or more severe direct or cumulatively considerable impacts to the environment beyond what was previously evaluated and disclosed by the General Plan EIR. Accordingly, the proposed project would not trigger additional environmental review.
3.6 Hazards and Hazardous Materials
Summary of Findings in the General Plan EIR: Impacts from hazards and hazardous materials were analyzed in Section 3.5, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, of the General Plan EIR. On June 20, 2023 (when the impact analysis for the General Plan EIR was conducted), there were 26 hazardous materials sites in the City’s boundaries, with the closest hazardous materials site located approximately 0.6 miles north of the project site. It is noted that all 26 sites have been cleaned up and require no further action.
The General Plan EIR acknowledges that future development could involve grading and excavation activities that could expose construction workers and the public to previously unknown hazardous substances present in the soil. To reduce impacts associated with unknown hazardous wastes, future development would be required to prepare a project‐specific Phase I Environmental Site Assessment for any properties identified on any list of hazardous materials compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5. Additionally, if asbestos‐containing materials (ACM) and/or lead‐based paints (LBP) are identified during site‐specific hazardous materials inspections, abatement activities would be required to occur prior to demolition. The analysis in the General Plan EIR concluded that with implementation of the General Plan policies, as well as continued adherence to federal, state, and local regulations and requirements, implementation of the General Plan would result in less than significant impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials.
Impacts Associated with the Proposed Project: Because historical records indicate the project site was used for agricultural purposes between the 1930s and the 1960s, project site soils could contain pesticides, herbicides, lead, and/or arsenic. Accordingly, a Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site Assessment dated April 9, 2024 (Stantec 2024) was prepared for the project site by Stantec Consulting Services, Inc. The technical study is included as Appendix E of this report. During the site reconnaissance conducted on March 27, 2024, two empty unlabeled aboveground storage tanks were observed in the southwestern portion of the project site, which appear to be associated with livestock operations. There was no visible evidence of former aboveground storage tanks or existing or former underground storage tanks on the project site. Additionally, there were no observations of other signs of potential hazardous materials on or below the project site. On March 25 through 27, 2024, 12 soil borings were conducted on the project site to a maximum depth of about 3 feet. The amount of pesticides, herbicides, lead, and/or arsenic detected within the collected soil borings were below thresholds that trigger soil remediation on residential properties. Additionally, soil vapor samples were collected on March 27, 2024; however, tested gases were below thresholds triggering site remediation. Accordingly, no recognized environmental conditions or controlled recognized environmental conditions occur on the project site (Stantec 2024).
Although no samples were collected for testing, based on the age of the structures on‐site (circa 1970s), an ACM and LBP survey would be required prior to demolition. If ACM and/or LBP are detected, the project contractor would be required to adhere to applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations related to worker and public safety during building demolition.
1655
PLN24‐20053 – Warmington Residential
City of Eastvale
Conclusion: With adherence to applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations related to ACM and LBP abatement, including conducting an ACM and LBP survey of the structures that would be demolished, the proposed project would not result in impacts related to hazards and hazardous materials that are peculiar to the project site, and there are no new or more severe direct or cumulatively considerable impacts to the environment beyond what was previously evaluated and disclosed by the General Plan EIR. Accordingly, the proposed project would not trigger additional environmental review. 4 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW CONCLUSION
The analysis presented in Section 3 demonstrates that the proposed project meets the requirements of CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, and as such, no additional CEQA review, such as a Subsequent or Supplemental EIR, is required for the project. Specifically:
Upon approval of the project applicant’s density bonus waiver on minimum lot size, which is allowable due to the provision of very low‐income residential units, the proposed project would be consistent with the development density allowed on the project site by the adopted General Plan (CEQA Guidelines Sections 15183[a] and 15183[d]);
The proposed project would not result in environmental impacts that are peculiar to the project or projectsite (CEQA Guidelines Section 15183[b][1]);
The proposed project would not result in new significant environmental effects beyond those disclosed in the General Plan EIR (CEQA Guidelines Section 15183[b][2]); The proposed project would not result in potentially significant off‐site or cumulative impacts beyond those disclosed in the General Plan EIR (CEQA Guidelines Section 15183[b][3]); There is no substantial new information that was unknown at the time the General Plan EIR was certified, and as such, the proposed project would not result in more severe adverse impacts than those disclosed in the General Plan EIR (CEQA Guidelines Section 15183[b][4]); Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15183, because implementation of the proposed project would not result in impacts that are peculiar to the project site and the proposed project would not result in new or more severe impacts to the environment beyond what was previously evaluated and disclosed by the General Plan EIR, no additional environmental review beyond this Section 15183 Exemption Report is required for the proposed project.
5 REFERENCES
California Office of Historic Preservation. 1993. Guidelines for the Curation of Archeological Collections. https://ohp.parks.ca.gov/pages/1069/files/guide‐93.pdf.
City of Eastvale. 2024a. Eastvale 2040 General Plan. Adopted March 27, 2024. https://www.eastvaleca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/17340/638538605697900000.
City of Eastvale. 2024b. Eastvale 2040 General Plan Final Environmental Impact Report. Certified March 27, 2024. State Clearinghouse No. 2022080090.
https://www.eastvaleca.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/17162/638460168406500000. 1656
PLN24‐20053 – Warmington Residential
City of Eastvale
CSLS (Carlson Strategic Land Solutions). 2025a. Biological Resource Assessment for the SEC Archibald and Grapewin Project.
CSLS (Carlson Strategic Land Solutions). 2025b. Consistency Determination, SEC Archibald and Grapewin Project, Submitted Pursuant to MSHCP Section 6.1.2 Protection of Species Associated with Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools; Section 6.1.3 Narrow Endemic Plant Surveys; and Section 6.3.2 Species Survey Requirements.
GeoTek, Inc. 2024. Geotechnical and Infiltration Evaluation – Proposed Single‐Family Residential Development; Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs) 130‐070‐015 and ‐021; and 130‐080‐004 8312; Grapewin Street, Eastvale, Riverside County, California.
Stantec (Stantec Consulting Services, Inc.). 2024. Assessor’s Parcel Numbers: 130‐070‐015, 130‐080‐004, and 130‐070‐021, Eastvale, California 92880 – Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site Assessment.
Urbana Preservation & Planning, LLC. 2024. Historical Resource Assessment (HRA) Memorandum – 8312 Grapewin Street / 8330 Archibald Avenue, Eastvale, California.
VCS (VCS Environmental). 2025. Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment and Built Environment Evaluation, Eastvale; Grapewin – Archaeological and Paleontological Records Searches, NAHC Sacred Land File Search, Built Environment Evaluation Memorandum. 6 LIST OF PREPARERS
6.1 Lead Agency
City of Eastvale
Jamie K. Cerda, AICP, Principal Planner
6.2 Consultant
Michael Baker International
Bob Stark, AICP, Principal‐In‐Charge
Melissa Whittemore, Project Manager
Alicia Gonzalez, Planning Manager
Kristin Szabo, Senior Biologist
Emily Edgington, Environmental Planner
Ana Cotham, Technical Editor
1657
PLN24-20053 – Warmington Residential
City of Eastvale
APPENDIX A
PROJECT SITE PLAN
1658
WARMINGTON RESIDENTIAL
Eastvale – SEC Grapewin & Archibald
SITE PLAN (2/27/25)
(Plot Plan_12.6.2024 V3)
LEGEND
Affordable Unit
1659
PLN24-20053 – Warmington Residential
City of Eastvale
APPENDIX B-1
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
ASSESSMENT
1660
Biological Resource Assessment for the
SEC Archibald and Grapewin Project
Prepared for:
Warmington Residential
3090 Pullman Street
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Contact: Greg Ocasek
Prepared by:
Carlson Strategic Land Solutions
327134A Paseo Espada, Suite 323
San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675
Contact: Brianna Bernard
Phone: (949) 542-7042
January 2025
1661
Biological Resource Assessment for the SEC Archibald and Grapewin Project January 2025 i
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Acronyms, Abbreviations, and Glossary of Terms................................................................iv
1.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Purpose and Approach.................................................................................... 1
1.2 Project Terms..................................................................................................... 1
1.3 Project Location ................................................................................................ 1
1.4 Existing Conditions........................................................................................... 2
2.0 Project Description ................................................................................................... 2
3.0 Regulatory Context .................................................................................................. 7
3.1 Federal Laws and Regulations........................................................................ 7
3.1.1 Federal Endangered Species Act ................................................... 7
3.1.2 Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA)................................................... 7
3.1.3 Federal Clean Water Act (CWA) ..................................................... 7
3.1.4 Waters of the United States and Wetlands ................................... 8
3.2 California State Laws and Regulations ........................................................10
3.2.1 California Endangered Species Act (CESA)................................10
3.2.2 California Fish and Game Code Section 1600-1616.................11
3.2.3 California Fully Protected Species ................................................11
3.2.4 Protection of Birds ...........................Error! Bookmark not defined.
3.2.6 Porter-Cologne Water Quality Act – California Code, Division 7 .............................................................................................................11
3.2.7 California Native Plant Protection Act..........................................12
3.2.8 Sensitive Plant Communities .........................................................12
3.2.9 California Native Plant Society.......................................................12
3.3 Regulatory Permits..........................................................................................12
3.4 Local Sensitive Resource Protection and Classifications .........................13
3.4.1 Western Riverside Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan .............................................................................................................13
4.0 Survey and Methods .............................................................................................. 14
4.1 Literature Review.............................................................................................14
4.1.1 Sensitive Plant Communities .........................................................14
4.1.2 Critical Habitat..................................................................................14
4.1.3 Special Status Plants and Wildlife .................................................15
4.2 Biological Survey.............................................................................................19
4.2.1 General Biological Survey ..............................................................19
4.2.2 Regional Connectivity/Wildlife Movement .................................19 1662
Biological Resource Assessment for the SEC Archibald and Grapewin Project January 2025 ii
4.3 MSHCP..............................................................................................................21
4.3.1 Section 6.1.2 Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools...........21
4.3.2 MSHCP Section 6.1.3 Narrow Endemic Plant.............................22
4.3.3 Section 6.3.2 Burrowing Owl Habitat Assessment.....................22
4.4 Jurisdictional Waters ......................................................................................24
5.0 Results ...................................................................................................................... 25
5.1 Vegetation Communities ..............................................................................26
5.1.1 Ruderal...............................................................................................27
5.1.2 Disturbed/Developed.....................................................................27
5.1.3 500-foot Buffer Area........................................................................27
5.2 Special-Status Vegetation Types..................................................................27
5.3 Plants.................................................................................................................29
5.4 Critical Habitat.................................................................................................30
5.5 Wildlife..............................................................................................................30
5.5.1 Wildlife Species Observed or Detected......................................40
5.6 Regional Connectivity/Wildlife Movement ................................................40
5.7 MSHCP Assessment .......................................................................................41
5.7.1 Section 6.1.2 Riparian Riverine......................................................41
5.7.2 Narrow Endemic Plant – Survey Area Number 7 (Section 6.1.3) .............................................................................................................44
5.7.3 Burrowing Owl Habitat Assessment (Section 6.3.2) ..................45
5.8 Jurisdictional Areas ........................................................................................46
5.8.1 Summary of Jurisdictional Waters ................................................46
5.9 Soils Mapping..................................................................................................46
6.0 Threshold of Significance ...................................................................................... 49
7.0 Significance Determination and Proposed Mitigation ....................................... 51
7.1 Regulatory Setting ..........................................................................................51
7.2 Project Related Impacts .................................................................................51
7.2.1 Impacts to Vegetation Communities............................................52
7.2.2 Impacts to Jurisdictional Features ................................................52
7.2.3 MSHCP Riparian/Riverine Impacts................................................52
7.3 Threshold BIO - A ...........................................................................................54
7.3.1 Sensitive Plant Species....................................................................54
7.3.2 Sensitive Wildlife Species...............................................................54
7.3.3 Critical Habitat..................................................................................57
7.4 Threshold BIO- B.............................................................................................58
7.4.1 Sensitive Plant Communities .........................................................58
7.4.2 Jurisdictional Waters .......................................................................58
7.5 Threshold BIO - C ...........................................................................................58 1663
Biological Resource Assessment for the SEC Archibald and Grapewin Project January 2025 iii
7.6 Threshold BIO - D...........................................................................................59
7.6.1 Wildlife Movement ..........................................................................59
7.6.2 Migratory Birds and Raptors ..........................................................59
7.7 Threshold BIO - E............................................................................................60
7.8 Threshold BIO - F............................................................................................60
8.0 Cumulative Impacts ................................................................................................ 63
9.0 Literature Cited ....................................................................................................... 65 TABLES
Table 1. Survey Information .....................................................................................................26 Table 2. Vegetation Community Observed Onsite .............................................................27 Table 3. Vegetation Community Impacts ..............................................................................52
FIGURES
Figure 1: Regional Location Map..............................................................................................3 Figure 2: Project Site Map..........................................................................................................4 Figure 3: Topographic Map.......................................................................................................5 Figure 4: Site Plan........................................................................................................................6 Figure 5: Critical Habitat Map .................................................................................................18 Figure 6: MSHCP Overlays.......................................................................................................23 Figure 7: Vegetation Community Mapping..........................................................................28 Figure 8: Jurisdictional Waters................................................................................................43 Figure 9: Soils Map....................................................................................................................48 Figure 10: Vegetation Impact Map.........................................................................................53
APPENDICES
Appendix A Representative Photographs of the Vegetation Community Appendix B Plant Species Recorded During the Field Survey Appendix C Special Status Plant Species Potential Occurrence Determination Appendix D Special Status Wildlife Species Potential Occurrence Determination Appendix E Focused Burrowing Owl Survey
1664
Biological Resource Assessment for the SEC Archibald and Grapewin Project January 2025 iv
ACRONYMS, ABBREVIATIONS, AND GLOSSARY OF TERMS
BLM United States Bureau of Land Management
BMPs Best Management Practices
CDF California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CESA California Endangered Species Act
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CNDDB California Natural Diversity Database
CNPS California Native Plant Society
Corps United States Army Corps of Engineers
CRPR California Rare Plant Rank
CSLS Carlson Strategic Land Solutions
CWA Clean Water Act
ESA Federal Endangered Species Act
FGC California Fish and Game Code
GIS Geographic Information System
GPS Global Positioning System
LBV Least Bell’s Vireo
MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act
MCVII The Manual of California Vegetation
MMRP Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program
MSL mean sea level
NEPA National Environmental Protection Act
NHD National Hydrography Dataset
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NPPA Native Plant Protection Act
NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service
NWI National Wetlands Inventory
OHWM Ordinary High-Water Mark
Project SEC Archibald and Grapewin Project
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
SAA Section 1600 Streambed Alteration Agreement
SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
1665
Biological Resource Assessment for the SEC Archibald and Grapewin Project January 2025 v
U.S. United States
USFS United States Forest Service
USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service
USGS United States Geological Survey
WQC Section 401 Water Quality Certification
1666
Biological Resource Assessment for the SEC Archibald and Grapewin Project January 2025 1
1.0 Introduction
Carlson Strategic Land Solutions (CSLS) prepared this Biological Resource Assessment for the SEC Archibald and Grapewin Residential Project (Project) in the City of Eastvale.
The Biological Resource Assessment for the approximately 8-acre Project site and the surrounding 500-feet, collectively known as the “Study Area,” incorporates the findings from field surveys for Biological Assessment, Jurisdictional Delineation, Narrow Endemic Plant Surveys, and Burrowing Owl Surveys.
The purpose of this study is to satisfy the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and incorporate the findings from the field surveys.
1.1 Purpose and Approach
This report provides a summary of the conditions present during the field surveys, which includes an assessment of the potential presence of sensitive biological resources, an analysis of the potential impacts to those resources due to Project implementation and proposed mitigation. This assessment describes the current biological resources present within the Study Area including habitat communities, jurisdictional waters, and the potential occurrence of listed and special status plant and wildlife species. The potential biological significance of site construction and development in view of federal, state, and local laws and regulations are also identified in this report. The report also recommends, as appropriate, Best Management Practices (BMPs) and avoidance and minimization measures to reduce or avoid potential impacts. While general biological resources are discussed, the focus of this assessment is on those resources considered to be sensitive. This assessment was prepared based upon results of a literature review and field survey.
1.2 Project Terms
The following terms will be used throughout this document and are defined as follows:
• Project site: the approximately 8-acre SEC Archibald and Grapewin Project site. • Study Area: the area evaluated during the field survey, including the approximately 8-acre Project site and an approximate 500-foot buffer area surrounding the Project site.
• Project Vicinity: intended to be a general term to describe the broader area surrounding the Study Area.
1.3 Project Location
The Study Area is located east of Archibald Street and south of Grapewin Street, within the City of Eastvale in Riverside County, California (Figures 1 through 3). The Study Area is located within the United States Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-Minute Topographic Map Corona North Quadrangle within Section 00, Township 2 South, and Range 7 West. 1667
Biological Resource Assessment for the SEC Archibald and Grapewin Project January 2025 2
The Project’s Assessor Parcel Numbers (APN) includes 130-070-021, 130-070-015, and 130-080-004.
Access to the Project site is from Grapewin Street, as well as Archibald Street.
1.4 Existing Conditions
The Project site consists of several developed animal pens for goats, sheep, cattle, etc.
The Project site also contains 2 residential units with a pool house, covered horse arena, and stables. Overall, the site includes developed communities and ruderal habitat consisting of non-native species. Located to the east of the Project site is the Santa Ana River. Habitat within the Santa Ana River consists of arundo thickets and southern cottonwood willow riparian forest and open water.
The site is bounded by Vantage Point Church on the south, residential development to the west and north, and the Santa Ana River to the east.
2.0 Project Description
The Project proposes to construct 76 single-family lots, open space lots, water quality basins, and landscape. All development is anticipated to occur on the Project site, and no direct impacts to the Santa Ana River is anticipated. The proposed site plan is shown on Figure 4.
1668
^_
Approximate Project Location
I SEC Archibald and Grapewin Project
1 inch = 10,000 feet
0 2,500 5,000 10,000 15,000
Feet Data Source: Bing Maps
GIS Prepared By:
Carlson SLS
Created: April 3, 2024 Regional Map
FIGURE 1
1669
Legend
Project Boundary
500-Foot Buffer
I SEC Archibald and Grapewin Project
1 inch = 250 feet
0 25 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Feet Data Source: Bing Map
FIGURE 2
Project Location Map
GIS Prepared By:
Carlson SLS
Created: April 3, 2024
1670
Sources: Esri, HERE, DeLorme, Intermap, increment P Corp., GEBCO, USGS, FAO, NPS, NRCAN, GeoBase, IGN, Kadaster NL, Ordnance Survey, Esri Japan, METI, Esri China (Hong Kong), swisstopo, MapmyIndia, © OpenStreetMap contributors, and the GIS User Community
Legend
Project Boundary
500-Foot Buffer
I SEC Archibald and Grapewin Project
1 inch = 400 feet
0 50 100 200 300 400 500 600 700
Feet Data Source: Bing Map
FIGURE 3
Topographic Map
GIS Prepared By:
Carlson SLS
Created: April 3, 2024
1671
1672
Biological Resource Assessment for the SEC Archibald and Grapewin Project January 2025 7
3.0 Regulatory Context
The following is a list of the key local, state, and federal laws and regulations that apply to protecting plant communities, plants, wildlife, and water quality from project impacts relevant to the Project.
3.1 Federal Laws and Regulations
3.1.1 Federal Endangered Species Act
The Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 defines an endangered species as “any species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range.” A threatened species is defined as “any species which is likely to become an Endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.” Under provisions of Section 9(a)(1)(B) of the ESA, unless properly permitted, it is unlawful to “take” any listed species. “Take” is defined in Section 3(18) of ESA: “...harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct.” Further, the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), through regulation, has interpreted the terms “harm” and “harass” to include certain types of habitat modification as forms of “take.” These interpretations, however, are generally considered and applied on a case‐by‐case basis and often vary from species to species. In a case where a property owner seeks permission from a federal agency for an action which could affect a federally listed plant or animal species, the property owner and agency are required to consult with USFWS pursuant to Section 7 of the ESA if there is a federal nexus, or pursuant to Section 10 of the ESA. Section 9(a)(2)(b) of the ESA addresses the protections afforded to listed plants. All references to federally‐protected species in this biological assessment include the most current published status or candidate category to which each species has been assigned by USFWS.
3.1.2 Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA)
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) protects individuals as well as any part, nest, or eggs of any bird listed as migratory. In practice, Federal permits issued for activities that potentially impact migratory birds typically have conditions that require pre‐disturbance surveys for nesting birds. In the event nesting is observed, a buffer area with a specified radius must be established, within which no disturbance or intrusion is allowed until the young have fledged and left the nest, or it has been determined that the nest has failed.
If not otherwise specified in the permit, the size of the buffer area varies with species and local circumstances (e.g., presence of busy roads, intervening topography, etc.), and is based on the professional judgment of a monitoring biologist. A list of migratory bird species protected under the MBTA is published by USFWS.
3.1.3 Federal Clean Water Act (CWA)
The Clean Water Act (CWA), Section 401 provides guidance for the restoration and maintenance of the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation’s waters. 1673
Biological Resource Assessment for the SEC Archibald and Grapewin Project January 2025 8
Section 401 requires a project operator to obtain a federal license or permit that allows activities resulting in a discharge to waters of the United States to obtain state certification, thereby ensuring that the discharge will comply with provisions of the CWA. The Regional Water Quality Control Board administers the certification program in California. Section 404 establishes a permit program administered by the United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) that regulates the discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States, including wetlands. The Corps implementing regulations are found at 33 CFR 320 and 330. Guidelines for implementation are referred to as the Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines, which were developed by the United States Environmental Protection Agency in conjunction with Corps (40 CFR 230). The guidelines allow the discharge of dredged or fill material into the aquatic system only if there are no practicable alternatives that would have less adverse impacts.
3.1.4 Waters of the United States and Wetlands
Aquatic resources, including riparian areas, wetlands, and certain aquatic vegetation communities, are considered sensitive biological resources and fall under the jurisdiction of several regulatory agencies. The Corps exerts jurisdiction over waters of the United States, including all waters that are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide; wetlands and other waters such as lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent or ephemeral streams), mudflats, sandflats, sloughs, prairie potholes, vernal pools, wet meadows, playa lakes, or natural ponds; and tributaries of the above features. The extent of waters of the United States is generally defined as the portion that falls within the limits of the Ordinary High-Water Mark (OHWM). The OHWM is defined as the “line on the shore established by the fluctuation of water and indicated by physical characteristics such as a clear, natural line impressed on the bank, shelving, changes in the character of soil, destruction of terrestrial vegetation, the presence of litter and debris, or other appropriate means that consider the characteristics of the surrounding areas.”
The definition of waters of the United States has undergone several iterations, including a much more streamlined definition which was published and formally adopted in April 2020. However, in August 2021, the April 2020 Navigable Waters definition was challenged in the case Pascua Yaqui Tribe v. Environmental Protection Agency. In light of this case and subsequent order from US District Court for the District of Arizona, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Corps have halted implementation of the Navigable Waters Protection Rule from 2020 and are interpreting “waters of the United States” consistent with the pre-2015 regulatory regime. Then in March 2023 following a Supreme Court decision, the rule was once again changed and finalized to codify the pre-2015 definition with some revisions to the definition of waters of the United States and wetlands. On August 29, 2023 the EPA and Corps issued a final rule to amend the prior definition of waters of the United States. The final rule conforms with the definition of waters of the United States to the US Supreme Court’s May 25, 2023 decision in the case Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency. As a result of the case, key aspects of the regulatory text have been amended to conform to the Court’s 1674
Biological Resource Assessment for the SEC Archibald and Grapewin Project January 2025 9
decision, which revised the definitions of waters of the United States and became effective on September 8, 2023.
The September 2023 ruling codified the term (a) waters of the United States to mean:
1. Waters which are:
i. Currently used, or were used in the past, or may be susceptible to use in interstate or foreign commerce, including all waters which are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide;
ii. The territorial seas; or
iii. Interstate waters;
2. Impoundments of waters otherwise defined as waters of the United States under this definition, other than impoundments of waters identified under paragraph (a)(5) of this section;
3. Tributaries of waters identified in paragraph (a)(1) or (2) of this section that are relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of water;
4. Wetlands adjacent to the following waters:
i. Waters identified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section; or ii. Relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of water identified in paragraph (a)(2) or (a)(3) of this section and with a continuous surface connection to those waters;
iii. Waters identified in paragraph (a)(2) or (3) of this section when the wetlands either alone or in combination with similarly situated waters in the region, significantly affect the chemical, physical, or biological integrity of waters identified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section;
5. Intrastate lakes and ponds not identified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) of this section that are relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of water with a continuous surface connection to the waters identified in paragraph (a)(1) or (a)(3) of this section.
6. Intrastate lakes and ponds, streams, or wetlands not identified in paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) of this section:
i. That are relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of water with a continuous surface connection to the waters identified in paragraph (a)(1) or (a)(3)(i) of this section; or
ii. That either alone or in combination with similarly situated waters in the region, significantly affect the chemical, physical, or biological integrity of waters identified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section.
Wetlands, including swamps, bogs, seasonal wetlands, seeps, marshes, and similar areas, are defined by Corps as “those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface 1675
Biological Resource Assessment for the SEC Archibald and Grapewin Project January 2025 10
or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions” (33 CFR 328.3[a]; 40 CFR 230.3[t]). Indicators of three wetland parameters (i.e., hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation, and wetlands hydrology), as determined by field investigation, must be present and, as outlined within the March 2023 ruling, have adjacency with relative permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of water with continuous connection to Waters of the US. Wetlands must meet the parameters as outlined above classified as a wetland by Corps.
It is important to note that the RWQCB definition of wetland was redefined, and the new definition went into effect May 28, 2020. The definition of a wetland is as follows: An area is wetland if, under normal circumstances, (1) the area has continuous or recurrent saturation of the upper substrate caused by groundwater, or shallow surface water, or both; (2) the duration of such saturation is sufficient to cause anaerobic conditions in the upper substrate; and (3) the area’s vegetation is dominated by hydrophytes, or the area lacks vegetation. This RWQCB modified three-parameter definition is similar to the federal definition in that it identifies three wetland characteristics that determine the presence of a wetland: wetland hydrology, hydric soils, and hydrophytic vegetation.
Unlike the federal definition, however, the RWQCB wetland definition allows for the presence of hydric substrates as a criterion for wetland identification (not just wetland soils) and wetland hydrology for an area devoid of vegetation (less than 5% cover) to be considered a wetland.
Examples of waters that would be considered wetlands by the RWQCB definition, but not by the federal wetland definition, are non-vegetated wetlands, or wetlands characterized by exposed bare substrates like mudflats and playas, as long as they meet the three-parameters as described in the RWQCB definition. It is important to note that while the Corps may not designate a feature as a wetland, that feature could be considered a special aquatic site or other water of the U.S. by the Corps and potentially subject to Corps’ jurisdiction.
3.2 California State Laws and Regulations
3.2.1 California Endangered Species Act (CESA)
The California Endangered Species Act (CESA) establishes the policy of the state to conserve, protect, restore, and enhance threatened or endangered species and their habitats. The CESA mandates that state agencies should not approve projects that would jeopardize the continued existence of threatened or endangered species if reasonable and prudent alternatives are available that would avoid jeopardy. There are no state agency consultation procedures under the CESA. For projects that would affect a listed species under both the CESA and the ESA, compliance with the ESA would satisfy the CESA if California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) determines that the federal incidental take authorization is “consistent” with the CESA under California Fish and Game Code (FGC) Section 2080.1. For projects that would result in take of a 1676
Biological Resource Assessment for the SEC Archibald and Grapewin Project January 2025 11
species listed under the CESA only, the project operator would have to apply for a take permit under Section 2081(b).
3.2.2 California Fish and Game Code Section 1600-1616
Section 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code requires notifying CDFW prior to any project activity that might (1) substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow of any river, stream, or lake; (2) substantially change or use any material from the bed, channel, or bank of any river, stream, or lake; or (3) deposit or dispose of debris, waste, or other material containing crumbled, flaked, or ground pavement where it may pass into any river, stream, or lake. If, after this notification, the CDFW determines that the activity may substantially adversely affect fish and wildlife resources, a Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement will need to be obtained. CDFW may then place conditions in the Section 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement to avoid, minimize, and mitigate any potentially significant adverse impacts within CDFW jurisdictional limits.
3.2.3 California Fully Protected Species
California fully protected species are described in Sections 3511, 4700, 5050, and 5515 of the California Fish and Game Code. These statutes prohibit take or possession of fully protected species. CDFW is unable to authorize incidental take of fully protected species when activities are proposed in areas inhabited by those species.
3.2.4 Protection of Birds
Section 3503.5 of the California Fish and Game Code states that it is “unlawful to take, possess, or destroy any birds in the order Falconiformes or Strigiformes (birds of prey) or to take, possess, or destroy the nest or eggs of any such bird except as otherwise provided by this code or any regulation adopted pursuant thereto.” Activities that result in the abandonment of an active bird of prey nest may also be considered in violation of this code. In addition, California Fish and Game Code, Section 3511 prohibits the taking of any bird listed as fully protected, and California Fish and Game Code, Section 3515 states that is it unlawful to take any non‐game migratory bird protected under the MBTA.
3.2.5 Porter-Cologne Water Quality Act – California Code, Division 7 The RWQCB also has jurisdiction over waters deemed “isolated” or not subject to Section 404 jurisdiction under the Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County v.
Corps decision. Dredging, filling, or excavation of isolated waters constitutes a discharge of waste to waters of the state and prospective dischargers are required to obtain authorization through an Order of Waste Discharge or waiver thereof from the RWQCB and comply with other requirements of Porter-Cologne Act.
Under Section 401 of the CWA, the local RWQCB (for this Project, the Santa Ana RWQCB) must certify that actions receiving authorization under Section 404 of the CWA also meet state water quality standards. The RWQCB requires projects to avoid impacts to wetlands if feasible and requires that projects do not result in a net loss of wetland 1677
Biological Resource Assessment for the SEC Archibald and Grapewin Project January 2025 12
acreage or a net loss of wetland function and values. Compensatory mitigation for impacts to wetlands and/or waters of the state is required.
3.2.6 California Native Plant Protection Act
The California Native Plant Protection Act (NPAA) (California Fish and Game Code §§ 1900–1913) requires all State agencies to use their authority to carry out programs to conserve Endangered and Rare native plants. The NPAA gives the CDFW the regulatory authority to designate native plants as “Endangered” or “Rare” and prohibits the take of such plants with certain exceptions.
Provisions of the NPPA prohibit the taking of listed plants from the wild and require notification of CDFW at least 10 days in advance of any change in land use. This allows CDFW to salvage listed plant species that would otherwise be destroyed. The project operator is required to conduct botanical inventories and consult with CDFW during project planning to comply with the provisions of this act and sections of CEQA that apply to rare or endangered plants.
3.2.7 Sensitive Plant Communities
Sensitive plant communities include those habitat types considered sensitive by resource agencies, namely CDFW, due to their scarcity and/or their ability to support State and Federally listed Endangered, Threatened, and Rare vascular plants, as well as several sensitive bird and reptile species. CDFW maintains a natural plant community list, the List of California Terrestrial Natural Communities. Sensitive natural communities (also referred to by CDFW as ‘rare’, ‘special‐status’, or ‘special concern’) are identified on the list by an asterisk and are considered high priority vegetation types (CDFW 2003; CDFW 2000).
3.2.8 California Native Plant Society
The California Native Plant Society (CNPS) is a private plant conservation organization dedicated to the monitoring and protection of sensitive species in California. CNPS has compiled an inventory comprised of the information focusing on geographic distribution and qualitative characterization of Rare, Threatened, or Endangered vascular plant species of California. The list serves as the candidate list for Threatened and Endangered by CDFW. CNPS has developed five categories of rarity, of which Ranks 1A, 1B, and 2 are particularly considered sensitive.
Sensitive species that occur or potentially could occur within the Study Area are based on one or more of the following: (1) the direct observation of the species within the Study Area during any field surveys; (2) a record reported in the CNDDB; and (3) the Study Area is within known distribution of a species and contains appropriate habitat.
3.3 Regulatory Permits
This report is prepared pursuant to and in support of CEQA, and any applicable regulatory permit applications, including the CDFW SAA, RWQCB Section 401 WQC or 1678
Biological Resource Assessment for the SEC Archibald and Grapewin Project January 2025 13
Wastewater Discharge Report (WDR), Corps Section 404 permit, and USFWS Section 7 Biological Opinion.
3.4 Local Sensitive Resource Protection and Classifications
3.4.1 Western Riverside Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan The Project site is located within the Western Riverside Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP). The MSHCP is a comprehensive plan that includes portions of the County of Riverside and numerous cities. The MSHCP plans for conservation of 146 species and proposes a reserve system of approximately 500,000 acres. The MSHCP is intended to contribute to the economic viability of the County of Riverside by providing landowners, developers, and public infrastructure projects a streamlined regulatory process.
The Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority MSHCP Information Application website was reviewed to verify any overlays that may occur on the Project site. Regardless of other overlays, MSHCP Section 6.1.2, Protection of Species Associated with Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools, is applicable to all projects within the MSHCP and describes the process through which protection of riparian/riverine areas, and vernal pools will occur within the MSHCP Area. Protection of these resources is important for a number of MSHCP conservation objectives. An assessment of a Project’s potentially significant effects on riparian/riverine areas and vernal pools is required. Guidelines for determining whether or not these resources exist on site are described as follows:
▪ Riparian/Riverine Areas include “lands which contain habitat dominated by trees, shrubs, persistent emergent, or emergent mosses and lichens which occur close to, or which depend upon soil moisture from a nearby fresh water source or areas with fresh water flow during all or a portion of the year.” Riparian/riverine areas under the MSHCP also include drainage areas that are vegetated or have upland (non-riparian/riverine) vegetation and that drain directly into an area that is described for conservation under the MSHCP (or areas already conserved). • Vernal Pools are described by the MSHCP as “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.”
With the exception of wetlands created for the purpose of providing wetlands Habitat or resulting from human actions to create open waters or from the alteration of natural stream courses, areas demonstrating characteristics as described above which are artificially created are not included in these definitions.
1679
Biological Resource Assessment for the SEC Archibald and Grapewin Project January 2025 14
4.0 Survey and Methods
Preparation for this biological assessment began with a review of relevant available literature and review of any prior biological documentation for the Study Area. This effort was followed by onsite field surveys to assess the existing habitat, map any onsite sensitive plant communities and jurisdictional waters, and determine whether special status plant and wildlife species occur or potentially occur within the Study Area.
4.1 Literature Review
The assessment began with a review of relevant available literature on the biological resources within the Study Area and Project Vicinity.
4.1.1 Sensitive Plant Communities
Sensitive plant communities (sensitive habitats) are of limited distribution statewide or within a county or region and are often vulnerable to environmental effects of projects.
Sensitive habitats are often threatened with local extirpation and are therefore considered valuable biological resources. Plant communities are considered “sensitive” by the CNPS and CDFW if they meet any of the criteria listed below. • The habitat is recognized and considered sensitive by CDFW, USFWS, and/or special interest groups such as CNPS.
• The habitat is under the jurisdiction of the Corps pursuant to Section 404 of the CWA.
• The habitat is under the jurisdiction of the CDFW pursuant to Sections 1600 through 1612 of the California Fish and Game Code.
• The habitat is known or believed to be of high priority for inventory in the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB).
• The habitat is considered regionally rare.
• The habitat has undergone a large-scale reduction due to increased encroachment and development.
• The habitat supports special status plant and/or wildlife species (defined below). • The habitat functions as an important corridor for wildlife movement.
4.1.2 Critical Habitat
Under the ESA, the federal government is required to designate "critical habitat" for any species it lists under the ESA. Federal agencies are prohibited from authorizing, funding or carrying out actions that "destroy or adversely modify" critical habitats. Section 3 of the ESA defines critical habitat as:
• The specific areas within the geographic area occupied by a species, at the time it is listed in accordance with the ESA, on which are found those physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species and that may require special management considerations or protection. 1680
Biological Resource Assessment for the SEC Archibald and Grapewin Project January 2025 15
• The specific areas outside the geographic area occupied by a species at the time it is listed, upon a determination that such areas are essential for the conservation of the species.
“Conservation” means the use of all methods and procedures that are necessary to bring an endangered or a threatened species to the point at which listing under the ESA is no longer necessary. Critical habitat receives protection under Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA through the prohibition against destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat with regard to actions carried out, funded, or authorized by a federal agency.
Section 7(a)(2) also requires conferences on federal actions that are likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of proposed critical habitat.
The USFWS’s online service for information regarding Threatened and Endangered Species Final Critical Habitat designation within California was reviewed to determine if the Study Area is within any species designated Critical Habitat (USFWS 2022a). The USFWS regulatory mapping process for the designation of critical habitat is broadbased mapping exercise of areas that may or may not include constituent elements of the critical habitat designation. Due to this approach in mapping, large areas are designated as critical habitat regardless of the existing habitat, and as a result may include developed areas, such as buildings, roads, hardscape, and other such facilities, as well as natural habitats.
The constituent elements of the critical habitat designation consider the physical and biological features needed for life processes and successful reproduction of the listed species, including:
• Space for individual and population growth for normal behavior; • Habitat cover or shelter;
• Food, water, or other nutritional or physiological requirements; • Sites for breeding and rearing offspring; and
• Habitat that is protected from disturbance or is representative of the historical geographic and ecological distribution of a species.
4.1.3 Special Status Plants and Wildlife
Species of plants and animals are afforded “special status” by federal agencies, state agencies, and/or non-governmental organizations because of their recognized rarity, potential vulnerability to extinction, and local importance. These species typically have a limited geographic range and/or limited habitat and are referred to collectively as “special status” species. Plant and wildlife species are considered “special status” species if they meet any of the following criteria.
• Taxa with official status under ESA, CESA, and/or the NPPA. • Taxa proposed for listing under ESA and/or CESA.
1681
Biological Resource Assessment for the SEC Archibald and Grapewin Project January 2025 16
• Taxa designated a species of special concern by CDFW. • Taxa designated a state fully protected species by CDFW. • Taxa identified as sensitive, unique or rare, by the USFWS, CDFW, the United States Forest Service (USFS), the United States Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and/or the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CDF). • Plants that meet the definition of rare or endangered under CEQA §15380(b) and (d). Species that may meet the definition of rare or endangered include the following:
• Species considered by CNPS and CDFW to be “rare, threatened or endangered in California” (California Rare Plant Rank [CRPR] 1A, 1B and 2) (CNPS 2024). A majority of the CRPR 3 and CRPR 4 plant species generally do not qualify for protection under CESA and NPPA. • Species that may warrant consideration on the basis of local significance or recent biological information.
• Some species included on the CNDDB Special Plants, Bryophytes, and Lichens List (CDFW 2024g).
• Considered a locally significant species, that is, a species that is not rare from a statewide perspective but is rare or uncommon in a local context such as within a county or region (CEQA §15125 (c)) or is so designated in local or regional plans, policies, or ordinances (CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G). Examples include a species at the outer limits of its known range or a species occurring on an uncommon soil type.
Available literature and databases were reviewed regarding sensitive habitats and special status plant and wildlife species. Special status plant and wildlife species that have the potential to occur within the immediate region of the Study Area were identified. Several agencies, including the USFWS, CDFW, and CNPS publish lists of particular taxa (species and subspecies) and the associated level of protection or concern associated with each. Reviewed and consulted literature and databases focused on the Study Area, and included the following sources listed below:
• The CNDDB, a CDFW species account database that inventories status and locations of rare plants and wildlife in California, was used to identify any sensitive plant communities and special status plants and wildlife that may exist within a two-mile radius of the Project site. A CNDDB search was performed by assessing a two-mile radius around the Study Area (CDFW 2024f). In addition, the USGS
7.5-Minute Topographic Map Corona North and the surrounding eight quadrangles (Guasti, Fontana, Riverside West, Corona South, Black Star Canyon, Prado Sam, and Ontario) were also reviewer to further provided information regarding the distribution and habitats of special status wildlife in the Project Vicinity. CNDDB records are generally used as a starting point when determining what special status species, if any, may occur in a particular area. However, these records may be old, lack data not yet entered, and do not represent all the special status species that could be in that particular area.
1682
Biological Resource Assessment for the SEC Archibald and Grapewin Project January 2025 17
• A map of USFWS critical habitat to determine species with critical habitat mapped in the general vicinity of the Project (Figure 5) (USFWS 2024a). • Online CNPS Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California (CNPS 2024).
A search for the USGS 7.5-Minute Topographic Map Corona North and the surrounding eight quadrangles (Guasti, Fontana, Riverside West, Corona South, Black Star Canyon, Prado Sam, and Ontario) provided information regarding the distribution and habitats of special status vascular plants in the Project Vicinity. • Online USFWS Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) tool was queried for any sensitive plant and animals to have potential to occur onsite. • Pertinent maps, scientific literature, websites, and regional flora and fauna field guides.
The literature review was used as a resource to better understand the biological resources potentially occurring within the Study Area. Although the inventory list of special status plant and wildlife species was not exhaustive of all species that might occur on the property, it provides a wide range of species that are representative of the wildland habitats in the area. Species occurrence and distribution information is based on documented occurrences where surveys have taken place for individual projects; therefore, a lack of documented occurrence does not necessarily indicate that a given species is absent from the Study Area.
1683
Legend
Project Boundary
Critical Habitat
Least Bell's vireo
Southwestern Willow Flycatcher
Santa Ana Sucker
I SEC Archibald and Grapewin Project
1 inch = 600 feet
0 150 300 600 900 1,200
Feet Bing Map
CNDDB (Aug. 2024)
Data Source:
FIGURE 5
Critical Habitat Map
GIS Prepared By:
Carlson SLS
Created: August 2024
Project
Site
1684
Biological Resource Assessment for the SEC Archibald and Grapewin Project January 2025 19
4.2 Biological Survey
4.2.1 General Biological Survey
Plant species were identified using plant field and taxonomical guides, such as The Jepson Manual: Vascular Plants of California, second edition (Baldwin et al. 2012).
Vegetation communities were characterized utilizing vegetation alliances in accordance with the Manual of California Vegetation, Second Edition (MCVII) (Sawyer et al. 2009).
Where necessary, deviations were made on best professional judgment when areas did not fit into a specific habitat description provided by MCVII. Plant communities were mapped in the field directly onto a 200-scale (1” = 200’) aerial photograph and a Trimble R1 GNSS Receiver paired with the ARC Geographical Information System (ARCGIS) Collector Application was utilized during the survey. All plant species encountered during the field survey were identified and recorded in field notes.
Information regarding the presence of suitable habitat and soils to support the species, known records or occurrence within the area, and known distribution and elevation range obtained from the relevant literature was used to determine presence or absence of sensitive species.
The biologist paid special attention to those habitat areas that had the potential to provide suitable habitat for special status plant and wildlife species. Aerial photographs and maps were used to assist in the delineation of plant community boundaries.
Following field mapping, the plant communities were digitized, and the vegetation map was created.
General wildlife surveys were conducted on foot and with binoculars within the Study Area. All wildlife species encountered visually or audibly during the field survey were identified and recorded in field notes. Biologists also recorded signs of wildlife species including animal tracks, burrows, nests, scat, and remains. Binoculars were used to aid in the identification of observed wildlife. Wildlife field guides and photographs were used to assist with identification of wildlife species during the field survey, as necessary.
Photographs were taken to document existing conditions within the Study Area (Appendix A).
4.2.2 Regional Connectivity/Wildlife Movement
Wildlife corridors link together areas of suitable habitat that are otherwise separated by rugged terrain, changes in vegetation, or human disturbance. The fragmentation of open space areas by urbanization creates isolated “islands” of wildlife habitat. In the absence of habitat linkages that allow movement to adjoining open space areas, various studies have concluded that some wildlife species, especially the larger and more mobile mammals, would not likely persist over time in fragmented or isolated habitat areas because they prohibit the infusion of new individuals and genetic information (MacArthur and Wilson 1967, Soule 1987, Harris and Gallager 1989). Corridors effectively act as links between different populations of a species. A group of smaller populations (termed “demes”) linked together via a system of corridors is termed a 1685
Biological Resource Assessment for the SEC Archibald and Grapewin Project January 2025 20
“meta-population.” The long-term health of each deme within the meta-population is dependent upon its size and the frequency of interchange of individuals (immigration versus emigration). The smaller the deme, the more important immigration becomes, because prolonged inbreeding with the same individuals can reduce genetic variability.
Immigrant individuals that move into the deme from adjoining demes mate with individuals and supply that deme with new genes and gene combinations that increases overall genetic diversity. An increase in a population’s genetic variability is generally associated with an increase in a population’s health.
Corridors mitigate the effects of habitat fragmentation by:
• Allowing animals to move between remaining habitats, which allows depleted populations to be replenished and promotes genetic diversity. • Providing escape routes from fire, predators, and human disturbances, thus reducing the risk that catastrophic events (such as fires or disease) will result in population or local species extinction.
• Serving as travel routes for individual animals as they move within their home ranges in search of food, water, mates, and other needs (Fahrig and Merriam 1985, Simberloff and Cox 1987, Harris and Gallagher 1989).
Wildlife movement activities usually fall into one of three movement categories:
• Dispersal (e.g., juvenile animals from natal areas, individuals extending range distributions).
• Seasonal migration.
• Movements related to home range activities (foraging for food or water, defending territories, searching for mates, breeding areas, or cover).
A number of terms have been used in various wildlife movement studies, such as “wildlife corridor,” “travel route,” “habitat linkage,” and “wildlife crossing” to refer to areas in which wildlife moves from one area to another. To clarify the meaning of these terms and facilitate the discussion on wildlife movement in this study, these terms are defined as follows:
• Travel route: a landscape feature (such as a ridge line, drainage, canyon, or riparian strip) within a larger natural habitat area that is used frequently by animals to facilitate movement and provide access to necessary resources (e.g., water, food, cover, den sites). The travel route is generally preferred because it provides the least amount of topographic resistance in moving from one area to another; it contains adequate food, water, and/or cover while moving between habitat areas; and provides a relatively direct link between target habitat areas. • Wildlife corridor: a piece of habitat, usually linear in nature, which connects two or more habitat patches that would otherwise be fragmented or isolated from 1686
Biological Resource Assessment for the SEC Archibald and Grapewin Project January 2025 21
one another. Wildlife corridors are usually bounded by urban land areas or other areas unsuitable for wildlife. The corridor generally contains suitable cover, food, and/or water to support species and facilitate movement while in the corridor.
Larger, landscape-level corridors (often referred to as “habitat or landscape linkages”) can provide both transitory and resident habitat for a variety of species. • Wildlife crossing: a small, narrow area, relatively short in length and generally constricted in nature, which allows wildlife to pass under or through an obstacle or barrier that otherwise hinders or prevents movement. Crossings are typically manmade and include culverts, underpasses, drainage pipes, and tunnels to provide access across or under roads, highways, pipelines, or other physical obstacles. These are often “choke points” along a movement corridor.
4.3 MSHCP
The Project is not located within MSHCP survey areas for Criteria Area Plant Species, Amphibians, Mammals, or Special Linkage Areas. The Project site was assessed for MSHCP Section 6.1.2 Riparian and Riverine Areas and associated species, MSHCP Section 6.1.3 Narrow Endemic Plant, and Section 6.3.2 Species Survey Requirements for the western burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia hypugaea [BUOW]) habitat (Figure 6).
4.3.1 Section 6.1.2 Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools Volume I, Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP describes the process through which protection of riparian/riverine areas and vernal pools would occur within the MSHCP Plan Area.
The purpose is to ensure that the biological functions and values of these areas throughout the MSHCP Conservation Area are maintained. The MSHCP requires that as projects are proposed within the overall Plan Area, the effect of those projects on riparian/riverine areas and vernal pools must be addressed. The Study Area was evaluated for the presence/absence of MSHCP riparian/riverine areas and vernal pools.
With respect to riparian habitat, the Study Area was evaluated for the potential habitat to support the special status species including the least Bell’s vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus), southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii traillii), the western yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus occidentalis), listed fairy shrimp, and other species identified in Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP.
The Project site was evaluated to determine the limits of MSHCP riparian/riverine areas and vernal pools. Suspected areas were field checked for the presence of definable channels and/or wetland vegetation, soils and hydrology. Any MSHCP feature limits were recorded onto a 200-scale (1” = 200’) color aerial photograph and a GPS unit paired with the ARCGIS Collector Application.
1687
Biological Resource Assessment for the SEC Archibald and Grapewin Project January 2025 22
4.3.2 MSHCP Section 6.1.3 Narrow Endemic Plant
The Project site falls within Narrow Endemic Plants (Survey Area Number 7). The CNDDB and MSHCP were reviewed to determine known occurrences of special- status plants in the region. Based on this information, a list of target plants (including their suitable habitats and soil) was developed and incorporated into a survey program to achieve the following goals: (1) characterize the vegetation associations and land use; (2) prepare a detailed floral compendium; and (3) document the distribution and abundance of any special-status plant species within the Project site.
General surveys were conducted to identify potential sensitive plant habitats, and to establish the accuracy of the data identified from the literature review and previous biological assessment and search. An aerial photograph and topographic map were used to determine the community types and other physical features that may support sensitive species or communities within the Project site and surrounding buffer area.
The reconnaissance surveys also considered the guidelines adopted by CNPS and CDFW (Nelson 1984, CNPS 2001).
Where potentially suitable habitat was present, focused plant surveys included those MSCHP Covered Species identified by the NEPSSA Survey Area Number 7. For any locations with positive survey results, the MSHCP requires that 90 percent of those portions of the property that provide for long-term conservation value for the identified species shall be avoided until it is demonstrated that conservation goals for the particular species are met. Findings of equivalency shall be made demonstrating that the 90-percent standard has been met.
4.3.3 Section 6.3.2 Burrowing Owl Habitat Assessment
Prior to the field survey, available literature and databases including the CNDDB, were reviewed to identify sensitive habitats and special status wildlife species, including BUOW in the vicinity of the Study Area. Consistent with the MSHCP Survey Instructions, pedestrian survey transects within the Project site were spaced approximately 10 to 15 meters apart to allow 100 percent visual coverage of the ground surface.
Consistent with the MSHCP guidelines and where feasible, CSLS biologists walked the perimeter of the property, which consists of a 150-meter (approximately 500 feet) buffer zone around the Project boundary. Parcels of land that could not be accessed (e.g. private property) were viewed using binoculars from vantage points to survey for BUOW activity or signs thereof, as well as other nesting bird activity. 1688
Legend
Project Boundary
MSHCP Overlays
Burrowing Owl
Narrow Endemic Plants
(San Diego ambrosia, Brand's
phacelia, San Miguel savory)
MSHCP Conserved Public/QuasiPublic Lands - Existing Core A I SEC Archibald and Grapewin Project
1 inch = 600 feet
0 150 300 600 900 1,200
Feet Data Source: Bing Map
FIGURE 6
MSHCP Overlays
GIS Prepared By:
Carlson SLS
Created: January 2025
Project
Site
1689
Biological Resource Assessment for the SEC Archibald and Grapewin Project January 2025 24
4.4 Jurisdictional Waters
The following sources were reviewed to determine the potential presence or absence of jurisdictional streams/drainages, wetlands, and their location within the watersheds associated with the Study Area, and other features that might contribute to federal or state jurisdictional authority located within watersheds associated with the Study Area:
• National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) maps (USFWS 2024c). The NWI database indicates potential wetland areas based on changes in vegetation patterns as observed from satellite imagery. This database is used as a preliminary indicator of wetland habitats because the satellite data are not precise. • Title 33 Code of Federal Register (CFR): Navigation and Navigable Waters Part 328
• USGS National Hydrography Dataset (NHD). Provides the locations of “blue-line” streams as mapped on 7.5-Minute Topographic Map coverage. • Aerial Imagery (Google Earth©) (Google 2024).
• USGS 7.5-Minute Topographic Maps.
• Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) Soil Survey.
All depressions and drainages were evaluated for the presence of jurisdictional waters and wetlands according to the Corps, RWQCB, and CDFW delineation guidelines, including connectivity or lack of connectivity to Traditional Navigable Waters. Dominant vegetation within and adjacent to the jurisdictional features within the Study Area was identified and recorded.
The Corps and the RWQCB have jurisdiction over Waters of the United States.
Jurisdictional non-wetland features for the Waters of the United States are typically determined through the observation of an Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM), which is defined as the “line on the shore established by the fluctuation of water and indicated by physical characteristics such as a clear, natural line impressed on the bank, shelving, changes in the character of soil, destruction of terrestrial vegetation, the presence of litter and debris, or other appropriate means that consider the characteristics of the surrounding areas.” Projects with impacts to Waters of the United States are regulated under Sections 401 and 404 of the Clean Water Act.
To determine the presence of a jurisdictional wetland for the Waters of the United States, three indicators are required: (1) hydrophytic vegetation, (2) hydric soils, and (3) wetland hydrology. The methodology published in the United States Army Corps of Engineers 1987 Wetland Delineation Manual and the Arid West Supplement sets the standards for meeting each of the three indicators, which normally require more than 50 percent cover of dominant plant species typical of a wetland, soils exhibiting characteristics of saturation, and hydrological indicators be present. In addition, based on the 2023 ruling, Corps jurisdiction must have adjacency with relatively permanent, 1690
Biological Resource Assessment for the SEC Archibald and Grapewin Project January 2025 25
standing or continuously flowing bodies of water with continuous connection to waters of the U.S.
CDFW has jurisdiction over water of the Department’s interest (California Fish and Game Code §§1600 et seq.; California Code of Regulations, Title 14, §720), referred to as Waters of the State. Section 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code (FGC) applies to all rivers, streams, lakes and streambeds. CDFW defines a stream as “a body of water that flows perennially or episodically and that is defined by the area in which water currently flows, or has flowed, over a given course during the historic hydrologic course regime, and where the width of its course can reasonably be identified by physical or biological indicators” (Brady and Vyverberg 2013). Likewise, CDFW regulates jurisdictional areas of riparian habitat only to the extent that those areas are part of a stream, river, or lake as defined above. Waters of the State pertaining to Porter-Cologne in relation to RWQCB jurisdiction are defined by California Water Code Section 13050(e) as any surface or ground water within the boundaries of the state.
Prior to the field investigation, CSLS biologist reviewed historical aerial imagery and topography for the Study Area to determine the potential for perennial, intermittent, or ephemeral drainages and associated riparian resources. Generally, indicators of jurisdictional drainages on an aerial photo include vegetation and/or incised lines indicating the path of flowing water. Following the desktop research, CSLS biologists conducted an onsite field investigation. Based on the collective results of the desktop investigation and the field surveys, any observed jurisdictional features were mapped using the following parameters:
• The limits of the Corps’ jurisdiction extend to the OHWM. OHWM indicators include: the observation of benches, break in bank slope, particle size distribution, sediment deposits, drift, litter, and/or change in plant community. • The RWQCB shares the Corps’ jurisdictional methodology, and the Regional Board’s May 2020 wetland definition.
• CDFW’s jurisdiction applies to all perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral rivers, streams, and lakes in the state. CDFW’s authority also includes riparian habitat (including wetlands) supported by a river, stream, or lake regardless of the presence or absence of hydric soils and saturated soil conditions. Generally, CDFW jurisdiction is mapped to the top of bank of the stream or the extent of streambed dependent vegetation.
5.0 Results
Table 1 outlines the field surveys performed for the Project site. CSLS biologists assessed and mapped vegetation communities, jurisdictional features, identified plants, wildlife, and any habitat areas that could be suitable for special status plant species. 1691
Biological Resource Assessment for the SEC Archibald and Grapewin Project January 2025 26
Table 1. Survey Information
Survey Date Time Temp. Surveys Surveyors
March 28, 2024 0930 - 1215 70° F - 72° F
Clear skies
Biological
Assessment,
Jurisdictional
Delineation,
Burrowing Owl
Assessment, and
Narrow Endemic Plant
Assessment and
Survey.
Brianna Bernard
June 11, 2024 0623 - 830 68° F 100%
cloud cover
Burrowing Owl #1,
Narrow Endemic Plant
Survey
Brianna Bernard
and Sarah
Vasquez
June 25, 2024 0615 - 0825 66° F - 79° F
Clear skies
Burrowing Owl #2,
Narrow Endemic Plant
Survey
Brianna Bernard
and Sarah
Vasquez
July 16, 2024 0630 - 0830 64° F - 66° F
clear skies
Burrowing Owl #3,
Narrow Endemic Plant
Survey
Brianna Bernard
and Shawn
Hernandez
August 8, 2024 0630 - 0845 68° F - 75° F
Clear skies
and 50%
cloud cover at
approximately
8:00 am
Burrowing Owl #4, Brianna Bernard
and Dylan
Donahoe
5.1 Vegetation Communities
The vegetation communities and habitat conditions were inspected to confirm presence and habitat quality of the vegetation found onsite. Vegetation mapping and acreages for each vegetation community is based on the observations of the field surveys, which are listed below in Table 2 and graphically depicted on Figure 7.
Representative photographs of the vegetation communities can be found in Appendix A. A complete list of species observed onsite can be found in Appendix B.
The deviations from MCVII alliance categories include ruderal and disturbed/ developed communities. The deviations were made due to the lack of alliances for these communities within MCVII. The field survey analyzed the Project site and a surrounding 500-foot buffer around the Project site to determine the existing vegetation types. As shown on Figure 7, the surrounding 500-foot buffer consists primarily of developed residential and Vantage Point Church located to the north, west, and south; to the east is Santa Ana River and associated southern cottonwood willow riparian forest habitat. 1692
Biological Resource Assessment for the SEC Archibald and Grapewin Project January 2025 27
Table 2. Vegetation Community Observed Onsite
Vegetation Community
Acreage within the Project
site (acres)
Ruderal 1.64
Disturbed/Developed 6.66
TOTAL 8.30
The general description of the habitat observed during the field survey are described below.
5.1.1 Ruderal
The Project site contains portions of the ruderal vegetation community. These areas are regularly mowed and maintained. The vegetation within this area is comprised of predominantly of summer mustard (Hirschfeldia incana). Other species include tocalote (Centaurea melitensis), canary island date palm (Phoenix canariensis), tree tobacco (Nicotiana glauca), wall barley (Hordeum murinum), cheeseweed (Malva parviflora), bristly ox tongue (Helminthotheca echioides), storksbill (Erodium moschatum), lemon trees (Citrus limon), oleander (Nerium oleander), prickly pear (Opuntia littoralis), and red brome (Bromus rubens).
5.1.2 Disturbed/Developed
The developed areas include animal pens, previously used equestrian corals and arena, residential homes, horse stalls, and animal pens. Ornamental species occur within this community and include Russian thistle (Salsola australis), horseweed (Erigeron canadensis), mustard, tocalote, carrotwood (Cupaniopsis anacardioides), pine tree (Pinus ssp.),a single cottonwood (Populus fremontii), Brazilian peppertree (Schinus terebinthifolia), and canary island date palm.
5.1.3 500-foot Buffer Area
Areas found to the north, west, and south of the Project are developed areas with residential homes and Vantage Point Church facility. The Santa Ana River occurs to the east and consists of arroyo thickets, open water, and southern cottonwood willow riparian forest.
5.2 Special-Status Vegetation Types
A CNDDB search within the Corona North USGS topographic quadrangle found three sensitive special status vegetation communities designated by CDFW. These include Southern California Arroyo Chub/Santa Ana Sucker Stream, Southern Cottonwood Willow Riparian Forest, and Southern Sycamore Alder Riparian Woodland. None of these habitats occur on the Project site.
1693
Legend
Project Boundary
Vegetation Community
Ruderal
Disturbed/Developed
I SEC Archibald and Grapewin Project
1 inch = 100 feet
0 25 50 100 150 200
Feet Data Source: Bing Map
FIGURE 7
Vegetation Community Mapping
GIS Prepared By:
Carlson SLS
Created: June 20, 2024
Sana Ana River
1694
Biological Resource Assessment for the SEC Archibald and Grapewin Project January 2025 29
5.3 Plants
Sensitive plants include those listed, or candidates for listing, by the USFWS and CDFW; and species considered sensitive by the CNPS (particularly Lists 1A, 1B, and 2). Several sensitive plant species were reported in the vicinity of the Study Area based on the CNDDB and within the Corona North quadrangle search. A total of four sensitive listed plant species occurs within the USGS 7.5’ Corona North quadrangle and a single sensitive listed species was identified through IPaC. A brief description of the species is included below. A complete list of special status plant species found within the Corona North quad and surrounding 8 quads with the potential to occur on the Project site were analyzed based on distribution, habitat requirements, and existing site conditions (Appendix C). All plant species observed within the Project site during the field survey is listed in Appendix B.
Chaparral sand-verbena (Abronia villosa var. aurita)
Status: California Rare Plant Rank 1B.1
Habitat(s): Annual herb of sandy areas in chaparral and coastal sage scrub. Known from 80 to 1,600 meters (300 to 5,300 feet) MSL. Blooms January through August.
Status onsite: None. The Project site lacks suitable habitat. Not observed during the field visits.
Thread-leaved Brodiaea (Brodiaea filifolia)
Status: Federally Threatened, State Endangered, California Rare Plant Rank 1B.1 Habitat(s): Habitats include chaparral (openings), cismontane woodland, coastl scrub, playas, valley and foothill grasslands, and vernals pools often with clay soils. Known from 25 to 1,120 meters (80 to 3,675 feet) MSL. Blooms March through June.
Status onsite: None. The Project site lacks suitable habitat and soils. Not observed during the field visits.
Smooth Tarplant (Centromadia pungens ssp. laevis)
Status: California Rare Plant Rank 1B.1
Habitat(s): Habitats supporting chenopod scrub, meadows and seeps, playas, riparian woodland, and valley and foothill grasslands with alkaline soils. Known from 0 to 640 meters (0 to 2,100 feet) MSL. Blooms April through September.
Status onsite: None. The Project site lacks suitable habitat. Not observed during the field visits.
Many-stemmed dudleya (Dudleya multicaulis)
Status: California Rare Plant Rank 1B.2
Habitat(s): Habitats supporting chaparral, coastal scrub, and valley and foothill grasslands. Often found on clay soils or granitic outcrops. Known from below 800 meters (< 2,600 feet) MSL. Blooms May through July.
Status onsite: None. The Project site lacks suitable habitat. Not observed during the field visits.
1695
Biological Resource Assessment for the SEC Archibald and Grapewin Project January 2025 30
Santa Ana River Woollystar (Eriastrum densifolium ssp. sanctorum) Status: Federally Endangered, State Endangered, California Rare Plant Rank 1B.1 Habitat(s): Habitats supporting sandy soils of floodplains and terraced fluvial deposits of the Santa Ana River and larger tributaries. Known from 120 to 625 meters (400 to 4,100 feet) MSL. Blooms June through September.
Status onsite: None. The Project site lacks suitable habitat. Not observed during the field visits.
As determined through the field surveys and focused plant surveys conducted, no special status plant species were observed within the Project site. There is no potential for special status plant species to occur on the Project site due to lack of suitable habitat and soils.
5.4 Critical Habitat
The USFWS’s online service for information regarding Threatened and Endangered Species Final Critical Habitat designation within California was reviewed to determine if the Project site is within any species designated Critical Habitat. The eastern portion of the Project site contains 2.25 of Least Bell’s vireo least Bell’s vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus [LBV]) designated Critical Habitat (Figure 6). The Project site does not contain any constituent elements either the physical and biological features needed for life processes and successful reproduction of the listed species. Approximately 40-feet north and east of the Project site is designated critical habitat for the southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus) and Santa Ana Sucker (Catostomus santaanae). The Santa Ana River, located offsite and to the east of the Project site includes suitable habitat for the three listed species and is identified as having past occurrences of the species. The Project site lack suitable habitat for the three species.
5.5 Wildlife
Special status wildlife species with the potential to occur within the Study Area were analyzed based on the species identified in USGS 7.5’ Corona North quadrangle, distribution, habitat requirements, and existing site conditions (Appendix D). The following special status species are identified to occur within the Corona North quadrangle and noted as an occurrence within the 2-mile CNDDB search: southwestern pond turtle (Actinemys pallida), tricolored blackbird (Agelaius tricolor), southern California rufous-crowned sparrow (Aimophila ruficeps canescens), southern California legless lizard (Anniella stebbinsi), Bell’s sparrow (Artemisiospiza belli belli), orangethroated whiptail (Aspidoscelis hyperythra), burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia), Crotch’s bumble bee (Bombus crotchii), Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni), Santa Ana sucker (Catostomus santaanae), western yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus occidentalis), San Diego banded gecko (Coleonyx variegatus abbotti), yellow rail (Coturnicops noveboracensis), red-diamond rattlesnake (Crotalus ruber), monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus), Stephen’s kangaroo rat (Dipodomys stephensi), southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus), western mastiff bat (Eumops 1696
Biological Resource Assessment for the SEC Archibald and Grapewin Project January 2025 31
perotis californicus), arroyo chub (Gila orcuttii), yellow-breasted chat (Icteria virens), western yellow bat (Lasiurus xanthinus), California black rail (Laterallus jamaicensis coturniculus), pocketed free-tailed bat (Nyctinomops ferorosaccus), steelhead-southern California DPS (Oncorhynchus mykiss irideus pop. 10), coast horned lizard (Phrynosoma blainvillii), coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica), yellow warbler (Setophaga petechia), western spadefoot (Spea hammondii), least Bell’s vireo (Vireo belli pusillus). A brief description of those species and their habitat is included below. A complete list of the special status species identified within the 9 quadrangles can be found in Appendix D.
Southwestern pond turtle
Status: Species of Special Concern
MSHCP: Covered
Habitat(s): Found in ponds, lakes, rivers, streams, creeks, marshes, and irrigation ditches, with abundant vegetation, and either rocky or muddy bottoms, in woodland, forest, and grassland. In streams, prefers pools to shallower areas. Logs, rocks, cattail mats, and exposed banks are required for basking. May enter brackish water and even seawater.
