Menifee City Council
December 6, 2023

4.18.5SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION
Less than significant.

TTM NO. 31194 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 4-168

4.19 WATER AND WASTEWATER SERVICES
Hunsaker and Associates, Inc. prepared individual reports (dated September 18, 2002 and September 19, 2002 respectively) for the water and sewer systems associated with TTM No. 31194 and an adjacent tract map. Copies of these reports are contained in Appendix J. Information in this section is based on these reports, as well as the Eastern Municipal Water District 2000 Urban Water Management Plan and the Water Supply Assessment for Tentative Tract Map No. 31194 contained in Appendix J3 to this EIR.

4.19.1EXISTING CONDITIONS

4.19.2WATER SERVICE
TTM No.31194 lies within the service area of Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD). EMWD’s 2000 Urban Water Management Plan includes a water system analysis, identifies improvements to correct existing deficiencies and serve future growth, and presents the estimated costs and phasing of the recommended improvements. The Urban Water Management Plan, dated December 31, 2000, is herein incorporated by reference and is available for public review at EMWD, 2270 Trumble Road, Perris, CA 92572. The report also is available on-line at http://www.emwd.org.

EMWD is a member agency of the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD) and, as shown in Table 4-26, utilizes a variety of water supplies. Current water supplies include imported water purchased from the MWD, locally produced groundwater, and recycled water produced by the District’s five (5) regional water reclamation facilities (RWRF’s). Planned water supplies include desalination of brackish groundwater and significant expansion of current recharge programs. These programs, in conjunction with continued expansion of the District’s water recycling program, are documented to provide a high degree of supply flexibility in meeting the growing demand for water in the service area.

Table 4-26: CURRENT AND PROJECTED WATER SUPPLIES (AF/YR) Year
Water Supply Sources 2005 2010 2015 2020
Imported (MWD) 69,539 74,748 80,970 91,846
Imported Seasonal Storage 5,392 11,463 14,771 18,166
Groundwater 16,003 16,280 17,280 17,280
Transfers(San Jacinto Soboba) 6,750 6,000 5,250 4,500
Recycled Water-Direct Use 30,000 35,000 37,000 39,000
Desalination 4,000 8,000 12,000 12,000
Total 131,684 151,491 167,271 182,792
Source: EMWD, 2000 Urban Water Management Plan; December 31, 2000 Provided below is a summary of EMWD’s water supply.
‰ Imported Water Supply. On average, 75 percent of the district’s imported water supplies will consist of State Water Project (SWP) water from Northern California and 25 percent will be delivered via the Colorado River Aqueduct. Currently, virtually all imported water TTM NO. 31194 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 4-169
purchased by the District is treated at two water filtration plants operated by the MWD; the Mills Filtration Plant serving the northern portion of the District, and the Skinner Filtration Plant serving the southern portions of the District. In addition to imported water, EMWD has developed a 3,000 AF/YR seasonal storage demonstration program. ‰ Groundwater Supply. In the year 2000, the District’s 24 production wells produced over 17,000 acre-feet of native groundwater for use by its customers. The majority of this supply is produced from groundwater subbasins in the Hemet/San Jacinto area and is used locally.

Slightly over 3,000 AF/YR is produced from the Perris and Perris South subbasins and is blended with imported water for use in the western portions of the District. ‰ Recycled Water. In the year 2000, EMWD sold over 17,000 acre-feet of treated wastewater.

Recycled water customers generally include agricultural irrigators, golf courses, municipal irrigators (schools, parks, and greenbelts), as well as major environmental customers such as the State of California Department of Fish and Game Service’s Operation of the San Jacinto Wildlife Area.

4.19.3WATER SYSTEM
Water supply to the project area is provided by the EMWD water system through the 1700 Zone water system. EMWD has indicated an 18-inch transmission main in Pressure Zone 1700 to the east of the proposed project site at Haun Road that would be available to service TTM No. 31194.

4.19.4WASTEWATER SERVICES
Wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal services in the TTM No. 31194 area are provided by Eastern Municipal Water District (EMWD). EMWD is responsible for all sanitary sewer and industrial wastewater collection and treatment within its service area. EMWD operates five regional water reclamation facilities, treating over 32 million gallons a day (MGD) of wastewater.

Wastewater flows are anticipated to increase to 56 MGD by the year 2020. The project area is served by the Hemet/San Jacinto Regional Water Reclamation Facility (RWRF). This facility is an 11 MGD activitated sludge plant with the following unit processes: screening, primary sedimentation, aeration, secondary sedimentation, anaerobic digestion, and chlorine disinfection. All treated wastewater is discharged into EMWD’s regional recycled water distribution system. The nearest existing sewer line is north of the proposed project site at Bradley Road. This sewer line would provide a connection point north of Holland Road for the proposed project site.

4.19.5BASIS FOR DETERMINING SIGNIFICANCE
The project would have a significant impact on water resources and/or wastewater treatment if it would:
a. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge.
b. Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities which would have physical environmental effects.

TTM NO. 31194 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 4-170
c. Have insufficient water supplies or insufficient wastewater treatment capacity to serve the project’s projected demand.
[Source: County Environmental Assessment Form No. 38942].

4.19.6IMPACT ANALYSIS

4.19.7WATER
The proposed water system (see Master Water Plan exhibit in Section 3.0 of this EIR) will be connected to the EMWD water system at the intersection of Garbani Road and Haun Road with an additional water main at the intersection of Wickerd Road and Haun Road. The proposed water system consists of mostly 8-inch diameter mains, with 18-inch diameter pipes in Craig Avenue and Garbani Road and a 12-inch water main at the intersection of Wickerd Road and Haun Road.

EMWD has indicated in the Water Supply Assessment for Tentative Tract Map No. 31194 (dated August 4, 2004) the ability to service the project with domestic water based on an estimated water demand of 352 acre-feet per year upon buildout.

The pressure available from the existing water system is adequate to provide residual pressures greater than 20 psi during 1,500 gpm fire flows as required by EMWD. The minimum residual pressure experienced for the worst-case fire flow was 30.2 psi for the Wickerd Road connection. The proposed water system provides greater than 40 psi for all lots during a peak hour domestic demand event. The minimum pressure experienced was 41.8 psi.

Table 4-27: SUMMARY OF DOMESTIC WATER DEMAND

LAND USE UNIT AVERAGE DAILY
DEMAND
TTM 31194 DEMAND
Medium Density
Residential
486 DU
101.3acres
540 gal/unit/day 262,440
Park 6.8 acres 1700gal/unit/day 11,560
Total 274,000
Source: Hunsaker & Associates, Inc. September 18, 2002

4.19.8WASTEWATER SERVICES
Sewer lines will be installed on and off-site to connect to an existing line in Bradley Road (see Master Sewer Plan exhibit in Section 3.0 of this EIR). Off-site connections will be installed to the north through TTM No. 30142 and in Evans Road, Carson Avenue, Murphy Lane, Holland Road, and through private property to a connection point at Bradley Road. Off-site sewer connections to the north are the responsibility of TTM No. 30142.

TTM No. 31194 would have a calculated average wastewater discharge of 178,605 gallons per day as indicated in Table 4-28, Summary of Estimated Wastewater Flow. This is based on an average daily flow of 367.5 gallons per day (gpd) per dwelling unit
TTM NO. 31194 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 4-171
Table 4-28: SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED WASTEWATER FLOWS
LAND USE DEV.

INTENSITY

GENERATION

RATE (GPD)

ESTIMATED FLOW (GPD)
Residential 486 DU 367.5 178,605
1 GPD = gallons per day
Source: Hunsaker and Associates, Inc. September 19, 2002.

4.19.9 MITIGATION MEASURES
The project would provide the necessary water and wastewater facilities necessary to serve the project. The project is required to be in compliance with the basin plan of the Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region. In addition, the project is required to obtain updated willserve letters from the EMWD before subdivision or use permit implementation. The project will also be conditioned to construct an on-site recycled water system and associated off-site recycled water facilities, which will provide a non-potable water source to the site for irrigating common landscaped areas, such as green-belts and open space areas. Therefore, the project would not result in any significant impacts to water or wastewater facilities, and no mitigation measures are required beyond the standard conditions imposed by the County of Riverside.

4.19.10 SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION
Significant impacts would not occur.

TTM NO. 31194 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 4-172

4.20 SCHOOLS
Information presented in this section is based upon information provided by the Menifee Union School District (MUSD) and the Perris Union High School District (PUHSD).

4.20.1EXISTING CONDITIONS
The proposed project site is located within the jurisdictional boundaries of the Perris Union High School District (PUHSD) and the Menifee Union School District (MUSD). Figure 4-32, School Facilities Location Map, shows the location of the project site in relation to existing schools which will serve students generated from TTM No. 31194. The three existing schools that will serve project-generated school students are Menifee Elementary School (K-5); Menifee Valley Middle School (6-8); and Paloma Valley High School (9-12). Menifee Elementary School is located at 26301 Garbani Road in Menifee, and Menifee Valley Middle School is located at 26255 Garbani Road in Menifee. Both of these schools are located less than one mile from the project site to the west. Paloma Valley High School is located at 31375 Bradley Road in Menifee, to the northeast of TTM No. 31194. The existing enrollment and capacity information for these schools is provided in Table 4-29, School Enrollment, Capacity, and Student Generation.

Currently, state law requires mitigation of school impacts by paying the state-mandated fee or in lieu of the statutory fee paying the Level II school fee authorized by Senate Bill 50 and Proposition 1A, providing a School District has made the necessary findings to justify the Level II fee. Mitigation agreements between the developer and the school districts can take the place of standard fee payment.

