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.