Status onsite: None. The site lacks suitable habitat. Not observed during field surveys.
Tricolor blackbird
Status: State Threatened
MSHCP: Covered
Habitat(s): Colonies require nearby water, a suitable nesting substrate, and open-range foraging habitat composed of grassland, woodland, or agricultural cropland.
Status onsite: Low. Suitable foraging habitat including ruderal habitat occurs on site and suitable habitat occurs within the Santa Ana River located offsite to the east of the Project site. Not observed during field surveys.
Southern California rufous-crowned sparrow
Status: Watch List
MSHCP: Covered
Habitat(s): They are found on grass-covered hillsides, coastal sage scrub, and chaparral and often occur near the edges of the denser scrub and chaparral associations.
Preference is shown for tracts of California sagebrush. Optimal habitat consists of sparse, low brush or grass, hilly slopes preferably interspersed with boulders and outcrops. The species may occur on steep grassy slopes without shrubs if rock outcrops are present. It is a very secretive species.
Status onsite: Present. Species was heard audibly during one of the field surveys.
Species is a covered MSHCP species.
Southern California legless lizard
Status: Species of Special Concern
MSHCP: Not Covered
1697
Biological Resource Assessment for the SEC Archibald and Grapewin Project January 2025 32
Habitat(s): Coastal sand dunes and a variety of interior habitats, including sandy washes and alluvial fans.
Status onsite: None. The site lacks suitable habitat and soil. Not observed during field surveys.
Bell’s sparrow
Status: Watch List
MSHCP: Covered
Habitat(s): Suitable habitat includes Chaparral and coastal sage scrub along the coastal lowlands, inland valleys and in the lower foothills of local mountains.
Status onsite: None. The site lacks suitable habitat for foraging and nesting. Not observed during field surveys.
Orange-Throated Whiptail
Status: Watch List
MSHCP: Covered
Habitat(s): The species is generally found in semi-arid brushy areas typically with loose soil and rocks, including washes, stream sides, rocky hillsides, and coastal chaparral.
Habitat types include low elevational chaparral, non-native grassland, (Riversidean) coastal sage scrub, juniper woodland and oak woodland. Associations include alluvial fan scrub and riparian areas. Friable soil appears to be a necessary requirement for excavating burrows and hiding eggs.
Status onsite: None. The site lacks suitable habitat and soil. Not observed during field surveys.
Burrowing Owl
Status: State Candidate Endangered
MSHCP: Covered
Habitat(s): Burrowing owls are a year-round resident of California including habitats of open, dry grassland, and desert. They are generally restricted to mostly flat, open country with suitable nest sites. They use rodent or other burrows for roosting and nesting cover and acquire their burrows from either abandonment or eviction.
Burrowing owls typically hunt from a perch.
Status onsite: None. A habitat assessment and a series of focused surveys were performed, and it was determined the Project site does not contain occupied burrows or diagnostic signs of burrowing owls. Therefore, the Project site is not occupied by burrowing owl. The results of the burrowing owl habitat and focused surveys can be found in Appendix E. Not observed during the field surveys.
Crotch Bumble Bee
Status: State Candidate Endangered
MSHCP: Not Covered
Habitat(s): The crotch bumble bee inhabits open grassland and scrub habitats. This species occurs primarily in California, including the Mediterranean region, Pacific Coast, 1698
Biological Resource Assessment for the SEC Archibald and Grapewin Project January 2025 33
Western Desert, Great Valley, and adjacent foothills through most of southwestern California. Crotch Bumble Bee is a generalist forager and visits a variety of flowering plants. It is a short-tongued bumble bee and is therefore best suited to forage on open flowers with short corollas. Plant families most commonly associated with Crotch bumble bee records in California include Fabaceae, Apocynaceae, Asteraceae, Lamiaceae, Hydrophyllacae, Asclepiadaceae, and Boraginaceae. Other reports commonly associate Crotch bumble bee with plants in the genera Asclepias, Chaenactis, Lupinus, Medicago, Phacelia, and Salvia as nectaring sources.
Status onsite: None. The Project site lacks suitable nectaring sources for the species.
While burrows occur onsite that could potentially provide overwintering possibilities, the burrows were actively used by small mammals. Furthermore, the site is disturbed with active animal pens and regular activity. No suitable habitat is found within the Project site. Not observed during the field surveys.
Swainson’s hawk
Status: State Threatened
MSHCP: Covered
Habitat(s): Swainson's hawks require large, open areas with abundant prey in association with suitable nest trees. Suitable foraging areas include native grasslands or lightly grazed pastures and croplands, open deserts, sparse shrub lands. Swainson's hawks often nest peripherally to riparian systems of the valley, as well as utilizing lone trees or groves of trees, such as oaks, cottonwoods, walnuts and willows, adjacent to their hunting areas. In the Great Basin, they typically nest in juniper trees of juniper-sage flats not near riparian zones.
Status onsite: None. While the Project site includes ruderal habitat, it is routinely maintained for minimal vegetation cover and does not provide suitable foraging habitat. No suitable habitat is found within the Project site. The adjacent Santa Ana River, located offsite and to the east of the Project site, could provide potential nesting habitat for the species. Not observed during the field surveys.
Santa Ana Sucker
Status: Federally Threatened
MSHCP: Covered
Habitat(s): Santa Ana suckers rely on perennial flows with suitable water quality and substrate to support breeding, feeding and sheltering. Over different life history stages, suckers depend on a variety of coarse substrate types, such as gravel, cobble, or mixtures of gravel or cobble with sand, and a variety of riverine features, like shallow riffles and deeper runs and pools.
Status onsite: None. No suitable habitat is found within the Project site. Not observed during the field surveys.
Western Yellow-billed Cuckoo
Status: Federally Threatened, State Endangered
MSHCP: Covered
1699
Biological Resource Assessment for the SEC Archibald and Grapewin Project January 2025 34
Habitat(s): This species is an uncommon to rare summer resident of valley foothill and desert riparian habitats in scattered locations in California. Formerly much more common and widespread throughout lowland California. Roosts and nests in densely foliaged, deciduous trees and shrubs in extensive thickets, particularly willows.
Status onsite: None. The Project site does not include any thick willows suitable for nesting. However, suitable habitat occurs within the Santa Ana River located offsite to the east of the Project site. Not observed during field surveys.
San Diego Banded Gecko
Status: Species of Special Concern
MSHCP: Covered
Habitat(s): The species ranges through most of Southern California north into the extreme southern part of Nevada and the southwestern tip of Utah, across northwest, southwest, and southeast Arizona into the bootheel of New Mexico, and south down the western edge of the state of Sonora, Mexico and down the entire length of Baja California. The species occurs in rocky areas in coastal sage and chaparral.
Status onsite: None. The site lacks suitable habitat. Not observed during the field surveys.
Yellow rail
Status: Species of Special Concern
MSHCP: Not Covered
Habitat(s): Yellow Rails occur in shallow marshes with fairly short vegetation. For breeding, taller emergent vegetation like cattails does not attract Yellow Rails, but they sometimes nest nearby, where water is shallower and vegetation shorter. They often nest among sedges and bulrushes. Because water levels change frequently in the prairies, nesting locations are not consistent in some areas from year to year. Migrating Yellow Rails turn up in wet meadows, shallow marshes, and agricultural fields with grassy cover or heavy stubble. Wintering Yellow Rails use shallow wetlands as they do in breeding areas, typically dominated by sedges, rushes, bulrushes, and grasses.
Status onsite: None. While suitable habitat occurs within the Santa Ana River located offsite to the east of the Project site the Project site does not include suitable foraging or nesting habitat onsite. Not observed during field surveys.
Red-Diamond Rattlesnake
Status: Species of Special Concern
MSHCP: Covered
Habitat(s): It can be found from the desert, through dense chaparral in the foothills (it avoids the mountains above around 4,000 feet), to warm inland mesas and valleys, all the way to the cool ocean shore. It is most commonly associated with heavy brush with large rocks or boulders. Dense chaparral in the foothills, cactus or boulder associated coastal sage scrub, oak and pine woodlands, and desert slope scrub associations are known to carry populations of the northern red-diamond rattlesnake, however, chamise and red shank associations may offer better structural habitat for refuges and food 1700
Biological Resource Assessment for the SEC Archibald and Grapewin Project January 2025 35
resources for this species than other habitats. They need rodent burrows, cracks in rocks or surface cover objects.
Status onsite: Low. Limited habitat is found onsite due to the presence of rodent burrows and ruderal brush found onsite. The ruderal habitat is frequently mowed providing less covered for the species. This is a covered species within the MSHCP. Not observed during field surveys.
Monarch Butterfly
Status: Proposed Federally Threatened
MSHCP: Not Covered
Habitat(s): Monarch butterflies live mainly in prairies, meadows, grasslands and along roadsides, across most of North America. The adult butterfly drinks nectar from a variety of flowers, uncoiling and extending its long proboscis to sip food. During the breeding season, monarchs lay their eggs on their obligate milkweed host plant, and larvae emerge after two to five days. Larvae develop through five larval instars (intervals between molts) over a period of 9 to 18 days, feeding on milkweed and sequestering toxic chemicals (cardenolides) as a defense against predators. The larva then pupates into a chrysalis before emerging 6 to 14 days later as an adult butterfly. There are multiple generations of monarchs produced during the breeding season, with most adult butterflies living approximately two to five weeks; overwintering adults enter into reproductive diapause (suspended reproduction) and live six to nine months. In many regions where monarchs are present, monarchs breed year-round. Overwintering occurs in areas of moderate temperatures and are often include groves of trees, such as eucalyptus, Monterey pines, and Monterey cypresses.
Status onsite: None. No milkweed is identified on the Project site which is an obligate host plant for eggs and food source for larvae. The Project site lack suitable habitat for the stages of the monarch, for both breeding and overwintering. This is not a covered species within the MSHCP. Not observed during field surveys.
Stephen’s kangaroo rat
Status: Federally Endangered, State Threatened
MSHCP: Covered
Habitat(s): This species prefers large areas of disturbed or patchy annual and perennial grasslands and open coastal sage scrub. Preferred perennials plant species include buckwheat and chamise and preferred annual plant species include brome grass.
Status onsite: Low. Limited habitat is found onsite due to the presence of rodent burrows and ruderal brush found onsite. The ruderal habitat is frequently mowed providing less covered for the species. This is a covered species within the MSHCP. Not observed during field surveys.
Southwestern Willow Flycatcher
Status: Federally Endangered, State Endangered
MSHCP: Covered
1701
Biological Resource Assessment for the SEC Archibald and Grapewin Project January 2025 36
Habitat(s): Suitable habitat includes riparian woodlands along streams and rivers with mature dense thickets of trees and shrubs.
Status onsite: None. While suitable habitat occurs within the Santa Ana River located offsite to the east of the Project site, the Project site does not include suitable foraging or nesting habitat onsite. Not observed during field surveys.
Western Mastiff Bat
Status: Species of Special Concern
MSHCP: Not Covered
Habitat(s): Western mastiff bats are found in a variety of habitats, such as semi-arid to arid habitats, including conifer and deciduous woodlands, coastal scrub, annual and perennial grasslands, palm oases, chaparral, desert scrub, and urban, but the species’ distribution may be geomorphically determined, occurring primarily where there are significant rock features offering suitable roosting habitat. A cliff dwelling species, where maternity colonies of 30 to several hundred roost generally under exfoliating rock slabs and rock crevices along cliffs. Western mastiff bats can also be found in similar crevices in large boulders and buildings. When roosting in rock crevices they require a sizable drop from their roost in order to achieve flight. Western mastiff bats prefer deep crevices that are at least 15 or 20 feet above the ground. Foraging is concentrated around bodies of water but also includes coastal sage scrub, chaparral, and grassland habitats.
Status onsite: None. The site lacks suitable roosting habitat for the species. Not observed during the field surveys.
Arroyo Chub
Status: Species of Special Concern
MSHCP: Covered
Habitat(s): Arroyo chub are adapted to survive in cool to warm (10 – 24°C) streams that fluctuate between large winter storm flows, and low summer flows, and the low dissolved oxygen and wide temperature fluctuations associated with this flow regime.
They are most common in slow flowing or backwater areas with sand or mud substrate but may also inhabit areas with velocities in excess of 80 cm/s over coarse substrate.
Status onsite: None. The site lacks suitable habitat. Not observed during the field surveys.
Yellow-breasted Chat
Status: Species of Special Concern
MSHCP: Not Covered
Habitat(s): In southern California they are primarily found in tall, dense, relatively wide riparian woodlands and thickets of willows, vine tangles, and dense brush with welldeveloped understories. Nesting areas are associated with streams, swampy ground, and the borders of small ponds. Breeding habitat must be dense to provide shade and concealment. It winters south to Central America.
1702
Biological Resource Assessment for the SEC Archibald and Grapewin Project January 2025 37
Status onsite: None onsite; heard audibly in the Santa Ana River located offsite. While suitable habitat occurs within the Santa Ana River located offsite to the east of the Project site, the Project site does not include suitable foraging or nesting habitat onsite. This species was heard audibly during the field surveys within the Santa Ana River, which is densely vegetated with riparian habitat. Biologists heard this species within the Santa Ana River corridor while surveying the eastern portion of the Project site. Not observed onsite during the field surveys.
Western Yellow Bat
Status: Species of Special Concern
MSHCP: Not Covered
Habitat(s): Roost in trees, hanging from the underside of a leaf. Commonly found in the southwestern U.S. roosting in the skirt of dead fronds in both native and non- native palm trees and have also been documented roosting in cottonwood trees.
Status onsite: None. The site contains a single palm tree. The closest CNDDB occurrence recorded is located 1.20 miles to the east on October 4, 1989. Furthermore, no bat guano was observed around the single palm tree during the field surveys.
Therefore it is determined the site lacks suitable habitat. Not observed during the field surveys.
California Black Rail
Status: State Threatened
MSHCP: Not Covered
Habitat(s): Black Rails nest in marshes and wet meadows across North America, including riparian marshes, coastal prairies, saltmarshes, and impounded wetlands. All of the habitats have stable shallow water. Nests are primarily made of southern cattail or spikerush and are elevated above the mud substrate in clumps of vegetation. Black rails have also been known to nest on top of a mat of dead vegetation from the previous years’ growth.
Status onsite: None. While suitable habitat occurs within the Santa Ana River located offsite to the east of the Project site the Project site does not include suitable foraging or nesting habitat onsite. Not observed during field surveys.
Pocketed Free-tailed Bat
Status: Species of Special Concern
MSHCP: Not Covered
Habitat(s): This bat species prefers rocky desert areas with high cliffs or rock outcrops.
Rock crevices in cliffs are preferred as roosting sites, since the bat must drop from the roost to gain flight speed. Typically reproduces in rock crevices, caverns, or buildings.
Ranges from southern California to New Mexico.
Status onsite: None. The site lacks suitable habitat. Not observed during the field surveys.
1703
Biological Resource Assessment for the SEC Archibald and Grapewin Project January 2025 38
Steelhead – Southern California DPS
Status: Federally Endangered, State Candidate Endangered MSHCP: Not Covered
Habitat(s): Historically, this species populated all coastal streams of southern California with permanent flows, as either resident or anadromous forms, or both. Today, the species occurs mostly within intermittent streams. The DPS includes all naturally spawned anadromous Coastal Rainbow trout populations downstream of natural and human-made barriers in streams from the Santa Maria River (San Luis Obispo County) to the Tijuana River on the U.S.-Mexico border. They are most abundant in the four largest watersheds in the northern portion of their range: the Santa Maria, Santa Ynez, Ventura, and Santa Clara rivers.
Status onsite: None. The site lacks suitable habitat. Not observed during the field surveys.
Coast Horned Lizard
Status: Species of Special Concern
MSHCP: Covered
Habitat(s): Occurs in a variety of vegetation types including coastal sage scrub, chaparral, annual grassland, oak woodland and riparian woodlands.
Status onsite: None. The site lacks suitable habitat. Not observed during field surveys.
Coastal California Gnatcatcher
Status: Federally Threatened, Species of Special Concern MSHCP: Covered
Habitat(s): A non-migratory, permanent resident of coastal sage scrub habitat, which is a broad category of vegetation that includes the following plant communities: Ventura coastal sage scrub, Diegan coastal sage scrub, maritime succulent scrub, Riversidean sage scrub, Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub, southern coastal bluff scrub, and coastal sage-chaparral scrub. They also use chaparral, grassland and riparian habitats next to coastal sage scrub, but these habitats are used dispersal and foraging. They avoid nesting on steep slopes.
Status onsite: None. The site lacks suitable habitat. Not observed during field surveys.
Yellow warbler
Status: State Threatened
MSHCP: Not Covered
Habitat(s): Riparian plant associations in close proximity to water. Frequently found nesting and foraging in willow shrubs and thickets, and in other riparian plants including cottonwoods, sycamores, ash, and alders.
Status onsite: None onsite; heard audibly in the Santa Ana River located offsite. While suitable habitat occurs within the Santa Ana River located offsite to the east of the Project site, the Project site does not include suitable foraging or nesting habitat onsite. This species was heard audibly during the field surveys within the Santa Ana River, which is heavily vegetated with riparian species. Biologists heard this species within the Santa 1704
Biological Resource Assessment for the SEC Archibald and Grapewin Project January 2025 39
Ana River corridor while surveying the eastern portion of the Project site. Not observed onsite during the field surveys.
Western Spadefoot
Status: Species of Special Concern
MSHCP: Covered
Habitat(s): May be found in coastal sage scrub, open chaparral, pine-oak woodlands and grassland habitats, but is most common in grasslands with vernal pools or mixed grassland/coastal sage scrub areas. Within these habitats, they require rain pools/vernal pools in which to reproduce, and that persist with more than three weeks of standing water in which to metamorphose successfully. They can also breed in slow-moving streams (e.g., areas flooded by intermittent streams). Water breeding sites must lack fish, bullfrogs, and crayfish in order for to successfully reproduce and metamorphose.
Status onsite: None. The site lacks suitable habitat. Not observed during the field surveys.
Least Bell’s Vireo
Status: Federally Endangered, State Endangered
MSHCP: Covered
Habitat(s): This species primarily occupies riverine riparian habitats that typically feature dense cover within 1-2 m of the ground and a dense, stratified canopy. Typically, it is associated with southern willow scrub, cottonwood-willow forest, mule fat scrub, sycamore alluvial woodland, coast live oak riparian forest, arroyo willow riparian forest, or mesquite in desert localities. It uses habitat which is limited to the immediate vicinity of water courses.
Status onsite: None. While suitable habitat occurs within the Santa Ana River located offsite to the east of the Project site, the Project site does not include suitable foraging or nesting habitat onsite. Not observed during field surveys.
Summary of Sensitive Wildlife Species
A single special status wildlife species or evidence of their presence were observed or heard during the field surveys conducted onsite. The species observed was the southern California rufous-crowned sparrow. A total of 3 species with low to moderate potential to occur onsite were not observed during field surveys. These species include Stephen’s kangaroo rat, Red-diamond rattlesnake, and tricolor blackbird. Two sensitive species, the yellow-breasted chat and yellow warbler, were heard audibly during the field surveys within the Santa Ana River, which is heavily vegetated with riparian species.
Biologists heard this species within the Santa Ana River corridor, located offsite, while surveying the eastern portion of the Project site. No riparian vegetation occurs onsite, therefore the Project site lacks suitable habitat for these species. The remaining 22 of the 28 sensitive wildlife species lack suitable habitat to occur within the Project site. 1705
Biological Resource Assessment for the SEC Archibald and Grapewin Project January 2025 40
5.5.1 Wildlife Species Observed or Detected
Wildlife activity was moderate, and the species observed are typical urbanized species.
The animal species or signs thereof observed during the CSLS surveys are listed below:
Birds:
• Chicken (Gallus gallus
domesticus)
• Peacock (Pavo cristatus)
• Common yellowthroat
(Geothypis trichas)
• Rufous-crowned sparrow
(Aimophila ruficeps)
• Anna’s hummingbird (Calypte
anna)
• American crow (Corvus
brachyrhynchos)
• American Kestrel (Falco
sparverius)
• Bewick’s wren (Thryomanes
bewickii)
• Nuttall’s woodpecker (Picoides
nuttallii)
• California towhee (Melozone
crissalis)
• California quail (Callipepla
californica)
• Black phoebe (Sayornis
nigricans)
• Spotted towhee (Pipilo
maculatus)
• Northern mockingbird (Mimus
polyglottos)
• house finch (Haemorhous
mexicanus)
• mourning dove (Zenaida
macroura)
• American bushtit (Psaltriparus
mimimus)
• song sparrow (Melospiza
melodia)
• Red-tailed hawk (Buteo
jamaicensis)
• turkey vulture (Cathartes aura)
• yellow warbler (Setophaga
petechia)
• Great horned Owl (Bubo
virginianus)
• Barn owl (Tyto alba)
• Lesser goldfinch (Spinus psaltria)
• Song sparrow (Melospiza
melodia)
• Yellow-breasted chat (Icteria
virens)
• Turkey vulture (Cathartes aura)
Reptiles:
• western fence lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis)
Mammals:
• Desert cottontail (Sylvilagus audubonii)
5.6 Regional Connectivity/Wildlife Movement
No known wildlife corridors or linkage areas are identified in the MSHCP as a Core Linkage within the Project site. However, the Project site is adjacent to the Santa Ana River, which is designated as a wildlife corridor known as Existing Core A within the MSHCP. MSHCP Existing Core A consists of Prado Basin and the Santa Ana River and functions as a linage, connecting Orange County to the west with San Bernardino County to the north. The Existing Core A is constrained on all sides by existing urban 1706
Biological Resource Assessment for the SEC Archibald and Grapewin Project January 2025 41
development and agricultural use, and planned land uses surrounding the Core exists largely of high impact land uses such as city and community development.
The Project site is characterized by exposed areas that lack suitable cover and resources that are typically associated with wildlife movement areas (i.e. water). Furthermore, the Project site is located at a substantially higher elevation than the Existing Core A of the MSHCP. The Project site includes several residential homes and fenced animal pens.
Furthermore, north, west, and south of the Project is residential development and Vantage Point Church further restricting any regional movement. Therefore, the Project site is not used as a wildlife corridor, linkage, or specific travel route to and from nursery sites other important resources.
There is potential for smaller or “local” movement through the site. Movement on a smaller scale could occur within the site for species that are less restricted in movement pathway requirements or are adapted to urban areas due to the amount of development [e.g., raccoon (Procyon lotor), stripped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), and bird species in general). Habitat within the site is ruderal and disturbed/developed, which it may support some wildlife movement within the site and/or nearby areas for nesting and foraging. Common bird species may utilize the site for foraging and nesting.
In summary, the Project site supports foraging and nesting habitat for species on a local scale and is not used as a regional corridor, wildlife corridor, linkage, or specific travel route to and from nursery sites other important resources. This is due to the reason stated above, therefore, the Project site provides no function to facilitate movement for wildlife species on a regional scale.
5.7 MSHCP Assessment
The Project is located within the Eastvale Area Plan of the MSHCP; however, the Project site is not located within any MSHCP Criteria Areas, Cell Groups, or Subunits.
Furthermore, the Project site is not located in survey areas for Amphibians, Mammals, or Special Linkage areas. The Project site was analyzed for MSHCP consistency for the following:
• Riparian and Riverine Areas (Section 6.1.2)
• Narrow Endemic Plant (Section 6.1.3)
• Urban Wildlands Interface Guidelines (Section 6.1.4)
• Western burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia hypugaea) (Section 6.3.2)
5.7.1 Section 6.1.2 Riparian Riverine
No MSHCP Riparian/Riverine features were identified onsite. The Project site contains no vernal pools as defined under MSHCP vernal pool features. 1707
Biological Resource Assessment for the SEC Archibald and Grapewin Project January 2025 42
Located offsite and to the east of the Project site, within the 500-foot buffer, is the Santa Ana River that meets the definition of MSHCP Riparian and Riverine resources. The offsite Santa Ana River MSHCP Riparian/Riverine features that occur within the 500-feet surrounding the Project site is shown on Figure 8.
5.7.1.1 Species Protected under Section 6.1.2
The Project site does not contain any suitable habitat for the avian species listed in Section 6.1.2: Protection of Species Associated with Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools. The Santa Ana River located offsite and to the east of the Project site contains suitable habitat for Section 6.1.2 Protection of Species associated with Riparian/Riverine Area.
1708
Legend
Project Boundary
Jurisdictional Waters*
(CDFW and MSHCP
Riparian/Riverine)
*represents the greatest
extents of the Jurisdictional
Limits
I SEC Archibald and Grapewin Project
1 inch = 100 feet
0 25 50 100 150 200
Feet Data Source: Bing Map
FIGURE 8
Jurisdictional Waters
GIS Prepared By:
Carlson SLS
Created: June 20, 2024
Sana Ana River
1709
Biological Resource Assessment for the SEC Archibald and Grapewin Project January 2025 44
5.7.1.2 Vernal Pools
No evidence of vernal pools, seasonal depressions, seasonally inundated road ruts or other wetland features were recorded on the Project Site. Vernal pools are depressions in areas where a hard-underground layer prevents rainwater from draining downward into the subsoils. When rain fills the pools in the winter and spring, the water collects and remains in the depressions. In the springtime, the water gradually evaporates away, until the pools became completely dry in the summer and fall. Vernal pools tend to have an impermeable layer that results in ponded water. The soil texture (the amount of sand, silt, and clay particles) typically contains higher amounts of fine silts and clays with lower percolation rates. Pools that retain water for a sufficient length of time will develop hydric cells. Hydric cells form when the soil is saturated from flooding for extended periods of time and anaerobic conditions (lacking oxygen or air) develop.
No indication of clay substrates or hydric soils were documented within the Project Site.
Furthermore, a review of prior google aerials was reviewed to determine if inundated features were present during years of high rainfall when features would certainly be documented. Aerials taken in 2011 represent an ideal baseline during which known (previously documented) inundated vernal pools, seasonal depressions and road ruts can easily be seen. No sign or indication of inundation was documented within the Project Site during a review of historic aerials.
In summary, none of the conditions (i.e., no inundated depressions including road ruts, hydric soils, historic inundation, etc.) were observed on documented within the Project site. No features are present that would support fairy shrimp. No standing water or other sign of areas that pond water was observed.
5.7.2 Narrow Endemic Plant – Survey Area Number 7 (Section 6.1.3) The Project site is located within the Narrow Endemic Plant Species Survey Area (NEPSSA) Number 7 overlay, which include the following target species:
• San Diego ambrosia (Ambrosia pumila)
Status: California Rare Plant Rank 1B.1, federally endangered Habitat(s): Habitats supporting chaparral, coastal scrub, valley and foothill grasslands, and vernal pools. Observed in sandy loam or clay soils, sometimes alkaline soils. Known from 20 to 415 meters (65 to 1360 feet) MSL. Blooms April through October.
Status onsite: None. The Project site lacks suitable habitat and soils. Not observed during field surveys and focused narrow endemic plant surveys. • Brand’s Star Phacelia (Phacelia stellaris)
Status: California Rare Plant Rank 1B.1
Habitat(s): Habitats supporting coastal dunes and coastal scrub Known from below 1 to 400 meters (5 to 1,310 feet) MSL. Blooms March through June. 1710
Biological Resource Assessment for the SEC Archibald and Grapewin Project January 2025 45
Status onsite: None. None. The Project site lacks suitable habitat and soils. Not observed during field surveys and focused narrow endemic plant surveys. • San Miguel Savory (Clinopodium chandleri)
Status: California Rare Plant Rank 1B.2
Habitat(s): Rocky areas in chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal scrub, riparian woodland, and valley and foothill grassland. Soils include rocky and gabbroic substrates. Known from 120 - 1075 meters (395 - 3525 feet) MSL.
Blooms March through July.
Status onsite: None. None. The Project site lacks suitable habitat and soils. Not observed during field surveys and focused narrow endemic plant surveys.
Several rare plant surveys were conducted during the blooming periods of the identified species above. No special status plant species were observed during the focused 2024 narrow endemic plant surveys and, and none are expected to occur onsite due to the lack of suitable habitat or suitable soil found on the Project site.
5.7.3 Section 6.1.4 Urban/Wildlands Interface
The Project site is not designated as an existing or proposed MSHCP Conservation Area or Core Linkage areas. However, the Project site is adjacent to the Santa Ana River, which is designated as a wildlife corridor known as Existing Core A within the MSHCP.
MSHCP Existing Core A consists of Prado Basin and the Santa Ana River and functions as a linage, connecting Orange County to the west with San Bernardino County to the north. The Existing Core A is constrained on all sides by existing urban development and agricultural use, and planned land uses surrounding the Core exists largely of high impact land uses such as city and community development.
The Project site is composed of large spans of ruderal and disturbed habitat lacking suitable cover and resources that are typically associated with wildlife movement areas (i.e. water). Furthermore, the Project site is located at a substantially higher elevation than the Existing Core A of the MSHCP. The Project site includes several residential homes and fenced animal pens. Furthermore, north, west, and south of the Project is residential development and Vantage Point Church further restricting any regional movement. Therefore, the Project site is not used as a wildlife corridor, linkage, or specific travel route to and from nursery sites other important resources.
However, due to the adjacency to Existing Core A and preserving the high-quality riparian habitat found within the Santa Ana River, the Project site would have indirect impacts due to construction noise and lighting. Therefore, the Project would adhere to the urban/wildland guidelines interface for the management of edge factors.
5.7.4 Burrowing Owl Habitat Assessment (Section 6.3.2)
Per the MSHCP BUOW Survey Instructions, a Habitat Assessment was conducted on March 28, 2024 to determine any suitable BUOW habitat onsite. Burrows were observed 1711
Biological Resource Assessment for the SEC Archibald and Grapewin Project January 2025 46
onsite along the fence line as well as debris piles. Following the habitat assessment, additional focused surveys took place on June 11, June 25, July 16 and August 8, 2024 as identified within Table 1 above. The surveys were conducted during typical BUOW peak activity time and was not conducted during rain, high winds (> 20 miles per hour), dense cloud cover >75%, or extreme temperatures. Prior to the commencement of the survey, CSLS biologists scanned the Study Area using binoculars to look for burrowing owl. The Study Area was assessed for the suitability to support burrowing owls and all suitable burrows were inspected for signs of use by burrowing owls.
No BUOWs or evidence of BUOWs were observed on site within the Study Area during the focused surveys. A majority of the Project site is characterized by vegetated ruderal and disturbed/developed habitats and contains suitably sized burrows and satellite burrows to provide suitable nesting habitat for BUOW. Much of the buffer area is developed or consists of the Santa Ana River. California ground squirrels and their burrows were observed within the Study Area. These burrows were actively utilized by the California ground squirrels and contained no BUOW or keys signs (sight, whitewash, burrows, bones, feathers, pellets, nests, and calls). Therefore, based on the focused surveys it is determined the Project site is not occupied by BUOW. Please refer to Appendix E for the complete results for the focused surveys.
5.8 Jurisdictional Areas
5.8.1 Summary of Jurisdictional Waters
No features meeting the definitions of Waters of the State or Waters of the United States were identified onsite. The Project site contains no vernal pools, wetlands, or riparian habitat.
To the east of the Project site, within the 500-foot buffer, is the Santa Ana River that meets the definition of Waters of the State or Waters of the United states. The offsite Santa Ana River jurisdictional feature that occurs within the 500-feet surrounding the Project site is shown on Figure 8.
5.9 Soils Mapping
The United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service lists five soil types (series) for the Project site (Figure 9). Please see below for the following soil type, which was used to determine the possibility for sensitive wildlife and plant species. No unique soil types as identified by the MSHCP, such as clays for vernal pools or soils for sensitive or rare plants, exist on the Project site. Furthermore, no soils that would potentially provide hydrophilic soils for vernal pools occur onsite.
The following soil types are mapped within the Study Area and shown on Figure 9:
• Grangeville sandy loam, sandy substratum, drained, saline-alkali , 0 to 5 percent slopes (GsB)
1712
Biological Resource Assessment for the SEC Archibald and Grapewin Project January 2025 47
• Grangeville fine sandy loam, poorly drained, saline-alk ali, 0 to 5 percent slopes (GuB)
• Pachappa fine sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes (PaA) • Ramona very fine sandy loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes, eroded (ReC2) • Terrace escarpments (TeG)
1713
Legend
Project Boundary
Soil Type
Grangeville sandy loam,
sandy substratum, drained,
saline-alkali , 0 to 5 percent
slopes (GsB)
Grangeville fine sandy
loam, poorly drained,
saline-alk ali, 0 to 5 percent
slopes (GuB)
Pachappa fine sandy loam,
0 to 2 percent slopes (PaA)
Ramona very fine sandy
loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes,
eroded (ReC2)
Terrace escarpments (TeG)
I SEC Archibald and Grapewin Project
1 inch = 100 feet
0 25 50 100 150 200
Feet Data Source: Bing Map
FIGURE 9
Soils Map
GIS Prepared By:
Carlson SLS
Created: June 20, 2024
Sana Ana River
1714
Biological Resource Assessment for the SEC Archibald and Grapewin Project January 2025 49
6.0 Threshold of Significance
Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines is used by public agencies in determining whether a project may have a significant impact on biological resources. Under Appendix G, a project may have a significant impact on biological resources if it would:
Threshold BIO-A Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Threshold BIO-B Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
Threshold BIO-C Have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
Threshold BIO-D Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
Threshold BIO-E Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? Threshold BIO-F Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
For the purposes of this impact analysis the following definitions apply:
• “Substantial adverse effect” means loss or harm of a magnitude which, based on current scientific data and knowledge would: (1) substantially reduce population numbers of a listed, candidate, sensitive, rare, or otherwise special status species; (2) substantially reduce the distribution of a sensitive plant community/habitat type; or (3) eliminate or substantially impair the functions and values of a biological resource (e.g., streams, wetlands, or woodlands) in a geographical area defined by interrelated biological components and systems. In the case of this analysis, the prescribed geographical area is considered to be the region 1715
Biological Resource Assessment for the SEC Archibald and Grapewin Project January 2025 50
that includes the USGS topographic quadrangle for the site. For some species, the geographic area may extend to the vicinity of the site based on known distributions of the species.