4.20.2BASIS FOR DETERMINING SIGNIFICANCE
For purposes of analysis, impacts to schools are considered significant if the proposed project would:
a. Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered school facilities in order to maintain acceptable levels of school services.
[Source: County Environmental Assessment Form No. 38942].

4.20.3IMPACT ANALYSIS
Implementation of the TTM No. 31194 project will result in the construction of a maximum of 486 single-family residential dwelling units. Residential development within TTM No.31194 would increase the demand on existing educational facilities and services by generating additional students to be served by the MUSD and PUHSD. By applying student generation rates supplied by these school districts, implementation of TTM No. 31194 would generate approximately 187 elementary school students, 102 middle school students, and 122 high school students, as shown in Table 4-29, School Enrollment, Capacity and Student Generation.
4-173
Tentative Tract Map No. 31194
School Facilities Location Map

T&B PLANNING CONSULTANTS
17542 East 17th Street, Suite 100, Tustin, CA 92780
p 714.505.6360 f 714.505.6361
www.tbplanning.com not to scale
Fig. 4-32
TTM No. * 31194
Menifee Elementary
School (MUSD)
*
*
Mapleton Elementary
School (MUSD)
Menifee Middle
School (MUSD) *
Paloma Valley
High School (PUHSD) *
Proposed Elementary
School (MUSD)
*
Proposed High
School (PUHSD)
LEGEND
* Existing Schools
Proposed Schools
*
TTM NO. 31194 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 4-174
Table 4-29: SCHOOL ENROLLMENT, CAPACITY, AND STUDENT GENERATION School Grades
Served
Existing
Enrollment Existing
Capacity
Student
Generation
Rate
Dwelling
Units
No. of
students
Menifee Union School District (MUSD)
Menifee
Elementary
K-5 756 756 0.3848 486 187
Menifee
Valley
Middle
6-8 1,067 1,100 0.2089 486 102
MUSD Subtotal 289
Perris Union High School District (PUHSD)
Perris
Union High
9-12 2100 2300 .25 486 122
Total Number of Students Generated by TTM No. 31194 411 Sources: Bruce Shaw, MUSD (August 6 and September 24, 2003), and Emmanuelle Reynolds, PUHSD (September 23, 2003).

According to enrollment numbers supplied by MUSD and PUHSD, the TTM No. 31194 project would generate students in excess of available capacity at the elementary and middle school levels.

Elementary school students would attend Menifee Elementary School which is operating at capacity.

Middle school students would attend Menifee Valley Middle School, which is operating at 33 students below capacity.

Two new elementary schools and one new high school are also planned in the project vicinity.

Currently, the MUSD and PUHSD are relieving overcrowding through the use of portable classrooms on existing school campuses. Implementation of TTM No. 31194 would place additional demand on public education facilities. The addition of 187 elementary school students and 102 middle school students to existing schools operating over capacity would be regarded as a significant cumulative impact. The addition of 122 students to Paloma Valley High School would not result in enrollment over the school’s recommended capacity, but would nonetheless be regarded as a significant cumulative impact as urbanization continues in the district boundaries.

4.20.4MITIGATION MEASURES

4.20-1: Prior to the issuance of each residential building permit(s), school fees shall be paid in accordance with the requirements of the State of California (Senate Bill 50) or the applicant shall enter into a mitigation agreement with the Menifee Unified School District and the Perris Union High School District.

4.20.5SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION
Less than significant.

TTM NO. 31194 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 4-175

4.21 LIBRARIES

4.21.1EXISTING CONDITIONS
The TTM No. 31194 project site is located within the Riverside County Public Library service area.

The nearest libraries servicing the proposed project site are the Canyon Lake Library, located approximately 8.0 miles to the northwest at 31516 Railroad Canyon Road, and the Paloma Valley Library, located approximately 2.0 miles north at 31375 Bradley Road. Figure 4-33, Public Services Map, depicts the locations of these facilities. Additional public libraries include the Sun City Branch Library, located approximately 6.0 miles to the northeast at 26982 Cherry Hills Boulevard, and the Murrieta Branch Library located approximately 7.0 miles to the southeast at 39589 Los Alamos in the City of Murrieta.

The Canyon Lake Library consists of approximately 1,800 square feet of usable library space. The Library currently maintains approximately 18,500 items.

The Paloma Valley Library consists of 5,000 square feet of usable library space. The Library currently maintains approximately 10,900 items, with a capacity of up to approximately 18,000 items.

The Sun City Branch Library consists of 6,700 square feet of usable library space. The library provides two computers with internet access and basic library services that incorporates 68,224 titles.

The County of Riverside uses a standard of 0.5 square foot of library space per capita. The County of Riverside has adopted a minimum titles-per-capita of 1.2. The Development Mitigation Fee, as outlined in the County of Riverside Comprehensive Mitigation Fee Review, establishes a mitigation fee for each new residential unit to offset the cost of construction of new public facilities, including library facilities.

4.21.2BASIS FOR DETERMINING SIGNIFICANCE
Library impacts would be considered significant if the proposed project would:
a. Increase the demand for library services in the region, resulting in the need to construct or expand library facilities which would result in physical environmental effects.
[Source: County Environmental Assessment Form No. 38942].

4.21.3IMPACT ANALYSIS
Development of the proposed project would increase the region’s population, creating an additional demand for library facilities and services. Using a population generation factor of 3.01 persons/dwelling unit (County Ordinance No. 460, Section 10.35), the proposed project would generate 1,463 residents (486 homes x 3.01). Although use of the internet has resulted in less demand being placed on library services nation-wide, the County continues to maintain its standards for book titles and library square footage. To attain the County’s minimum level of service standard of 1.2 titles-per-capita, the project-generated population would require an additional 1,756 book titles. To attain the County of Riverside standard of 0.5 square foot of library space per capita, the 4-176
Tentative Tract Map No. 31194
Public Services Map

T&B PLANNING CONSULTANTS
17542 East 17th Street, Suite 100, Tustin, CA 92780
p 714.505.6360 f 714.505.6361
www.tbplanning.com not to scale
Fig. 4-33
TTM No.

L 31194
L
+
L
L
+
L Libraries
+ Hospitals
TTM 31194
LEGEND

HOSPITAL LOCATIONS
Menifee Valley Medical Center
28400 McCall Boulevard
Sun City, CA 92585
(909)679-8888

LIBRARY LOCATIONS
Canyon Lake
31508 Railroad Canyon Road
Canyon Lake, CA 92587
(909)244-9181
Sun City
26982 Cherry Hills Boulevard
Sun City, CA 92586
(909)679-3534
Paloma Valley
31375 Bradley Road
Paloma Valley, CA 92584
(909)301-3682
Murrieta
39589 Los Alamos Road
Murrieta, CA 92563
(909)600-2665
Rancho Springs Medical Center
25500 Medical Center Drive
Murrieta, CA 92562
(909)696-6000
TTM NO. 31194 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 4-177
project would create the demand for 732 square feet of additional library space. The Riverside County Public Library has determined that no additional facilities are required at this time.

The proposed project would cumulatively affect existing libraries. The increase in population to be served would require an increase in funding to the Riverside County Public Library to maintain the current level of service. This is regarded as a cumulatively significant impact.

4.21.4MITIGATION MEASURES
Cumulative impacts to library services resulting from project implementation would be reduced to below a level of significance by application of the following mitigation measure:

4.21-1: Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits, the applicant shall comply with the provisions of the County Development Impact Fee (DIF) Ordinance (Ord. No. 659), which requires a fee payment that the County applies to the funding of public facilities, including library facilities.

4.21.5SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION
Less than significant.

TTM NO. 31194 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 4-178

4.22 HEALTH CARE SERVICES

4.22.1EXISTING CONDITIONS
The proposed project site lies within the service parameters of several health care facilities. The nearest facility to the project area is the Menifee Valley Medical Center located approximately 8.4 miles north at 28400 McCall Boulevard in the City of Sun City. Rancho Springs Medical Center is located approximately 8.4 miles north of the project site at 25500 Medical Center Drive in the City of Murrieta. Additionally, Mission Valley Hospital is located at 21220 Walnut Street in the City of Lake Elsinore, approximately 13.3 miles west of the project site. Figure 4-26, Public Services Map, depicts the location of the project site in relation to the surrounding primary health care facilities.

4.22.2BASIS FOR DETERMINING SIGNIFICANCE
Impacts to health services are considered significant if implementation of the project would create the need to construct new or physically altered health facilities that would result in adverse physical changes in the environment.
[Source: County Environmental Assessment Form No. 38942].

4.22.3IMPACT ANALYSIS
Adverse impacts to health services are not anticipated as a result of implementation of TTM No. 31194. The increase in population of 1,463 people by the proposed project (County Ordinance No. 460, Section 10.35) will generate an increase demand for in medical services, therefore, resulting in a significant cumulative impact to health care services. Health care is a regional issue, which generally responds to the current demand.

4.22.4MITIGATION MEASURES

4.22-1: Prior to the issuance of occupancy permits, the applicant shall comply with the provisions of the County Development Impact Fee (DIF) Ordinance (Ord. No. 659), which requires a fee payment that the County applies to the funding of public facilities, including public health facilities.

4.22.5SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION
Less than significant.

TTM NO. 31194 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 4-179

4.23 ENERGY RESOURCES

4.23.1EXISTING CONDITIONS
The TTM No. 31194 project proposes to utilize electricity and natural gas as the dominant sources of energy for heating and cooling proposed structures, running appliances, lighting, lighted signs, and operating machinery. Electricity would be provided by Southern California Edison Company, while Southern California Gas Company would provide natural gas service to the proposed project. These companies produce booklets, pamphlets, and programs that are available to the public which promote simple home energy saving techniques, as well as information relative to building infrastructure that is available to contractors.

