals of North America, Volumes I and II. John Wiley and Sons, New York, New York.
Hickman, J.C. 1993. The Jepson Manual: Higher Plants of California. University of California Press. Berkeley, California. Holland, R.F. 1986 and 1992 update. Preliminary Descriptions
of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California. Non-game Heritage Program. California Department of Fish and Game. Sacramento, California.
Rancho Vista Village Habitat Assessment, MSHCP Consistency Analysis, and Burrowing Owl Assessment References Michael Brandman Associates 26 H:\Client (PN-JN)\1264\12640029\MSHCP\12640029
MSHCP 08-15-2012.doc Holland, V.L. and D.J. Keil. 1995. California Vegetation. Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company, Dubuque, Iowa. 516 pp. Kramer, G. 1988. Fresh Emergent Wetland. In A Guide
to Wildlife Habitats of California. California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, 166 pp. Munz, P.A. 1974. A Flora of Southern California. University of California Press. Berkeley,
California. National Geographic Society. 1987. National Geographic Society Field Guide to the Birds of North America. 2nd Edition. National Geographic Society, Washington, DC. Noss,
R.F. 1991. Landscape connectivity: Different functions at different scales. Pages 27-39 in W.E. Hudson, ed. Landscape Linkages and Biodiversity. Island Press, Washington, DC. Reed, P.B.
1988. National List of Plant Species That Occur in Wetlands: California (Region 0). National Wetlands Inventory, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 88 (26.9). Riverside
County, 2003. Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan, Riverside County, California. Sawyer, J.O. and T. Keeler-Wolf. 1995. A Manual of California Vegetation.
California Native Plant Society. Sacramento, California. Skinner, M.W., and B.M. Pavlik. 1994. California Native Plant Society’s Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California.
California Native Plant Society. Special Publication, No. 1, 5th ed. Udvardy, M.D. 1994. National Audubon Society Field Guide to North American Birds. Alfred A. Knopf, Inc. New York,
New York. United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1971. Soil Survey, Western Riverside County Area, California. Department of the Interior. US Government Printing office, Washington
DC. United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1998 (September/October). Endangered Species Bulletin, Volume XXIII Number 5. United States Geological Survey (USGS). 1978. Fontana,
California 7.5-Minute Topographic Quadrangle Map. Department of the Interior. US Government Printing office, Washington, DC. Weller, M.W. 1981. Freshwater Marshes: Ecology and Wildlife
Management. University of Minnesota Press, Minneapolis, Minnesota. 146 pp. Williams, D.F. 1986. Mammalian Species of Special Concern in California. Wildlife Management Division Administrative
Report 86-1. Prepared for The Resources Agency, California Department of Fish and Game.
Rancho Vista Village Habitat Assessment, MSHCP Consistency Analysis, and Burrowing Owl Assessment Michael Brandman Associates H:\Client (PN-JN)\1264\12640029\MSHCP\12640029 MSHCP 08-15-2012.doc
Appendix A: Riverside County Integrated Project (RCIP) Conservation Summary Report
Riverside County Transporation and Land Management Agency -TLMA APN Cell Cell Group Acres Area Plan Sub Unit 944060006 Not A Part Independent 7.25 Southwest Area Not a Part HABITAT ASSESSMENTS
Habitat assessment shall be required and should address at a minimum potential habitat for the following species: APN Amphibia Species Burrowing Owl Criteria Area Species Mammalian Species
Narrow Endemic Plant Species Special Linkage Area 944060006 NO YES NO NO NO NO Burrowing Owl Burrowing owl. If potential habitat for these species is determined to be located on the
property, focused surveys may be required during the appropriate season. Background The final MSHCP was approved by the County Board of Supervisors on June 17, 2003. The federal and
state permits were issued on June 22, 2004 and implementation of the MSHCP began on June 23, 2004. For more information concerning the MSHCP, contact your local city or the County of
Riverside for the unincorporated areas. Additionally, the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (RCA), which oversees all the cities and County implementation of the
MSHCP, can be reached at: Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority 3403 10th Street, Suite 320 Riverside, CA 92501 Phone: 951-955-9700 Fax: 951-955-8873 Western Riverside
County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan ... http://www5.rctlma.org/cgi-bin/TED060209rciprepgenNEW.pl 1 of 2 7/12/2012 7:38 AM
Rancho Vista Village Habitat Assessment, MSHCP Consistency Analysis, and Burrowing Owl Assessment Michael Brandman Associates H:\Client (PN-JN)\1264\12640029\MSHCP\12640029 MSHCP 08-15-2012.doc