• “Conflict” means contradiction of a magnitude, which based on foreseeable circumstances, would preclude or prevent substantial compliance. • “Rare” means: (1) that the species exists in such small numbers throughout all, or a significant portion of, its range that it may become endangered if its environment worsens; or (2) the species is likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range and may be considered “threatened” as that term is used in the ESA. 1716
Biological Resource Assessment for the SEC Archibald and Grapewin Project January 2025 51
7.0 Significance Determination and Proposed Mitigation
7.1 Regulatory Setting
Sensitive species are provided protection by either Federal or State resource management agencies, or both, under provisions of the ESA and CESA.
There are a number of performance criteria and standard conditions that must be met as part of any review and approval of the proposed Project. These include compliance with all of the terms, provisions, and requirements with applicable laws that relate to Federal, State, and local regulating agencies related to potential impacts to sensitive plant and wildlife species, wetlands, riparian habitats, and blue lined stream courses.
Impacts are sometimes locally important but not significant because, although they would result in an adverse alteration of existing local conditions, they would not substantially diminish or result in the permanent loss of an important resource on a population-wide or region-wide basis.
7.2 Project Related Impacts
For the purpose of this assessment, Project-related impacts consist of direct and indirect impacts. Direct impacts are considered to be those that involve the loss, modification or disturbance of natural habitats (i.e., vegetation or plant communities), which in turn, directly affect plant and wildlife species dependent on that habitat. Direct impacts also include the destruction of individual plants or wildlife, which is typically the case in species of no to low mobility (i.e., plants, amphibians, reptiles, and small mammals).
The collective loss of individuals in these manners may also directly affect regional population numbers of a species or result in the physical isolation of populations thereby reducing genetic diversity and, hence, population stability.
Indirect impacts are considered to be those that involve the effects of increases in ambient levels of sensory stimuli (e.g., noise, light), unnatural predators (e.g., domestic cats and other non-native animals), and competitors (e.g., exotic plants, non-native animals). Indirect impacts may be associated with the construction and/or operation of a project; therefore, these impacts may be both short-term and long-term in their duration. These impacts are commonly referred to as “edge effects” and may result in changes in the behavioral patterns of wildlife and reduced wildlife diversity and abundance in habitats adjacent to project sites.
The determination of impacts in this analysis is based on the proposed Project development plan and the biological values of the habitat and/or sensitivity of plant and wildlife species to be affected. Any recommended mitigation measures to address impacts are discussed below, along with compliance of existing regulations. 1717
Biological Resource Assessment for the SEC Archibald and Grapewin Project January 2025 52
7.2.1 Impacts to Vegetation Communities
Direct impacts resulting from Project implementation consist of any ground‐disturbing activities (i.e., vegetation removal, grading, paving, structures, landscaping, fuel modification zone, etc.). These areas would be permanently affected by the construction of the Project. Calculations are based on the currently proposed development design in conjunction with the vegetation map from the field survey and aerial imagery. The proposed development plan can be found on Figure 4.
Indirect temporary impacts to plant communities include the effects of fugitive dust created by grading activities, vehicle construction traffic, or offsite discharge of surface water runoff with its associated erosion and sedimentation. Grading-related dust could settle on plant surfaces and indirectly inhibit metabolic processes such as photosynthesis and respiration. Grading-related erosion, runoff, sedimentation, soil compaction, and alteration of drainage patterns may affect plants by altering site conditions so that the location in which they are growing becomes unfavorable. Another example of indirect impacts includes the introduction and spread of invasive, exotic plants which could result in permanent indirect impacts to adjacent native plant communities.
Figure 10 and Table 3 describe and list the approximate total acreages of vegetation communities that will be impacted by Project activities within the Project boundary. The Project impacts are concentrated along the western portion of the Project and avoids any direct impacts to Santa Ana River located to the east.
Table 3. Vegetation Community Impacts
Vegetation Community
Existing Vegetation
(acres)
Impacts
(acres)
Avoided
(acres)
Ruderal 1.64 1.23 0.41
Disturbed/Developed 6.66 6.65 0.01
TOTAL 8.30 7.88 0.42
7.2.2 Impacts to Jurisdictional Features
Since there are no jurisdictional features that meet the definition of Waters of the US or Waters of the State located on the Project site, no features will be impacted. The Santa Ana River located to the east of the Project will not be directly impacted with the implementation of the Project.
7.2.3 MSHCP Riparian/Riverine Impacts
No features meeting the definition of MSHCP Riparian/Riverine features are located on the Project site, therefore, no features will be impacted. The Santa Ana River located to the east of the Project will not be directly impacted with the implementation of the Project.
1718
Legend
Project Boundary
Project Impact Boundary
Development Footprint
Vegetation Community
Ruderal
Disturbed/Developed
I SEC Archibald and Grapewin Project
1 inch = 100 feet
0 25 50 100 150 200
Feet Bing Map
Adkan Engineers (08/30/2024)
Data Source:
FIGURE 10
Vegetation Impact Map
GIS Prepared By:
Carlson SLS
Created: August 30, 2024
Sana Ana River
1719
Biological Resource Assessment for the SEC Archibald and Grapewin Project January 2025 54
7.3 Threshold BIO - A
Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated.
7.3.1 Sensitive Plant Species
As determined through the field surveys and focused rare plant surveys conducted, no special status plant species were observed within the Project site. There is no potential for special status plant species to occur on the Project site due to lack of suitable habitat or soils with the specified habitat to support the special status plant species. Therefore, no impact would occur.
7.3.2 Sensitive Wildlife Species
Of the identified 28 sensitive wildlife species occurring within the quad, a single sensitive species was audibly heard, southern California rufous-crowned sparrow onsite.
Two sensitive species, the yellow-breasted chat and yellow warbler, were heard audibly during the field surveys within the Santa Ana River, which is heavily vegetated with riparian species. Biologists heard this species within the Santa Ana River corridor, located offsite, while surveying the eastern portion of the Project site. No riparian vegetation occurs onsite, therefore the Project site lacks suitable habitat for these species. A total of 3 species have low potential to occur onsite. Those species include tricolor blackbird, red-diamond rattlesnake, and Stephen’s Kangaroo Rat. All of the species are Covered MSHCP species.
Development of the Project site would result in the impact of 7.88-acres of ruderal and disturbed/developed vegetation communities, potentially causing disruption removal of habitat for red-diamond rattlesnake. Ruderal and disturbed/developed habitat is considered somewhat suitable habitat for the species causing potential adverse impacts. These are species of special concern and are MSHCP Covered Species.
Mitigation Measure Bio – 1 (MM BIO-1) outlines a Biological sweep prior to vegetation removal to ensure that Project implementation activities affecting potential suitable habitat and loss of the species is mitigated.
Development of the Project site would result in the impact of 1.23-acres of ruderal vegetation communities, potentially causing disruption removal of habitat for Stephen’s kangaroo rat, a federally threatened species and a state threatened species. Ruderal habitat is considered somewhat suitable habitat for the species and may be used for burrowing for the Stephen’s kangaroo rat causing potential adverse impacts. However, the Project falls within the Stephen’s kangaroo rat Fee Area outlined in the Riverside 1720
Biological Resource Assessment for the SEC Archibald and Grapewin Project January 2025 55
County SKR Habitat Conservation Plan, as well as being a covered MSHCP species.
Mitigation Measure Bio – 2 (MM BIO-2) is proposed to ensure that Project implementation activities affecting potential suitable habitat of Stephen’s kangaroo rat is mitigated; the Applicant shall make the appropriate mitigation fee payment into the MSHCP Stephen’s Kangaroo rate fee payment program. This program ensures the conservation of Stephen’s Kangaroo rat occupied habitats in order to offset the loss of potentially suitable habitat onsite.
Development of the Project site would result in the impact of 1.23-acres of ruderal vegetation communities, potentially causing disruption removal of foraging habitat for tricolored blackbird and southern California rufous-crowned sparrow. Ruderal habitat is considered somewhat suitable habitat for the species and may be used for foraging habitat for the species. These are species of special concern and are MSHCP Covered Species. Mitigation Measure Bio – 3 (MM BIO-3) outlines a pre-construction nesting bird survey during typical nesting season to ensure that Project implementation activities affecting potential suitable habitat and loss of the species is mitigated.
Furthermore, during construction of the Project, indirect short-term noise impacts could temporarily affect avian species during breeding activities within the Santa Ana River, including the yellow-breasted chat and yellow warbler that was heard within the Santa Ana River. Mitigation Measure Bio – 3 (MM BIO-3) is proposed to ensure that activities affecting potential nesting habitat are restricted to periods outside of the avian breeding season or, where activities must occur, pre-activity surveys and avoidance measures are implemented.
Therefore, potential impacts to sensitive wildlife species would be less than significant with implementation of the mitigation measures.
Due to the level of existing disturbance onsite and within the vicinity impacts to the vegetation communities would not be expected to reduce the general wildlife populations below self-sustaining levels within the region and impacts to wildlife species do not meet the significance thresholds. Therefore, impacts to common wildlife species would not be considered a significant impact and no mitigation is required.
Potential adverse indirect impacts to common wildlife including an increase in construction related noise; an increase in litter, pollutants, dust, oil, and other human debris during construction; and an increase in noise and nighttime lighting during longterm operations. As part of the Project design, Standard Best Management Practices (BMPs) are to be implemented to provide proper trash receptacles and management 1721
Biological Resource Assessment for the SEC Archibald and Grapewin Project January 2025 56
of dust/oil/pollutants. Furthermore, these indirect impacts are short in duration, only occurring during construction activities.
Short-term noise from construction activities could temporarily affect common and sensitive wildlife during breeding activities, both onsite and to the adjacent Santa Ana River. Mitigation Measure Bio – 3 (MM BIO-3) is proposed to ensure that activities affecting potential nesting habitat are restricted to periods outside of the avian breeding season or, where activities must occur, pre-activity surveys and avoidance measures are implemented. Therefore, noise-related impacts would be less than significant with implementation of the mitigation measures.
Direct impacts associated with vegetation removal may occur to all avian species covered under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) with the removal of potential nesting and foraging habitat. The MBTA protects nesting activities of avian species.
Under the Act it is unlawful to harm, harass, or take a nest. If Project construction is scheduled to occur during the typical breeding bird season (January 15 through August 31 for raptors and February 15 through August 31 for all other avian species), direct removal of vegetation and indirect short-term noise effects to birds that may forage or nest onsite or within the buffer area may occur. In order to reduce direct and indirect impacts on nesting birds, if vegetation removal and/or construction activities were to occur during nesting bird season, a pre-construction nesting bird survey would be required within five (5) days of disturbances during typical nesting bird season to delineate any active nests found within the Project site. The loss of foraging habitat on the Project site is not a significant impact due to the adjacency to open space and additional foraging habitat located south of the Project site. Pre-construction nesting bird surveys as outlined within Mitigation Measure BIO– 3 (MM BIO- 3) would ensure protection against direct impacts associated with vegetation removal or indirect impacts associated with construction related noise impacts for avian species covered under the MBTA during the typical nesting bird season. Implementation of MM BIO-1 through MM BIO-3 would reduce potential impacts to the avian species and special status wildlife to a less than significant level.
MM BIO-1 Prior to ground disturbances a biological pre-disturbance sweep shall take place to ensure wildlife species, sensitive and common, are cleared before large equipment removes vegetation.
MM BIO-2 Prior to issuance of the grading permit, the Applicant shall pay the Stephen’s Kangaroo Rat mitigation fee pursuant to City Ordinance No. 663.
Per Ordinance No. 663, a fee of $500 per gross acre is required. 1722
Biological Resource Assessment for the SEC Archibald and Grapewin Project January 2025 57
MM BIO-3 Prior to ground disturbances that would impact potentially suitable nesting habitat for avian species, the Project Applicant shall adhere to the following:
1. Vegetation removal activities shall be scheduled outside the nesting season (September 1 to February 14 for songbirds; September 1 to January 14 for raptors) to the extent feasible to avoid potential impacts to nesting birds and/or ground nesters.
2. Any construction activities that occur during typical nesting season (February 15 to August 31 for songbirds; January 15 to August 31 for raptors) will require that all suitable habitat, on-site and within 300-feet surrounding the site (as feasible), be thoroughly surveyed for the presence of nesting birds by a qualified biologist before commencement ground disturbances. If active nests are identified, the biologist would establish buffers around the vegetation (500 feet for raptors and sensitive species, 200 feet for non-raptors/non-sensitive species). All work within these buffers would be halted until the nesting effort is finished (i.e. the juveniles are surviving independent from the nest). The onsite biologist would review and verify compliance with these nesting boundaries and would verify the nesting effort has finished.
Work can resume within these areas when no other active nests are found. Alternatively, a qualified biologist may determine that construction can be permitted within the buffer areas and would develop a monitoring plan to prevent any impacts while the nest continues to be active (eggs, chicks, etc.). Upon completion of the survey and any follow-up construction avoidance management, a report shall be prepared and submitted to City for mitigation monitoring compliance record keeping.
7.3.3 Critical Habitat
The Project site contains a total of 2.25 acres of designated critical habitat for the least Bell’s vireo within the eastern portion of the Project site. The Project site does not contain any constituent elements either the physical and biological features needed for life processes and successful reproduction of the listed species. Approximately 40-feet north and east of the Project site is designated critical habitat for the southwestern willow flycatcher. The Santa Ana River, located offsite and to the east of the Project site, includes suitable habitat for the two listed species and is identified as having past occurrences of the species. These bird species are migratory and indirect noise impacts may occur however, Mitigation Measure Bio – 3 (MM BIO-3) is proposed to ensure that Project implementation activities affecting potential nesting season are restricted to 1723
Biological Resource Assessment for the SEC Archibald and Grapewin Project January 2025 58
periods outside of the breeding season or, where activities must occur, pre-construction surveys and avoidance measures are implemented.
Furthermore, the Santa Ana River is critical habitat for the Santa Ana Sucker. No impacts are anticipated to the Santa Ana River with the implementation of the Project. As part of the Project design a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) would be prepared by the Project Engineer to ensure no run-off leaves the Project site.
Therefore, Implementation of MM BIO-3 would reduce potential impacts to a less than significant level.
7.4 Threshold BIO- B
Would the Project have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?
No Impact.
7.4.1 Sensitive Plant Communities
No sensitive plant communities occur on the Project site. Therefore, no impacts would occur.
7.4.2 Jurisdictional Waters
No jurisdictional features occur onsite. The Santa Ana River, located offsite and to the east of the Project site is considered Waters of the United States and Waters of the State, as regulated by the Corps, RWQCB, and CDFW. No impacts are anticipated to occur to the Santa Ana River due to Project implementation. Therefore, no mitigation is required.
7.5 Threshold BIO - C
Would the project have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means?
No Impact.
No jurisdictional wetlands occur onsite. Therefore, there is no impacts anticipated and no mitigation is required.
1724
Biological Resource Assessment for the SEC Archibald and Grapewin Project January 2025 59
7.6 Threshold BIO - D
Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?
Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated.
7.6.1 Wildlife Movement
No known wildlife corridors or linkage areas are identified in the MSHCP as a Core Linkage are located on the Project site onsite. However, the Project site is adjacent to the Santa Ana River, which is designated as a wildlife corridor known as Existing Core A within the MSHCP. MSHCP Existing Core A consists of Prado Basin and the Santa Ana River and functions as a linage, connecting Orange County to the west with San Bernardino County to the north. The Existing Core A is constrained on all sides by existing urban development and agricultural use, and planned land uses surrounding the Core exists largely of high impact land uses such as city and community development.
The Project site is further characterized by exposed areas that lack suitable vegetation cover outside and resources that are typically associated with wildlife movement areas (i.e. water). The Project site includes residential development, Vantage Point Church to the north, west, and south, and a steep slope to the Santa Ana River to the east. The site contains animal pens, equestrian stalls and arena, and residential homes all of which restrict any regional movement. Therefore, the Project site is not used as a wildlife corridor, linkage, or specific travel route to and from nursery sites other important resources.
The Project would not directly impact Existing Core A. However, the Project may indirectly impact Existing Core A. The Project indirect impacts by themselves would not be expected to interfere with the wildlands interface within the region; however, the due to the Santa Ana River being designated as the Existing Core A, the following Urban/Wildland Interface Guidelines will be implemented through the participation in the MSHCP and implemented through the Conditions of Approval.
Movement on a local scale likely occurs with species adapted to urban environments due to the surrounding development and disturbances in the vicinity of the site.
Although implementation of the Project would result in disturbances to local wildlife movement within the site, those species adapted to urban areas would be expected to persist on-site following construction. As such, impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures would be required.
7.6.2 Migratory Birds and Raptors
The Project site supports foraging habitat for migratory birds and raptors due to the ruderal and disturbed habitat occurring on the Project site. Nesting activity typically 1725
Biological Resource Assessment for the SEC Archibald and Grapewin Project January 2025 60
occurs from January 15 through August 31 for raptors and February 15 through August 31 for all other avian species. Disturbing or destroying active nests is a violation of the MBTA (16 U.S.C. 703 et seq.). In addition, nests and eggs are protected under Fish and Wildlife Code Section 3503. As such, direct impacts to breeding birds (e.g. through nest removal) or indirect impacts (e.g. by noise causing abandonment of the nest) is considered a potentially significant impact. Compliance with the MBTA would reduce impacts to a less than significant level, as detailed in MM BIO-3.
7.7 Threshold BIO - E
Would the project conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?
No Impact.
The Project is not subject to any local policies, such as a tree preservation ordinance, which protects biological resources. Therefore, no impacts would occur, and no mitigation is necessary.
7.8 Threshold BIO - F
Would the project conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan?
Less than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated.
The Project site is located within the MSHCP. The Project site is not located within any MSHCP Criteria Areas, Cell Groups, or Subunits. Furthermore, the Project site is not located in survey areas for Amphibians, Mammals, or Special Linkage areas. The Project site is subject to Riparian and Riverine Areas pursuant to MSHCP Section 6.1.2, Narrow Endemic Plants, pursuant to Section 6.1.3, and Western Burrowing Owl overlay pursuant to MSHCP Section 6.3.2.
No MSHCP Riparian/Riverine features occur onsite. The Santa Ana River occurs offsite and to the east of the Project site within the 500-foot buffer, which meets the definition of riparian and/or riverine as outline within the MSHCP Section 6.1.2. The Project site does not contain suitable habitat for any of the riparian/riverine vernal pool species listed in Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP, including listed fairy shrimp. No impacts to those species listed in Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP are associated with Project implementation due to the lack of suitable habitat onsite. However during construction of the Project, indirect short-term noise impacts could temporarily affect Section 6.1.2 species heard and identified to occur within the Santa Ana River during breeding season, including the yellow-breasted chat and yellow warbler that was heard within the Santa Ana River.
Mitigation Measure Bio – 3 (MM BIO-3) is proposed to ensure that activities affecting potential nesting habitat are restricted to periods outside of the avian breeding season 1726
Biological Resource Assessment for the SEC Archibald and Grapewin Project January 2025 61
or, where activities must occur, pre-activity surveys and avoidance measures are implemented.
Furthermore, the Project site lacks suitable soils, sign of inundation (seasonal depression, soil cracking, etc.) and/or characteristic vernal pool plant species, no suitable habitat for fairy shrimp is present onsite. The Project site is dominated by well drained substrates and focused surveys for fairy shrimp are not warranted.
No impacts are anticipated to occur to the Santa Ana River due to Project implementation. Therefore, no mitigation is required, and no Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation (DBESP) is required. Therefore, the Project is consistent with the goals and objectives within MSHCP Section 6.1.2.
Portions of the Project site are located within the Narrow Endemic Plant Species Survey Areas (NEPSSA) Number 7, which include the following target species:
• San Diego ambrosia
• Brand's phacelia
• San Miguel savory
No special status plant species were observed during the 2024 focused surveys and none are expected to occur onsite due to the lack of suitable habitat or suitable soil found on the Project site; therefore, there are no potential impacts to special status plants due to Project implementation and no mitigation required. Therefore, the Project is consistent with the goals and objectives within MSHCP Section 6.1.3.
The indirect Project impacts by themselves would not be expected to interfere with the wildlands interface within the region; however, the due to the Santa Ana River being designated as the Existing Core A, the following Urban/Wildland Interface Guidelines will be implemented through the participation in the MSHCP and implemented through the Conditions of Approval.
Water Quality/Hydrology
The Project will comply with all applicable water quality regulations and Best Management Practices as part of prepared Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) prepared for the Project and required by Conditions of Approval.
Toxics
Toxic sources within the Project Site would be limited to those commonly associated with landscape activities such as pesticides, insecticides, herbicides, and fertilizers. The Project will comply with all applicable water quality regulations to ensure adequate long-term treatment.
1727
Biological Resource Assessment for the SEC Archibald and Grapewin Project January 2025 62
Lighting
Night lighting associated with the proposed Project site improvements that are adjacent to the Santa Ana River and Existing Core A would be directed away to reduce potential indirect impacts to wildlife species.
Noise
The Project site impacts are limited to the western portion of the site, which is adjacent to Archibald Street therefore, already subject to ambient roadway noise. Short-term construction related noise impacts will be reduced by the implementation of the following as implemented within the Conditions of Approval:
• During all Project Site excavation and construction on-site, the construction contractors shall equip all construction equipment, fixed or mobile, with properly operating and maintained mufflers, consistent with manufacturers’ standards.
The construction contractor shall place all stationary construction equipment so that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive receptors nearest the Project site, which includes the Santa Ana River.
• The construction contractor shall locate equipment staging in areas that will create the greatest distance between construction-related noise sources and noise sensitive receptors nearest the Project site during all project construction. • The construction contractor shall limit all construction-related activities that would result in high noise levels according to the construction hours.
Invasive Species
As part of Project design, the landscape plans do not utilize any invasive species adjacent to the Santa Ana River/Existing Core A.
Implementation of the aforementioned guidelines will minimize Project indirect impacts to a less than significant level and would be consistent with the goals and objectives within MSHCP Section 6.1.4.
Furthermore, based on the Habitat Assessment and focused burrowing owl surveys it is determined the Project site is not occupied by BUOW. No BUOWs or evidence of BUOWs were observed within the Project site during the focused surveys. A majority of the Project site was characterized by ruderal fields, which may provide suitable nesting habitat for BUOW but lack proper vegetation cover for the species. Much of the buffer area is developed. California ground squirrels and their burrows were observed within the Study Area. These burrows were actively utilized by the California ground squirrels and contained no BUOW or keys signs (sight, whitewash, burrows, bones, feathers, pellets, nests, and calls).
Due to the negative results of the focused surveys and with the City’s participation in the MSHCP, a BUOW pre-construction survey outlined within Mitigation Measure BIO-4 1728
Biological Resource Assessment for the SEC Archibald and Grapewin Project January 2025 63
(MM BIO-4) will be required to ensure protection for this species and compliance with the conservation goals as outlined within the MSHCP.
MM BIO-4: Prior to impacts, a pre-construction survey for burrowing owl within the Study Area (Project site and surrounding 500-foot buffer) shall be conducted by a qualified biologist where suitable habitat is present within 30 days to the commencement of ground disturbing activities.
If active burrowing owl burrows are detected during the breeding season, all work within 300 feet of any active burrow will be halted until that nesting effort is finished. The on-site biologist will review and verify compliance with these boundaries and will verify the nesting effort has finished. Work can resume when no other active burrowing owl nesting efforts are observed.
If active burrowing owl burrows are detected outside the breeding season, then passive and/or active relocation pursuant to a Burrowing Owl Exclusion Plan that shall be prepared by the Applicant and approved by the County of Riverside Environmental Programs Department (EPD) in consultation with CDFW. The Burrowing Owl Exclusion Plan shall be prepared in accordance with guidelines in the CDFW Staff Report on Burrowing Owl (March 2012) and MSHCP.
Burrowing owl burrows shall be excavated with hand tools by a qualified biologist when determined to be unoccupied and backfilled to ensure that animals do not reenter the holes/dens.
With the implementation of MM BIO-4, potential impacts to burrowing owls are reduced to a less than significant level and the Project is consistent with the goals and objectives within MSHCP Section 6.3.2.
8.0 Cumulative Impacts
Cumulative impacts are defined as the direct and indirect effects of a proposed project which, when considered alone, would not be deemed a substantial impact, but when considered in addition to the impacts of related projects in the area, would be considered significant. “Related projects” refers to past, present, and reasonably foreseeable probable future projects, which would have similar impacts to the proposed Project. CEQA deems a cumulative impact analysis to be adequate if a list of “related projects” is included in the EIR or the proposed project is consistent with an adopted general, specific, master, or comparable programmatic plan [Section 1729
Biological Resource Assessment for the SEC Archibald and Grapewin Project January 2025 64
15130(b)(1)(B)]. CEQA also states that no further cumulative impact analysis is necessary for impacts of a proposed project consistent with an adopted general, specific, master, or comparable programmatic plan [Section 15130(d)].
The loss of biological resources on the Project site must be considered in the context of the other development in the area. The Project’s direct impact analysis identified four biological resources including; sensitive wildlife, nesting and foraging birds, and burrowing owl. When combined with impacts from other reasonably past, present, and future projects, could result in a cumulative biological impact.
Direct impacts may occur to sensitive wildlife, however, adherence and implementation of MM BIO – 1 and MM BIO – 2 will ensure impacts to sensitive species or their habitats are minimized thus reducing the Project’s contribution to cumulative impacts to less than significant.
Direct impacts may occur to nesting birds, should construction activities and ground disturbances begin during the typical nesting season. However, adherence and implementation of MM BIO-3 will ensure impacts to avian species or their habitats are minimized thus reducing the Project’s contribution to cumulative impacts to less than significant. Loss of foraging habitat is not considered significant due to adjacency of additional open space lands located within the vicinity, specifically south of the Project site.
Finally, impacts to burrowing owl could result in significant impacts. Pursuant to the MSHCP requirements, a pre-construction survey shall be conducted by a qualified Biologist to ensure protection for this species and compliance with the conservation goals as outlined within the MSHCP. With the implementation of MM BIO–4 impacts to the species are minimized thus reducing the Project’s contribution to cumulative impacts to less than significant.
With the implementation of the above, the cumulative impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated.
1730
Biological Resource Assessment for the SEC Archibald and Grapewin Project January 2025 65
9.0 Literature Cited
Amphibiaweb. 2024. Species Accounts. Retrieved from:
http://amphibiaweb.org/search/index.html
American Ornithologists’ Union. 1998. The American Ornithologists’ Union Checklist of North American Birds. 7th Edition. American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, D.C. June.
Baldwin, B. G., D. H. Goldman, D. J. Keil, R. Patterson, T. J. Rosatti, and D. H. Wilken, editors. 2012. The Jepson Manual: Vascular Plants of California, second edition.
University California Press, Berkeley.
Bowers, N., R. Bowers, and K. Kaufman. 2004. Mammals of North America. Houghton Mifflin Company, New York.
Brady, Roland H. III, Kris Vyverberg. 2013. Methods to Describe and Delineate Episodic Stream Processes on Arid Landscapes for Permitting Utility‐Scale Solar Power Plants. California Energy Commission. Publication Number: CEC‐500‐2014‐013.
Calflora. 2024. Calflora website - search for plants.
Retrieved from: http://www.calflora.org/species/index.html.
CaliforniaHerps.com. 2024. California Herps. A Guide to the Reptiles and Amphibians of California. Retrieved from: http://www.californiaherps.com/.
Cal-IPC (California Invasive Plant Council). 2006. California Invasive Plant Inventory. CalIPC Publication 2006-02. California Invasive Plant Council: Berkeley, CA. Retrieved from: http://www.cal-ipc.org/ip/inventory/index.php.
CDFW (California Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2024. Natural Communities List.
Biographic Data Branch. The Vegetation Classification and Mapping Program. https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/VegCAMP/Natural-Communities.
CDFW (California Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2024a. California Endangered Species Act (CESA). Retrieved from:
https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/CESA.
CDFW (California Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2024b. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Retrieved from:
https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/CEQA.
1731
Biological Resource Assessment for the SEC Archibald and Grapewin Project January 2025 66
CDFW (California Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2024c. Fish and Game Code Section 1600-1616. Retrieved from:
https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=3784.
CDFW (California Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2024d. Lake and Streambed Alteration Program. Retrieved from:
https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Conservation/LSA.
CDFW (California Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2024e. Life History Accounts and Range Maps – California Wildlife Habitat Relationship System. Retrieved from:
https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CWHR/Life-History-and-Range.
CDFW (California Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2024f. RareFind, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB).
State of California, The Natural Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Wildlife, Biogeographic Data Branch, California Natural Diversity Database, Sacramento, CA.
CDFW (California Department of Fish and Wildlife), Natural Diversity Database.
February 2024g. Special Vascular Plants, Bryophytes, and Lichens List. Quarterly publication. 140 pp.
CDFW (California Department of Fish and Wildlife), Natural Diversity Database.
February 2024h. Special Animals List. Periodic publication. 67 pp.
Retried from: https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=109406.
CDFW (California Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2024i. State and Federally Listed Endangered, Threatened, and Rare Plants of California. State of California, The Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Wildlife, Resource Management and Planning Division, Biogeographic Data Branch, California Natural Diversity Database, Sacramento, CA.
Clark, W.S. and B.K. Wheeler. 2001. A Field Guide to Hawks of North America, Second Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston and New York.
California Native Plant Society, Rare Plant Program. 2024. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California (online edition, v8-03 0.39). Website http://www.rareplants.cnps.org [accessed 12 March 2018].
Corps (United States Army Corps of Engineers). 2008. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region (Version 2.0), ed. J. S. Wakeley, R. W. Lichvar, and C. V. Noble. ERDC/EL TR-08-28. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center. 1732
Biological Resource Assessment for the SEC Archibald and Grapewin Project January 2025 67
Eder, Tamara. 2005. Mammals of California. Lone Pine Publishing International Inc, Auburn, WA.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual, Technical Report Y-87-1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experimental Station, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). 2011. Laws and Regulations.
Summary of the Endangered Species Act.
Retrieved from: http://www.epa.gov/lawsregs/laws/esa.html Fahrig, L., and G. Merriam. 1985. Habitat patch connectivity and population survival.
Ecology 66:1762-1768.
Federal Interagency Committee for Wetland Delineation. 1989. Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and USDA Soil Conservation Service, Washington, DC Cooperative technical publication.
Fish and Game Commission. 2024. California Law. California Fish and Game Code.
Retrieved from:
http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codesTOCSelected.xhtml?tocCode=FGC& tocTitle=+Fish+and+Game+Code+-+FGC
Google. 2024. GoogleEarth© website.
Government Printing Office. 1991. Federal Register, 1989 “Federal Manual for Identifying Jurisdictional Wetlands; Proposed Revisions.” August 14, 1991, Vol. 56, No. 157, pp 40446-40480.
Harris, L.D. and Gallagher, P.B. 1989. New initiatives for wildlife conservation: The need for movement corridors. In defense of wildlife: Preserving communities and corridors. pp. 11-34. Edited by G. Mackintosh. Defenders of Wildlife, Washington, DC.
Holland, R.F. 1986. Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California. State of California, The Resources Agency, Nongame Heritage Program, California Department of Fish & Game, Sacramento, Calif. 156 pp.
Jennings, M.R. and M.P. Hayes. 1994. Amphibian and Reptile Species of Special Concern in California. Submitted to the California Department of Fish and Game Inland Fisheries Division. Rancho Cordova, CA.
1733
Biological Resource Assessment for the SEC Archibald and Grapewin Project January 2025 68
National Geographic Society. Edited by Jonathan Alderfer. 2006. Complete Birds of North America. National Geographic Society. Washington D.C.
NatureServe. 2024. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://explorer.natureserve.org.
NRCS (Natural Resource Conservation Service). 2024. Web Soil Survey. U.S.
Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service. Retrieved from: http://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx Sawyer, J.O., T. Keeler-Wolf, and J.M. Evens. 2009. A Manual of California Vegetation, Second Edition. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, CA. 1300 pp.