Energy and the natural resources that produce it are not recoverable once they are consumed.

Renewable energy sources are limited primarily to solar energy for heating (both water and air) and wind for power generation. Hydroelectric power is not available in western Riverside County.

Gasoline is also an increasingly important issue in California. As the fossil fuel (primary source) supply depletes, other sources will be required to fuel transportation vehicles. Starting in 1998, California State Law required that two percent of the passenger cars and light duty trucks offered for sale in California must be Zero Emission Vehicles (ZEVs). This percentage increased to five percent in 2001 and ten percent in 2003. The emission-free vehicles will reduce dependence on gasoline and increase consumption of electricity and other non-polluting energy sources and fuels. Some vehicles may incorporate solar cells to supplement other energy sources such as electricity which would be dependent on these energy sources.

4.23.2BASIS FOR DETERMINING SIGNIFICANCE
Energy impacts are considered significant if the project would require or result in the construction of new gas or electric facilities, the construction of which would cause significant environmental effects. [Source: Riverside County Environmental Assessment Form No. 38942].

4.23.3IMPACT ANALYSIS
Implementation of the TTM No. 31194 would result in the conversion of the subject site from agricultural and vacant land uses to a residential community. This transition would increase the demand upon existing sources of energy. Specifically, the proposed project would increase consumption of energy for motor vehicle movement, space and water heating, lighting, cooking, refrigeration and air conditioning, operation of construction equipment, use of miscellaneous home appliances, and energy required to produce the construction materials and all other material aspects of the proposed project.

The proposed project would not be regarded as an energy intensive land use. Energy resources would be consumed by construction activities and throughout the lifetime of the project. Energy consumption levels would not be expected to exceed typical requirements for similar urban development, and service providers have indicated an ability to serve the project without significantly affecting the provision of energy resources.

TTM NO. 31194 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 4-180
As discussed in Section 4.24, Utilities, on-site natural gas demand for the TTM No. 31194 is estimated at 38,870,280 therms per year, based on 79,980 therms per year per dwelling unit. On-site electricity for the proposed project is estimated at 2,956,824 kilowatt-hours per year (kWh/yr) based on 6,081 kWh/yr per dwelling unit. The proposed project would consume energy and have an impact on available energy resources. Due to long range planning by energy purveyors, the demands related to the project can be accommodated and impacts are not significant.

4.23.4MITIGATION MEASURES
Impacts would not be significant; thus mitigation is not required. As a standard condition of approval, the project would be required to comply with Title 20 and 24 of the California Code of Regulations. Title 24, California Code of Regulations Section 2-5307(b) is the California Energy Conservation Standard for New Buildings which prohibits the installation of fixtures unless the manufacturer has certified to the California Energy Commission (CEC) compliance with the flow rate standards. Title 24, California Code of Regulations Sections 2-5452(i) and (j) address pipe installation requirements which can reduce water used before hot water reaches equipment or fixtures. Title 20, California Code of Regulations Sections 1604(f) and 1606(b) are Appliance Efficiency Standards that set the maximum flow rate of all plumbing fixtures and prohibit the sale of non-conforming fixtures. The project would also be required to adhere to State codes regarding energy conservation.

4.23.5SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION
Significant impacts would not occur.

TTM NO. 31194 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 4-181

4.24 UTILITIES

4.24.1EXISTING CONDITIONS
The proposed project is within the service boundaries of Edison International (Southern California Edison Company) for electricity and natural gas, Verizon Communications for telephone services, and Media Communications for cable television services. The project site primarily consists of undeveloped land and agricultural uses. One residence was located on the site, and several utility poles associated with the residence and agricultural uses are located on the site. The residence is planned to be removed from the property pending approval of a demolition permit from the County of Riverside. In its existing state, a very low demand for utility service is generated by uses on the property.

4.24.2BASIS FOR DETERMINING SIGNIFICANCE
The proposed project would have a significant impact on utilities if the project would:
a. Result in the need for a new utility system or substantial alteration of an existing utility system which would result in physical environmental effects. b. Not be adequately serviced by utilities.
[Source: County Environmental Assessment Form No. 38942 and Riverside County General Plan].

4.24.3IMPACT ANALYSIS
A. ELECTRICITY
The proposed TTM No. 31194 project would create a demand for electricity and would require the extension of electrical facilities to serve project development. New electrical service would be provided by SCE, which would install the required electrical transmission lines.

Table 4-30, Estimated Project Electrical Demand, provides an estimate of electrical demand at project buildout based upon generation rates provided by SCE. As shown in Table 4-30, buildout of TTM No. 31194 is estimated to require approximately 2,955,366 kilowatt hours per year (kWh/yr).

SCE has determined that the proposed project would not adversely affect electrical service or demand. SCE has experienced recent electrical shortages; however, the shortages deal directly with economic factors related to utility deregulation and not due to inadequate power supplies. The State of California has aggressively pursued solutions to this short-term economic situation through Congressional action, applications for rulings to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, and gathering evidence for potential legal action against the wholesale providers for unfair business practices under the California Business and Professions Code. The State has also accelerated permitting for new generation facilities, stepped up a public awareness program, and entered into long-term supply contracts. The project would be required to implement all relevant energy conservation measures as outlined in Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations.

TTM NO. 31194 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 4-182
Table 4-30: ESTIMATED PROJECT ELECTRICAL DEMAND

LAND USE DEVELOPMENT

INTENSITY

GENERATION RATE
(KWH/YR)
1,3

DEMAND (KWH/YR)
1 Residential 486 Dwelling Units 6,081 kWh/yr 2,955,366 1 kWh.yr = kilowatt hour per year
3 The utility demand varies depending on building characteristics, such as size, layout, and construction materials.

B. NATURAL GAS
The proposed project would generate a demand for natural gas and would require the extension of natural gas lines into the project site. The primary use of natural gas by the project would be for combustion to produce space heating, water heating, and other miscellaneous heating and air conditioning uses.

Table 4-31, Estimated Natural Gas Consumption, provides an estimate of natural gas consumption for the project at buildout. Rates of consumption have been provided by SCG (Southern California Gas Company) and are expressed in units of cubic feet per year (c.f. /yr.). As shown in Table 4-30, the project is estimated to consume approximately 38,870,280 cubic feet per year of natural gas at build-out. SCG has indicated that the proposed project would not result in significant adverse natural gas facilities in the area.

Table 4-31: ESTIMATED NATURAL GAS CONSUMPTION

LAND USE DEVELOPMENT

INTENSITY

TYPICAL DEMAND
(C.F./YR)
1,3,4

CONSUMPTION
(C.F./YR)
1 Residential 486 dwelling units 79,980 38,870,280 1 c.f. /yr. = cubic feet per year 3 The utility demand varies depending on building, characteristics such as size, layout, and construction materials. 4 This is an average based on the total natural gas consumption in residential areas served by SCG, and it should not be implied that any particular home, apartment, or tract of homes would use this amount of natural gas.

C. TELEPHONE
Telephone service to the project site will be provided by Verizon communications, which has indicated that it has the ability to provide TTM No. 31194 with telephone service. Significant impacts associated with the provision of telephone service would not occur.

4.24.4MITIGATION MEASURES
Utility impacts would not be significant; therefore, mitigation is not required.

4.24.5SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION
Significant impacts to utilities would not occur.

TTM NO. 31194 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 4-183

4.25 DISASTER PREPAREDNESS

4.25.1EXISTING CONDITIONS
The County’s General Plan addresses natural occurrences, such as earthquakes, floods, and wildfires, as events which cannot be prevented. As urbanization takes place, people may settle in areas subject to natural hazards where the potential for risks to life and property may occur. The General Plan’s Safety Element addresses risks to life and property through assessment of settlement patterns and structural design. The Disaster Preparedness, Response, and Recovery portion of the General Plan identifies the agencies with differing responsibilities and their role in assuring preparedness in the event of a disaster, as well as recovery after a disaster has occurred. The Land Use Standards for Disaster Preparedness are contained in various sections of the General Plan, including the Fire Hazards, Seismic Hazards, Slope and Soil Instability Hazards, and Flood and Inundation Hazards sections of the Safety Element.

A. FIRE HAZARDS
The proposed project site is identified by the Sun City/Menifee Valley Area Plan Wildfire Susceptibility Map as a high fire hazard. The proposed project would be subject to the provisions of the Fire Hazards portion of the General Plan Safety Element. Applicable provisions of the Fire Hazards portion of the Safety Element would require the proposed project to comply with the minimum standards for fire safety as defined in the County Building or Fire Codes, by County zoning, or as dictated by the County Engineer.

B. SEISMIC HAZARDS
Seismicity of the project site, surrounding area and region is addressed in Section 4.7, Geology and Slope Stability, of this EIR. The TTM No. 31194 project site is located within a seismically active region primarily characterized by the Elsinore and San Jacinto. No active or potentially active faults are located within the project site and the site is not located within any designated California Fault Rupture Hazard Zone. Secondary hazards associated with seismic activity include ground shaking and rupture, liquefaction, seismically-induced settlement, and tsunamis and seiche potential. These secondary seismic hazards are discussed in EIR Section 4.7.

C. SLOPES AND SOIL INSTABILITY HAZARDS
As discussed in Section 4.7, Geology and Slope Stability, and Section 4.8, Soil, Slopes, and Erosion Potential, of this EIR, the central and southeastern portions of the TTM No. 31194 project site are relatively flat lying while the northern region is characterized by a combined vertical relief of roughly 262 feet between the highest and lowest elevation points on the property. The grading of TTM No. 31194 has been designed to be sensitive to natural landforms. The majority of the proposed grading and development will occur on the southwestern portion of the site, and would generally avoid the steeper landforms located in the northeastern portion of the site which are designated natural open space.