Appendix B: Floral and Faunal Compendia
Flora Compendia Pinaceae Pine Family Pinus sp. Unknown pine species Lauraceae Laurel Family Cinnamomum camphora camphor tree Adoxaceae Honeysuckle Family Sambucus mexicana blue elderberry
Amaranthaceae Amaranth Family Amaranthus albus tumbling pigweed Anacardiaceae Sumac or Cashew Family Schinus terebinthifolius Brazilian pepper tree Asteraceae Sunflower Family Ambrosia
artemisiifolia common ragweed Baccharis pilularis coyote brush Baccharis salicifolia mule fat Conyza canadensis horseweed Helianthus annuus common sunflower Heterotheca grandiflora telegraphweed
Lactuca serriola prickly lettuce Xanthium strumarium cocklebur Boraginaceae Borage Family Amsinckia menziesii var. intermedia common fiddleneck Brassicaceae Mustard Family Hirschfeldia
incana short-podded mustard Chenopodiaceae Goosefoot Family Chenopodium album lamb's quarters Salsola tragus Russian thistle Euphorbiaceae Spurge Family Croton californicus California
croton Croton setigerus dove weed Fabaceae Legume Family Acacia sp. unknown acacia sp. Lotus humistratus foothill birds-foot trefoil Melilotus alba annual white sweetclover Melilotus
officinalis yellow sweet clover Fagaceae Oak Family Quercus agrifolia coast live oak Hamamelidaceae Witch-Hazel Family Liquidambar styraciflua liquid amber Lamiaceae Mint Family Rancho
Vista Village Habitat Assessment, MSHCP Consistency Analysis, and Burrowing Owl Assessment Appendix B -Compendium Michael Brandman Associates 12640029 Page 1 of 4
Flora Compendia Marrubium vulgare horehound Malvaceae Mallow Family Malva parviflora cheeseweed Myrtaceae Myrtle Family Eucalyptus camaldulensis river red gum Eucalyptus globulus blue
gum Oleaceae Olive Family Fraxinus americana white ash Ligustrum japonicum Japanese privet Onagraceae Evening Primrose Family Epilobium ciliatum fringed willow herb Platanaceae Sycamore
Family Platanus acerifolia London plane tree Polygonaceae Buckwheat Family Eriogonum fasciculatum California buckwheat Eriogonum gracile slender woolly buckwheat Salicaceae Willow Family
Populus fremontii Fremont cottonwood Salix exigua narrowleaf willow Salix laevigata red willow Salix lasiolepis arroyo willow Simaroubaceae Quassia Family Ailanthus altissima tree of
heaven Solanaceae Nightshade Family Datura wrightii jimson weed Tamaricaceae Tamarisk Family Tamarix ramosissima Mediterranean tamarisk Ulmaceae Elm Family Ulmus parvifolia Chinese elm
Arecaceae Palm Family Washingtonia robusta Mexican fan palm Cyperaceae Sedge Family Cyperus eragrostis tall flatsedge Poaceae Grass Family Avena fatua wild oat Bromus diandrus ripgut
brome Bromus madritensis compact brome Cortaderia jubata purple pampas grass Hordeum murinum ssp. leporinum leporinum barley Rancho Vista Village Habitat Assessment, MSHCP Consistency
Analysis, and Burrowing Owl Assessment Appendix B -Compendium Michael Brandman Associates 12640029 Page 2 of 4
Flora Compendia Polypogon monspeliensis annual rabbitsfoot grass Vulpia myuros rat-tail fescue Rancho Vista Village Habitat Assessment, MSHCP Consistency Analysis, and Burrowing Owl
Assessment Appendix B -Compendium Michael Brandman Associates 12640029 Page 3 of 4
Fauna Compendia Columbidae Pigeons/Doves Columba livia rock pigeon Corvidae Jays/Crows Corvus brachyrhynchos American crow Troglodytidae Wrens Troglodytes aedon house wren Fringillidae
Finches Carpodacus mexicanus house finch Canidae Wolves and Foxes Canis latrans coyote Rancho Vista Village Habitat Assessment, MSHCP Consistency Analysis, and Burrowing Owl Assessment
Appendix B -Compendium Michael Brandman Associates 12640029 Page 4 of 4
Rancho Vista Village Habitat Assessment, MSHCP Consistency Analysis, and Burrowing Owl Assessment Michael Brandman Associates H:\Client (PN-JN)\1264\12640029\MSHCP\12640029 MSHCP 08-15-2012.doc
Appendix C: Site Photographs
Photograph 1: Looking west from the southeastern section of the project site showing California buckwheat scrub in the left foreground, ruderal vegetation, and landscaping vegetation
in the right background. Photograph 2: Looking east at the center of the project site; showing ruderal areas with landscaping trees. Source: Michael Brandman Associates, 2012. 12640029
• 06/2012 |site_photos01.doc Michael Brandman Associates Appendix B Site Photographs 1 and 2
Photograph 3: Looking northwest in the northern corner of the project site; showing landscaping vegetation on the right, the disturbed area and BMX track in the center and the edge of
the riparian area on the left. Photograph 4: Looking southeast at the northeast corner of the project site the adjacent riparian area along the northeast boundary. Source: Michael Brandman
Associates, 2012, 12640029 • 06/2012 |site_photos.doc Michael Brandman Associates Appendix B Site Photographs 3 and 4
Photograph 5: Looking west in the northern center of the project site showing landscaping vegetation and paved areas. Photograph 6: Looking south in the center of the project site showing