Sibley, David Allen. 2000. National Audubon Society, The Sibley Guide to Birds. Alfred A. Knopf, New York.
Simberloff, D., and J. Cox. 1987. Consequences and costs of conservation corridors.
Conservation Biology. 1:63-71.
Soule, Michael E. 1987. Viable populations for conservation. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge Cambridgeshire and New York.
SWRCB (State Water Resources Control Board). 2011. Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act with Additions and Amendments Effective April 2017. Compiled by the Office of Chief Counsel. Retrieved from:
http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/laws_regulations/docs/portercologne.pdf USDA (United States Department of Agriculture) Natural Resources Conservation Service. 1995. Hydric Soils of California.
USFWS (United States Fish and Wildlife Service). 2025. Information for Planning and Consultation. Retrieved from https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/.
USFWS (United States Fish and Wildlife Service). 2024a. FWS Critical Habitat for Threatened and Endangered Species. Retrieved from
https://www.fws.gov/endangered/.
USFWS (United States Fish and Wildlife Service). 2024b. Migratory Birds & Habitat Programs. Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Retrieved from:
https://www.fws.gov/birds/policies-and-regulations.php.
USFWS (United States Fish and Wildlife Service). 2024c. National Wetlands Inventory. 1734
Biological Resource Assessment for the SEC Archibald and Grapewin Project January 2025 69
Wetlands Mapper. Retrieved from:
http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Data/mapper.html.
WTI (Wetland Training Institute, Inc.). 1999. Field Guide for Wetland Delineation: 1987 Corps of Engineers Manual. Glenwood, NM WTI 99-1. 143 pp.
WTI (Wetland Training Institute, Inc.). 2003. Wetland Delineation Lecture Notes and Field Guide for Wetland Delineation based on the Corps of Engineers 1987 Manual. WTI, New Mexico.
1735
APPENDIX A
Representative Photographs of the Vegetation
Community
1736
Appendix A – Representative Photographs of the Vegetation Community Photos taken March 28, June 11, June 25, July 16, and August 7, 2024 Most of the Project site consists of disturbed/developed and ruderal habitat.
The Project site is regularly mowed. Two residential homes occur on the Project site. 1737
Appendix A – Representative Photographs of the Vegetation Community Photos taken March 28, June 11, June 25, July 16, and August 7, 2024 Located offsite and to the east is the Santa Ana River.
The Project site is developed with horse arena and stalls. 1738
Appendix A – Representative Photographs of the Vegetation Community Photos taken March 28, June 11, June 25, July 16, and August 7, 2024 The Project site also includes pens with cattle, goats, chickens, peacocks, and guard dogs.
The Project site also includes pens with cattle, goats, chickens, peacocks, and guard dogs. 1739
Appendix A – Representative Photographs of the Vegetation Community Photos taken March 28, June 11, June 25, July 16, and August 7, 2024 The Project site also includes pens with cattle, goats, chickens, peacocks, and guard dogs.
Offsite and located to the east of the Project site is Santa Ana River with Arundo thickets. 1740
Appendix A – Representative Photographs of the Vegetation Community Photos taken March 28, June 11, June 25, July 16, and August 7, 2024 Most of the site includes non-native species.
The Project site include horse stalls and an arena.
1741
APPENDIX B
Plant Species Recorded During Field Surveys
1742
Appendix B – Plant Species Recorded During the Field Surveys Appendix B contains the list of vascular plant taxa recorded during the 2024 biological survey conducted within the Project site. Plant nomenclature and taxonomic order is based on The Jepson Manual: Vascular Plants of California, second Edition (Baldwin et al. 2012).
Plant Species Observed during the Field Survey
EUDICOTS
VASCULAR SPECIES
APOCYNACEAE—Dogbane Family
Nerium oleander—oleander*
ASTERACEAE—Sunflower Family
Centaurea melitensis—Maltese star-thistle*
Erigeron canadensis—Canadian horseweed
Helminthotheca echioides—bristly oxtongue*
BRASSICACEAE—Mustard Family
Hirschfeldia incana—shortpod mustard*
CACTACEAE—Cactus Family
Opuntia littoralis—coast prickly pear
CHENOPODIACEAE—Goosefoot Family
Salsola australis—Russian thistle*
CUCURBITACEAE—Gourd Family
Cupaniopsis anacardioides—carrotwood*
GERANIACEAE—Geranium Family
Erodium moschatum—musky stork's bill*
MALVACEAE—Mallow Family
Malva parviflora—cheeseweed mallow*
SOLANACEAE—Nightshade Family
Nicotiana glauca—tree tobacco*
MONOCOTS
VASCULAR SPECIES
ARECACEAE—Palm Family
Phoenix canariensis—Canary Island date palm*
POACEAE—Grass Family
Bromus madritensis ssp. rubens—red brome*
Hordeum murinum—mouse barley*
1743
APPENDIX C
Special Status Plant Species Potential
Occurrence Determination
1744
Appendix C – Special Status Plant Species Potential Occurrence Determination
APPENDIX C
Special Status Plant Species Potential Occurrence Determination
This table summarizes conclusions from analysis and field surveys regarding the potential occurrence of special status plant species within the Study Area. This table includes a complete list of special status plant species found within the Corona North quadrangle and surrounding 8 quads with the potential to occur on the Project site were analyzed based on distribution, habitat requirements, and existing site conditions. During the field surveys, the potential for special status plant species to occur within the Study Area was assessed based on the following criteria:
• Present: observed on the site during the field surveys, or recorded on-site by other qualified biologists.
• Known to Occur: observed on site in the recent past, but not observed during the most recent biological survey.
• High potential to occur: observed in similar habitat in the region by a qualified biologist or habitat on the site is a type often utilized by the species, and the site is within the known distribution and elevation range of the species. • Moderate potential to occur: reported sightings in surrounding region, or the site is within the known distribution and elevation range of the species, and habitat on the site is a type occasionally used by the species.
• Low potential to occur: the site is within the known distribution and elevation range of the species, but habitat on the site is rarely used by the species or for which there are no known recorded occurrences of the species within or adjacent to the site. • None: a focused study failed to detect the species or no suitable habitat is present. • Unknown: the species’ distributional/elevation range and habitat are poorly known.
Even with field surveys, biologists assessed the probability of occurrence rather than make a definitive conclusion about species presence or absence. Failure to detect the presence of the species is not definitive, and may be due to variable effects associated with fire, rainfall patterns, and/or season.
1745
Appendix C – Special Status Plant Species Potential Occurrence Determination Special Status Plants: Potential to Occur within the Study Area
Scientific Name Common Name Status General Habitat Description Potential For Occurrence within the Study Area
Abronia villosa var.
aurita
chaparral sandverbenaCRPR: 1B.1
MSHCP: Not
covered
Annual herb of sandy areas in chaparral and
coastal sage scrub. Known from 80 to 1,600
meters (300 to 5,300 feet) MSL.
Blooming period: January through August.
None. No suitable habitat or soils are found
within the Project site. Not observed during
the field surveys or Sensitive Plant Surveys.
Allium marvinii Yucaipa onion CRPR: 1B.2
MSHCP:
Covered
Habitats include chaparral (clay, openings).
Known from 760 to 1,650 meters (2,495 to
3,49500 feet) MSL.
Blooming period: April through May
None. No suitable habitat or soils are found
within the Project site. Not observed during
the field surveys or Sensitive Plant Surveys.
Allium munzii Munz's onion ST, FE
CRPR: 1B.1
MSHCP:
Covered
Habitats include chaparral, Cismontane
woodland, Coastal scrub, Pinyon and juniper
woodland, Valley and foothill grassland. Known
from 297 - 1070 meters (975 - 3510 feet) MSL.
Blooming Period: March through May
None. No suitable habitat or soils are found
within the Project site. Not observed during
the field surveys or Sensitive Plant Surveys.
Ambrosia pumila San Diego
ambrosia
FE,
CRPR: 1B.1,
MSHCP:
Section 6.1.3
NEPSSA 7
Habitats supporting chaparral, coastal scrub,
valley and foothill grasslands, and vernal pools.
Observed in sandy loam or clay soils, sometimes
alkaline soils. Known from 20 to 415 meters (65
to 1360 feet) MSL.
Blooming period: June through September
None. No suitable habitat or soils are found
within the Project site. Not observed during
the field surveys or Sensitive Plant Surveys.
Arenaria paludicola marsh sandwort ST, FE
CRPR: 1B.1,
MSHCP: Not
Covered
Habitats include marshes and swamps (brackish,
freshwater). Known from 3 - 170 meters (10-560
feet) MSL.
Blooming Period: May through August
None. No suitable habitat or soils are found
within the Project site. Not observed during
the field surveys or Sensitive Plant Surveys.
Astragalus
brauntonii
Braunton's milkvetchFE
CRPR: 1B.1
MSHCP: Not
Covered
Habitats supporting chaparral, Coastal scrub,
Valley and foothill grassland. Known from 4 - 640
meters (15 - 2100 feet) MSL.
Blooming Period: January through August
None. No suitable habitat or soils are found
within the Project site. Not observed during
the field surveys or Sensitive Plant Surveys.
Atriplex coulteri Coulter's saltbush CRPR: 1B.2
MSHCP: Not
Covered
Habitats supporting coastal bluff scrub, Coastal
dunes, Coastal scrub, Valley and foothill
grassland. Known from 3 - 460 meters (10 - 1510
None. No suitable habitat or soils are found
within the Project site. Not observed during
1746
Appendix C – Special Status Plant Species Potential Occurrence Determination Scientific Name Common Name Status General Habitat Description Potential For Occurrence within the Study Area
feet) MSL.
Blooming period: March through October
the field surveys or Sensitive Plant Surveys.
Baccharis
malibuensis
Malibu baccharis CRPR: 1B.1
MSHCP: Not
Covered
Habitats supporting chaparral, Cismontane
woodland, Coastal scrub, Riparian woodland.
Known from 150 - 305 meters (490 - 1000 feet)
MSL.
Blooming Period: August
None. No suitable habitat or soils are found
within the Project site. Not observed during
the field surveys or Sensitive Plant Surveys.
Berberis nevinii Nevin's barberry FE, SE
CRPR: 1B.1
MSHCP:
Covered
Habitats supporting chaparral, Cismontane
woodland, Coastal scrub, Riparian scrub. Known
from 70 - 825 meters (230 - 2705 feet) MSL.
Blooming Period: (Feb)March to June
None. No suitable habitat or soils are found
within the Project site. Not observed during
the field surveys or Sensitive Plant Surveys.
Brodiaea filifolia Thread-leaved
Brodiaea
FT, SE
CRPR: 1B.1
MSHCP:
Covered
Habitats include chaparral (openings),
cismontane woodland, coastl scrub, playas,
valley and foothill grasslands, and vernals pools
often with clay soils. Known from 25 to 1,120
meters (80 to 3,675 feet) MSL.
Blooming Period: March through June.
None. No suitable habitat or soils are found
within the Project site. Not observed during
the field surveys or Sensitive Plant Surveys.
Calochortus weedii
var. intermedius
intermediate
mariposa-lily
CRPR:1B.2
MSHCP:
Covered
Habitats supporting chaparral, Coastal scrub,
Valley and foothill grassland Known from 105 -
855 meters (345 - 2805 feet) MSL.
Blooming Period: May through July
None. No suitable habitat or soils are found
within the Project site. Not observed during
the field surveys or Sensitive Plant Surveys.
Calystegia felix lucky morninggloryCRPR: 1B.1
MSHCP: Not
Covered
Habitats supporting meadows and seeps
(sometimes alkaline), Riparian scrub (alluvial).
Historically associated with wetland and marshy
places, but possibly in drier situations as well.
Possibly silty loam and alkaline. Known from 30 -
215 meters (100 - 705 feet) MSL.
Blooming Period: March through September
None. No suitable habitat or soils are found
within the Project site. Not observed during
the field surveys or Sensitive Plant Surveys.
Calystegia sepium
ssp. binghamiae
Santa Barbara
morning-glory
CRPR:1A
MSHCP: Not
Covered
Habitats supporting Marshes and swamps
(coastal) Known from 5 meters (15 feet) MSL
Blooming Period: August
None. No suitable habitat or soils are found
within the Project site. Not observed during
the field surveys or Sensitive Plant Surveys.
1747
Appendix C – Special Status Plant Species Potential Occurrence Determination Scientific Name Common Name Status General Habitat Description Potential For Occurrence within the Study Area
Centromadia
pungens ssp. laevis
smooth tarplant CRPR:1B.2
MSHCP:
Covered
Habitats supporting alkaline areas in chenopod
scrub, meadows and seeps, ditches, playas,
riparian woodland, and valley and foothill
grassland. Known from below 480 meters
(1,600 feet) MSL.
Blooming period: April through September
None. No suitable habitat or soils are found
within the Project site. Not observed during
the field surveys or Sensitive Plant Surveys.
Chloropyron
maritimum ssp.
maritimum
salt marsh bird'sbeakSE, FE
CRPR:1B.2
MSHCP: Not
Covered
Habitats supporting coastal dunes, Marshes and
swamps (coastal salt) Known from 0 - 30 meters
(0 - 100 feet) MSL.
Blooming period: May through October(Nov)
None. No suitable habitat or soils are found
within the Project site. Not observed during
the field surveys or Sensitive Plant Surveys.
Chorizanthe parryi
var. fernandina
San Fernando
Valley spineflower
SE
CRPR: 1 B.1
MSHCP: Not
Covered
Habitats supporting coastal scrub (sandy), Valley
and foothill grassland Known from 150 - 1220
meters (490 - 4005 feet) MSL.
Blooming period: April through July
None. No suitable habitat or soils are found
within the Project site. Not observed during
the field surveys or Sensitive Plant Surveys.
Chorizanthe parryi
var. parryi
Parry's spineflower CRPR:1B.2
MSHCP:
Covered
Habitats supporting chaparral, Cismontane
woodland, Coastal scrub, Valley and foothill
grassland. Known from 275 - 1220 meters (900 -
4005 feet) MSL.
Blooming Period: April through June
None. No suitable habitat or soils are found
within the Project site. Not observed during
the field surveys or Sensitive Plant Surveys.
Chorizanthe
polygonoides var.
longispina
long-spined
spineflower
CRPR:1B.2
MSHCP:
Covered
Habitats supporting chaparral, Coastal scrub,
Meadows and seeps, Valley and foothill
grassland, Vernal pools. Known from 30 - 1530
meters (100 - 5020 feet) MSL.
Blooming Period: April through July
None. No suitable habitat or soils are found
within the Project site. Not observed during
the field surveys or Sensitive Plant Surveys.
Cladium
californicum
California sawgrassCRPR:2B.2
MSHCP: Not
Covered
Habitats supporting marshes and swamps
(alkaline, freshwater), Meadows and seeps.
Known from 60 - 1600 meters (195 - 5250 feet)
MSL.
Blooming Period: June through September
None. No suitable habitat or soils are found
within the Project site. Not observed during
the field surveys or Sensitive Plant Surveys.
Dodecahema
leptoceras
Slender-horned
spineflower
SE, FE
CRPR: 1B.1
MSHCP:
Habitat supporting Chaparral, Cismontane
woodland, Coastal scrub (alluvial fans). Known
from 200-760 meters (655-2495 feet) MSL.
None. No suitable habitat or soils are found
within the Project site. Not observed during
the field surveys or Sensitive Plant Surveys.
1748
Appendix C – Special Status Plant Species Potential Occurrence Determination Scientific Name Common Name Status General Habitat Description Potential For Occurrence within the Study Area
Blooming Period: April through June
Deinandra
paniculata
paniculate tarplant CRPR: 4.2
MSHCP: Not
covered
Habitats supporting coastal scrub and valley
and foothill grassland/usually vernally mesic.
Known from 25 to 9540 meters (80 to 3,085
feet) MSL.
Blooming period: April through November.
None. No suitable habitat or soils are found
within the Project site. Not observed during
the field surveys or Sensitive Plant Surveys.
Dodecahema
leptoceras
slender-horned
spineflower
SE, FE
CRPR:1B.1
MSHCP: Not
Covered
Habitats supporting chaparral, Cismontane
woodland, Coastal scrub (alluvial fans) Known
from 200 - 760 meters (655 - 2495 feet) MSL.
Blooming Period: April through June
None. No suitable habitat or soils are found
within the Project site. Not observed during
the field surveys or Sensitive Plant Surveys.
Dudleya multicaulis many-stemmed
dudleya
CRPR:1B.2
MSHCP:
Covered
Habitats supporting chaparral, coastal scrub,
and valley and foothill grassland. Often found
on clay soils or granitic outcrops. Known from
below 800 meters (< 2,600 feet) MSL.
Blooming period: May through July.
None. No suitable habitat or soils are found
within the Project site. Not observed during
the field surveys or Sensitive Plant Surveys.
Eriastrum
densifolium ssp.
sanctorum
Santa Ana River
woollystar
FE, SE
CRPR: 1B.1
MSHCP:
Covered
Found in sandy soils of floodplains and
terraced fluvial deposits of the Santa Ana River
and larger tributaries. Known from 120 to 625
meters (400 to 4,100 feet) MSL.
Blooming period: June through September.
None. No suitable habitat or soils are found
within the Project site. Not observed during
the field surveys or Sensitive Plant Surveys.
Hesperocyparis
forbesii
Tecate cypress CRPR: 1B.1
MSHCP: Not
Covered
Habitats supporting chaparral, Closed-cone
coniferous forest. Known from 80 - 1500 meters
(260 - 4920 feet) MSL.
Blooming Period: N/A
None. No suitable habitat or soils are found
within the Project site. Not observed during
the field surveys or Sensitive Plant Surveys.
Hesperocyparis
goveniana
Gowen cypress FT
CRPR: 1B.2
MSHCP: Not
Covered
Habitats supporting chaparral (maritime), closedcone coniferous forest. Known from 30 - 300 meters (100 - 985 feet) MSL.
Blooming Period: N/A
None. No suitable habitat or soils are found
within the Project site. Not observed during
the field surveys or Sensitive Plant Surveys.
1749
Appendix C – Special Status Plant Species Potential Occurrence Determination Scientific Name Common Name Status General Habitat Description Potential For Occurrence within the Study Area
Horkelia cuneata
var. puberula
mesa horkelia CRPR: 1B.1
MSHCP: Not
Covered
Habitats supporting chaparral (maritime),
cismontane woodland, Coastal scrub. Known
from - 810 meters (230 - 2660 feet) MSL.
Blooming Period: February through July(Sep)
None. No suitable habitat or soils are found
within the Project site. Not observed during
the field surveys or Sensitive Plant Surveys.
Lasthenia glabrata
ssp. coulteri
Coulter's goldfields CRPR: 1B.1
MSHCP:
Covered
Habitats supporting marshes and swamps
(coastal salt), Playas, Vernal pools. Known from 1
- 1220 meters (5 - 4005 feet) MSL.
Blooming Period: February through June
None. No suitable habitat or soils are found
within the Project site. Not observed during
the field surveys or Sensitive Plant Surveys.
Lepechinia
cardiophylla
heart-leaved
pitcher sage
CRPR: 1B.2
MSHCP:
Covered
Habitats supporting chaparral, Cismontane
woodland, Closed-cone coniferous forest Known
from 520 - 1370 meters
(1705 – 4495) feet MSL.
Blooming Period: April through July
None. No suitable habitat or soils are found
within the Project site. Not observed during
the field surveys or Sensitive Plant Surveys.
Lepidium virginicum
var. robinsonii
Robinson's
pepper-grass
CRPR: 4.3
MSHCP: Not
covered
Dry soils on chaparral and coastal sage scrub
often around rock outcrops. Widespread
throughout southern California foothills in dry,
exposed locales.
Blooming period: January to July
None. No suitable habitat or soils are found
within the Project site. Not observed during
the field surveys or Sensitive Plant Surveys.
Lycium parishii Parish's desertthornCRPR: 2B.3
MSHCP: Not
covered
Habitats supporting coastal scrub, Sonoran
desert scrub. Known from 135- 1000 meters
(445- 3280 feet) MSL.
Blooming Period: March through April
None. No suitable habitat or soils are found
within the Project site. Not observed during
the field surveys or Sensitive Plant Surveys.
Malacothamnus
parishii
Parish's
bushmallow
CRPR: 1A
MSHCP: Not
Covered
Habitats supporting chaparral, Coastal scrub
Known from 305 - 455 meters (1000-1495 feet)
MSL.
Blooming Period: June through July
None. No suitable habitat or soils are found
within the Project site. Not observed during
the field surveys or Sensitive Plant Surveys.
Monardella australis
ssp. jokerstii
Jokerst's
monardella
CRPR: 1B.1
MSHCP: Not
Covered
Habitats supporting chaparral, Lower montane
coniferous forest. Known from 1350 - 1750
meters (4430 - 5740 feet) MSL.
Blooming Period: July through September
None. No suitable habitat or soils are found
within the Project site. Not observed during
the field surveys or Sensitive Plant Surveys.
1750
Appendix C – Special Status Plant Species Potential Occurrence Determination Scientific Name Common Name Status General Habitat Description Potential For Occurrence within the Study Area
Monardella
hypoleuca ssp.
intermedia
intermediate
monardella
CRPR: 1B.3
MSHCP: Not
Covered
Habitats include Chaparral, Cismontane
woodland, Lower montane coniferous forest
(sometimes). Known from 400 - 1250 meters
(1310 - 4100 feet) MSL.
Blooming Period: April through September
None. No suitable habitat or soils are found
within the Project site. Not observed during
the field surveys or Sensitive Plant Surveys.
Monardella pringlei Pringle's
monardella
CRPR: 1A
MSHCP: Not
Covered
Habitats include Coastal scrub with sandy soils.
Known From 300 - 400 meters (985 - 1310 feet)
MSL.
Blooming period: May through June
None. No suitable habitat or soils are found
within the Project site. Not observed during
the field surveys or Sensitive Plant Surveys.
Muhlenbergia utilis aparejo grass CRPR: 2B.2
MSHCP: Not
Covered
Habitats include Chaparral, Cismontane
woodland, Coastal scrub, Marshes and swamps,
Meadows and seeps Known from 25 - 2325
meters (80 - 7630 feet) MSL.
Blooming Period: March through October
None. No suitable habitat or soils are found
within the Project site. Not observed during
the field surveys or Sensitive Plant Surveys.
Nama stenocarpa mud nama CRPR: 2B.2
MSHCP:
Covered
Habitats include Marshes and swamps (lake
margins, riverbanks) Known from 5 - 500 meters
(15 - 1640 feet) MSL.
Blooming Period: January through July
None. No suitable habitat or soils are found
within the Project site. Not observed during
the field surveys or Sensitive Plant Surveys.
Navarretia prostrata prostrate vernal
pool navarretia
CRPR: 1B.2
MSHCP:
Covered
Habitats include Coastal scrub, Meadows and
seeps, Valley and foothill grassland (alkaline),
Vernal pools. Known from 3 - 1210 meters (10-
3970 feet) MSL.
Blooming Period: April through July
None. No suitable habitat or soils are found
within the Project site. Not observed during
the field surveys or Sensitive Plant Surveys.
Nolina cismontana chaparral nolina CRPR: 1B.2
MSHCP: Not
Covered
Habitats include Chaparral and Coastal scrub.
Known from 140-1275 meters (460- 4185 Feet)
MSL.
Blooming Period: (Mar)May through July
None. No suitable habitat or soils are found
within the Project site. Not observed during
the field surveys or Sensitive Plant Surveys.
1751
Appendix C – Special Status Plant Species Potential Occurrence Determination Scientific Name Common Name Status General Habitat Description Potential For Occurrence within the Study Area
Penstemon
californicus
California
beardtongue
CRPR: 1B.2
MSHCP:
Covered
Habitats include chaparral, Lower montane
coniferous forest, Pinyon and juniper woodland.
Known from 1170 - 2300 meters (3840 - 7545
feet) MSL.
Blooming Period: May through June(Aug)
None. No suitable habitat or soils are found
within the Project site. Not observed during
the field surveys or Sensitive Plant Surveys.
Pentachaeta aurea
ssp. allenii
Allen's
pentachaeta
CRPR: 1B.1
MSHCP:
Covered
Habitats include coastal scrub (openings), Valley
and foothill grassland Known from 75 - 520
meters (245 - 1705 feet) MSL.
Blooming Period: March through June
None. No suitable habitat or soils are found
within the Project site. Not observed during
the field surveys or Sensitive Plant Surveys.
Phacelia keckii Santiago Peak
phacelia
CRPR: 1B.3
MSHCP:
Covered
Habitats include chaparral and closed-cone
coniferous forest. Known from 545 - 1600 meters
(1790 - 5250 feet) MSL.
Blooming period: May through July
None. No suitable habitat or soils are found
within the Project site. Not observed during
the field surveys or Sensitive Plant Surveys.
Phacelia stellaris Brand's phacelia CRPR: 1B.1
MSHCP:
Section 6.1.3
NEPSSA 7
Habitats supporting coastal dunes and coastal
scrub Known from below 1 to 400 meters (5 to
1,310 feet) MSL.
Blooming period: March through June
None. No suitable habitat or soils are found
within the Project site. Not observed during
the field surveys or Sensitive Plant Surveys.
Pseudognaphalium
leucocephalum
white rabbittobaccoCRPR: 2B.2
MSHCP: Not
Covered
Habitats include Chaparral, Cismontane
woodland, Coastal scrub, Riparian woodland.
Known from 0 - 2100 meters (0 - 6890 feet) MSL
Blooming Period: (Jul)August through
November(Dec)
None. No suitable habitat or soils are found
within the Project site. Not observed during
the field surveys or Sensitive Plant Surveys.
Satureja chandleri San Miguel savory CRPR: 1B.2
MSHCP:
Section 6.1.3
NEPSSA 7
Rocky areas in chaparral, cismontane
woodland, coastal scrub, riparian woodland,
and valley and foothill grassland. Soils include
rocky and gabbroic substrates. Known from
120 - 1075 meters (395 - 3525 feet) MSL.
Blooming period: March through July
None. No suitable habitat or soils are found
within the Project site. Not observed during
the field surveys or Sensitive Plant Surveys.
Senecio aphanactis chaparral ragwort CRPR: 2B.2
MSHCP: Not
Habitats supporting chaparral, Cismontane
woodland, and Coastal scrub. Known from 15 -
800 meters (50 - 2625 feet) MSL.
None. No suitable habitat or soils are found
within the Project site. Not observed during
the field surveys or Sensitive Plant Surveys.
1752
Appendix C – Special Status Plant Species Potential Occurrence Determination Scientific Name Common Name Status General Habitat Description Potential For Occurrence within the Study Area
Covered
Blooming Period: January through April(May)
Sidalcea
neomexicana
salt spring
checkerbloom
CRPR: 2B.2
MSHCP: Not
Covered
Habitats include Chaparral, Coastal scrub, Lower
montane coniferous forest, Mojavean desert
scrub, Playas. Known From 15 - 1530 meters (50
- 5020 feet) MSL.
Blooming Period: March through June
None. No suitable habitat or soils are found
within the Project site. Not observed during
the field surveys or Sensitive Plant Surveys.
Sphenopholis
obtusata
prairie wedge
grass
CRPR: 2B.2
MSHCP: Not
Covered
Habitats include Cismontane woodland,
Meadows and seeps. Known from 300 - 2000
meters (985 - 6560 feet) MSL.
Blooming Period: April through July
None. No suitable habitat or soils are found
within the Project site. Not observed during
the field surveys or Sensitive Plant Surveys.
Symphyotrichum
defoliatum
San Bernardino
aster
CRPR: 1B.2
MSHCP: Not
Covered
Habitats include Cismontane woodland, Coastal
scrub, Lower montane coniferous forest,
Marshes and swamps, Meadows and seeps,
Valley and foothill grassland (vernally mesic).
Known from 2 - 2040 meters (5 - 6695 feet) MSL.
Blooming Period: July through November
None. No suitable habitat or soils are found
within the Project site. Not observed during
the field surveys or Sensitive Plant Surveys.
Thysanocarpus
rigidus
rigid fringepod CRPR: 1B.2
MSHCP: Not
Covered
Habitats include Pinyon and juniper woodland.
Known from 600 - 2200 meters (1970 - 7220
feet) MSL.
Blooming Period: February through May
None. No suitable habitat or soils are found
within the Project site. Not observed during
the field surveys or Sensitive Plant Surveys.
Legend
Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) Listing Codes: federal listing is pursuant to the Federal Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA).
FE = federally listed as endangered: any species, subspecies, or variety of plant or animal that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of their range.
FT = federally listed as threatened: any species, subspecies, or variety of plant or animal that is considered likely to become endangered throughout all or a significant portion of its range within the foreseeable future.
California Endangered Species Act (CESA) Listing Codes: state listing is pursuant to § 1904 (Native Plant Protection Act of 1977) and §2074.2 and §2075.5 (California Endangered Species Act of 1984) of the Fish and Game Code, relating to listing of Endangered, Threatened and Rare species of plants and animals.
SE = state listed as endangered: any species, subspecies, or variety of plant or animal that are in serious danger of becoming extinct throughout all, or a significant portion, of their range.
1753
Appendix C – Special Status Plant Species Potential Occurrence Determination ST = state listed as threatened: any species, subspecies, or variety of plant or animal that, although not presently threatened with extinction, is likely to become an endangered species in the foreseeable future.
California Rare Plant Ranks (Formerly known as CRPR Lists): the CRPR is a statewide, non-profit organization that maintains, with CDFG, an Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California. In the spring of 2011, CRPR and CDFG officially changed the name “CRPR List” or “CRPR Ranks” to “California Rare Plant Rank” (or CPRP). This was done to reduce confusion over the fact that CRPR and CDFG jointly manage the Rare Plant Status Review Groups and the rank assignments are the product of a collaborative effort and not solely a CRPR assignment.
CRPR: 1B - California Rare Plant Rank 1B (formerly List 1B): Plants Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in California and Elsewhere. All of the plants constituting California Rare Plant Rank 1B meet the definitions of Sec. 1901, Chapter 10 (Native Plant Protection Act) or Sections 2062 and 2067 (California Endangered Species Act) of the California Department of Fish and Game Code, and are eligible for state listing. It is mandatory that they be fully considered during preparation of environmental documents relating to CEQA.
CRPR: 2 - California Rare Plant Rank 2 (formerly List 2): Plants Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in California, But More Common Elsewhere. All of the plants constituting California Rare Plant Rank 2 meet the definitions of Sec. 1901, Chapter 10 (Native Plant Protection Act) or Sections 2062 and 2067 (California Endangered Species Act) of the California Department of Fish and Game Code, and are eligible for state listing. It is mandatory that they be fully considered during preparation of environmental documents relating to CEQA.
CRPR: 4 - California Rare Plant Rank 4 (formerly List 4): Plants of Limited Distribution - A Watch List. Very few of the plants constituting California Rare Plant Rank 4 meet the definitions of Sec. 1901, Chapter 10 (Native Plant Protection Act) or Secs. 2062 and 2067 (California Endangered Species Act) of the California Department of Fish and Game Code, and few, if any, are eligible for state listing. Nevertheless, many of them are significant locally, and CRPR and CDFG strongly recommend that California Rare Plant Rank 4 plants be evaluated for consideration during preparation of environmental documents relating to CEQA.
California Native Plant Society (CRPR ) Threat Ranks: The CRPR Threat Rank is an extension added onto the California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR) and designates the level of endangerment by a 1 to 3 ranking with 1 being the most endangered and 3 being the least endangered. A Threat Rank is present for all California Rare Plant Rank 1B's, 2's, 4's, and the majority of California Rare Plant Rank 3's. California Rare Plant Rank 4 plants are seldom assigned a Threat Rank of 0.1, as they generally have large enough populations to not have significant threats to their continued existence in California; however, certain conditions exist to make the plant a species of concern and hence be assigned a California Rare Plant Rank. In addition, all California Rare Plant Rank 1A (presumed extinct in California), and some California Rare Plant Rank 3 (need more information) plants, which lack threat information, do not have a Threat Rank extension. • 0.1 = seriously endangered in California (over 80% of occurrences threatened / high degree and immediacy of threat) • 0.2 = fairly endangered in California (20-80% occurrences threatened / moderate degree and immediacy of threat) Sources:
• Calflora website - search for plants (Calflora 2024). • CRPR Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (CRPR 2024). • The Jepson Manual: Vascular Plants of California, second edition (Baldwin et al. 2012). • RareFind, CDFW, California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) (CDFW 2024f). • State and Federally Listed Endangered, Threatened, and Rare Plants of California (CDFW 2024i). • Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP, 2016) 1754
APPENDIX D
Special Status Wildlife Potential Occurrence
Determination
1755
Appendix D – Special Status Wildlife Potential Occurrence Determination
APPENDIX D
Special Status Wildlife Potential Occurrence Determination
This table summarizes conclusions from analysis and field surveys regarding the potential occurrence of special status wildlife species within the Study Area. During the field surveys, the potential for special status wildlife species to occur within the Study Area was assessed based on the following criteria:
• Present: observed on the site during the field surveys, or previously recorded on-site by other qualified biologists.
• Known to Occur: observed on site in the recent past, but not observed during the most recent biological survey.