D. FLOODING AND INUNDATION HAZARDS
As discussed in EIR Section 4.5, Hydrology, Flooding, and Drainage, and according to the SCMVAP, the proposed project site is not subject to flood or dam inundation hazards.

TTM NO. 31194 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 4-184

4.25.2BASIS FOR DETERMINING SIGNIFICANCE
Disaster preparedness impacts are considered significant if the project would expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, erosion, seismic activity, or flooding. [Source: Riverside County Environmental Assessment Form No. 38942].

4.25.3IMPACT ANALYSIS
A. FIRE HAZARDS
The proposed project site is located within an identified high fire hazard area. However, upon project implementation the residential portions of the project site would be surrounded on three sides by paved roadways. As discussed in Section 4.16, Fire Services, implementation of the proposed project would trigger an upgrade of the project area in the Riverside County Fire Master Plan from a “Rural – Category III” level of service to an “Urban – Category II” level of service. This upgrade in the level of service requirements requires the provision of a fire station within three roadway miles of the project site, and a full first alarm assignment operating on the scene within 15 minutes of dispatch. Implementation of the mitigation measures listed in Section 4.16 would reduce these potential impacts to below a level of significance.

B. SEISMIC HAZARDS
Section 4.7, Geology and Slope Stability, of the EIR addresses potential risks associated with seismic hazards. No active or potentially active faults are located on the property; however, secondary hazards associated with seismic activity have the potential to affect the site. Although there are no active or potentially active faults located within the proposed project boundaries, a major earthquake in the Southern California area, including the nearby segments of the Elsinore and San Jacinto Faults, both of which are active, could cause moderate to severe ground shaking at the site. Construction of proposed structures in accordance with the Uniform Building Code (UBC) would ensure that potential ground shaking impacts will not result in a significant impact. Additional mitigation measures for potential seismic hazards are included in EIR Section 4.7, and implementation of the measures listed in Section 4.7 would reduce impacts to below a level of significance.

C. SLOPE AND SOIL INSTABILITY HAZARDS
Significant impacts associated with slopes would not occur. Soils located on the site are susceptible to erosion hazards and erosion control techniques would need to be implemented in order to minimize erosion potential during development of the site. Suitable erosion control techniques are discussed under “Mitigation Measures” presented in Section 4.8 of this EIR.

D. FLOOD AND INUNDATION HAZARDS
As discussed in Section 4.5, Hydrology, Flooding, and Drainage, and according to the SCMVAP, the proposed project site is not subject to flood or dam inundation hazards.

4.25.4MITIGATION MEASURES
No mitigation measures for disaster preparedness are required beyond those listed in Sections 4.7,

4.8, and 4.15 of this EIR.

TTM NO. 31194 4.0 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 4-185

4.25.5SIGNIFICANCE AFTER MITIGATION
Less than significant.

TTM NO. 31194 5.0 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 5-1

5.0 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS
Section 15130 of the State CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR include a discussion of the potential cumulative impacts of a proposed project when “...the incremental effect is cumulatively considerable...” According to CEQA Guidelines Section 15065(c), the term cumulatively considerable means “...that the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects...” Specifically, CEQA Guidelines Section 15355 defines cumulative impacts as follows:
“...two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts.

1. The individual effects may be changes resulting from a single project or a number of separate projects.

2. The cumulative impact from several projects is the change in the environment which results from the incremental impact of the project when added to other closely related past, present, and reasonable foreseeable probable future projects. Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant projects taking place over a period of time.”
When addressing cumulative impacts, Section 15130(b) of the CEQA Guidelines notes that the elements necessary to provide an adequate discussion of significant cumulative impacts encompass either:
“a) A list of past, present, and probable future projects producing related or cumulative impacts, including, if necessary, those projects outside the control of the agency, or b) A summary of projects contained in an adopted general plan or related planning document which has been adopted or certified, which described or evaluated regional or area-wide conditions contributing to the cumulative impact. Any such planning document shall be referenced and made available to the public at a location specified by the lead agency.”

5.1 DESCRIPTION OF CUMULATIVE PROJECTS
The cumulative baseline for this project includes existing land uses, projects presently under construction, and probable future projects that include approved projects, projects that have a pending application on-file, and future development as anticipated by Riverside County’s General Plan or other jurisdiction’s General Plan. The specific projects evaluated in this cumulative effects analysis are identified in Figure 5-1, Location of Cumulative Projects, and are listed below. In addition, buildout of the Sun City/Menifee Valley Area Plan (SCMVAP) is considered (see Figure 4- 1 in Section 4.1 of this EIR), as well as other long-range planning documents such as other Riverside County Area Plans and the General Plans of nearby jurisdictions.

Tentative Tract Map No. 31194
Location of Cumulative Projects

T&B PLANNING CONSULTANTS
17542 East 17th Street, Suite 100, Tustin, CA 92780
p 714.505.6360 f 714.505.6361
www.tbplanning.com
5-2
Fig. 5-1
Source: Eagle Aerial, May 2002
not to scale
194
282
208
209
140

PROJECT
SITE
TM 30064
TM 30554
TM 30142
TM 30902
TM 29636
PP 18014
LEGEND
SP # Specific Plan (SP) Name
140
194
208
209
282
Newport Estates
Countryside
Cal Neva
Audie Murphy Ranch
Canyon Cove
TM #
30064
30554
30142
30902
29636
PP #
18014
TTM NO. 31194 5.0 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 5-3
Newport Estates Specific Plan No. 140: SP No. 140 is approved for a maximum of 856 residential dwelling units, a commercial area, business park, schools, parks, and open space on 1,977 acres. Nine (9) tract maps have been approved, but no development has yet occurred.

Countryside Specific Plan No. 194: SP No. 194 is approved for a maximum of 1,154 residential dwelling units. No tract maps have been approved and the uses for SP 194 are not yet constructed.

Cal Neva Specific Plan No. 208: SP No. 208 is approved for a maximum of 1,670 residential dwelling units. The project is under construction and approximately 928 of the 1,670 dwelling units are currently built.

Audie Murphy Ranch Specific Plan No. 209: SP No. 209 is approved for a maximum 2,190 residential dwelling units, two schools, recreational amenities, and open space uses on 1,134 acres. No development has yet occurred within SP 209.

Canyon Cove Specific Plan No. 282: SP No. 282 is approved for a maximum of 485 residential dwelling units. No development has yet occurred within SP 282.

TTM 30064. TM 30064 is proposed for 185 single family residential homes.

TTM 30554. TM 30554 is proposed for 87 single family residential homes.

TTM 30142. TM 30142 is proposed for 524 single family residential homes.

TTM 30902. TM 30902 is proposed for 118 single family residential homes.

TTM 29636. TTM 29636 is proposed for 75 single family residential homes.

PP 18014. PP 18014 is proposed for warehouse uses on 9.14 acres.

5.2 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS IMPACT ANALYSIS

5.2.1 LAND USE CONSISTENCY
An analysis of the proposed project’s consistency with the Riverside County General Plan, SCMVAP, MSHCP, CETAP, and SCAQMD AQMP is provided in Section 4.1 of this EIR. As concluded in Section 4.1, the proposed project would not conflict with any applicable policy document. Further, the land uses proposed would be consistent with applicable land use designations on the site. In addition, the proposed project would not be incompatible with surrounding land uses.

Therefore, the project would not cumulative contribute to impacts related to policy document compliance.

Cumulative impacts associated with the conversion of agricultural land to suburban uses in the project vicinity and in western Riverside County as a whole was addressed on a regional basis by the County’s General Plan EIR (SCH No. 2002051143). That EIR concluded that agricultural land TTM NO. 31194 5.0 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 5-4
conversion of Prime, Unique and Statewide Important farmland is a significant and unmitigatable impact of General Plan implementation. Because the site does not contain Prime, Unique or State Important farmlands, the proposed project would not result in cumulative land use impacts associated with agricultural land conversion. The land use pattern of the site and surrounding area is transitioning from an agricultural/dairy character to that of an urbanized community; such land use transition is occurring in a planned manner in accordance with the land use direction of the County’s General Plan.

5.2.2 AESTHETICS, VISUAL ANALYSIS, LIGHT, AND GLARE
Implementation of the proposed project would alter the existing character of the proposed project by converting existing undeveloped and agricultural land to that of a single-family residential community with open space. Adherence to the Countywide Design Standards and Guidelines adopted on January 13, 2004, would ensure that the proposed development is aesthetically pleasing.

The Design Standards and Guidelines contain standards for site design, architecture, landscaping etc.

TTM No. 31194 is subject to Riverside County Ordinance No. 655, which regulates outdoor lighting within the Mt. Palomar Special Lighting District. Other projects located in the Special Lighting District also would be subject to outdoor lighting restrictions, reducing the potential for cumulatively significant light and glare impacts.

