Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMSHCP Consistency Analysis and Habitat AssessmentMSHCP Consistency Analysis and Habitat Assessment (Burrowing Owl) Rancho Vista Village 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 41000 Main Street Temecula, CA 92590 Contact: Stuart Fisk 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 Updated: August 29, 2013 Rancho Vista Village Habitat Assessment, MSHCP Consistency Analysis, and Burrowing Owl Assessment Table of Contents Michael Brandman Associates ii O:\WPWIN\Client (PN-JN)\1264-City of Temecula\12640029\Revised Rancho Vista\12640029 MSHCP_Rancho_Vista_082913.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: Regulatory Background Rancho Vista Village Habitat Assessment, MSHCP Consistency Analysis, and Burrowing Owl Assessment Table of Contents Michael Brandman Associates iii O:\WPWIN\Client (PN-JN)\1264-City of Temecula\12640029\Revised Rancho Vista\12640029 MSHCP_Rancho_Vista_082913.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 O:\WPWIN\Client (PN-JN)\1264-City of Temecula\12640029\Revised Rancho Vista\12640029 MSHCP_Rancho_Vista_082913.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 (Tenative Tract Map 33584) 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 Wildlife (CDFW) 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-City of Temecula\12640029\Revised Rancho Vista\12640029 MSHCP_Rancho_Vista_082913.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 Tentative Track Map (TTM 33584) shows 57 lots for development, a community park, and associated infrastructure. 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. NO R T H Michael Brandman Associates Riverside CountySan Diego County 15 215 74 74 79 79 76 5 15 78 76 371 79 74 Idyllw 215 Pacific Ocean 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 South Camp Pendleton North Cleveland NF Cleveland NF Cleveland NF San Bernardino National Forest Lake Elsinore Railroad Canyon Reservoir Lake Wohlford Lake Mathews 12640029 • 07/2012 | 1_regional.mxd Exhibit 1 Regional Location Map Source: Census 2000 Data, The CaSIL, MBA GIS 2012. 5 0 52.5 Miles TextNOT TO SCALE Project Site CITY OF TEMECULA • MIRA LOMA APARTMENTS MSHCP CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS Project Site RANCHO VISTA VILLAGE.CITY OF TEMECULA 12640029 • 07/2012 | 2_local_topo.mxd Exhibit 2 Local Vicinity Map Topographic BaseNO R T H Michael Brandman Associates Source: TOPO! USGS Murrieta, CA (1976), Bachelor Mountain, CA (1973), Temecula, CA (1975), Pechanga, CA (1997), 7.5' DRG. CITY OF TEMECULA • MIRA LOMA APARTMENTS MSHCP CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS 2,000 0 2,0001,000 Feet Project Site RANCHO VISTA VILLAGE.CITY OF TEMECULA 12640029 • 07/2012 | 3_local_aerial.mxd Exhibit 3 Local Vicinity Map Aerial BaseNO R T H Michael Brandman Associates Source: ESRI Aerial CITY OF TEMECULA • MIRA LOMA APARTMENTS MSHCP CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS Rancho Vis t a R d Rancho Vis t a R d Pauba RdPauba Rd Sa n t a S u z a n n e P l Sa n t a S u z a n n e P l Mira L o m a D r Mira L o m a D r Santa Cecil i a D r Santa Cecil i a D r Yn e z R d Yn e z R d Rancho Californ i a R d Rancho Californ i a R d Via Las C o l i n a s Via Las C o l i n a s 500 0 500250 Feet Legend Project Site RANCHO VISTA VILLAGE.CITY OF TEMECULA 12640029 • 08/2013| 4_siteplan.cdr Exhibit 4Site PlanMichael Brandman Associates NO R T H CITY OF TEMECULA • MIRA LOMA APARTMENTSMSHCP CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS Source: City of Temecula EASEMENT NOTES RANCHO VISTA VILLAGE.CITY OF TEMECULA Rancho Vista Village Habitat Assessment, MSHCP Consistency Analysis, and Burrowing Owl Assessment Methodology Michael Brandman Associates 7 O:\WPWIN\Client (PN-JN)\1264-City of Temecula\12640029\Revised Rancho Vista\12640029 MSHCP_Rancho_Vista_082913.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 CDFW’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 O:\WPWIN\Client (PN-JN)\1264-City of Temecula\12640029\Revised Rancho Vista\12640029 MSHCP_Rancho_Vista_082913.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 CDFW’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 CDFW 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 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 considered Rancho Vista Village Habitat Assessment, MSHCP Consistency Analysis, and Burrowing Owl Assessment Methodology Michael Brandman Associates 9 O:\WPWIN\Client (PN-JN)\1264-City of Temecula\12640029\Revised Rancho Vista\12640029 MSHCP_Rancho_Vista_082913.doc under the jurisdiction of either USACE and/or CDFW. 