• High potential to occur: observed in similar habitat in the region by a qualified biologist or habitat on the site is a type often utilized by the species, and the site is within the known distribution and elevation range of the species.
• Moderate potential to occur: reported sightings in surrounding region, or the site is within the known distribution and elevation range of the species, and habitat on the site is a type occasionally used by the species.
• Low potential to occur: the site is within the known distribution and elevation range of the species, but habitat on the site is rarely used by the species or for which there are no known recorded occurrences of the species within or adjacent to the site. • None: a focused study failed to detect the species or no suitable habitat is present. • Unknown: the species’ distributional/elevation range and habitat are poorly known.
Even with field surveys, biologists assessed probability of occurrence rather than make definitive conclusions about species presence or absence. Failure to detect the species is not definitive, and may be due to variable effects associated with migration, weather, fire, and/or time of day and year.
1756
Appendix D – Special Status Wildlife Potential Occurrence Determination Special Status Wildlife: Potential to Occur within the Project Site
Scientific Name Common Name Status General Habitat Description Potential For Occurrence within the
Project site
Accipiter cooperii Cooper’s hawk WL
MSHCP:
Covered
The Cooper’s hawk breeds primarily in riparian areas
and oak woodlands and is most common in montane
canyons. It frequents landscapes where wooded
areas occur in patches and groves and often uses
patchy woodlands and edges with snags for
perching. Dense stands with moderate crown-depths
are usually used for nesting. They hunt in broken
woodland and habitat edges. Within the range in
California, it most frequently uses dense stands of live oak, riparian deciduous or other forest habitats near
water. They are also found and can breed in
suburban and urban settings.
Low. Suitable foraging habitat occurs
onsite. Any potential impacts during
nesting season are mitigated by MM
BIO-3.
Actinemys pallida Southwestern pond
turtle
FPT, SSC
MSHCP:
Covered
Found in ponds, lakes, rivers, streams, creeks,
marshes, and irrigation ditches, with abundant
vegetation, and either rocky or muddy bottoms, in
woodland, forest, and grassland. In streams, prefers
pools to shallower areas. Logs, rocks, cattail mats,
and exposed banks are required for basking. May
enter brackish water and even seawater.
None. Suitable habitat does not exist
within the Project site. Not observed
during field surveys.
Agelaius tricolor Tricolored blackbird BLMS, SSC,
BCC
MSHCP:
Covered
Colonies require nearby water, a suitable nesting
substrate, and open-range foraging habitat
composed of grassland, woodland, or agricultural
cropland.
Low. Suitable foraging habitat including
ruderal habitat occurs on site and
suitable habitat occurs within the Santa
Ana River located offsite to the east of
the Project site. Species is a MSHCP
covered species. Any impacts during
nesting season are mitigated through
MM BIO-3. Not observed during field
surveys.
Aimophila
ruficeps
canescens
Southern California
rufous-crowned
sparrow
WL
MSHCP:
Covered
Species is found on grass-covered hillsides, coastal
sage scrub, and chaparral and often occur near the
edges of the denser scrub and chaparral
associations. Preference is shown for tracts of
California sagebrush. Optimal habitat consists of
Present. Species was heard audibly
during one of the field surveys. Species is
a covered MSHCP species. Any potential
impacts during nesting season are
1757
Appendix D – Special Status Wildlife Potential Occurrence Determination Scientific Name Common Name Status General Habitat Description Potential For Occurrence within the
Project site
sparse, low brush or grass, hilly slopes preferably
interspersed with boulders and outcrops. The species
may occur on steep grassy slopes without shrubs if
rock outcrops are present. It is a very secretive
species.
mitigated by MM BIO-3.
Ammodramus
savannarum
Grasshopper
sparrow
SSC
MSHCP:
Covered
Grasshopper Sparrows occur in grasslands, prairies,
hayfields, and open pastures with little to no scrub
cover and often with some bare ground. Birds in the
western part of the range can tolerate some brushy
habitat but avoid areas that are too overgrown.
None. The site lacks suitable habitat. Not
observed during field surveys.
Anaxyrus
californicus
Arroyo toad FE, SSC
MSHCP:
Covered
The arroyo toad is found in the southern part of the
Coast Ranges from northern San Luis Obispo Co.
south to Baja California. This species is found in semiarid regions near washes or intermittent streams.
Habitats used include valley-foothill and desert
riparian as well as a variety of more arid habitats
including desert wash, palm oasis, and Joshua tree,
mixed chaparral and sagebrush. A
None. The site lacks suitable habitat. Not
observed during field surveys.
Anniella stebbinsi Southern California
legless lizard
SSC
MSHCP: Not
Covered
Coastal sand dunes and a variety of interior habitats,
including sandy washes and alluvial fans.
None. The site lacks suitable habitat and
soil. Not observed during field surveys
Antrozous pallidus Pallid bat SSC, BLMS
MSHCP:
Not covered
Found in a wide variety of habitats is occupied,
including grasslands, shrublands,
woodlands, and forests from sea level up through
mixed conifer forests. The species is most
common in open, dry habitats with rocky areas for
roosting
None. The site lacks suitable habitat and
soil. Not observed during field surveys
Arizona elegans
occidentalis
California glossy
snake
SSC
MSHCP: Not
Covered
This species is found in a variety of habitats, primarily arid scrub areas with sparse vegetation including
chaparral and grasslands areas.
Low. Limited habitat is found onsite due
to the presence of rodent burrows and
ruderal brush found onsite. The ruderal
habitat is frequently mowed providing
less covered for the species. This is a
covered species within the MSHCP. Any
impacts to the species are mitigated
through MM BIO-1. Not observed during
1758
Appendix D – Special Status Wildlife Potential Occurrence Determination Scientific Name Common Name Status General Habitat Description Potential For Occurrence within the
Project site
field surveys.
Aquila chrysaetos Golden Eagle BLMS, FP,
WL, BBC
MSHCP:
Covered
Rolling foothills, mountain areas, sage-juniper flats, & desert. Cliff-walled canyons provide nesting habitat in most parts of range; also, large trees in open areas.
None. Suitable habitat does not exist
within the Project site. Not observed
during field surveys.
Artemisiospiza
belli
Bell’s sage sparrow WL, BBC
MSHCP:
Covered
Chaparral and coastal sage scrub along the coastal
lowlands, inland valleys and in the lower foothills of
local mountains.
None. The site lacks suitable habitat for
foraging and nesting. Not observed
during field surveys.
Asio otus Long-eared owl SSC Riparian habitats are required by the long-eared owl, but it also uses live-oak thickets and other dense
stands of trees.
None. The site lacks suitable habitat and
soil. Not observed during field surveys.
Aspidoscelis
hyperythra
beldingi
Orange-throated
whiptail
SSC, FSS
MSHCP:
Covered
The species is generally found in semi-arid brushy
areas typically with loose soil and rocks, including
washes, stream sides, rocky hillsides, and coastal
chaparral. Habitat types include low elevation
chaparral, non-native grassland, (Riversidian) coastal
sage scrub, juniper woodland and oak woodland.
Associations include alluvial fan scrub and riparian
areas. Friable soil appears to be a necessary
requirement for excavating burrows and hiding eggs.
None. The site lacks suitable habitat and
soil. Not observed during field surveys.
Athene cunicularia
hypugaea
Burrowing owl SCE, BLMS,
BCC
MSHCP:
Covered
Burrowing owls are a year-round resident of
California including habitats of open, dry grassland,
and desert. They are generally restricted to mostly
flat, open country with suitable nest sites. They use
rodent or other burrows for roosting and nesting
cover and acquire their burrows from either
abandonment or eviction. Burrowing owls typically
hunt from a perch.
None. A habitat assessment and a series
of focused surveys were performed, and
it was determined the Project site does
not contain occupied burrows or
diagnostic signs of burrowing owls.
Therefore, the Project site is not
occupied by burrowing owl. The results
of the burrowing owl habitat and focused
surveys can be found in Appendix E. Not
observed during the field surveys.
Aspidoscelis tigris
stejnegeri
Coastal whiptail SSC This species is found in a variety of habitats, primarily hot and dry open areas with sparse vegetation
Low. Limited habitat is found onsite due
to the presence of rodent burrows and
1759
Appendix D – Special Status Wildlife Potential Occurrence Determination Scientific Name Common Name Status General Habitat Description Potential For Occurrence within the
Project site
MSHCP:
Covered
including chaparral, woodland, and riparian areas.
This subspecies is found in coastal southern
California, north into Ventura County, and south into
Baja California. Additional important habitat
characteristics include Important habitat components
include shrub cover with accumulated leaf litter, and
an abundance of invertebrate prey, particularly
termites.
ruderal brush found onsite. The ruderal
habitat is frequently mowed providing
less covered for the species. This is a
covered species within the MSHCP. Any
impacts to the species are mitigated
through MM BIO-1. Not observed during
field surveys.
Bombus crotchii Crotch bumble bee SCE
MSHCP: Not
Covered
The crotch bumble bee inhabits open grassland and
scrub habitats. This species occurs primarily in
California, including the Mediterranean region,
Pacific Coast, Western Desert, Great Valley, and
adjacent foothills through most of southwestern
California. Crotch Bumble Bee is a generalist forager
and visits a variety of flowering plants. It is a shorttongued bumble bee and is therefore best suited to forage on open flowers with short corollas. Plant
families most commonly associated with Crotch
bumble bee records in California include Fabaceae,
Apocynaceae, Asteraceae, Lamiaceae,
Hydrophyllacae, Asclepiadaceae, and Boraginaceae.
Other reports commonly associate Crotch bumble
bee with plants in the genera Asclepias, Chaenactis,
Lupinus, Medicago, Phacelia, and Salvia as nectaring
sources.
None. The Project site lacks suitable
nectaring sources for the species. While
burrows occur onsite that could
potentially provide overwintering
possibilities, the burrows were actively
used by small mammals. Furthermore,
the site is disturbed with active animal
pens and regular activity. No suitable
habitat is found within the Project site.
Not observed during the field surveys.
Branchinecta
sandiegonensis
San Diego fairy
shrimp
FE
MSHCP:
They are generally restricted to vernal pools and
other non-vegetated ephemeral basins that are
between 2 and 12 inches in depth. It is found in
Riverside, Orange and San Diego counties and in
northwestern Baja California, Mexico.
None. No suitable habitat is found within
the Project site. Not observed during the
field surveys.
Buteo swainsoni Swainson's hawk ST, BLMS,
BCC
MSHCP:
Covered
Swainson's hawks require large, open areas with
abundant prey in association with suitable nest trees.
Suitable foraging areas include native grasslands or
lightly grazed pastures and croplands, open deserts,
sparse shrub lands. Swainson's hawks often nest
None. While the Project site includes
ruderal habitat, it is routinely maintained
for minimal vegetation cover and does
not provide suitable foraging habitat. No
suitable habitat is found within the
1760
Appendix D – Special Status Wildlife Potential Occurrence Determination Scientific Name Common Name Status General Habitat Description Potential For Occurrence within the
Project site
peripherally to riparian systems of the valley, as well as utilizing lone trees or groves of trees, such as oaks, cottonwoods, walnuts and willows, adjacent to their
hunting areas. In the Great Basin, they typically nest
in juniper trees of juniper-sage flats not near riparian zones.
Project site. The adjacent Santa Ana
River, located offsite and to the east of
the Project site, could provide potential
nesting habitat for the species. Not
observed during the field surveys. Any
indirect impact are mitigated through
MM BIO-3.
Campylorhynchus
brunneicapillus
sandiegensis
Coastal cactus wren SSC,BCC
MSHCP:
Covered
Live in scrubby areas in the Chihuahuan, Sonoran,
and Mojave Deserts as well as in coastal sage scrub in
California and thorn-scrub areas in Tamaulipas,
Mexico. They inhabit areas with cholla, saguaro, and
prickly-pear cacti, catclaw acacia, mesquite,
whitethorn, desert willow, yucca, palo verde, and
other desert shrubs
None. No suitable habitat is found within
the Project site. Not observed during the
field surveys.
Catostomus
santaanae
Santa Ana sucker FT, SSC
MSHCP:
Covered
Found in permanent streams with substrates that are
generally coarse and consist of gravel rubble, and
boulders with growths of filamentous algae.
None. No suitable habitat is found within
the Project site. Not observed during the
field surveys.
Ceratochrysis
longimala
Desert cuckoo wasp MSHCP:
Not Covered
The preferable habitat of the wasp is a hot climate,
the most species diversity is found in the hot desert
regions, nonetheless, they are also found in the
temperate and tropical forests
None. No suitable habitat is found within
the Project site. Not observed during the
field surveys.
Chaetodipus
fallax fallax
Northwestern San
Diego pocket
mouse
SSC
MSHCP:
Covered
This species is a common resident of sandy
herbaceous areas, often on sandy substrates (rocks or
coarse gravel) in southwestern California. In San
Diego County the species occurs mainly in arid
coastal and desert border areas. Habitats include
coastal scrub, chamise-redshank chaparral, mixed
chaparral, sagebrush, desert wash, desert scrub,
desert succulent shrub, pinyon-juniper, and annual
grassland.
None. The site lacks suitable habitat. Not
observed during field surveys.
Coccyzus
americanus
occidentalis
Western yellowbilled cuckooFT, SE, FSS,
BCC
MSHCP:
This species is an uncommon to rare summer
resident of valley foothill and desert riparian habitats in scattered locations in California. Formerly much
more common and widespread throughout lowland
None. While suitable habitat occurs
within the Santa Ana River located offsite
to the east of the Project site, the Project
site does not include suitable foraging or
1761
Appendix D – Special Status Wildlife Potential Occurrence Determination Scientific Name Common Name Status General Habitat Description Potential For Occurrence within the
Project site
Covered California. Roosts and nests in densely foliaged, deciduous trees and shrubs in extensive thickets,
particularly willows.
nesting habitat onsite. Species is a
MSHCP covered species. Any indirect
impacts during nesting season are
mitigated through MM BIO-3. Not
observed during field surveys.
Coleonyx
variegatus abbotti
San Diego banded
gecko
SSC
MSHCP:
Covered
The species ranges through most of Southern
California north into the extreme southern part of
Nevada and the southwestern tip of Utah, across
northwest, southwest, and southeast Arizona into the
bootheel of New Mexico, and south down the
western edge of the state of Sonora, Mexico and
down the entire length of Baja California. The species
occurs in rocky areas in coastal sage and chaparral.
None. The site lacks suitable habitat. Not
observed during the field surveys.
Coturnicops
noveboracensis
Yellow rail SSC
MSHCP: Not
Covered
Yellow Rails occur in shallow marshes with fairly short vegetation. For breeding, taller emergent vegetation
like cattails does not attract Yellow Rails, but they
sometimes nest nearby, where water is shallower and
vegetation shorter. They often nest among sedges
and bulrushes. Because water levels change
frequently in the prairies, nesting locations are not
consistent in some areas from year to year. Migrating
Yellow Rails turn up in wet meadows, shallow
marshes, and agricultural fields with grassy cover or
heavy stubble. Wintering Yellow Rails use shallow
wetlands as they do in breeding areas, typically
dominated by sedges, rushes, bulrushes, and
grasses.
None. While suitable habitat occurs
within the Santa Ana River located offsite
to the east of the Project site, the Project
site does not include suitable foraging or
nesting habitat onsite. Not observed
during field surveys. Any indirect impacts
during nesting season are mitigated
through MM BIO-3. Not observed during
field surveys.
Crotalus ruber Red-diamond
rattlesnake
SSC, FSS
MSHCP:
Covered
It can be found from the desert, through dense
chaparral in the foothills (it avoids the mountains
above around 4,000 feet), to warm inland mesas and
valleys, all the way to the cool ocean shore. It is most commonly associated with heavy brush with large
rocks or boulders. Dense chaparral in the foothills,
Low. Limited habitat is found onsite due
to the presence of rodent burrows and
ruderal brush found onsite. The ruderal
habitat is frequently mowed providing
less covered for the species. This is a
covered species within the MSHCP. Any
1762
Appendix D – Special Status Wildlife Potential Occurrence Determination Scientific Name Common Name Status General Habitat Description Potential For Occurrence within the
Project site
cactus or boulder associated coastal sage scrub, oak
and pine woodlands, and desert slope scrub
associations are known to carry populations of the
northern red-diamond rattlesnake, however, chamise
and red shank associations may offer better structural
habitat for refuges and food resources for this
species than other habitats. They need rodent
burrows, cracks in rocks or surface cover objects.
impacts to the species are mitigated
through MM BIO-1. Not observed during
field surveys.
Danaus plexippus Monarch Butterfly FT
MSHCP: Not
covered
Monarch butterflies live mainly in prairies, meadows,
grasslands and along roadsides, across most of North
America.
No milkweed is identified on the Project
site which is an obligate host plant for
eggs and food source for larvae. The
Project site lack suitable habitat for the
stages of the monarch, for both breeding
and overwintering. This is not a covered
species within the MSHCP. Not observed
during field surveys.
Diplectrona
californica
California
diplectronan
caddisfly
MSHCP:
Not Covered
Habitats can include streams, both cool and warm,
lakes, marshes, and ponds.
None. The site lacks suitable habitat. Not
observed during field surveys.
Dipodomys
merriami parvus
San Bernardino
kangaroo rat
FE, SSC
MSHCP:
Covered
Typically found in Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub
and sandy loam soils, alluvial fans and floodplains,
and along washes with nearby sage scrub.
None. The site lacks suitable habitat. Not
observed during field surveys.
Dipodomys
stephensi
Stephen’s kangaroo
rat
FE, ST
MSHCP:
Covered
This species prefers large areas of disturbed or
patchy annual and perennial grasslands and open
coastal sage scrub. Preferred perennials plant
species include buckwheat and chamise and
preferred annual plant species include brome grass.
The nearest known populations are in Rancho Guejito
and at the Naval Weapons Station in Fallbrook.
Low. Limited habitat is found onsite due
to the presence of rodent burrows and
ruderal brush found onsite. The ruderal
habitat is frequently mowed providing
less covered for the species. This is a
covered species within the MSHCP. Any
impacts to the species are mitigated
through MM BIO-2. Not observed during
field surveys.
Elanus leucurus White-tailed kite BLMS
MSHCP:
Covered
White-tailed Kites are common in savannas, open
woodlands, marshes, desert grasslands, partially
cleared lands, and cultivated fields.
None. The site lacks suitable habitat. Not
observed during field surveys.
1763
Appendix D – Special Status Wildlife Potential Occurrence Determination Scientific Name Common Name Status General Habitat Description Potential For Occurrence within the
Project site
Eremophila
alpestris actia
California horned
lark
MSHCP:
Covered
Common habitats include prairies, deserts, tundra,
beaches, dunes, and heavily grazed pastures.
None. The site lacks suitable habitat. Not
observed during field surveys.
Eugnosta
busckana
Busck's gallmoth MSHCP: Not
Covered
Coastal sand dunes. None. The site lacks suitable habitat. Not observed during field surveys.
Empidonax traillii
extimus
Southwestern willow
flycatcher
FE, SE
MSHCP:
Covered
Suitable habitat includes riparian woodlands along
streams and rivers with mature dense thickets of trees
and shrubs.
None. While suitable habitat occurs
within the Santa Ana River located offsite
to the east of the Project site, the Project
site does not include suitable foraging or
nesting habitat. Not observed during
field surveys. Any indirect impacts are
mitigated through MM BIO-3.
Eumops perotis
californicus
Western mastiff bat SSC, BLMS
MSHCP: Not
covered
Western mastiff bats are found in a variety of habitats, such as semi-arid to arid habitats, including conifer
and deciduous woodlands, coastal scrub, annual and
perennial grasslands, palm oases, chaparral, desert
scrub, and urban, but the species’ distribution may
be geomorphically determined, occurring primarily
where there are significant rock features offering
suitable roosting habitat. A cliff dwelling species,
where maternity colonies of 30 to several hundred
roost generally under exfoliating rock slabs and rock
crevices along cliffs. Western mastiff bats can also be found in similar crevices in large boulders and
buildings. When roosting in rock crevices they
require a sizable drop from their roost in order to
achieve flight. Western mastiff bats prefer deep
crevices that are at least 15 or 20 feet above the
ground. Foraging is concentrated around bodies of
water but also includes coastal sage scrub, chaparral,
and grassland habitats.
None. The site lacks suitable roosting
habitat for the species. Not observed
during the field surveys.
Euphydryas editha
quino
Quino checkerspot
butterfly
FE
MSHCP:
Covered
Quino checkerspot butterfly habitat is characterized
by patchy shrub or small tree landscapes with
openings of several meters between large plants, or
a landscape of open swales alternating with dense
patches of shrubs; such habitats are often collectively None. The site lacks suitable habitat. Not
observed during field surveys.
1764
Appendix D – Special Status Wildlife Potential Occurrence Determination Scientific Name Common Name Status General Habitat Description Potential For Occurrence within the
Project site
termed “scrublands.” Quino will frequently perch on
vegetation or other substrates to mate or bask, and
they require open areas to facilitate movement.
Optimal habitat appears to contain little or no
invasive exotic vegetation. Sustained drought
conditions can lead to extirpation of local
populations, and broad scale climate anomalies may
lead to phenological incompatibility between Quino
checkerspot butterfly and their host plants.
Gila orcutti Arroyo chub SSC, FSS
MSHCP:
Covered
Arroyo chub are adapted to survive in cool to warm
(10 – 24°C) streams that fluctuate between large
winter storm flows, and low summer flows, and the
low dissolved oxygen and wide temperature
fluctuations associated with this flow regime. They are most common in slow flowing or backwater areas
with sand or mud substrate but may also inhabit
areas with velocities in excess of 80 cm/s over coarse
substrate.
None. The site lacks suitable habitat. Not
observed during the field surveys.
Haliaeetus
leucocephalus
Bald eagle SE, BLMS
MSHCP:
Bald eagles live within two and a half miles of the
coast, bays, rivers, lakes, or other bodies of water,
reflecting the availability of their main food source.
They typically nest in large, mature, accessible trees, as well as cliffs and man-made structures. They often
congregate in select wintering areas
None. The site lacks suitable habitat. Not
observed during the field surveys.
Icteria virens Yellow-breasted
chat
SSC
MSHCP:
Covered
In southern California they are primarily found in tall, dense, relatively wide riparian woodlands and
thickets of willows, vine tangles, and dense brush
with well-developed understories. Nesting areas are
associated with streams, swampy ground, and the
borders of small ponds. Breeding habitat must be
dense to provide shade and concealment. It winters
south to Central America.
None onsite; heard audibly in the Santa
Ana river located offsite. Not observed
onsite during the field surveys. Any
indirect impacts are mitigated through
measure MM BIO-3.
Lasiurus xanthinus Western yellow bat SSC Roost in trees, hanging from the underside of a leaf.
Commonly found in the southwestern U.S. roosting in
None. The site contains a single palm
tree. The closest CNDDB occurrence
1765
Appendix D – Special Status Wildlife Potential Occurrence Determination Scientific Name Common Name Status General Habitat Description Potential For Occurrence within the
Project site
MSHCP: Not
covered
the skirt of dead fronds in both native and non- native palm trees and have also been documented roosting
in cottonwood trees.
recorded is located 1.20 miles to the east
on October 4, 1989. Not observed
during the field surveys. Furthermore, no
bat guano was observed around the
single palm tree during the field surveys.
Therefore it is determined the site lacks
suitable habitat.
Laterallus
jamaicensis
coturniculus
California black rail ST, BLMS,
BBC, Fully
Protected
MSHCP: Not
covered
Black Rails nest in marshes and wet meadows across
North America, including riparian marshes, coastal
prairies, saltmarshes, and impounded wetlands. All of
the habitats have stable shallow water. Nests are
primarily made of southern cattail or spikerush and
are elevated above the mud substrate in clumps of
vegetation. Black rails have also been known to nest
on top of a mat of dead vegetation from the previous
years’ growth.
None. While suitable habitat occurs
within the Santa Ana River located offsite
to the east of the Project site, the Project
site does not include suitable foraging or
nesting habitat onsite. Not observed
during field surveys. Any indirect impacts
are mitigated through MM BIO-3.
Lepus californicus
bennettii
San Diego blacktailed jackrabbitSSC
MSHCP:
Covered
The black-tailed jackrabbit is a habitat generalist
occurring in open areas or semi-open country,
typically in grasslands, agricultural fields or sparse
coastal scrub. It primarily is found in arid regions
supporting short grass habitats. Jackrabbits typically
are not found in high grass or dense brush where it is
difficult for them to locomote, and the openness of
open scrub habitat probably is preferred over dense
chaparral. They have also been found in annual
grassland, Riversidean sage scrub, alluvial fan sage
scrub, Great Basin sagebrush, chaparral, disturbed
habitat, southern willow scrub and juniper woodland.
They are not found in high mountain forests. It
prefers valley bottoms or intermontane valleys.
Low. Limited habitat is found onsite due
to the presence of rodent burrows and
ruderal brush found onsite. The ruderal
habitat is frequently mowed providing
less covered for the species. This is a
covered species within the MSHCP. Any
impacts to the species are mitigated
through MM BIO-1. Not observed during
field surveys.
Myotis
yumanensis
Yuma myotis BLMS
MSHCP: Not
Covered
Found in moist and dry forests, riparian zones,
grasslands, shrubsteppe, and deserts, and are closely
associated with rivers, streams, ponds, and lakes
None. The site lacks suitable habitat. Not
observed during the field surveys.
Neotoma lepida San Diego desert SSC Habitat consists of a variety of shrub and desert None. The site lacks suitable habitat. Not 1766
Appendix D – Special Status Wildlife Potential Occurrence Determination Scientific Name Common Name Status General Habitat Description Potential For Occurrence within the
Project site
intermedia woodrat MSHCP:
Covered
habitat, showing a preference to large cactus patches
and rock outcroppings.
observed during the field surveys.
Nyctinomops
femorosaccus
Pocketed free-tailed
bat
SSC
MSHCP: Not
covered
This bat species prefers rocky desert areas with high
cliffs or rock outcrops. Rock crevices in cliffs are
preferred as roosting sites, since the bat must drop
from the roost to gain flight speed. Typically
reproduces in rock crevices, caverns, or buildings.
Ranges from southern California to New Mexico.
None. The site lacks suitable habitat. Not
observed during the field surveys.
Nyctinomops
macrotis
big free-tailed bat SSC
MSHCP: Not
covered
Big free-tailed bats mainly inhabit rugged, rocky
habitats in arid landscapes. It has been located in a
variety of plant associations including desert shrub,
woodlands, and evergreen forests.
None. The site lacks suitable habitat. Not
observed during the field surveys.
Oncorhynchus
mykiss irideus
pop. 10
Steelhead –
Southern California
DPS
FE, SCE
MSHCP: Not
Covered
Historically, this species populated all coastal streams of southern California with permanent flows, as either
resident or anadromous forms, or both. Today, the
species occurs mostly within intermittent streams.
The DPS includes all naturally spawned anadromous
Coastal Rainbow trout populations downstream of
natural and human-made barriers in streams from the
Santa Maria River (San Luis Obispo County) to the
Tijuana River on the U.S.-Mexico border. They are
most abundant in the four largest watersheds in the
northern portion of their range: the Santa Maria,
Santa Ynez, Ventura, and Santa Clara rivers.
None. The site lacks suitable habitat. Not
observed during the field surveys.
Pandion haliaetus Osprey WL
MSHCP:
Covered
Found in plenty of shallow water where fish are
plentiful. They often built nests on small islands or
structures over bodies of water that are difficult for
predators to get to.
None. The site lacks suitable habitat. Not
observed during field surveys.
Perognathus
longimembris
brevinasus
Los Angeles pocket
mouse
SSC
MSHCP:
Covered
Habitat consists of alluvial deposits of sandy soil in
sparsely vegetated areas.
None. The site lacks suitable habitat. Not
observed during field surveys.
Onychomys Southern SSC Common in arid desert habitats of the Mojave Desert None. The site lacks suitable habitat. Not 1767
Appendix D – Special Status Wildlife Potential Occurrence Determination Scientific Name Common Name Status General Habitat Description Potential For Occurrence within the
Project site
torridus ramona grasshopper mouse MSHCP: Not
covered
and southern Central Valley of California. Alkali
desert scrub and desert scrub habitats are preferred,
with somewhat lower densities expected in other
desert habitats, including succulent shrub, wash, and
riparian areas. Also occurs in coastal scrub, mixed
chaparral, sagebrush, low sage, and bitterbrush
habitats. Uncommon in valley foothill and montane
riparian, and in a variety of other habitats.
observed during field surveys.
Phrynosoma
blainvillii
Coast horned lizard SSC, BLMS
MSHCP:
Covered
Occurs in a variety of vegetation types including
coastal sage scrub, chaparral, annual grassland, oak
woodland and riparian woodlands.
None. The site lacks suitable habitat. Not
observed during field surveys.
Polioptila
californica
californica
Coastal California
gnatcatcher
FT, SSC
MSHCP:
Covered
A non-migratory, permanent resident of coastal sage
scrub habitat, which is a broad category of vegetation
that includes the following plant communities:
Ventura coastal sage scrub, Diegan coastal sage
scrub, maritime succulent scrub, Riversidean sage
scrub, Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub, southern
coastal bluff scrub, and coastal sage-chaparral scrub.
They also use chaparral, grassland and riparian
habitats next to coastal sage scrub, but these habitats are used dispersal and foraging. They avoid nesting
on steep slopes.
None. The site lacks suitable habitat. Not
observed during field surveys.
Rhaphiomidas
terminates
abdominalis
Delhi Sands flowerloving flyFE
MSHCP: Not
covered
The Delhi Sands flower-loving fly is dependent on
Delhi sands and Delhi sand dunes with less than 50%
vegetation cover. Typical vegetation includes
California buckwheat, California croton (Croton
californicus), and telegraph weed (Heterotheca
grandiflora).
None. The site lacks suitable habitat. Not
observed during the field surveys.
Rhinichthys
osculus ssp. 8
Santa Ana speckled
dace
SSC
MSHCP: Not
covered
The Santa Ana speckled dace requires permanent
flowing streams with summer water temperatures of
17-20 C. Typically, these streams are maintained by
outflows of cool springs. The dace inhabits shallow
cobble and gravel riffles
None. The site lacks suitable habitat. Not
observed during the field surveys.
1768
Appendix D – Special Status Wildlife Potential Occurrence Determination Scientific Name Common Name Status General Habitat Description Potential For Occurrence within the
Project site
Salvadora
hexalepis
virgultea
coast patch-nosed
snake
SSC
MSHCP: Not
covered
Inhabits semi-arid brushy areas and chaparral in
canyons, rocky hillsides, and plains.
None. The site lacks suitable habitat. Not
observed during the field surveys.
Setophaga
petechial
Yellow warbler SSC, BBC
MSHCP:
Covered
Riparian plant associations in close proximity to
water. Frequently found nesting and foraging in
willow shrubs and thickets, and in other riparian
plants including cottonwoods, sycamores, ash, and
alders.
None onsite; heard audibly in the Santa
Ana river located offsite. Not observed
onsite during the field surveys. Any
indirect impacts are mitigated through
measure MM BIO-3.
Spea hammondii Western spadefoot SSC, BLMS
MSHCP:
Covered
May be found in coastal sage scrub, open chaparral,
pine-oak woodlands and grassland habitats, but is
most common in grasslands with vernal pools or
mixed grassland/coastal sage scrub areas. Within
these habitats, they require rain pools/vernal pools in which to reproduce and that persist with more than
three weeks of standing water in which to
metamorphose successfully. They can also breed in
slow-moving streams (e.g., areas flooded by
intermittent streams). Water breeding sites must lack
fish, bullfrogs, and crayfish in order for to successfully reproduce and metamorphose. They estivates in
sandy, gravelly soil in upland habitats adjacent to
potential breeding sites in burrows approximating 1
meter in depth.
None. The site lacks suitable habitat. Not
observed during the field surveys.
Spinus lawrencei Lawrence's
goldfinch
BCC
MSHCP: Not
covered
Found mostly in dry, open oak woodlands with
chaparral, weedy fields, and a source of freshwater.
They also nest and forage in coastal scrub, pinyon
pine–juniper woodlands, and streamside habitats
None. The site lacks suitable habitat. Not
observed during the field surveys.
Taricha torosa Coast Range newt SSC
MSHCP:
Covered
Found in coastal areas and coastal range mountains
in oak forests, woodlands, or rolling grasslands
None. The site lacks suitable habitat. Not
observed during the field surveys.
Thamnophis
hammondii
Two-striped
gartersnake
SSC,BLMS Found near permanent fresh water, often along
streams with rocky beds bordered by willows and
other riparian vegetation, including mountain slopes
and desert oases
None. The site lacks suitable habitat. Not
observed during the field surveys.
1769
Appendix D – Special Status Wildlife Potential Occurrence Determination Scientific Name Common Name Status General Habitat Description Potential For Occurrence within the
Project site
Taxidea taxus American badger SSC
MSHCP: Not
covered
Badgers prefer to live in dry, open grasslands, fields, and pastures. They are found from high alpine
meadows to sea level
None. The site lacks suitable habitat. Not
observed during the field surveys.