5.2.3 BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
TTM No. 31194 is not located with the MSHCP Criteria Area and thus is not designated for habitat preservation. As discussed in EIR Section 4.3, Biological Resources, burrowing owl was not observed on-site during field surveys; however, potential impacts may occur to burrowing owl due to its migratory nature and ability to locate onto the site from adjacent areas. Mitigation measures to reduce potential burrowing owl impacts to below a level of significance are contained in EIR Section

4.3. Mitigation will reduce the project’s direct and cumulative impact to the species.

The Western Riverside County MSHCP is a comprehensive, multi-jurisdictional Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) focusing on conservation of species and their associated habitats in Western Riverside County on a comprehensive, cumulative basis. Because the TTM No. 31194 property is not located within a MSHCP Criteria Area, the project does not have the potential to result in cumulatively significant impacts to wildlife movement and covered plant and wildlife species. Cumulative development in the regional area and surrounding vicinity is mostly resulting in the development of agricultural lands that have little or no natural habitat value. The proposed project as well as all other projects in the County’s MSHCP area are required to comply with Riverside County Ordinance No. 4.62.070 which requires payment of a MSHCP mitigation fee order to assist in providing revenue to acquire and conserve lands necessary to implement the MSHCP. In accordance with CEQA Guidelines §15130(a)(3), a project’s contribution is less than cumulatively considerable if the project is required to implement or fund its fair share of a mitigation measure designed to alleviate the cumulative impact.

5.2.4 ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES
As discussed in EIR Section 4.4, there are no historic or prehistoric sites identified on the proposed project site. However, archaeologically sensitive sites have been identified within the project vicinity and resources could be discovered on the site during project grading. Similarly, the possibility exists that paleontological resources could be uncovered during project grading. The potential discovery of TTM NO. 31194 5.0 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 5-5
buried archaeological or paleontological sensitive sites on the property during grading contributes to a potentially significant direct and cumulative impacts to archaeological and/or paleontological resources. Mitigation measures are provided in Section 4.4.4 and generally require implementation of monitoring and preservation programs during project grading. Implementation of the mitigation measures listed in Section 4.4.4 would reduce cumulative impacts to archaeological and paleontological resources to below a level of significance.

5.2.5 HYDROLOGY, FLOODING, AND DRAINAGE
The TTM No. 31194 project site is located in the San Jacinto River Watershed of the Santa Ana Basin. The project site is divided into two drainage areas. The rational method procedure as outlined in the Riverside County Hydrology Manual was used to calculate peak storm runoff from the 100- year storm events. Flow rates produced from the developed condition would be less than the existing level.

Mitigation measures are provided in EIR Section 4.5.4, and would require measures to ensure that the post-developed condition runoff does not negatively impact downstream properties. Other projects considered in the cumulative analysis area are likewise required to comply with RWQCB requirements to reduce their potential hydrology and flooding impacts to below a cumulatively considerable level. Therefore, the project would not contribute significantly to cumulative impacts associated with hydrology, flooding and drainage.

5.2.6 WATER QUALITY
The TTM No. 31194 project area is located within the purview of the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board. Implementation of the proposed project would include grading operations that would result in potential short-term erosion and sedimentation impacts. Implementation of the proposed project also would permanently alter the composition of the surface runoff by grading the site surfaces, by construction of impervious streets and roofs, and by irrigation of landscaped areas.

This runoff, typical of urban use, would contribute to the incremental degradation of the water quality downstream. This would be regarded as a potentially significant cumulative water quality impact. The project is required to comply with the water quality requirements of the RWQCB and other projects in the cumulative analysis area are likewise required to comply with RWQCB water quality requirements to reduce their potential water quality impacts to below a cumulatively considerable level. A Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) has been prepared for the project, and in accordance with the Santa Ana RWQBB adopted Order No. R8-2002-0011/NPDES Permit No. CAS 618033, development projects submitted for review after January 1, 2005, are required to prepare and implement a project specific WQMP.

With application of the mitigation measures provided in Section 4.6.4, in conjunction with the incorporation of water quality features into the project design, cumulative impacts to water quality would be reduced to below a level of significance.

5.2.7 GEOLOGY AND SLOPE STABILITY
There are three geologic layers present at the site, namely soil/colluvium, weathered bedrock, and unweathered bedrock of both basic and granitic composition. Subsurface materials within the site consist of two geologic units consisting of Quaternary Alluvium (Qal) and Cretaceous-Aged Undifferentiated Granitic Bedrock (Kgr). Landslides, soil failures, or other indications of natural or TTM NO. 31194 5.0 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 5-6
engineered slope stability are not known to exist, nor were they observed at the site or nearby properties. There are no known active faults crossing the proposed project site. Based on the existing topography of the site, implementation of the proposed project would result in the creation of cut and fill slopes.

A majority of the site’s steep natural slopes would be preserved as open space in the northeast portion of the property. The geotechnical studies included as Appendices H1 and H2 to this EIR conclude that the project site is suitable for development from a geotechnical viewpoint. Identified impacts are site-specific and because of the nature of the geology, these impacts would not combine with incremental impacts of related projects to become cumulatively considerable. The mitigation measures provided in Section 4.7.4 would reduce direct and cumulative impacts to seismic safety and geologic impacts to below a level of significance.

5.2.8 SOILS, SLOPES AND EROSION POTENTIAL
As discussed in EIR Section 4.8, implementation of the proposed project would slightly alter the existing topographic character of the proposed project site. Although alterations to the natural landform would occur, the majority of the natural landforms on the site are located within the open space portions of the site and would be preserved. Because steep slopes would not be significantly impacted by project development, the project would not combine with related projects to result in a cumulative impact to slopes. Project grading and grading of related projects in the County jurisdiction will conform to the County of Riverside grading standards. Grading activities on the site and on related projects have the potential to increase the rate of runoff and increase erosion susceptibility which is regarded as a potentially significant short-term impact. Erosion control techniques will be implemented as part of the required Storm Water Pollution and Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that will incorporate Best Management Practices (BMPs) during construction for the project and for related projects. With adherence to the SWPPP, the potential for erosion and transport of material within the proposed project boundaries and off-site would be reduced on a direct and cumulative level to below a level of significance.

5.2.9 AGRICULTURAL RESOURCES
Because the TTM No. 31194 project site is located within 300 feet of agriculturally zoned property, a potentially significant impact to adjacent agricultural lands may occur, requiring mitigation in the form of compliance with County Ordinance No. 625. Mitigation measure 4.9-1 would ensure project compliance with Ordinance No. 625. All other development projects in the area including the related projects located in unicorporated Riverside County evaluated are required to comply with Ordinance No. 625.

Approximately 54.2% of the soils on the project site are rated by the U.S. Department of Agriculture as having limitations for crop production (i.e., Storie Index Rating 3, 4, 5, or 6). Agricultural crops grown on the site have primarily consisted of dryland crops, such as wheat and barley.

Diminishment of Menifee Agricultural Preserve No. 4, Map No. 902 was adopted by Resolution No. 2003-534 on December 1, 2003.

Approximately 164.7 acres of the 204.7-acre TTM No. 31194 project site are designated as Locally Important farmland. The loss of mapped Locally Important farmland is not regarded as significant.

No areas of the site are designated as Prime, Unique, or Statewide Important Farmland. Loss of land used for dryland crop production would occur with implementation of the proposed project; however, TTM NO. 31194 5.0 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 5-7
this is not regarded as a significant impact due to the limitations for crop production posed by this type of farmland and the site’s soil and climate conditions. Also, the site does not contain mapped Prime, Unique, or State Important Farmland which is the stated significance criterion for agricultural land loss. Therefore, cumulative impacts to agricultural resources would not occur.

Also, as stated above under “Land Use,” it should be noted that cumulative impacts associated with the conversion of agricultural land to suburban uses in the project vicinity and in western Riverside County as a whole was addressed on a regional basis by the County’s General Plan EIR (SCH No. 2002051143). That EIR concluded that agricultural land conversion is a significant and unmitigatable impact of General Plan implementation. Because the land uses proposed by TTM No. 31194 would be consistent with applicable land use designations on the site set forth by the SCMVAP, and because the site does not contain lands mapped as Prime, Unique, or Statewide Important Farmland, the proposed project would not result in cumulative land use impacts associated with agricultural land conversion.

5.2.10MINERAL RESOURCES
The California Mineral Lands Classification identifies five mine/mining prospect areas within the immediate vicinity of the proposed TTM No. 31194 project. The majority of the mines, prospect sites, and mineral resource recovery sites identified near the proposed project site are generally located approximately 1.5 to 2.5-miles away from the proposed project site. Therefore, the proposed project would not represent an incompatible land use located adjacent to a State classified or designated area or existing surface mine.

The project site is not designated by the State of California as a known mineral resource. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of any known mineral resources. In addition, no mineral resource areas are identified on the project site. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in the loss of a designated Aggregate Resource Area identified by the Riverside County General Plan. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in a cumulative contribution to the loss of mineral resources.

5.2.11TOXIC SUBSTANCES
Toxic substances impacts are analyzed in Section 4.11 of this EIR. The predominant land uses proposed for the project site include residential development, open space, and neighborhood park.

These uses have little potential for storage of toxic substances with the exception of household chemicals. As determined in Section 4.11, household waste, such as paints, roofing materials and solvents, would be used in building and construction of the TTM No. 31194 project. However, this is not regarded as a significant impact for toxic substances. The mitigation measures in 4.11.4 would reduce the potential impacts to toxic impacts to below a level of significance. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in cumulative impacts on toxic substances.

5.2.12CIRCULATION AND TRAFFIC
As presented in EIR Section 4.12, the proposed TTM No 31194 project is located in a portion of unincorporated Riverside County that does not currently experience significant traffic-related problems. Under existing conditions, all study area intersections are operating at or above acceptable levels of service for both the AM and PM condition.

TTM NO. 31194 5.0 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 5-8
The technical traffic study analyzed 484 single-family dwelling units, which is projected to generate a total of approximately 4,632 trip-ends per day with 363 vehicles per hour during the AM peak hour and 489 vehicles per hour during the PM peak hour.

Upon buildout of the land uses anticipated by the General Plan, and the long-range plans of adjacent jurisdictions, and upon implementation of planned roadway improvements listed in Section 4.12, all study intersections would operate at an acceptable levels of service with improvements.