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 O:\WPWIN\Client (PN-JN)\1264-City of Temecula\12640029\Revised Rancho Vista\12640029 MSHCP_Rancho_Vista_082913.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 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 O:\WPWIN\Client (PN-JN)\1264-City of Temecula\12640029\Revised Rancho Vista\12640029 MSHCP_Rancho_Vista_082913.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 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 O:\WPWIN\Client (PN-JN)\1264-City of Temecula\12640029\Revised Rancho Vista\12640029 MSHCP_Rancho_Vista_082913.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. 12640029 • 07/2012 | 5_soils.mxd Exhibit 5 Soils MapNO R T H Michael Brandman Associates Source: ESRI Aerial, USDA Soils Data. CITY OF TEMECULA • MIRA LOMA APARTMENTS MSHCP CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS Rancho V i s t a R d Rancho V i s t a R d Sa n t a S u z a n n e P l Sa n t a S u z a n n e P l Mira L o m a D r Mira L o m a D r PaC2 HcD2 AtF3 RsC RsC RmE3 125 0 12562.5 Feet Legend Project Site Soil Classification AtF3 - Arlington and Greenfield fine sandy loams, 15 to 35 per cent slopes, severely e HcD2 - Hanford coarse sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, erod ed PaC2 - Pachappa fine sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes, eroded RmE3 - Ramona and Buren sandy loams, 15 to 25 percent slopes, severely eroded RsC - Riverwash RANCHO VISTA VILLAGE.CITY OF TEMECULA 12640029 • 07/2012 | 6_veg.mxd Exhibit 6 Vegetative CommunitiesNO R T H Michael Brandman Associates Source: ESRI Aerial, MBA Field Survey and GIS Data, 2012. CITY OF TEMECULA • MIRA LOMA APARTMENTS MSHCP CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS Rancho V i s t a R d Rancho V i s t a R d Sa n t a S u z a n n e P l Sa n t a S u z a n n e P l Mira L o m a D r Mira L o m a D r 125 0 12562.5 Feet Legend Project Site(7.16 acres) Vegetative Communities California Buckwheat Scrub (0.24 acre) Disturbed (0.15 acre) Landscaping (1.78 acres) Paved (0.43 acre) Ruderal (4.27 acres) Southern Willow-Cottonwood Riparian(0.29 acre) RANCHO VISTA VILLAGE.CITY OF TEMECULA 12640029 • 07/2012 | 7_veg_impact.mxd Exhibit 7 Vegetative Communities Impacts MapNO R T H Michael Brandman Associates Source: ESRI Aerial, MBA Field Survey and GIS Data, 2012. CITY OF TEMECULA • MIRA LOMA APARTMENTS MSHCP CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS Rancho V i s t a R d Rancho V i s t a R d Sa n t a S u z a n n e P l Sa n t a S u z a n n e P l Mira L o m a D r Mira L o m a D r 125 0 12562.5 Feet Legend Project Site(7.16 acres) Impact(6.65 acres) Vegetative Communities California Buckwheat Scrub 0.24 0.24 Disturbed 0.15 0.08 Landscaping 1.78 1.78 Paved 0.43 0.39 Ruderal 4.27 4.06 Southern Willow-Cottonwood Riparian 0.29 0.10 TotalAcres ImpactAcres RANCHO VISTA VILLAGE.CITY OF TEMECULA Rancho Vista Village Habitat Assessment, MSHCP Consistency Analysis, and Burrowing Owl Assessment Existing Conditions Michael Brandman Associates 16 O:\WPWIN\Client (PN-JN)\1264-City of Temecula\12640029\Revised Rancho Vista\12640029 MSHCP_Rancho_Vista_082913.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 MSHCP Consistency Analysis Michael Brandman Associates 17 O:\WPWIN\Client (PN-JN)\1264-City of Temecula\12640029\Revised Rancho Vista\12640029 MSHCP_Rancho_Vista_082913.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 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. 12640029 • 07/2012 | 8_mshcp.mxd Exhibit 8 MSHCP MapNO R T H Michael Brandman Associates Source: USGS NED, Riverside County MSHCP, Census 2000 data CITY OF TEMECULA • MIRA LOMA APARTMENTS MSHCP CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS Pauba RdPauba Rd Santa Cecil i a D r Santa Ceci l i a D r Yn e z R d Yn e z R d Rancho Californ i a R d Rancho Californ i a R d 15 79 79 215 Core 2 Constrained LinkageA Constrained Linkage E CoreG Core J LinkageA 1 3 4 15 14 10 0 0 0 0 6782 6888 6781 6525 6656 6528 68916890 67836780 6887 6530 7592 6409 6299 7352 7252 6416 6407 6297 7357 7693 7358 6185 6182 7612 7254 7258 7264 7355 7356 7359 7445 75307512 7439 7158 7075 7076 74467444 7520 7273 71617150 7077 7164 7078 7079 7166 607460716075 70087005 7021 6180 6779 6658 6422 7349 7069 Temecula Murrieta Hot Springs 1 0 10.5 Miles Legend Project Site Existing Linkages Proposed Constrained Linkage Proposed Linkage MSHCP Criteria Cells Existing Cores, Habitat Blocks and Linkages Proposed Cores, Habitat Blocks and Linkages Project Site RANCHO VISTA VILLAGE.CITY OF TEMECULA Rancho Vista Village Habitat Assessment, MSHCP Consistency Analysis, Western Riverside County and Burrowing Owl Assessment MSHCP Consistency Analysis Michael Brandman Associates 19 O:\WPWIN\Client (PN-JN)\1264-City of Temecula\12640029\Revised Rancho Vista\12640029 MSHCP_Rancho_Vista_082913.