Vireo bellii
pusillus
Least Bell’s vireo FE, SE
MSHCP:
Covered
Least Bell’s vireos primarily occupy riverine riparian
habitats that typically feature dense cover within 1-2
m of the ground and a dense, stratified canopy.
Typically, it is associated with southern willow scrub, cottonwood-willow forest, mule fat scrub, sycamore
alluvial woodland, coast live oak riparian forest,
arroyo willow riparian forest, or mesquite in desert
localities. It uses habitat which is limited to the
immediate vicinity of water courses. 2,000 feet
elevation in the interior. This species is generally
restricted to major river systems in San Diego County.
None. While suitable habitat occurs
within the Santa Ana River located offsite
to the east of the Project site, the Project
site does not include suitable foraging or
nesting habitat onsite. Not observed
during field surveys. Any indirect impacts
are mitigated through MM BIO-3.
Legend
Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) Listing Codes: federal listing is pursuant to the Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended. The official federal listing of Endangered and Threatened Animals is published in the Federal Register, 50 CFR 17.11.
FE = federally listed as endangered: any species, subspecies, or variety of plant or animal that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of their range.
FT = federally listed as threatened: any species, subspecies, or variety of plant or animal that is considered likely to become endangered throughout all or a significant portion of its range within the foreseeable future.
FC = federal candidate for listing.
FPT = federally proposed threatened.
California Endangered Species Act (CESA) Listing Codes: state listing is pursuant to §2074.2 and §2075.5 (California Endangered Species Act of 1984) of the Fish and Game Code, relating to listing of Endangered, Threatened and Rare species of plants and animals. The official California listing of Endangered and Threatened animals is contained in the California Code of Regulations, Title 14, and Section 670.5.
SE = state listed as endangered: any species, subspecies, or variety of plant or animal that are in serious danger of becoming extinct throughout all, or a significant portion, of their range.
ST = state listed as threatened: any species, subspecies, or variety of plant or animal that, although not presently threatened with extinction, is likely to become an endangered species in the foreseeable future.
SCT = state candidate for listing as threatened.
SCE = state candidate for listing as endangered.
1770
Appendix D – Special Status Wildlife Potential Occurrence Determination California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW):
SSC = species of special concern: status applies to animals which 1) are declining at a rate that could result in listing, or 2) historically occurred in low numbers and known threats to their persistence currently exist. The CDFW has designated certain vertebrate species as “species of special concern” because declining population levels, limited ranges, and/or continuing threats have made them vulnerable to extinction.
Fully protected: animal species may not be taken or possessed at any time and no licenses or permits may be issued for their take except for collecting these species for necessary scientific research and relocation of the bird species for the protection of livestock.
WL = watch list: these birds have been designated as “Taxa to Watch” in the California Bird Species of Special Concern report (Shuford and Gardali 2008).
The report defines “Taxa to Watch” as those that are not on the current special concern list that (1) formerly were on the 1978 (Remsen 1978) or 1992 (CDFG 1992) special concern lists and are not currently listed as state threatened and endangered; (2) have been removed (delisted) from either the state or federal threatened and endangered lists (and remain on neither), or (3) are currently designated as “fully protected” in California.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS):
BCC = USFWS bird of conservation concern: listed in the USFWS’S 2008 Birds of Conservation Concern report. The report identifies species, subspecies, and populations of all migratory non-game birds that, without additional conservation actions, are likely to become candidates for listing under the ESA. While all of the bird species included in the report are priorities for conservation action, the list makes no finding with regard to whether they warrant consideration for ESA listing.
United States Forest Service (USFS):
FSS = Forest Service sensitive: those plant and animal species identified by a Regional Forester that are not listed or proposed for listing under the ESA and for which population viability is a concern, as evidenced by: (a) significant current or predicted downward trends in population numbers or density or (b) significant current or predicted downward trends in habitat capability that would reduce a species' existing distribution.”
United States Bureau of Land Management (BLM):
BLMS = BLM sensitive: those plant and animal species on BLM administered lands and that are (1) under status review by the USFWS/NMFS; or (2) whose numbers are declining so rapidly that federal listing my become necessary, or (3) with typically small and widely dispersed populations; or (4) those inhabiting ecological refugia or other specialized or unique habitats. BLM policy is to provide the same level of protection as USFWS candidate species.
California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CDF):
CDF: S = CDF sensitive: species is a California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection sensitive species. The Board of Forestry classifies as sensitive species those species that warrant special protection during timber operations.
Sources:
• A Guide to the Reptiles and Amphibians of California (CaliforniaHerps.com 2024). • A Field Guide to Hawks of North America, Second Edition (Clark and Wheeler 2001). • Atlas of Breeding Birds, Orange County, California (Gallagher 1997). • Amphibian and Reptile Species of Special Concern in California (Jennings and Hayes 1994). • A Field Guide to Mammals of North America North of Mexico. Fourth Edition (Reid 2006). • A Natural History of California (Schoenherr 1992).
1771
Appendix D – Special Status Wildlife Potential Occurrence Determination • A Field Guide to Western Reptiles and Amphibians, Third Edition (Stebbins 2003). • Amphibian species accounts (Amphibiaweb 2024).
• AOU website (AOU 2024).
• California Bird Species of Special Concern: A ranked assessment of species, subspecies, and distinct populations of birds of immediate conservation concern in California (Shuford and Gardali 2008). • Check-List of North American Birds, 7th edition (American Ornithologists' Union [AOU] 1998). • Complete Birds of North America (National Geographic Society 2006). • Field Guide to the Birds of North America, 4th Ed (National Geographic Society 2002). • Fifty-first supplement to the AOU Check-List of North American Birds (Chesser et. al. 2010). • Life History Accounts and Range Maps (CDFW 2024e).
• Life on the Edge: A Guide to California’s Endangered Natural Resources. Wildlife (Thelander et al. 1994). • Mammals of North America (Bowers et al. 2004).
• Mammals of California (Eder 2005).
• Mammals of North America (Kays and Wilson 2002).
• Mammalian Species of Special Concern in California (Williams 1986). • Mammal Species of the World (Wilson and Reeder 2005). • NatureServe Explorer (NatureServe 2024).
• National Audubon Society, the Sibley Guide to Birds (Sibley 2000). • RareFind, CDFW, California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) (CDFW 2024). • Reference Atlas to the Birds of North America (National Geographic Society 2003). • Shorebirds of North America. The Photographic Guide (Paulson 2005). • Standard Common and Current Scientific Names (Center for North American Herpetology website [CNAH] website 2024). • The Smithsonian Book of North American Mammals (Wilson and Ruff 1999). • Terrestrial Mammal Species of Special Concern in California (Bolster 1998). 1772
APPENDIX E
Burrowing Owl Focused Survey
1773
CARLSON STRATEGIC LAND SOLUTIONS, INC.
Carlson Strategic Land Solutions | 27134A Paseo Espada, Suite 323, San Juan Capistrano, California 92675 Information Summary
Report Date: August 30, 2024
Report Title: Results of MSHCP Focused Burrowing Owl Survey for the SEC Archibald and Grapewin Project in City of Eastvale
Principal
Investigator:
Brianna Bernard
Carlson Strategic Land Solutions
27134A Paseo Espada, Suite 323
San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675
949.542.7042 Office
916.218.2644 Mobile
[email protected]
Report Summary
This letter describes the methods and results of a habitat assessment and focused burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia [BUOW]) surveys for the SEC Archibald and Grapewin Project (Project) located in the City of Eastvale. The Project site located located east of Archibald Street and south of Grapewin Street, within the City of Eastvale in Riverside County, California, within the City of Eastvale in Riverside County, California.
The Study Area is located within Section 00 Township 2 South, Range 7 West in the United States Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-Minute Topographic Map Corona North Quadrangle. The Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) includes 130-07-021, 130-07-015, and 130-08-004. Access to the Project site is off of Grapewin Street, as well as Archibald Avenue. Please refer to attached Figure 1 and Figure 2. The Project site and surrounding 500-foot buffer (Study Area) was surveyed.
The surveys were performed on the following days:
Survey Date Time Temp. Surveys Surveyors
March 28, 2024 0930 - 1215 70° F - 72° F
Clear skies
Burrowing Owl
Assessment
Brianna Bernard
June 11, 2024 0623 - 830 68° F 100%
cloud cover
Burrowing Owl #1 Brianna Bernard
and Sarah
Vasquez
June 25, 2024 0615 - 0825 66° F - 79° F
Clear skies
Burrowing Owl #2 Brianna Bernard
and Sarah
Vasquez
July 16, 2024 0630 - 0830 64° F - 66° F
clear skies
Burrowing Owl #3 Brianna Bernard
and Shawn
Hernandez
1774
SEC Archibald and Grapewin Project
August 30, 2024
Carlson Strategic Land Solutions | 27134A Paseo Espada, Suite 323, San Juan Capistrano, California 92675 Survey Date Time Temp. Surveys Surveyors
August 8, 2024 0630 - 0845 68° F - 75° F
Clear skies
and 50%
cloud cover at
approximately
8:00 am
Burrowing Owl #4, Brianna Bernard
and Dylan
Donahoe
The Project site consists of several developed animal pens for goats, sheep, cattle, etc.
The Project site also contains 2 residential units with a pool house, covered horse arena, and stables. Overall, the site includes developed communities and ruderal habitat consisting of non-native species. Located to the east of the Project site is the Santa Ana River. Habitat within the Santa Ana River consists of arundo thickets and southern cottonwood willow riparian forest and open water.
The site is bounded by Vantage Point Church on the south, residential development to the west and north, and the Santa Ana River to the east.
Scattered burrows were observed on the Project site, specifically around the perimeter near the fencing. All observed burrows were inspected carefully for any evidence of BUOW presence. Based on the lack of direct observation of BUOW or evidence of BUOW activity (e.g. evidence of active burrows with whitewash, pellets, feather, etc.) during the survey, the Study Area is not currently considered occupied by BUOW.
Field Survey Methods
Prior to the field survey, available literature and databases including the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), were reviewed to identify sensitive habitats and special status wildlife species, including BUOW in the vicinity of the Study Area.
Consistent with the MSHCP Survey Instructions, a burrowing owl habitat assessment was conducted on was conducted on March 28, 2024 to determine any suitable BUOW habitat onsite. Following the habitat assessment, additional focused surveys took place on June 11, June 25, July 16, and August 8, 2024. Pedestrian survey transects were spaced approximately 15 to 25 meters apart in suitable habitat to allow 100 percent visual coverage of the ground surface.
According to the MSHCP guidelines, the biologist should also walk the perimeter of the property, which consists of a 150-meter (approximately 500 feet) buffer zone around the Project boundary. If permission to access the buffer area cannot be obtained, the biologist shall not trespass, but visually inspect adjacent habitats with binoculars. Parcels of land that could not be accessed (e.g. private property) were viewed using binoculars from vantage points to survey for BUOW activity or signs thereof, as well as other nesting bird activity.
1775
SEC Archibald and Grapewin Project
August 30, 2024
Carlson Strategic Land Solutions | 27134A Paseo Espada, Suite 323, San Juan Capistrano, California 92675 The Project site and surrounding 500-foot buffer, collectively referred to as the Study Area, was assessed for the suitability to support burrowing owls and all suitable burrows were inspected for signs of use by burrowing owls. After the initial assessment of the site and surrounding areas, the Project site was systematically walked in an east-west direction of the Project site within suitable habitat for BUOW. Adjacent suitable areas, where accessible, were also surveyed to determine possible presence of owls within the buffer area (500-feet surrounding the Project site). Areas not accessible were surveyed using binoculars.
All encountered burrows or structure entrances were checked for the presence of BUOWs, molted feathers, cast pellets, prey remains, eggshell fragments, tracks, or excrement at or near a burrow entrance. Natural or man‐made structures and debris piles that could support BUOWs were also surveyed.
All wildlife species encountered, visually or audibly during the field survey, were identified and recorded in the field notes. Binoculars were used to aid in the identification of observed wildlife. Photographs were taken to document existing conditions within the Project site (Attachment A).
Results
The BUOW habitat assessment was conducted on March 28, 2024 on the Project site and surrounding 500-foot area within suitable Burrowing Owl habitat (Figure 2).
Following the habitat assessment, additional focused surveys took place on June 11, June 25, July 16, and August 8, 2024. The survey was performed by Carlson Strategic Land Solutions (CSLS) biologists. The Biologists performed transects within areas that could potentially provide suitable BUOW habitat. Weather conditions during the survey was conducive to observing signs of BUOW activity, such as owls outside burrows.
Temperatures during the surveys ranged from 70° F to 95° F with predominant sunny, clear skies and 0-2 mph winds. The survey was conducted during typical BUOW peak activity time and was not conducted during rain, high winds (> 20 miles per hour), dense cloud cover >75%, or extreme temperatures.
The Project site consists of several developed animal pens for goats, sheep, cattle, etc.
The Project site also contains 2 residential units with a pool house, covered horse arena, and stables. Overall, the site includes developed communities and ruderal habitat consisting of non-native species. Located to the east of the Project site is the Santa Ana River. Habitat within the Santa Ana River consists of arundo thickets and southern cottonwood willow riparian forest and open water.
The site is bounded by Vantage Point Church on the south, residential development to the west and north, and the Santa Ana River to the east. 1776
SEC Archibald and Grapewin Project
August 30, 2024
Carlson Strategic Land Solutions | 27134A Paseo Espada, Suite 323, San Juan Capistrano, California 92675 The Study Area contains a small population of California ground squirrels (Spermophilus beecheyi), specifically located along the perimeter fencing and around the animal pens, which in turn results in various burrows that could potentially support suitable BUOW foraging and nesting habitat. These areas were inspected carefully for the presence of BUOWs and active nests. No pellets, whitewash, feathers, tracks or any other signs indicative of burrowing owl presence were observed within the Study Area.
The Study Area provides suitable foraging and nesting habitats to support wildlife. Bird activity during the survey was moderate. During the field surveys the following species were observed/detected:
Birds:
• Chicken (Gallus gallus
domesticus)
• Peacock (Pavo cristatus)
• Common yellowthroat
(Geothypis trichas)
• Rufous-crowned sparrow
(Aimophila ruficeps)
• Anna’s hummingbird (Calypte
anna)
• American crow (Corvus
brachyrhynchos)
• American Kestrel (Falco
sparverius)
• Bewick’s wren (Thryomanes
bewickii)
• Nuttall’s woodpecker (Picoides
nuttallii)
• California towhee (Melozone
crissalis)
• California quail (Callipepla
californica)
• Black phoebe (Sayornis
nigricans)
• Spotted towhee (Pipilo
maculatus)
• Northern mockingbird (Mimus
polyglottos)
• house finch (Haemorhous
mexicanus)
• mourning dove (Zenaida
macroura)
• American bushtit (Psaltriparus
mimimus)
• song sparrow (Melospiza
melodia)
• Red-tailed hawk (Buteo
jamaicensis)
• turkey vulture (Cathartes aura)
• yellow warbler (Setophaga
petechia)
• Great horned Owl (Bubo
virginianus)
• Barn owl (Tyto alba)
• Lesser goldfinch (Spinus psaltria)
• Song sparrow (Melospiza
melodia)
• Yellow-breasted chat (Icteria
virens)
• Turkey vulture (Cathartes aura)
Reptiles:
• western fence lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis)
1777
SEC Archibald and Grapewin Project
August 30, 2024
Carlson Strategic Land Solutions | 27134A Paseo Espada, Suite 323, San Juan Capistrano, California 92675 Mammals
• California ground squirrel (Spermophilus (Otospermophilus) beecheyi) Conclusion
No BUOWs or evidence of BUOWs were observed on site within the Study Area during the focused surveys. A majority of the Project site is characterized by vegetated ruderal and disturbed/developed habitats and contains suitably sized burrows and satellite burrows to provide suitable nesting habitat for BUOW. Much of the buffer area is developed or consists of the Santa Ana River. California ground squirrels and their burrows were observed within the Study Area. These burrows were actively utilized by the California ground squirrels and contained no BUOW or keys signs (sight, whitewash, burrows, bones, feathers, pellets, nests, and calls). Therefore, based on the focused surveys it is determined the Project site is not occupied by BUOW.
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.
Signed: _______________________________________ Dated: 08/30/2024 If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at [email protected] or at 916-218-2644.
Figures
• Figure 1: Site Location Map
• Figure 2: Study Area Map
Attachments
• Attachment A: Site Photographs
1778
Figures
1779
^_
Approximate Project Location
I SEC Archibald and Grapewin Project
1 inch = 10,000 feet
0 2,500 5,000 10,000 15,000
Feet Data Source: Bing Maps
GIS Prepared By:
Carlson SLS
Created: April 3, 2024 Regional Map
FIGURE 1
1780
Legend
Project Boundary
500-Foot Buffer
I SEC Archibald and Grapewin Project
1 inch = 250 feet
0 25 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Feet Data Source: Bing Map
FIGURE 2
Project Location Map
GIS Prepared By:
Carlson SLS
Created: April 3, 2024
1781
Attachment A:
Site Photographs
1782
Attachment A – Representative Photographs
Photos taken March 28, June 11, June 25, July 16, and August 7, 2024 Most of the Project site consists of disturbed/developed and ruderal habitat.
The Project site is regularly mowed. Two residential homes occur on the Project site. 1783
Attachment A – Representative Photographs
Photos taken March 28, June 11, June 25, July 16, and August 7, 2024 Suitable burrows were observed within the Project Site.
Suitable burrows were observed around the fences.
1784
Attachment A – Representative Photographs
Photos taken March 28, June 11, June 25, July 16, and August 7, 2024 Some burrows were observed within the flat ruderal areas.
Some burrows were observed along the driveway.
1785
PLN24-20053 – Warmington Residential
City of Eastvale
APPENDIX B-2
WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY
MSHCP CONSISTENCY
DETERMINATION
1786
CONSISTENCY DETERMINATION
SEC ARCHIBALD AND GRAPEWIN PROJECT
Submitted Pursuant to MSHCP
Section 6.1.2 Protection of Species Associated with Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools;
Section 6.1.3 Narrow Endemic Plant Surveys; and
Section 6.3.2 Species Survey Requirements.
Prepared for:
Warmington Residential
Greg Ocasek
3090 Pullman Street
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Prepared by:
Carlson Strategic Land Solutions
27134A Paseo Espada, Suite 323
San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675
Tel: (949) 542-7042
January 31, 2025
1787
SEC Archibald and Grapewin Project
Consistency Determination Page i January 2025
Table of Contents
I. Introduction........................................................................................................................... 1 II. Definition of Project Area.................................................................................................... 1 III. Project Description .............................................................................................................. 4 IV. Methodology ........................................................................................................................ 4 V. Environmental Setting.......................................................................................................12 A. Existing Conditions .........................................................................................................12 B. Soils....................................................................................................................................12 C. Topography and Hydrology..........................................................................................13 D. Plant Communities..........................................................................................................13 E. Other MSHCP Sections ..................................................................................................16 VI. Impact Analysis ...................................................................................................................16 A. Section 6.1.2 -- Protection of Species Associated with Riparian/Riverine Areas..19
1. Description and Quantification of Unavoidable Impacts to Riparian/Riverine Areas............................................................................................................................19
2. Impacts to Species Protected under Section 6.1.2 ..............................................19
3. Vernal Pools................................................................................................................19 B. Section 6.1.3 – Narrow Endemic Plants .......................................................................20 C. Section 6.1.4 Urban/Wildlands Interface ....................................................................21 D. Section 6.3.2 -- Species Survey Requirements...........................................................21 VII. Description of Avoidance, Mitigation Measures and Consistency............................22 VIII. Certification.........................................................................................................................27 IX. List of Preparers ..................................................................................................................27 X. References...........................................................................................................................28 TABLES
Table 1. Vegetation Communities Observed Onsite..........................................................13 Table 2. Proposed Vegetation Communities Impacts ........................................................17
FIGURES
Figure 1: Regional Map .............................................................................................................. 2 Figure 2: Project Vicinity Map.................................................................................................... 3 Figure 3: Proposed Site Plan ..................................................................................................... 7 Figure 4: MSHCP Overlays......................................................................................................... 8 Figure 5: Vegetation Mapping................................................................................................14 Figure 6: Soil Mapping .............................................................................................................15 Figure 7: Vegetation Impacts ..................................................................................................18 1788
SEC Archibald and Grapewin Project
Consistency Determination Page ii January 2025
Executive Summary
The SEC Archibald and Grapewin Project proposes to construct residential units with associated streets and infrastructure on the approximately 8-acre site. The Project site consists of ruderal and disturbed/developed vegetation communities.
The Project site is bounded by Vantage Point Church on the south, residential development to the west and north, and the Santa Ana River to the east.
The Project is located within the Eastvale Area Plan of the Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP); however, the Project site is not located within any MSHCP Criteria Areas, Cell Groups, or Subunits. The Project is not located within any Reserve Features (Core, Linkage, Public/Quasi Public Land etc.). However, the Project site is adjacent to the Santa Ana River, which is designated as a wildlife corridor known as Existing Core A within the MSHCP. MSHCP Existing Core A consists of Prado Basin and the Santa Ana River and functions as a linage, connecting Orange County to the west with San Bernardino County to the north. The Existing Core A is constrained on all sides by existing urban development and agricultural use, and planned land uses surrounding the Core exists largely of high impact land uses such as city and community development.
Therefore, the Project is subject to:
• Riparian and Riverine Areas (Section 6.1.2)
• Narrow Endemic Plant Survey (Section 6.1.3)
• Urban/Wildland Interface Guidelines (Section 6.1.4)
• Western burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia hypugaea) (Section 6.3.2) No MSHCP riparian/riverine features occur onsite, therefore no Determination of Biologically Superior or Equivalent Preservation (DBESP) is required.
Furthermore, no MSHCP sensitive species associated with riparian/riverine areas protected under Section 6.1.2 were observed during the field surveys and no suitable habitat occurs for Section 6.1.2 plant and wildlife species. The proposed project is consistent with Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP.
Portions of the Project site are located within the Narrow Endemic Plant Species Survey Areas (NEPSSA) Number 7, which include the following target species:
1789
SEC Archibald and Grapewin Project
Consistency Determination Page iii January 2025
• San Diego ambrosia
• Brand's phacelia
• San Miguel savory
No special status plant species were observed during the 2024 focused surveys and none are expected to occur onsite due to the lack of suitable habitat or suitable soil found on the Project site; therefore, there are no potential impacts to special status plants due to Project implementation and no mitigation required. Therefore, the Project is consistent with the goals and objectives within MSHCP Section 6.1.3.
The Project site is not designated as an existing or proposed MSHCP Conservation Area or Core Linkage areas. However, the Project site is adjacent to the Santa Ana River, which is designated as a wildlife corridor known as Existing Core A within the MSHCP. MSHCP Existing Core A consists of Prado Basin and the Santa Ana River and functions as a linage, connecting Orange County to the west with San Bernardino County to the north. The Existing Core A is constrained on all sides by existing urban development and agricultural use, and planned land uses surrounding the Core exists largely of high impact land uses such as city and community development.
The Project site is composed of large spans of ruderal and disturbed habitat lacking suitable cover and resources that are typically associated with wildlife movement areas (i.e. water). Furthermore, the Project site is located at a substantially higher elevation than the Existing Core A of the MSHCP. The Project site currently includes several residential homes and fenced animal pens. Furthermore, north, west, and south of the Project is residential development and Vantage Point Church further restricting any regional movement. Therefore, the Project site is not used as a wildlife corridor, linkage, or specific travel route to and from nursery sites other important resources.
However, due to the adjacency to Existing Core A and preserving the highquality riparian habitat found within the Santa Ana River, the Project site may have indirect impact to the Existing Core A due to noise and or lighting.
Therefore, the Project would adhere to the urban/wildland guidelines interface for the management of edge factors.
The site was evaluated for suitable burrowing owl habitat pursuant to Section
6.3.2, Species Survey Requirements. It is determined the Project site is not occupied by BUOW. No BUOWs or evidence of BUOWs were observed within 1790
SEC Archibald and Grapewin Project
Consistency Determination Page iv January 2025
the Project site during the focused surveys. A majority of the Project site was characterized by ruderal fields, which may provide suitable nesting habitat for BUOW but lack proper vegetation cover for the species. Much of the buffer area is developed. California ground squirrels and their burrows were observed within the Study Area. These burrows were actively utilized by the California ground squirrels and contained no BUOW or keys signs (sight, whitewash, burrows, bones, feathers, pellets, nests, and calls). However, a pre-construction survey will be conducted by a qualified biologist 30 days prior to the commencement of any ground disturbing activities. The proposed project is consistent with Section 6.3.2 of the MSHCP.
1791
SEC Archibald and Grapewin Project
Consistency Determination Page 1 January 2025
SEC ARCHIBALD AND GRAPEWIN PROJECT
Consistency Determination
Pursuant to MSHCP Section 6.1.2: Protection of Species Associated with Riparian/Riverine Areas
MSHCP Section 6.1.3: Narrow Endemic Plants
MSHCP Section 6.3.2: Species Survey Requirements
I. INTRODUCTION
The following Consistency Determination has been prepared by Carlson Strategic Land Solutions (CSLS), pursuant to Section 6.1.2 Protection of Species Associated with Riparian/Riverine areas and Vernal Pools, Section 6.1.3 Narrow Endemic Plant Species, Section 6.1.4 Urban/Wildland Guidelines Interfaceand Section 6.3.2 Species Survey Requirements of the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP). This report presents the findings of the Consistency Determination for the approximately 8-acre Project Site known as the SEC Archibald and Grapewin in the City of Eastvale.
II. DEFINITION OF PROJECT AREA
The proposed Project site encompasses approximately 8‐acres and is located in the City of Eastvale, California. The Project site can be found on the U.S Geological Survey (USGS) Map Corona North topographic map. The Project Site can be found within Section 00, Township 2 South, and Range 7 West. The Project Site is located is located n The Study Area is located east of Archibald Street and south of Grapewin Street. (Figures 1 and 2). The Project’s Assessor Parcel Numbers (APN) includes 130-070-021, 130-070-015, and 130-080-004.
Access to the Project site is from Grapewin Street, as well as Archibald Avenue. 1792
^_
Approximate Project Location
I SEC Archibald and Grapewin Project
1 inch = 10,000 feet
0 2,500 5,000 10,000 15,000
Feet Data Source: Bing Maps
GIS Prepared By:
Carlson SLS
Created: April 3, 2024 Regional Map
FIGURE 1
1793
Legend
Project Boundary
500-Foot Buffer
I SEC Archibald and Grapewin Project
1 inch = 250 feet
0 25 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400
Feet Data Source: Bing Map
FIGURE 2
Project Location Map
GIS Prepared By:
Carlson SLS
Created: April 3, 2024
1794
SEC Archibald and Grapewin Project
Consistency Determination Page 4 January 2025
The Project site consists of several developed animal pens for goats, sheep, cattle, etc. The Project site also contains 2 residential units with a pool house, covered horse arena, and stables. Overall, the site includes developed communities and ruderal habitat consisting of non-native species. Located to the east of the Project site is the Santa Ana River. Habitat within the Santa Ana River consists of arundo thickets and southern cottonwood willow riparian forest and open water. The Santa Ana River is designated as Existing Core A wildlife corridor and core linkage area. As such the Project would adhere to the urban/wildland guidelines interface for the management of edge factors and prevent any indirect impacts.
The site is bounded by Vantage Point Church on the south, residential development to the west and north, and the Santa Ana River to the east.
The Project Study Area discussed in this analysis consists of the 8-acre Project site and surrounding 500-foot buffer area. The buffer area was evaluated for potential off-site impacts.
The Project is located within the Eastvale Area Plan of the MSHCP. The Project is not located within any MSHCP Criteria Areas, Cell Groups, or Subunits. Portions of the Survey Area are located within MSHCP Section 6.1.2 Riparian and Riverine Areas, Section 6.1.3 Narrow Endemic Plants, and Section 6.3.2 Species Survey Requirements for the western burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia hypugaea) habitat. The Project site is not located within MSHCP survey areas for Criteria Area Plant Species, Amphibians, Mammals, Wildland corridor, or Special Linkage Areas. However, the Project is subject to adhere to the appropriate Urban/Wildland Guidelines due to the adjacency of the Santa Ana River and Existing Core A to prevent any indirect impacts.
III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
As shown in Figure 3, the Project proposes to construct 76 single-family lots, open space lots, water quality basins, and landscape. All development is anticipated to occur on the Project site, and no direct impacts to the Santa Ana River is anticipated.
IV. METHODOLOGY
The Project site is located within the Western Riverside Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP), but is not located within any Criteria Cells, Cell Groups, or Subunits. Portions of the Project Study Area are located within the 1795
SEC Archibald and Grapewin Project
Consistency Determination Page 5 January 2025
survey areas for narrow endemic plants and burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) (Figure 4).
A number of these species have survey requirements based on a project’s occurrence within a designated MSHCP survey area and/or based on the presence of suitable habitat. These include:
• Riparian/Riverine and Vernal Pools (MSHCP Volume I, Section 6.1.2); • Species associated with riparian/riverine areas and vernal pool habitats, including least Bell’s vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, western yellow-billed cuckoo, and three species of listed fairy shrimp (MSHCP Volume I, Section 6.1.2);
• Narrow Endemic Plant Species (MSHCP Volume I, Section 6.1.3), as identified by the Narrow Endemic Plant Species Survey Areas (NEPSSA); • Guidelines Pertaining to the Urban/Wildlands Interface (MSHCP Section
6.1.4);
• Criteria Area Plant Species (MSHCP Volume I, Section 6.3.2) identified by the Criteria Area Plant Species Survey Areas (CAPSSA);
• animal species (BUOW, mammals, amphibians) identified by survey areas (MSHCP Volume I, Section 6.3.2); and
• Best Management Practices (MSHCP Volume I, Appendix C ).
An additional 28 species (MSHCP Volume I, Table 9.3) not yet adequately conserved have species-specific objectives for the species to become adequately conserved. However, these species do not have project-specific survey requirements.
The Western Riverside County Resource Conservation Authority (RCA) MSHCP Information Application website was reviewed to verify any overlays that may occur on the Project site.
Biologists and Regulatory Specialists from Carlson Strategic Land Solutions (CSLS) conducted site-specific surveys on the Study Area. Surveys included a general biological survey, vegetation mapping, a habitat assessment and focused burrowing owl survey, general plant survey, and a delineation of any jurisdictional waters and wetlands. The survey was conducted on the Project site by CSLS biologists. Findings from the field surveys conducted on March 28, June 11, June 25, July 16, and August 8, 2024 are included in the Biological Resource Assessment for the SEC Archibald and Grapewin Project prepared by Carlson Strategic Land Solutions dated August, 2024 (January 2025 Biological Resource Assessment).
1796
SEC Archibald and Grapewin Project
Consistency Determination Page 6 January 2025
CSLS conducted biological studies in three main components in order to identify and evaluate actual or potential impacts to biological resources associated with the proposed Project, including: (1) vegetation mapping; (2) site-specific biological surveys to evaluate the presence/absence of specialstatus species (or potentially suitable habitat) to the satisfaction of the MSHCP, CEQA, and Federal and State regulations; and (3) delineation of aquatic resources (including wetlands/riparian habitat) subject to the jurisdiction of the US Army Corps (Corps), Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW).
Based on the RCA MSHCP Mapper and GIS Data, the Project site is not located within lands identified as Reserve Linkage or a Core area. However, the Project is located adjacent to the Santa Ana River which is designated as Existing Core A. Therefore, analysis and adherence of Urban/Wildlands Interface guidelines is warranted.
Based on the RCA MSHCP Mapper and GIS Data, the Project site does not occur within a predetermined Survey Area for criteria area species. No additional surveys are required.
Based on the RCA MSHCP Mapper and GIS Data, the Project site does not occur within a predetermined Survey Area for amphibians. No additional surveys are required.
Based on the RCA MSHCP Mapper and GIS Data, the Project site does not occur within a predetermined Survey Area for mammals. No additional surveys are required.
Since the Project is located within the MSHCP, Best Management Practices (MSHCP Volume I, Appendix C ) will be implemented as part of Project Design features in order to be consistent with the MSHCP.
Based on the RCA MSHCP Mapper and GIS Data, the Project site is subject to Consistency Analysis with MSHCP Sections 6.1.2 (Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools), 6.1.3 (Narrow Endemic Plants), 6.1.4 (Urban/Wildlands Interface Guidelines), and 6.3.2 (Special Survey Requirements).
1797
1798
Legend
Project Boundary
MSHCP Overlays
Burrowing Owl
Narrow Endemic Plants
(San Diego ambrosia, Brand's
phacelia, San Miguel savory)
MSHCP Conserved Public/QuasiPublic Lands - Existing Core A I SEC Archibald and Grapewin Project
1 inch = 600 feet
0 150 300 600 900 1,200
Feet Data Source: Bing Map
FIGURE 4
MSHCP Overlays
GIS Prepared By:
Carlson SLS
Created: January 2025
Project
Site
1799
SEC Archibald and Grapewin Project
Consistency Determination Page 9 January 2025
The field studies focused on a number of primary objectives that would satisfy the special provisions of the MSHCP and also comply with CEQA requirements, including: (1) general reconnaissance surveys and vegetation mapping; (2) general wildlife surveys; (3) habitat assessments and focused surveys for special-status plants; (4) habitat assessments and focused biological surveys for special-status animals (including species designated by MSHCP survey areas); (5) wildlife movement analysis; (6) assessments of riparian/riverine areas and vernal pool habitats; and (7) delineation of areas subject to the jurisdiction of the Corps, RWQCB, and CDFW. Observations of plant and wildlife species were recorded during the survey.