Implementation of the mitigation measures listed in Section 4.12 would reduce direct traffic-related impacts from the proposed project to below a level of significance. Cumulative impacts cannot be assured to be reduced below a level of significance because improvements at the I-215 ramps at Scott Road and Newport Road require the approval of Caltrans and/or the City of Murrieta. In the event that the approval of the other jurisdictions for identified intersection improvements at these ramps cannot be obtained, cumulative impacts to be mitigated by these improvements would be significant and unavoidable.

Cumulative impacts on freeways were disclosed as part of the County’s General Plan EIR (SCH No. 2002051143). That EIR concluded that several freeway segments under the authority of Caltrans would be significantly impacted as a result of General Plan buildout. As concluded by the General Plan EIR, “there is no mechanism for development project proponents to pay fees or make fair share contributions towards improving mainline freeway lanes, and even if there was such a mechanism, there is no way to ensure that such payments would be directed to a specific freeway improvement project.” Because there is no mechanism available for payment of fair share contributions to mitigate freeway impacts, cumulative impacts to I-15 and I-215 freeway segments would be significant and unavoidable.

5.2.13AIR QUALITY
Tentative Tract No. 31194 is located in the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB). Within the project vicinity, ozone and particulates are seen to be the two most significant air quality concerns. More localized pollutants such as carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, lead, etc. are low near the project site because background levels even in Riverside rarely exceed allowable levels. Further, there are almost no sources of such emissions near the project site. Suspended particulate levels are sometimes high throughout Riverside County because of agricultural activities, dry soil conditions and upwind development.

As part of adoption of the County’s General Plan in 2003, the General Plan EIR (SCH No. 2002051143) analyzed the General Plan growth projections for consistency with the AQMP and concluded that the General Plan is consistent with the SCAQMD’s AQMP. Projects consistent with the County General Plan would therefore be consistent with the SCAQMD’s AQMP growth projections. TTM No. 30433 is consistent with the land use designations of the General Plan’s Eastvale Area Plan, and thus is consistent with regional air quality planning objectives contained in the AQMP.

The California Air Resources Board (CARB) emissions computer model predicts that the average daily disturbance footprint for the proposed uses would be approximately 24.8 24.2 acres. Calculated PM-10 emissions in a disturbance area of 24.8 24.2 acres is estimated to be 655.5 639 pounds per day with the application of standard dust control, and 248.8 242 pounds per day with the application of best available control measures. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would result in a TTM NO. 31194 5.0 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 5-9
potentially significant cumulative short-term air quality impact due to PM-10 emissions associated with grading activities.

Construction activities also generate evaporative emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOC) from paints, solvents, asphalt, roofing tar and other coatings. Using more than 100 gallons of paint per day could cause the SCAQMD threshold of 75 pounds per day of VOC’s to be exceeded resulting in a potentially significant direct and cumulative impact.

The NOx emissions during construction would exceed the SCAQMD significance threshold by approximately 224 percent. Because the SCAQMD threshold would be exceeded during grading, cumulative construction-related NOx impacts would be significant.

The greatest project-related air quality concern centers on the 4,728 4,632 new vehicle trips that would be generated at project completion. The project would contribute to the regional inability to attain the ozone standard based on SCAQMD's recommended levels. The mobile source emissions from project implementation may create a potentially significant cumulative air quality impact.

Project-related emission levels for the three ozone (ROG, NOx, and CO) precursor pollutants would exceed the threshold during project construction. At build-out, project-related emission levels for ROG would exceed the threshold at 140 127 percent, project-related emissions for NOx would exceed be just below the threshold at 114 99 percent, and CO levels would exceed also be just below the threshold by 116 at 98 percent. This is Emissions of ROG, NOx and CO are regarded as a cumulatively significant impact.

Emissions associated with construction equipment would exceed SCAQMD standards for NOx by 386 324 percent. The use of periodic low-NOx tune-ups for on-site equipment can reduce the NOx levels. However, even with newer equipment than assumed and with a routine NOx emissions abatement program, NOx emissions would not be reduced to below a level of significance.

Therefore, because the SCAQMD threshold would be exceeded during project grading, NOx impacts during grading would be regarded as cumulatively significant.

No micro-scale CO "hot spots" are currently present in the project area nor will any be created in the future.

Mitigation measures provided in Section 4.13.4 would reduce cumulative impacts to air quality to the greatest possible extent. However, the technology does not currently exist to implement the uses proposed by the project without creating a significant cumulative impact on air quality. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would result in unmitigable cumulatively significant impacts to air quality. As such, the Riverside County Board of Supervisors would be required to adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations upon project approval.

5.2.14NOISE
The existing noise levels within the project vicinity are low due to low traffic volumes and low development densities. “Natural” noise (birds, wind, etc.) tends to dominate over man-made sources.

The low baseline condition can accommodate a reasonable level of growth before any applicable standards would be exceeded. Such growth, however, will noticeably degrade the rural character of the existing acoustic environment. There are no airports in the project vicinity that would cause the project site to possible experience “excessive” noise levels due to airport proximity. Upon completion of the proposed project, project-related traffic would cause an incremental increase in TTM NO. 31194 5.0 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 5-10
area-wide noise levels throughout the TTM No 31194 project area. The increase in area-wide noise levels is anticipated to create a direct impact on project perimeter homes. Mitigation measures are provided in Section 4.14 which would reduce those impacts to below a level of significance.

However, it is not anticipated that project-related traffic volumes would result in any significant and cumulative impacts on the existing noise environment in Riverside County. Therefore, cumulative impacts associated with noise are not anticipated to be significant.

5.2.15OPEN SPACE, PARKS, AND RECREATION
The proposed project will provide on-site neighborhood park facilities and pay required in-lieu park fees for a 0.51-0.9-acre on-site park deficiency to meet local parkland requirements (as defined by Riverside County Ordinance No. 460 and the State Quimby Act Standards). The project would place a demand on the County for regional parks and open spaces, which are addressed on a Countywide basis as part of the County’s General Plan. The project will contribute to the supply of permanently preserved open space by preserving the northeastern portion of the property as natural open space.

5.2.16FIRE PROTECTION
The proposed project would place additional demand on the County Fire Department and would cumulatively impact the Department’s ability to service the planned population. On a cumulative basis when considered in conjunction with other projects in the area, the Fire Department's ability to serve the planned population may be adversely affected. Implementation of the mitigation measures provided in Section 4.16 would reduce the project’s cumulative contribution to fire protection impacts to below a level of significance by requiring the project applicant to comply with the provisions of the County Development Impact Fee (DIF) Ordinance (Ord 659), which requires a fee payment that the County applies to the funding of public facilities, including fire protection facilities.

Cumulative impacts to fire protection would be reduced to below a level of significance with the payment of DIF fees.

5.2.17SHERIFF PROTECTION
The proposed project would result in an increase in the demand for Riverside Sheriff’s Department services. To obtain a desirable level of service utilizing the criteria of one deputy per 1,000 population, ultimate development of TTM No. 31194 could generate a need for one additional deputy in order to provide adequate protection to the project site. Cumulative impacts to sheriff protection would be reduced to below a level of significance with adherence to the mitigation measures provided in Section 4.17, which require the project applicant to comply with the provisions of the County Development Impact Fee (DIF) Ordinance (Ord 659), which requires a fee payment that the County applies to the funding of public facilities, including sheriff protection facilities. Cumulative impacts to fire protection would be reduced to below a level of significance with the payment of DIF fees.

5.2.18SOLID WASTE
Ultimate project development, as well as the construction phase of the proposed project, would increase the amount of solid waste generated in the area; in turn, shortening the life span of the affected landfills, as well as increasing the demand upon waste haulers. The project’s cumulative contribution to landfill capacity reduction is considered a potentially significant cumulative impact.

TTM NO. 31194 5.0 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 5-11
Mitigation measures provided in Section 4.18 would reduce the project’s cumulative contribution to solid waste impacts to below a level of significance.

5.2.19WATER AND WASTEWATER SERVICES
As indicated in EIR Section 4.19, the proposed project site is located within the service boundaries of EMWD. The project will provide the necessary water and wastewater facilities necessary to serve the project. EMWD has indicated an ability to serve the project based on planned and existing resources as documented in the water supply assessment included as Appendix J3. The project is in compliance with EMWD’s Urban Water Management Plan; therefore, the project will not result in a cumulatively significant impact to water or wastewater facilities.

5.2.20SCHOOLS
Implementation of the proposed project would result in the construction of a maximum of 487 singlefamily residential dwelling units. Residential development within The TTM No. 31194 project area would increase the demand on existing educational facilities and services by generating additional students to be served by the PUHSD and the MUSD. This is regarded as a cumulatively significant impact. Mitigation measures provided in Section 4.20.4, which requires payment of SB 50 fees, would reduce the project’s direct and cumulative school impacts to below a level of significance.

5.2.21LIBRARIES
Development of the proposed project would increase the region’s population, creating an additional demand for library facilities and services. To attain the County’s minimum level of service standard of 1.2 titles-per-capita, the project-generated population would require an additional 1,759 book titles. To attain the County of Riverside standard of 0.5 square foot of library space per capita, the project would create the demand for 733 square feet of additional library space. The Riverside County Public Library has determined that no additional facilities are required at this time. The increase in population to be served would require an increase in funding to the Riverside County Public Library to maintain the current level of service. This is regarded as a cumulatively significant impact. The mitigation measure provided in Section 4.21 would reduce impacts to libraries below a level of significance by requiring mitigation fees in accordance with the provisions of Riverside County Ordinance No. 659. A portion of these fees may be utilized by the County to provide additional library facilities and staff.