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), the adjacent unnamed ephemeral feature connects to the Margarita River. The Rancho Vista Village Habitat Assessment, MSHCP Consistency Analysis, Western Riverside County and Burrowing Owl Assessment MSHCP Consistency Analysis Michael Brandman Associates 20 O:\WPWIN\Client (PN-JN)\1264-City of Temecula\12640029\Revised Rancho Vista\12640029 MSHCP_Rancho_Vista_082913.doc drainage contains areas under CDFW 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 Recommendations Michael Brandman Associates 21 O:\WPWIN\Client (PN-JN)\1264-City of Temecula\12640029\Revised Rancho Vista\12640029 MSHCP_Rancho_Vista_082913.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 CDFW 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 CDFW 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, CDFW, 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 Recommendations Michael Brandman Associates 22 O:\WPWIN\Client (PN-JN)\1264-City of Temecula\12640029\Revised Rancho Vista\12640029 MSHCP_Rancho_Vista_082913.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-City of Temecula\12640029\Revised Rancho Vista\12640029 MSHCP_Rancho_Vista_082913.doc SECTION 7: CONCLUSIONS A MSHCP Consistency Analysis and Habitat Assessment was conducted to obtain approval for a 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-City of Temecula\12640029\Revised Rancho Vista\12640029 MSHCP_Rancho_Vista_082913.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 29, 2013 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 O:\WPWIN\Client (PN-JN)\1264-City of Temecula\12640029\Revised Rancho Vista\12640029 MSHCP_Rancho_Vista_082913.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 Wildlife (CDFW). 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 Wildlife (CDFW). 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 Wildlife (CDFW). 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 Wildlife (CDFW). 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 Wildlife (CDFW). 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 Wildlife (CDFW). 1988. California’s Wildlife. Volume I: Amphibians and Reptiles. State of California Resources Agency. Sacramento, California. California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 1990a. California’s Wildlife. Volume II: Birds. State of California Resources Agency. Sacramento, California. California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 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 O:\WPWIN\Client (PN-JN)\1264-City of Temecula\12640029\Revised Rancho Vista\12640029 MSHCP_Rancho_Vista_082913.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 O:\WPWIN\Client (PN-JN)\1264-City of Temecula\12640029\Revised Rancho Vista\12640029 MSHCP_Rancho_Vista_082913.doc Appendix A: Riverside County Integrated Project (RCIP) Conservation Summary Report Riverside County Transporation and Land Management Agency - TLMA APNCellCell GroupAcresArea PlanSub 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 NONONONO 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 O:\WPWIN\Client (PN-JN)\1264-City of Temecula\12640029\Revised Rancho Vista\12640029 MSHCP_Rancho_Vista_082913.doc Appendix B: Floral and Faunal Compendia Flora Compendia PinaceaePine Family Pinussp.Unknown pine species LauraceaeLaurel Family Cinnamomumcamphora camphor tree AdoxaceaeHoneysuckle Family Sambucusmexicana blue elderberry AmaranthaceaeAmaranth Family Amaranthusalbus tumbling pigweed AnacardiaceaeSumac or Cashew Family Schinusterebinthifolius Brazilian pepper tree AsteraceaeSunflower Family Ambrosiaartemisiifolia common ragweed Baccharispilularis coyote brush Baccharissalicifolia mule fat Conyzacanadensis horseweed Helianthusannuus common sunflower Heterothecagrandiflora telegraphweed Lactucaserriola prickly lettuce Xanthiumstrumarium cocklebur BoraginaceaeBorage Family Amsinckiamenziesii var. intermedia common fiddleneck BrassicaceaeMustard