ruderal vegetation and landscaping. Source: Michael Brandman Associates, 2012. 12640029 • 06/2012 |site_photos.doc Michael Brandman Associates Appendix B Site Photographs 5 and 6
Rancho Vista Village Habitat Assessment, MSHCP Consistency Analysis, and Burrowing Owl Assessment Michael Brandman Associates H:\Client (PN-JN)\1264\12640029\MSHCP\12640029 MSHCP 08-15-2012.doc
Appendix D: Jurisdictional Delineation Report
Rancho Vista Village
Rancho Vista Village Habitat Assessment, MSHCP Consistency Analysis, and Burrowing Owl Assessment Michael Brandman Associates H:\Client (PN-JN)\1264\12640029\MSHCP\12640029 MSHCP 08-15-2012.doc
Appendix E: Regulatory Background
Rancho Vista Village Habitat Assessment, MSHCP Consistency Analysis, and Burrowing Owl Assessment Appendix E: Regulatory Backgraound Michael Brandman Associates E-1 H:\Client (PN-JN)\1264\12640029\MS
HCP\12640029 MSHCP 08-15-2012.doc REGULATORY BACKGROUND Special status species are native species that have been afforded special legal or management protection because of concern for
their continued existence. There are several categories of protection at the federal, state, and local levels, depending on the magnitude of threat to their continued existence and existing
knowledge of population levels. Federal Endangered Species Act The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) administers the federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) that provides a process
for listing species as either threatened or endangered, and methods of protecting listed species. The FESA defines as “endangered” any plant or animal species that is in danger of extinction
throughout all or a significant portion of its range. A “threatened” species is a species that is likely to become endangered in the near future. A “proposed” species is one that has
been officially proposed by USFWS for addition to the federal threatened and endangered species list. Section 9 of the FESA prohibits “take” of threatened or endangered species. The
term “take” means to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in such conduct. The presence of any federally threatened or endangered
species that are in a project area generally imposes severe constraints on development, particularly if development would result in “take” of the species or its habitat. Under the regulations
of the FESA, the USFWS may authorize “take” when it is incidental to, but not the purpose of, an otherwise lawful act. Section 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act Section 404 of the federal
CWA, which is administered by the USACE, regulates the discharge of dredge and fill material into waters of the United States (U.S.). USACE has established a series of nationwide permits
that authorize certain activities in waters of the U.S., provided that a proposed activity can demonstrate compliance with standard conditions. Normally, USACE requires an individual
permit for an activity that will affect an area equal to or in excess of 0.5 acre of waters of the U.S. Projects that result in impacts to less than 0.5 acre can normally be conducted
pursuant to one of the nationwide permits, if consistent with the standard permit conditions. USACE also has discretionary authority to require an Environmental Impact Statement for
projects that result in impacts to an area between 0.1 and 0.5 acre. Use of any nationwide permit is contingent on the activities having no impacts to endangered species. Section 401
of the Federal Clean Water Act Section 401 of the Clean Water Act requires that “any applicant for a federal permit for activities that involve a discharge to waters of the State shall
provide the federal permitting agency with a certification from the State, in which the discharge is proposed, that states the discharge will comply
Rancho Vista Village Habitat Assessment, MSHCP Consistency Analysis, and Burrowing Owl Assessment Appendix E: Regulatory Backgraound Michael Brandman Associates E-2 H:\Client (PN-JN)\1264\12640029\MS
HCP\12640029 MSHCP 08-15-2012.doc with the applicable provisions under the federal Clean Water Act.” Therefore, before the USACE will issue a Section 404 permit, applicants must apply
for and receive a Section 401 water quality certification from the RWQCB. Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) makes it unlawful to pursue, capture,
kill, or possess or attempt to do the same to any migratory bird or part, nest, or egg of
any such bird listed in wildlife protection treaties between the United States, Great Britain, Mexico, Japan, and the countries of the former Soviet Union. California Endangered Species
Act The CDFG administers the California Endangered Species Act (CESA). The State of California considers an endangered species as one whose prospects of survival and reproduction are