5.2.22MEDICAL FACILITIES
The increase in population of 1,466 people by the proposed project (County Ordinance No. 460, Section 10.35) would generate an increased demand for medical services, thereby resulting in a potentially significant cumulative impact. The mitigation measure provided in Section 4.22 would require the project applicant to comply with the provisions of the County Development Impact Fee (DIF) Ordinance (Ord 659), which requires a fee payment that the County applies to the funding of public facilities, including public health facilities. Participation in the fee payment program would reduce the project’s cumulative impacts to health services to below a level of significance.

TTM NO. 31194 5.0 CUMULATIVE EFFECTS
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 5-12

5.2.23ENERGY RESOURCES
Implementation of the TTM No. 31194 would result in the conversion of the subject site from undeveloped and agricultural land uses to a single-family residence community. This transition would increase the demand upon existing sources of energy. As a standard condition of approval, the project also would be required to comply with Titles 20 and 24 of the California Code of Regulations. The project would be required to adhere to State codes regarding energy conservation.

Due to long range planning by energy purveyors, cumulatively significant impacts to energy resources would not be significant, and mitigation is not required.

5.2.24UTILITIES
The proposed TTM No. 31194 project would create a demand for electricity and would require the extension of electrical facilities to serve project development. SCE has determined that the proposed project would not adversely affect electrical service or demand. The proposed project would generate a demand for natural gas and would require the extension of natural gas lines into the project site. SCG has indicated that the proposed project would not result in significant adverse impacts to natural gas facilities in the area. Telephone service to the project site will be provided by Verizon Communications which has indicated that it has the ability to provide the TTM No. 31194 project area with telephone service. Cumulative impacts associated with the provision of telephone service would not occur.

5.2.25DISASTER PREPAREDNESS
As discussed in Section 4.25, Disaster Preparedness, the proposed project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, erosion, seismic activity blowsand or flooding, with incorporation of the mitigation measures presented in Section

4.5, Hydrology, Flooding and Drainage, Section 4.7, Geology and Slope Stability, Section 4.8, Soil and Erosion, and Section 4.16, Fire Protection of this EIR. Therefore, cumulative impacts to disaster preparedness would not be significant.

TTM NO. 31194 6.0 MANDATORY CEQA TOPICS
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 6-1

6.0 MANDATORY CEQA TOPICS

6.1 SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS WHICH CANNOT BE AVOIDED IF THE PROPOSED

PROJECT IS IMPLEMENTED
The State CEQA Guidelines require that an environmental impact report disclose the significant environmental effects of a project which cannot be avoided if the proposed project is implemented [CEQA Guidelines Section 15126(b)]. As described in detail in Sections 4.0 and 5.0 of this EIR, the proposed project is anticipated to result in significant cumulative adverse impacts to air quality and freeway mainline segments that cannot be mitigated to below a level of significance after implementation of relevant standard conditions of approval, regulations, and mitigation measures.

6.2 SIGNIFICANT IRREVERSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL CHANGES WHICH WOULD BE INVOLVED IN

THE PROPOSED ACTION SHOULD IT BE IMPLEMENTED
CEQA Guidelines mandate that the EIR must address any significant irreversible environmental changes which would be involved in the proposed action should it be implemented [CEQA Guidelines, Section 15126.2(c)]. An impact would fall into this category if:
ƒ The project would involve a large commitment of nonrenewable resources. ƒ The primary and secondary impacts of the project would generally commit future generations to similar uses.
ƒ The project involves uses in which irreversible damage could result from any potential environmental incidents associated with the project.
ƒ The proposed consumption of resources are not justified (e.g., the project results in wasteful use of energy).

Determining whether the proposed project may result in significant irreversible effects requires a determination of whether key resources would be degraded or destroyed in such a way that there would be little possibility of restoring them. Natural resources in the form of construction materials and energy resources would be utilized in the construction of the TTM 31194, but is not expected to negatively impact the availability of these resources. Structures that would be built would meet or exceed the energy conservation measures outlined in the Uniform Building Code.

Air quality in the local area would be affected by the proposed project. Implementation of the proposed project would result in an increase in CO, NOx, and PM10 emissions during construction.

Long-term operational emissions from vehicular traffic would increase vehicle emissions.

Adherence to mitigation measures included in Section 4.13 of this document would not completely reduce construction and operational emissions to a less than significant level.

The visual character of the project site would be forever altered from that of agricultural lands to a residential community. The preclusion of future agricultural activity on the site also would be considered an irreversible environmental change. Construction of TTM No. 31194 would commit TTM NO. 31194 6.0 MANDATORY CEQA TOPICS
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 6-2
the project site to specific uses for the foreseeable future, thereby limiting the range of future uses for the project site.

The project site is undeveloped. The introduction of new and productive uses that would result from implementation of proposed TTM No. 31194 could be considered a benefit to the surrounding area, resulting in long-term benefits for surrounding communities and the County.

6.3 GROWTH-INDUCING IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires a discussion of the ways in which the proposed project could be growth inducing. The CEQA Guidelines identify a project as growthinducing if it would foster economic or population growth or the construction of additional housing, either directly or indirectly, in the surrounding environment (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.2(d)).

New employees from nearby commercial development, schools, golf courses, and new population from residential development represent direct forms of growth. These direct forms of growth have a secondary effect of expanding the size of local markets and inducing additional economic activity in the area.

A project could indirectly induce growth at the local level by increasing the demand for additional goods and services associated with the increase in project population and thus reducing or removing the barriers to growth. This occurs in suburban or rural environs where population growth results in increased demand for service and commodity markets responding to the new population. This type of growth is, however, a regional phenomenon resulting from the introduction of a major employment center or regionally significant housing project. Additional commercial uses may be drawn to the area by the increased number of residents in the area as a result of the project; however, it is expected that any such development would occur consistent with planned growth identified in the General Plan.

Under CEQA, growth inducement is not considered necessarily detrimental, beneficial, or of little significance to the environment. Typically, growth-inducing potential of a project would be considered significant if it fosters growth or a concentration of population in excess of what is assumed in pertinent master plans, land use plans, or in projections made by regional planning agencies such as the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). Significant growth impacts could also occur if the project provides infrastructure or service capacity to accommodate growth beyond the levels currently permitted by local or regional plans and policies. In general, growth induced by a project is considered a significant impact if it directly or indirectly affects the ability of agencies to provide needed public services, or if it can be demonstrated that the potential growth significantly affects the environment in some other way.

The proposed TTM 31194 project would develop 487 dwelling units over approximately 101.4 acres of a 204.7-acre site, and result in an increase in the County’s population by 1,466 persons. In addition to the proposed project’s residential component, the proposed project includes neighborhood park, open space and landscaping, drainage easements, water quality basins, and major roadways.

SCAG’s (April 2001) growth forecasts are reflected below in Table 6-1, Regional Growth Forecast.

The proposed project is consistent with those forecasts.

TTM NO. 31194 6.0 MANDATORY CEQA TOPICS
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 6-3
Table 6-1: REGIONAL GROWTH FORECAST
CATEGORY 2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025
Population 1,199,215 1,416,994 1,590,774 1,761,652 1,993,534 2,232,983 Household 385,843 439,974 503,954 565,229 640,467 721,427 Employment 371,430 484,774 601,920 671,185 734,503 801,806 Source: Southern California Association of Governments, Letter to the County of Riverside, dated June 16, 2003 “Jobs-to-housing ratio” measures the extent to which job opportunities in a given geographic area are sufficient to meet the employment needs of area residents. An extensive analysis of the balance of jobs and housing was conducted as part of the Housing Element of the County’s General Plan. The results of this analysis assisted County staff in the creation of the General Plan Land Use Map.

Because the proposed project would be consistent with the General Plan Land Use Plan, implementation of the proposed project would not create an imbalance between jobs and housing within the project vicinity.

Currently, the proposed project site is undeveloped, with the exception of disturbed lands associated with the past agricultural uses on the site, several dirt roads, and an existing single-family residence located near the project’s western boundary. In addition, the surrounding area is developed with scattered single-family residences and agricultural uses. Urban utilities, such as community water and wastewater systems that are currently unavailable to the proposed project area, would be required to be extended, or otherwise connected, to serve the site. Extension of these urban utilities to the proposed project area may act as an inducement to other lands within the vicinity to undertake development. Such induced development would be consistent with the existing Riverside County General Plan within unincorporated areas.

Indirect growth inducing impacts at the local level result from a demand for additional goods and services associated with the increase in project population. This occurs in suburban or rural environments where population growth results in increased demand for service and commodity markets responding to the new population. This type of growth is, however, a regional phenomenon resulting from introduction of a major employment center or regionally significant housing project like the proposed project site. The implementation of the proposed project would result in growth inducing impacts of the region.

6.4 EFFECTS FOUND NOT TO BE SIGNIFICANT
Section 15128 of the CEQA Guidelines requires that an EIR:
“…contain a statement briefly indicating the reasons that various possible significant effects of a project were determined not to be significant and were therefore not discussed in detail in the EIR. Such a statement may be contained in an attached copy of an initial study.

An Initial Study was prepared for the proposed project on May 10, 2003 (EA 38942) and determined that the proposed project could potentially cause adverse effects associated with all of the environmental issues analyzed in the Environmental Initial Study (EA 38942). Consequently, all issues analyzed in EA 38942 have been thoroughly addressed within Section 4.0, Impact Analysis, and Section 5.0, Cumulative Effects, of this EIR, and a statement pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15128 is therefore not required.