The January 2025 Biological Resource Assessment evaluates individual plants and animal species based on their special-status. For the purpose of the Biological Assessment, plants were considered special-status based on one or more of the following criteria:
• Listing through the Federal and/or State Endangered Species Act (ESA); • Occurrence in the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Rare Plant Inventory (List 1B, 2, 3, or 4);
• California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) Global/State Rankings; and/or
• Evaluation and coverage under the MSHCP.
Prior to conducting fieldwork, pertinent literature on the flora of the region was examined. A thorough archival review was conducted using available literature and other historical records. These resources included, but were not limited to, the following: CNPS Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California [CNPS 2024]; CNDDB for the Corona North and surrounding USGS quadrangle maps (CNDDB 2024); and MSHCP Document, including Sections 6.1.2, Section
6.1.3, and 6.3.2; and Table 9.3 (Riverside County Integrated Project 2003).
Vegetation communities were characterized utilizing vegetation alliances in accordance with The Manual of California Vegetation, Second Edition (MCVII) (Sawyer et al. 2009). Where necessary, deviations were made when areas did not fit into exact habitat descriptions provided by MCVII. Plant communities were mapped in the field directly onto a 200-scale (1"=200') aerial photograph.
Section 6.1.2 Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools
Volume I, Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP describes the process through which protection of riparian/riverine areas and vernal pools would occur within the MSHCP Plan Area. The purpose is to ensure that the biological functions and 1800
SEC Archibald and Grapewin Project
Consistency Determination Page 10 January 2025
values of these areas throughout the MSHCP Conservation Area are maintained. The MSHCP requires that as projects are proposed within the overall Plan Area, the effect of those projects on riparian/riverine areas and vernal pools must be addressed. The Study Area was evaluated for the presence/absence of MSHCP riparian/riverine areas and vernal pools. With respect to riparian habitat, the Study Area was evaluated for the potential habitat to support the least Bell’s vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus), southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii traillii), the western yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus occidentalis), listed fairy shrimp, and other species identified in Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP.
The Study Area was evaluated to determine the limits of (1) Corps jurisdiction pursuant to Section 404 of the CWA; (2) RWQCB jurisdiction pursuant to Section 401 of the CWA and Porter-Cologne; (3) CDFW jurisdiction pursuant to Division 2, Chapter 6, Section 1600 of the Fish and Game Code; and (4) MSHCP riparian/riverine areas and vernal pools. Suspected jurisdictional areas were field checked for the presence of definable channels and/or wetland vegetation, soils, and hydrology. Suspected wetland habitats on the Project site and surrounding buffer area were evaluated using the methodology set forth in the Corps’ 1987 Wetland Delineation Manual (Wetland Manual) and the 2008 Regional Supplement to the Corps Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region Version 2.0 (Arid West Supplement) and according to the March 2023 definition of Waters of the US. While in the field, the limits of MSHCP Features were recorded onto a 200-scale color aerial photograph using visible landmarks and limits of jurisdiction were recorded with a Trimble R1 Global Positioning System (GPS) receiver with ARC Collector application with sub-meter accuracy.
Section 6.1.3 Narrow Endemic Plants
The Project site falls within Narrow Endemic Plants (Survey Area Number 7). The CNDDB and MSHCP were reviewed to determine known occurrences of special- status plants in the region. Based on this information, a list of target plants (including their suitable habitats and soil) was developed and incorporated into a survey program to achieve the following goals: (1) characterize the vegetation associations and land use; (2) prepare a detailed floral compendium; and (3) document the distribution and abundance of any special-status plant species within the Project site.
1801
SEC Archibald and Grapewin Project
Consistency Determination Page 11 January 2025
General surveys were conducted to identify potential sensitive plant habitats, and to establish the accuracy of the data identified from the literature review and previous biological assessment and search. An aerial photograph and topographic map were used to determine the community types and other physical features that may support sensitive species or communities within the Project site and surrounding buffer area. The reconnaissance surveys also considered the guidelines adopted by CNPS and CDFW (Nelson 1984, CNPS 2001).
Where potentially suitable habitat was present, focused plant surveys included those MSCHP Covered Species identified by the NEPSSA Survey Area Number
7. For any locations with positive survey results, the MSHCP requires that 90 percent of those portions of the property that provide for long-term conservation value for the identified species shall be avoided until it is demonstrated that conservation goals for the particular species are met.
Findings of equivalency shall be made demonstrating that the 90-percent standard has been met
Section 6.3.2 Special Survey Requirements
The CNDDB and MSHCP were initially consulted to determine known occurrences of special- status animals in the region. Based on this information, a list of target animal species (including their suitable habitats) was developed and incorporated into a survey program to achieve the following goals: (1) prepare a detailed faunal compendium; and (2) implement general reconnaissance field work and focused surveys to document the distribution and abundance of the special-status animal species within the Study Area.
The Study Area was evaluated for suitable burrowing owl habitat, and where present, focused surveys were conducted for the burrowing owl to satisfy the requirements of the MSHCP and CEQA.
General Biological Surveys
Wildlife species were evaluated and detected during field surveys by sight, call, tracks, and scat. Site reconnaissance was conducted in such a manner as to allow inspection of the Study Area by direct observation, including the use of binoculars. Observations of physical evidence and direct sightings of wildlife were recorded in field notes during each visit. A complete list of wildlife species observed within the Study Area is provided in the June 2024 Biological 1802
SEC Archibald and Grapewin Project
Consistency Determination Page 12 January 2025
Resource Assessment. Scientific nomenclature and common names for vertebrate species referred to in this report follow the Complete List of Amphibian, Reptile, Bird, and Mammal Species in California (CDFW 2023), Standard Common and Scientific Names for North American Amphibians, Turtles, Reptiles, and Crocodilians 6th Edition, Collins and Taggert (2009) for amphibians and reptiles, and the AOU Checklist (2010) for birds. The methodology (including any applicable survey protocols) utilized to conduct the focused surveys or the habitat assessments for special-status animals is included below.
Wildlife Movement Analysis
In order to evaluate direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of the proposed Project on wildlife movement, an analysis of wildlife use/movement was conducted for the Study Area. The analysis considered the movement and use of large mammals (i.e., mountain lion and mule deer), medium-sized mammals (mesocarnivores), and other wildlife such as small mammals, birds, reptiles, and amphibians. Methods utilized for the wildlife analysis included a review of existing information on wildlife use (including the MSHCP), general and focused biological surveys to document the presence/absence of wildlife, and observations of mammal tracks and scat.
V. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING
A. Existing Conditions
The Project site consists of several developed animal pens for goats, sheep, cattle, etc. The Project site also contains 2 residential units with a pool house, covered horse arena, and stables. Overall, the site includes developed communities and ruderal habitat consisting of non-native species. Located to the east of the Project site is the Santa Ana River. Habitat within the Santa Ana River consists of arundo thickets and southern cottonwood willow riparian forest and open water.
The site is bounded by Vantage Point Church on the south, residential development to the west and north, and the Santa Ana River to the east.
B. Soils
The United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Conservation Service lists five soil types (series) for the Project site (Figure 6). Please see below for the following soil type, which was used to determine the possibility for sensitive wildlife and plant species. No unique soil types as identified by the 1803
SEC Archibald and Grapewin Project
Consistency Determination Page 13 January 2025
MSHCP, such as clays for vernal pools or soils for sensitive or rare plants, exist on the Project site. Furthermore, no soils that would potentially provide hydrophilic soils for vernal pools occur onsite.
The following soil types are mapped within the Study Area and shown on Figure 6:
• Grangeville sandy loam, sandy substratum, drained, saline-alkali , 0 to 5 percent slopes (GsB)
• Grangeville fine sandy loam, poorly drained, saline-alk ali, 0 to 5 percent slopes (GuB)
• Pachappa fine sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes (PaA) • Ramona very fine sandy loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes, eroded (ReC2) • Terrace escarpments (TeG)
C. Topography and Hydrology
The Project site does not contain any jurisdictional features. Santa Ana River occurs to the east of the Project site within the 500-foot buffer and is considered Waters of the State and Waters of the United States, as regulated by CDFW, RWQCB, and the Corps. No impacts are anticipated to occur to Santa Ana River due to Project implementation.
D. Plant Communities
Several plant communities were observed within the Study Area. The acreages of plant communities are shown in Table 1 and depicted in Figure 5. Site photographs are included within the January 2025 Biological Resource Assessment also provide representative photographs of site conditions.
Table 1. Vegetation Community Observed Onsite
Vegetation Community
Acreage within the Project
site (acres)
Ruderal 1.64
Disturbed/Developed 6.66
TOTAL 8.30
The general description of the habitat observed during the field survey are described below.
1804
Legend
Project Boundary
Vegetation Community
Ruderal
Disturbed/Developed
I SEC Archibald and Grapewin Project
1 inch = 100 feet
0 25 50 100 150 200
Feet Data Source: Bing Map
FIGURE 5
Vegetation Community Mapping
GIS Prepared By:
Carlson SLS
Created: June 20, 2024
Sana Ana River
1805
Legend
Project Boundary
Soil Type
Grangeville sandy loam,
sandy substratum, drained,
saline-alkali , 0 to 5 percent
slopes (GsB)
Grangeville fine sandy
loam, poorly drained,
saline-alk ali, 0 to 5 percent
slopes (GuB)
Pachappa fine sandy loam,
0 to 2 percent slopes (PaA)
Ramona very fine sandy
loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes,
eroded (ReC2)
Terrace escarpments (TeG)
I SEC Archibald and Grapewin Project
1 inch = 100 feet
0 25 50 100 150 200
Feet Data Source: Bing Map
FIGURE 6
Soils Map
GIS Prepared By:
Carlson SLS
Created: June 20, 2024
Sana Ana River
1806
SEC Archibald and Grapewin Project
Consistency Determination Page 16 January 2025
Ruderal
The Project site contains portions of the ruderal vegetation community. These areas are regularly mowed and maintained. The vegetation within this area is comprised of predominantly of summer mustard (Hirschfeldia incana). Other species include tocalote (Centaurea melitensis), canary island date palm (Phoenix canariensis), tree tobacco (Nicotiana glauca), wall barley (Hordeum murinum), cheeseweed (Malva parviflora), bristly ox tongue (Helminthotheca echioides), storksbill (Erodium moschatum), lemon trees (Citrus limon), oleander (Nerium oleander), prickly pear (Opuntia littoralis), and red brome (Bromus rubens).
Disturbed/Developed
The developed areas include animal pens, previously used equestrian corals and arena, residential homes, horse stalls, and animal pens. Ornamental species occur within this community and include Russian thistle (Salsola australis), horseweed (Erigeron canadensis), mustard, tocalote, carrotwood (Cupaniopsis anacardioides), pine tree (Pinus ssp.),a single cottonwood (Populus fremontii), Brazilian peppertree (Schinus terebinthifolia), and canary island date palm.
500-foot Buffer Area
Areas found to the north and west of the Project site are developed with singlefamily residential developments. To the south is developed with Vantage Point Church. To the east of the Project site is Santa Ana River.
E. Other MSHCP Sections
Based on the RCA MSHCP Mapper and GIS Data, the Project site is not:
• within a predetermined Survey Area for mammals. No additional surveys are required.
Since the Project is located within the MSHCP, Best Management Practices (MSHCP Volume I, Appendix C ) will be implemented as part of Project Design features in order to be consistent with the MSHCP.
VI. IMPACT ANALYSIS
Proposed impacts to vegetation communities are summarized in Table 2 below.
The determination of impacts in this analysis is based on the proposed Project development plan (Figure 3) and the biological values of the habitat and/or sensitivity of plant and wildlife species to be affected. Any recommended 1807
SEC Archibald and Grapewin Project
Consistency Determination Page 17 January 2025
mitigation measures to address impacts are discussed below, along with compliance of existing regulations. Based on the preliminary plans, the following vegetation impacts are anticipated (Figure 7). The Project site heavily disturbed/developed with Ruderal habitat, therefore, impacts as a result of Project implementation are to common vegetation species.
Table 2. Proposed Vegetation Communities Impacts
Vegetation Community
Existing Vegetation
(acres)
Impacts
(acres)
Avoided
(acres)
Ruderal 1.64 1.23 0.41
Disturbed/Developed 6.66 6.65 0.01
TOTAL 8.30 7.88 0.42
1808
Legend
Project Boundary
Project Impact Boundary
Development Footprint
Vegetation Community
Ruderal
Disturbed/Developed
I SEC Archibald and Grapewin Project
1 inch = 100 feet
0 25 50 100 150 200
Feet Bing Map
Adkan Engineers (08/30/2024)
Data Source:
FIGURE 7
Vegetation Impact Map
GIS Prepared By:
Carlson SLS
Created: August 30, 2024
Sana Ana River
1809
SEC Archibald and Grapewin Project
Consistency Determination Page 19 January 2025
A. Section 6.1.2 -- Protection of Species Associated with Riparian/Riverine Areas
1. Description and Quantification of Unavoidable Impacts to Riparian/Riverine Areas
No MSHCP Riverine/Riparian features occur onsite. The offsite MSHCP Riverine/Riparian will not be impacted due to Project implementation.
2. Impacts to Species Protected under Section 6.1.2
No Riverine/Riparian habitat occurs onsite and no Section 6.1.2 special status plants were detected. Likewise, the Project site did not contain any suitable habitat for the avian species listed in Section 6.1.2: Protection of Species Associated with Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools. However, The Project site is located adjacent to the Santa Ana River, which is suitable habitat for Section 6.1.2 Sensitive Avian Species. Implementation of the Project may indirectly impact these Section 6.1.2 Sensitive Avian Species during breeding season should construction take place during the typical nesting season.
3. Vernal Pools
No evidence of vernal pools, seasonal depressions, seasonally inundated road ruts or other wetland features were recorded on the Project Site. Vernal pools are depressions in areas where a hard-underground layer prevents rainwater from draining downward into the subsoils. When rain fills the pools in the winter and spring, the water collects and remains in the depressions. In the springtime, the water gradually evaporates away, until the pools became completely dry in the summer and fall. Vernal pools tend to have an impermeable layer that results in ponded water. The soil texture (the amount of sand, silt, and clay particles) typically contains higher amounts of fine silts and clays with lower percolation rates. Pools that retain water for a sufficient length of time will develop hydric cells. Hydric cells form when the soil is saturated from flooding for extended periods of time and anaerobic conditions (lacking oxygen or air) develop.
No indication of clay substrates or hydric soils were documented within the Project Site. Furthermore, a review of prior google aerials was reviewed to determine if inundated features were present during years of high rainfall when features would certainly be documented. Aerials taken in 2011 represent an ideal baseline during which known (previously documented) inundated vernal pools, seasonal depressions and road ruts can easily be seen. No sign or indication of inundation was documented within the Project Site during a review of historic aerials.
1810
SEC Archibald and Grapewin Project
Consistency Determination Page 20 January 2025
In summary, none of the conditions (i.e., no inundated depressions including road ruts, hydric soils, historic inundation, etc.) were observed on documented within the Project site. No features are present that would support fairy shrimp.
No standing water or other sign of areas that pond water was observed onsite.
B. Section 6.1.3 – Narrow Endemic Plants
The Project site is located within the Narrow Endemic Plant Species Survey Area (NEPSSA) Number 7 overlay, which include the following target species:
• San Diego ambrosia (Ambrosia pumila)
Status: California Rare Plant Rank 1B.1, federally endangered Habitat(s): Habitats supporting chaparral, coastal scrub, valley and foothill grasslands, and vernal pools. Observed in sandy loam or clay soils, sometimes alkaline soils. Known from 20 to 415 meters (65 to 1360 feet) MSL. Blooms April through October.
Status onsite: None. The Project site lacks suitable habitat and soils. Not observed during field surveys and focused narrow endemic plant surveys. • Brand’s Star Phacelia (Phacelia stellaris)
Status: California Rare Plant Rank 1B.1
Habitat(s): Habitats supporting coastal dunes and coastal scrub Known from below 1 to 400 meters (5 to 1,310 feet) MSL. Blooms March through June.
Status onsite: None. None. The Project site lacks suitable habitat and soils. Not observed during field surveys and focused narrow endemic plant surveys. • San Miguel Savory (Clinopodium chandleri)
Status: California Rare Plant Rank 1B.2
Habitat(s): Rocky areas in chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal scrub, riparian woodland, and valley and foothill grassland. Soils include rocky and gabbroic substrates. Known from 120 - 1075 meters (395 - 3525 feet) MSL.
Blooms March through July.
Status onsite: None. None. The Project site lacks suitable habitat and soils. Not observed during field surveys and focused narrow endemic plant surveys.
Several rare plant surveys were conducted during the blooming periods of the identified species above. No special status plant species were observed during the focused 2024 narrow endemic plant surveys and, and none are expected to occur onsite due to the lack of suitable habitat or suitable soil found on the Project site.
1811
SEC Archibald and Grapewin Project
Consistency Determination Page 21 January 2025
C. Section 6.1.4 Urban/Wildlands Interface
The Project site is not designated as an existing or proposed MSHCP Conservation Area or Core Linkage areas. However, the Project site is adjacent to the Santa Ana River, which is designated as a wildlife corridor known as Existing Core A within the MSHCP. MSHCP Existing Core A consists of Prado Basin and the Santa Ana River and functions as a linage, connecting Orange County to the west with San Bernardino County to the north. The Existing Core A is constrained on all sides by existing urban development and agricultural use, and planned land uses surrounding the Core exist largely of high impact land uses such as city and community development.
The Project site is composed of large spans of ruderal and disturbed habitat lacking suitable cover and resources that are typically associated with wildlife movement areas (i.e. water). Furthermore, the Project site is located at a substantially higher elevation than the Existing Core A of the MSHCP. The Project site currently includes several residential homes and fenced animal pens. Furthermore, north, west, and south of the Project is residential development and Vantage Point Church further restricting any regional movement. Therefore, the Project site is not used as a wildlife corridor, linkage, or specific travel route to and from nursery sites other important resources.
However, indirect impacts may occur due to the adjacency to the Existing Core A.
D. Section 6.3.2 -- Species Survey Requirements
Per the MSHCP BUOW Survey Instructions, a Habitat Assessment was conducted on March 28, 2024 to determine any suitable BUOW habitat onsite.
Burrows were observed onsite along the fence line as well as debris piles.
Following the habitat assessment, additional focused surveys took place on June 11, June 25, July 16 and August 8, 2024 as identified within January 2025 Biological Resource Assessment. The surveys were conducted during typical BUOW peak activity time and was not conducted during rain, high winds (> 20 miles per hour), dense cloud cover >75%, or extreme temperatures.
No BUOWs or evidence of BUOWs were observed on site within the Study Area during the focused surveys. A majority of the Project site is characterized by vegetated ruderal and disturbed/developed habitats and contains suitably sized burrows and satellite burrows to provide suitable nesting habitat for BUOW. Much of the buffer area is developed or is consists of the Santa Ana River. California ground squirrels and their burrows were observed within the 1812
SEC Archibald and Grapewin Project
Consistency Determination Page 22 January 2025
Study Area. These burrows were actively utilized by the California ground squirrels and contained no BUOW or keys signs (sight, whitewash, burrows, bones, feathers, pellets, nests, and calls). Therefore, based on the focused surveys it is determined the Project site is not occupied by BUOW. The Project is considered consistent with MSHCP Guidelines. Additional information can be found in the Biological Report.
VII. DESCRIPTION OF AVOIDANCE, MITIGATION MEASURES AND CONSISTENCY The Project site is not located within any MSHCP Criteria Areas, Cell Groups, or Subunits. Furthermore, the Project site is not located in survey areas for Amphibians, Mammals, or Special Linkage areas. The Project site is subject to Riparian and Riverine Areas pursuant to MSHCP Section 6.1.2, Narrow Endemic Plants pursuant to MSHCP Section 6.1.3, Urban/Wildlands Interface Guidelines pursuant to MSHCP Section 6.1.4, and Western Burrowing Owl overlay pursuant to MSHCP Section 6.3.2.
No MSHCP Riparian/Riverine features occur onsite. The Santa Ana River occurs to the east of the Project site within the 500-foot buffer that meet the definition of riparian and/or riverine as outline within the MSHCP Section 6.1.2. The Project site does not contain suitable habitat for any of the riparian/riverine vernal pool species listed in Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP, including listed fairy shrimp. No impacts to those species listed in Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP are associated with Project implementation due to the lack of suitable habitat onsite. Specifically, the Project site lacks suitable soils, sign of inundation (seasonal depression, soil cracking, etc.) and/or characteristic vernal pool plant species, no suitable habitat for fairy shrimp is present onsite. The Project site is dominated by well drained substrates and focused surveys for fairy shrimp are not warranted.
No impacts are anticipated to occur to the offsite drainage due to Project implementation. Therefore, no mitigation is required, and no Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation (DBESP) is required. Therefore, the Project is consistent with the goals and objectives within MSHCP Section
6.1.2. However, during construction of the Project, indirect short-term noise impacts could temporarily affect Section 6.1.2 species heard and identified to occur within the Santa Ana River during breeding season, including the yellowbreasted chat and yellow warbler, both of which were heard within the Santa 1813
SEC Archibald and Grapewin Project
Consistency Determination Page 23 January 2025
Ana River during the biological field surveys. As outlined within January 2025 Biological Resource Assessment Mitigation Measure Bio – 3 (MM BIO-3) is proposed to ensure that activities affecting potential nesting habitat are restricted to periods outside of the avian breeding season or, where activities must occur, pre-activity surveys and avoidance measures are implemented.
MM BIO-3 Prior to ground disturbances that would impact potentially suitable nesting habitat for avian species, the Project Applicant shall adhere to the following:
1. Vegetation removal activities shall be scheduled outside the nesting season (September 1 to February 14 for songbirds; September 1 to January 14 for raptors) to the extent feasible to avoid potential impacts to nesting birds and/or ground nesters.
2. Any construction activities that occur during typical nesting season (February 15 to August 31 for songbirds; January 15 to August 31 for raptors) will require that all suitable habitat, on-site and within 300-feet surrounding the site (as feasible), be thoroughly surveyed for the presence of nesting birds by a qualified biologist before commencement ground disturbances.
If active nests are identified, the biologist would establish buffers around the vegetation (500 feet for raptors and sensitive species, 200 feet for non-raptors/non-sensitive species). All work within these buffers would be halted until the nesting effort is finished (i.e. the juveniles are surviving independent from the nest). The onsite biologist would review and verify compliance with these nesting boundaries and would verify the nesting effort has finished. Work can resume within these areas when no other active nests are found. Alternatively, a qualified biologist may determine that construction can be permitted within the buffer areas and would develop a monitoring plan to prevent any impacts while the nest continues to be active (eggs, chicks, etc.). Upon completion of the survey and any follow-up
construction avoidance management, a report shall be prepared and submitted to City for mitigation monitoring compliance record keeping.
1814
SEC Archibald and Grapewin Project
Consistency Determination Page 24 January 2025
Portions of the Project site are located within the Narrow Endemic Plant Species Survey Areas (NEPSSA) Number 7, which include the following target species:
• San Diego ambrosia
• Brand's phacelia
• San Miguel savory
No special status plant species were observed during the 2024 focused surveys and none are expected to occur onsite due to the lack of suitable habitat or suitable soil found on the Project site; therefore, there are no potential impacts to special status plants due to Project implementation and no mitigation required. Therefore, the Project is consistent with the goals and objectives within MSHCP Section 6.1.3.
Indirect Project impacts by themselves would not be expected to interfere with the wildlands interface within the region; however, the due to the Santa Ana River being designated as the Existing Core A, the following Urban/Wildland Interface Guidelines will be implemented through the participation in the MSHCP and implemented through the Conditions of Approval. No direct impacts are proposed within the Existing Core A.
Water Quality/Hydrology
The Project will comply with all applicable water quality regulations and Best Management Practices as part of prepared Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) and Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) prepared for the Project and required by Conditions of Approval.
Toxics
Toxic sources within the Project Site would be limited to those commonly associated with landscape activities such as pesticides, insecticides, herbicides, and fertilizers. The Project will comply with all applicable water quality regulations to ensure adequate long-term treatment.
Lighting
Night lighting associated with the proposed Project site improvements that are adjacent to the Santa Ana River and Existing Core A would be directed away to reduce potential indirect impacts to wildlife species.
1815
SEC Archibald and Grapewin Project
Consistency Determination Page 25 January 2025
Noise
The Project site impacts are limited to the western portion of the site, which is adjacent to Archibald Street therefore, already subject to ambient roadway noise. Short-term construction related noise impacts will be reduced by the implementation of the following as implemented within the Conditions of Approval:
• During all Project Site excavation and construction on-site, the construction contractors shall equip all construction equipment, fixed or mobile, with properly operating and maintained mufflers, consistent with manufacturers’ standards. The construction contractor shall place all stationary construction equipment so that emitted noise is directed away from sensitive receptors nearest the Project site, which includes the Santa Ana River. • The construction contractor shall locate equipment staging in areas that will create the greatest distance between construction-related noise sources and noise sensitive receptors nearest the Project site during all project construction. • The construction contractor shall limit all construction-related activities that would result in high noise levels according to the construction hours.
Invasive Species
As part of Project design, the landscape plans do not utilize any invasive species adjacent to the Santa Ana River/Existing Core A.
Implementation of the aforementioned guidelines will minimize Project indirect impacts to a less than significant level and would be consistent with the goals and objectives within MSHCP Section 6.1.4.
Furthermore, based on the Habitat Assessment and focused burrowing owl surveys it is determined the Project site is not occupied by BUOW. No BUOWs or evidence of BUOWs were observed within the Project site during the focused surveys. A majority of the Project site was characterized by ruderal fields, which may provide suitable nesting habitat for BUOW but lack proper vegetation cover for the species. Much of the buffer area is developed. California ground squirrels and their burrows were observed within the Study Area. These burrows were actively utilized by the California ground squirrels and contained no BUOW or keys signs (sight, whitewash, burrows, bones, feathers, pellets, nests, and calls).
Due to the negative results of the focused surveys and with the City’s participation in the MSHCP, a BUOW pre-construction survey outlined within the January 2025 Biological Resource Assessment Mitigation Measure BIO-4 1816
SEC Archibald and Grapewin Project
Consistency Determination Page 26 January 2025
(MM BIO-4) will be required to ensure protection for this species and compliance with the conservation goals as outlined within the MSHCP.
MM BIO-4: Prior to impacts, a pre-construction survey for burrowing owl within the Study Area (Project site and surrounding 500-foot buffer) shall be conducted by a qualified biologist where suitable habitat is present within 30 days to the commencement of ground disturbing activities.
If active burrowing owl burrows are detected during the breeding season, all work within 300 feet of any active burrow will be halted until that nesting effort is finished. The on-site biologist will review and verify compliance with these boundaries and will verify the nesting effort has finished. Work can resume when no other active burrowing owl nesting efforts are observed.
If active burrowing owl burrows are detected outside the breeding season, then passive and/or active relocation pursuant to a Burrowing Owl Exclusion Plan that shall be prepared by the Applicant and approved by the County of Riverside Environmental Programs Department (EPD) in consultation with CDFW. The Burrowing Owl Exclusion Plan shall be prepared in accordance with guidelines in the CDFW Staff Report on Burrowing Owl (March 2012) and MSHCP.
Burrowing owl burrows shall be excavated with hand tools by a qualified biologist when determined to be unoccupied and backfilled to ensure that animals do not reenter the holes/dens.
Therefore, with the implementation of the Mitigation Measure the Project is consistent with the goals and objectives within MSHCP Section 6.3.2.
Since the Project is located within the MSHCP, Best Management Practices (MSHCP Volume I, Appendix C ) will be implemented as part of Project Design features in order to be consistent with the MSHCP.
1817
SEC Archibald and Grapewin Project
Consistency Determination Page 27 January 2025
VIII. CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attachments present the 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
Signature: _____________________________________________ Date: 01/31/2025 IX. LIST OF PREPARERS
This report was prepared by Carlson Strategic Land Solutions:
- Peter Carlson, President
- Brianna Bernard, Project Manager and Biologist
1818
SEC Archibald and Grapewin Project
Consistency Determination Page 28 January 2025
X. REFERENCES
American Ornithologists’ Union (AOU). 1998. Checklist of North American Birds, Seventh Edition. American Orinthologists’ Union, Washington, D.C. Accessed using the AOU website at
http://www.aou.org/checklist/north/
California Department of Fish and Game. 2024. Complete List of Amphibian, Reptile, Bird, and Mammal Species in California. State of California Resources Agency. Sacramento, California.
California Native Plant Society. 2001. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California. (Sixth Edition). Rare Plant Advisory Committee, David P.
Tibor, Convening Editor, California Native Plant Society. Sacramento, California, 388 pp.
California Native Plant Society. 2024. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California. Accessible online at http://cnps.web.aplus.net/cgibin/inv/inventory.cgi Carlson Strategic Land Solutions. January 2025. Biological Resource Assessment for the SEC Archibald and Grapewin Project.
Collins, Joseph T. and Travis W. Taggart. 2009. Standard Common and Current Scientific Names for North American Amphibians, Turtles, Reptiles, and Crocodilians. Sixth Edition. Publication of The Center For North American Herpetology, Lawrence. iv +44p.
Haug, E.A., B.A. Millsap, and M.S. Martell. 1993. Burrowing Owl (Speotyto cunicularia). In The Birds of North America, No. 130 (A. Poole and F. Gill, Eds.) Philadelphia: The Academy of Natural Sciences; Washington, D.C.:
The American Ornithologists’ Union.
Hickman, J.C., Ed. 1993. The Jepson Manual: Higher Plants of California.
University of California Press. 1,400 pp.
Munz, P.A. 1974. A Flora of Southern California. University of California Press. 1,086 pp. Nelson, J. 1984. Rare plant survey guidelines. In: Inventory of 1819
SEC Archibald and Grapewin Project
Consistency Determination Page 29 January 2025
rare and endangered vascular plants of Californa. J. Smith and R. York (eds). Special Publication No. 1. California Native Plant Society.
Roberts, F.M., S.D. White, A.C. Sanders, D.E. Bramlet, and S. Boyd. 2004. The Vascular Plants of Western Riverside County, California, An Annotated Checklist. F.M. Roberts Publications. 192 pp.
Sawyer, J.O., T. Keeler-Wolf, and J.M. Evens. 2009. A Manual of California Vegetation, Second Edition. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, CA. 1300 pp.
1820
PLN24-20053 – Warmington Residential
City of Eastvale
APPENDIX C
PHASE I CULTURAL RESOURCES
ASSESSMENT AND BUILT
ENVIRONMENT EVALUATION
1821
VCS Environmental | 30900 Rancho Viejo Road. Suite 100. San Juan Capistrano. California 92675 | W 949.489.2700 F 949.218.2442 | vcsenvironmental.com November 19, 2024 (Revised January 30, 2025)
Greg Ocasek
Warmington Residential - Southern California Division
3090 Pullman Street
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Subject: Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment and Built Environment Evaluation, Eastvale Grapewin. Archaeological and Paleontological Records Searches, NAHC Sacred Land File Search, Built Environment Evaluation Memorandum Dear Mr. Ocasek:
This Memorandum summarizes Archaeological and Paleontological records searches, an NAHC Sacred Lands File search, a pedestrian survey, and a built environment evaluation for the Eastvale Grapewin Project in the City of Eastvale, Riverside County, California.
As shown in Figure 1 below, the proposed Project site is located in Section 2 of Township 3 South, Range 7 West on the USGS Corona North, CA 7.5’ Quadrangle Map. Figure 2 is an aerial depicting the Project site.
Cultural Resources Records Search
A California Historic Resources Information System (CHRIS) record search was requested of the South Coastal Information Center (SCIC) at San Diego State University on September 4, 2024 (Attachment A). Prior to the request, we learned that the Eastern Information Center (EIC) at the University of California, Riverside had recently closed permanently and that both Universities and the State Office of Historic Preservation (OHP) are working collaboratively to ensure that the records are transferred as efficiently and quickly as possible to the SCIC.
We received the following statement from Jaime Lennox at the SCIC on September 20, 2024. This statement is what the SCIC is currently sending to those requesting records searches:
The SCIC is taking on the Riverside County portion of the EIC's archive. At this time, we are able to offer PDF copies of Riverside reports and resource records as well as database output.
WE DO NOT HAVE ACCESS TO RIVERSIDE MAPS and there is no GIS data available.
Maps will only be available once we receive the full Riverside archive. We do not know when we'll be receiving Riverside County materials but once received, we will 1822
November 19, 2024 (Revised January 20, 2025)