in immediate jeopardy. A threatened species is considered as one present in such small numbers throughout its range that it is likely to become an endangered species in the near future
in the absence of special protection or management. A rare species is one that is considered present in such small numbers throughout its range that it may become endangered if its present
environment worsens. State threatened and endangered species are fully protected against take, as defined above. The project site contains suitable grassland habitat for Stephens’ kangaroo
rat and the species has been observed less than a mile from the project site. The site is also located within the boundaries of the Habitat Conservation Plan for Stephens’ Kangaroo Rat
in Western Riverside County. Section 3503 and 3511 of California Fish and Game Code The CDFG administers the California Fish and Game Code. There are particular sections of the Code
that are applicable to natural resource management. For example, Section 3503 of the Code states it is unlawful to take, possess, or needlessly destroy the nest or eggs of any bird.
Section 3511 of the Code lists fully protected bird species, where the CDFG is unable to authorize the issuance of permits or licenses to take these species. Pertinent species that are
state fully protected include golden eagle (Aquila chrysaetos) and white-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus). Section 1600 of the California Fish and Game Code All diversions, obstructions,
or changes to the natural flow or bed, channel, or bank of any river, stream, or lake in California are subject to the regulatory authority of the CDFG pursuant to sections 1600 through
1603 of the Code, requiring preparation of a Streambed Alteration Agreement. Under the Code, a stream is defined as a body of water that flows at least periodically, or intermittently,
through a bed or channel having banks and supporting fish or other aquatic life. Included are watercourses with surface or subsurface flows that support or have supported riparian vegetation.
vegetation. Rancho Vista Village Habitat Assessment, MSHCP Consistency Analysis, and Burrowing Owl Assessment Appendix E: Regulatory Backgraound Michael Brandman Associates E-3 H:\Client
(PN-JN)\1264\12640029\MSHCP\12640029 MSHCP 08-15-2012.doc Additionally, CDFG has jurisdiction over altered or artificial waterways as well as dry washes that carry water ephemerally
during storm events based on the biological value of these drainages to fish and wildlife. Porter-Cologne Water Quality Act The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Act allows RWQCBs to oversee
water quality at the local/regional level. The RWQCB regulates actions that would involve “discharging waste, or proposing to discharge waste, with any region that could affect the waters
of the state” (water code 13260(a)), pursuant to provisions of the State Porter-Cologne Water Quality Act. “Waters of the State” are defined as “any surface water or groundwater, including
saline waters, within the boundaries of the state” (water code 13050 (e)). Western Riverside County MSHCP The MSHCP is a comprehensive, multi-jurisdictional Habitat Conservation Plan
focusing on conservation of species and their associated habitats in western Riverside County. Of the 146 Covered Species within the Plan, 118 species are considered to be “adequately
conserved.” The remaining 28 Covered Species will be considered to be adequately conserved when certain landmark conservation requirements are met during the course of future development.
The general goal of the MSHCP is to maintain biological and ecological diversity within a rapidly urbanizing region. The approval of the MSHCP and execution of the IA by the wildlife
agencies allows signatories of the IA to issue “take” authorizations for all species covered by the MSHCP, including state-and federallisted species as well as other identified sensitive
species and/or their habitats. Each city or local jurisdiction will impose a Development Mitigation Fee for projects within their jurisdiction. With payment of the mitigation fee to
the County and compliance with the survey requirements of the MSHCP where required, full mitigation in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA), CESA, and FESA will be granted. The Development Mitigation Fee varies according to project size and project description. The fee for residential development ranges
from approximately $800 per unit to $1,600 per unit depending on development density (County Ordinance 810.2). Payment of the mitigation fee and compliance with the requirements of Section
6.0 of the MSHCP are intended to provide full mitigation under CEQA, NEPA, CESA, and FESA for impacts to the species and habitats covered by the MSHCP pursuant to agreements with the
USFWS, the CDFG, and/or any other appropriate participating regulatory agencies and as set forth in the IA for the MSHCP.