Family Hirschfeldiaincana short-podded mustard ChenopodiaceaeGoosefoot Family Chenopodiumalbum lamb's quarters Salsolatragus Russian thistle EuphorbiaceaeSpurge Family Crotoncalifornicus California croton Crotonsetigerus dove weed FabaceaeLegume Family Acaciasp.unknown acacia sp. Lotushumistratus foothill birds-foot trefoil Melilotusalba annual white sweetclover Melilotusofficinalis yellow sweet clover FagaceaeOak Family Quercusagrifolia coast live oak HamamelidaceaeWitch-Hazel Family Liquidambarstyraciflua liquid amber LamiaceaeMint Family Flora Compendia Marrubiumvulgare horehound MalvaceaeMallow Family Malvaparviflora cheeseweed MyrtaceaeMyrtle Family Eucalyptuscamaldulensis river red gum Eucalyptusglobulus blue gum OleaceaeOlive Family Fraxinusamericana white ash Ligustrumjaponicum Japanese privet OnagraceaeEvening Primrose Family Epilobiumciliatum fringed willow herb PlatanaceaeSycamore Family Platanusacerifolia London plane tree PolygonaceaeBuckwheat Family Eriogonumfasciculatum California buckwheat Eriogonumgracile slender woolly buckwheat Salicaceae Willow Family Populusfremontii Fremont cottonwood Salixexigua narrowleaf willow Salixlaevigata red willow Salixlasiolepis arroyo willow SimaroubaceaeQuassia Family Ailanthusaltissima tree of heaven SolanaceaeNightshade Family Daturawrightii jimson weed TamaricaceaeTamarisk Family Tamarixramosissima Mediterranean tamarisk UlmaceaeElm Family Ulmus parvifolia Chinese elm ArecaceaePalm Family Washingtoniarobusta Mexican fan palm CyperaceaeSedge Family Cyperuseragrostis tall flatsedge PoaceaeGrass Family Avenafatua wild oat Bromusdiandrus ripgut brome Bromusmadritensis compact brome Cortaderiajubata purple pampas grass Hordeummurinum ssp. leporinum leporinum barley Flora Compendia Polypogonmonspeliensis annual rabbitsfoot grass Vulpiamyuros rat-tail fescue Fauna Compendia ColumbidaePigeons/Doves Columba livia rock pigeon CorvidaeJays/Crows Corvus brachyrhynchos American crow TroglodytidaeWrens Troglodytes aedon house wren FringillidaeFinches Carpodacus mexicanus house finch CanidaeWolves and Foxes Canis latrans coyote Rancho Vista Village Habitat Assessment, MSHCP Consistency Analysis, and Burrowing Owl Assessment Michael Brandman Associates O:\WPWIN\Client (PN-JN)\1264-City of Temecula\12640029\Revised Rancho Vista\12640029 MSHCP_Rancho_Vista_082913.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 CITY OF TEMECULA • RANCHO VISTA VILLAGE MSHCP CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS 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 CITY OF TEMECULA • RANCHO VISTA VILLAGE MSHCP CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS 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 CITY OF TEMECULA • RANCHO VISTA VILLAGE MSHCP CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS Rancho Vista Village Habitat Assessment, MSHCP Consistency Analysis, and Burrowing Owl Assessment Michael Brandman Associates O:\WPWIN\Client (PN-JN)\1264-City of Temecula\12640029\Revised Rancho Vista\12640029 MSHCP_Rancho_Vista_082913.doc Appendix D: Regulatory Background Rancho Vista Village Habitat Assessment, MSHCP Consistency Analysis, and Burrowing Owl Assessment Appendix D: Regulatory Backgraound Michael Brandman Associates E-1 O:\WPWIN\Client (PN-JN)\1264-City of Temecula\12640029\Revised Rancho Vista\12640029 MSHCP_Rancho_Vista_082913.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 D: Regulatory Backgraound Michael Brandman Associates E-2 O:\WPWIN\Client (PN-JN)\1264-City of Temecula\12640029\Revised Rancho Vista\12640029 MSHCP_Rancho_Vista_082913.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 CDFW 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 Wildlife Code The CDFW 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 CDFW 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 Wildlife 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 CDFW 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. Rancho Vista Village Habitat Assessment, MSHCP Consistency Analysis, and Burrowing Owl Assessment Appendix D: Regulatory Backgraound Michael Brandman Associates E-3 O:\WPWIN\Client (PN-JN)\1264-City of Temecula\12640029\Revised Rancho Vista\12640029 MSHCP_Rancho_Vista_082913.doc Additionally, CDFW 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 federal- listed 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 CDFW, and/or any other appropriate participating regulatory agencies and as set forth in the IA for the MSHCP.