TTM NO. 31194 7.0 ALTERNATIVES
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 7-1

7.0 ALTERNATIVES TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT
Section 15126.6(a) of State CEQA Guidelines indicates the scope of alternatives to a proposed project that must be evaluated:
“An EIR shall describe a range of reasonable alternatives to the project, or to the location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project, and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. An EIR need not consider every conceivable alternative to a project. Rather it must consider a reasonable range of potentially feasible alternatives that will foster informed decision making and public participation. An EIR is not required to consider alternatives which are infeasible. The lead agency is responsible for selection of a range of project alternatives for examination and must publicly disclose its reasoning for selecting those alternatives. There is no ironclad rule governing the nature or scope of the alternatives to be discussed other than the rule of reason.” As discussed in Section 4.0, the proposed project is anticipated to result in significant adverse cumulative impacts to air quality and freeway mainlines that cannot be mitigated to below a level of significance after implementation of relevant standard conditions of approval, regulations, and mitigation measures. This unavoidable significant impact is:

CEQA also requires that, if the environmentally superior alternative is determined to be the No Project Alternative, the EIR must also identify an environmentally superior alternative among the other alternatives, if the analysis indicates that significant impacts can be avoided by one or more alternatives. The reason for choosing the alternatives analyzed in this section is to reduce the proposed project’s impacts on the issues that have received focused analysis in this document (i.e., traffic, air quality, open space, biological resources, cultural resources, etc.) through on-site land use alternatives.

7.1 ALTERNATIVES UNDER CONSIDERATION
The following development scenarios have been identified as potential alternatives to implementation of the proposed project.
‰ Alternative 1 – No Project Alternative
The No Project Alternative assumes that no development occurs on the proposed project site. The existing open space and agricultural land uses would continue. ‰ Alternative 2 – Jurisdictional Drainage Avoidance Alternative The Jurisdictional Drainage Avoidance Alternative considers reducing the development footprint of the proposed project, primarily to avoid impacts to jurisdictional wetlands. Under this alternative, impacts to jurisdictional wetlands and waters of the U.S. resources would be avoided because the development footprint of the proposed project would be pulled away from the on-site drainage area.

This alternative is identified as the environmentally superior alternative, because implementation of this alternative would locate residential units at a distance set away from the natural drainage. Figure 7-1, Jurisdictional Drainage Avoidance Alternative, depicts the land uses that would be allowed under the Jurisdictional Drainage Avoidance Alternative.

TTM NO. 31194 7.0 ALTERNATIVES
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 7-2
‰ Alternative 3 – Reduced Density Alternative
The Reduced Density Alternative examines an alternative residential community that would potentially reduce or avoid some of the proposed project’s significant impacts associated with a greater number of residents in the area. Accordingly, this alternative would provide for fewer dwelling units (105) within the same development envelope as the proposed project, however, the local street network and amount of natural open space (including drainage facilities) would remain the same.

7.2 ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND REJECTED
In determining an appropriate range of alternatives to be evaluated in the EIR, a number of possible alternatives were initially considered and, for a variety of reasons, rejected. Alternatives were rejected because either: 1) they could not accomplish the basic objectives of the project, 2) they would not have resulted in a reduction of potentially significant impacts or 3) they were considered infeasible. The reason for not selecting each alternative is discussed below.

7.2.1 AGRICULTURAL PRESERVATION ALTERNATIVE
The Agricultural Preservation Alternative would preserve the portions of the site that contain soils that are designated as “Locally Important” farmlands. The portions of the project site that does not contain agriculturally significant farmlands would be developed based on existing General Plan Land Use designations. Implementation of this alternative would not provide a sufficient number of dwelling units to justify the costs associated with the construction of Wickerd Road in a manner that is consistent with the General Plan.
‰ Alternative Sites
CEQA does not require that analysis of alternative sites always be included in an EIR. However, if all the surrounding circumstances make it reasonable to consider an alternative site then this alternative should be considered and analyzed in the EIR. In making the decision to include or exclude analysis of an alternative site, the “key question and first step in analysis is whether any of the significant effects of the project would be avoided or substantially lessened by putting the project in another location. Only locations that would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project need to be considered for inclusion in the EIR” [CEQA Guidelines §15126.6(f)(2)].
‰ Development of the Project at an Alternative Location Among the factors that may be considered when addressing the feasibility of alternatives are site suitability, economic viability, availability of infrastructure, general plan consistency, jurisdictional boundaries, and whether the proponent can reasonably acquire, control, or otherwise have access to the alternative site [CEQA guidelines, Section 15126.6 (f) (1)].

The proposed land use is consistent with the Sun City/Menifee Valley Area Land Use Plan (SCMVAP) in its designation for the site. Topographically, the central and southeastern portions of the property are relatively flat-lying, while the northern region of the property is characterized by a steep topographic feature. This northern portion of the property is designated as natural open space.

TTM NO. 31194 7.0 ALTERNATIVES
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 7-3
Other properties in Western Riverside County would offer fewer developmental and environmental constraints or result in reduced environmental impacts. Development in an alternate location in Western Riverside County would also result in cumulative air quality impacts. Therefore, there is no environmental benefit to considering development of the project at an alternate location. ‰ Alternative Land Use
Development of an alternative land use, such as higher density residential, commercial, or industrial use, would not meet the objectives of the project. The main project objective is to provide residential homes on the property to assist the County in meeting the region’s housing demand. With the exception of agricultural use, an alternative land use would require a General Plan Amendment and therefore would not be consistent with the SCMVAP or the Riverside County Integrated Plan (RCIP). Also, higher density residential, commercial, and industrial use would increase the impacts on air quality.

7.3 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
The following discussion compares the impacts of each alternative with the impacts of the proposed project, as detailed in Sections 4.0 and 5.0 of this EIR. A conclusion is provided for each impact as to whether the alternative results in one of the following: (1) reduction or elimination of the impact, (2) a greater impact than the project, (3) the same impact as the project or (4) a new impact in addition to the proposed project impacts. Table 7-1 compares the environmental hazard and resource impacts of the alternatives with those of the proposed project.

The key to Tables 7-1 is as follows:

N/S = No significant impacts.

L = Impacts are less than significant after mitigation.

S = Impacts are significant after mitigation
+ = Impacts are substantially greater than the proposed project - = Impacts are substantially less than the proposed project X = Impacts are similar to the proposed project
N/A = Not evaluated
TTM NO. 31194 7.0 ALTERNATIVES
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 7-4
Table 7-1: COMPARISON OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS OF ALTERNATIVES RELATIVE TO THE PROPOSED PROJECT

PROPOSED

PROJECT NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE JURISDICTIONAL DRAINAGE AVOIDANCE ALTERNATIVE REDUCED DENSITY ALTERNATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS SUBJECT Impact
Analysis
Impact
Analysis
Impact
Compared to
Project
Impact
Analysis
Impact
Compared
to Project
Impact
Analysis
Impact
Compared to
Project
Land Use N/S N/S + S + S + Aesthetics, Visual Analysis, Light & Glare L L - S - L - Biological Resources L S + L - L X Archaeological and Paleontological L L - L X L X Hydrology, Flooding, and Drainage N/S N/S - L X N/S X Water Quality S* L + S* X S X Geology and Slope Stability L N/S - L X L X Soils and Erosion L L + L X L X Agricultural Resources L N/S - L X L X Mineral Resources N/S N/S X N/S X N/S X Toxic Substances L L + L X L X Circulation and Traffic L N/S - L + L X Air Quality S* S* + S* - S - Noise L N/S - L X- L - Open Space, Parks, and Recreation L N/S X L X N/S - Fire Protection L N/S - L + L X Sheriff Protection L N/S - L - L - Solid Waste Management L N/S - L - L - Water Services N/S N/S - N/S - N/S X Schools L N/S - L - L - Libraries L N/S - L - L - Medical Facilities L N/S - L - L - Energy Resources N/S N/S - N/S - N/S X Utilities N/S N/S - N/S - N/S X Disaster Preparedness L N/S - L X L X TTM NO. 31194 7.0 ALTERNATIVES
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 7-5

7.3.1 ALTERNATIVE 1 – NO PROJECT ALTERNATIVE
Under this alternative, the existing site condition of agricultural use and open space would remain.

The property’s Williamson Act Contracts will be diminished, but agricultural use will continue without the Agricultural Preserve tax benefits. Under this alternative, there would be no development on the site and Wickerd Road and other roadways would not be constructed through the property. The northeast portion of the project site would remain as natural open space, and would not be placed in a conservation easement ensuring its continued preservation. ‰ Land Use
Under the No Project Alternative, no development would occur on the property. The development of medium density residential units would not take place, nor would the estimated population increase of 1,463 persons occur. If implemented, the No Project Alternative would not be consistent with the Riverside County General Plan which designates the site for medium density residential uses.

Additionally, the construction of Wickerd Road and Garbani Road anticipated by the General Plan Circulation Element, would not be implemented under this alternative. Therefore, because this alternative would conflict with the General Plan designations for the site, impacts to land use would be increased under this alternative as compared to the proposed project. ‰ Aesthetics, Visual Quality, Light, and Glare
The No Project Alternative would allow for only agriculture and open space uses. Because no new development would be allowed under this alternative, the existing visual environment would be maintained. There would be no new sources of light and glare. As a result, implementation of the No Project Alternative would have fewer impacts on aesthetics, visual quality, light, and glare. ‰ Biological Resources
The No Project Alternative would not allow for development on the project site. Agricultural uses would, however, have the potential to expand on-site into previously undisturbed areas, resulting in the potential to further impact the on-site drainage area and to impact natural habitat areas existing on the property. Potential impacts to sensitive plant communities, and sensitive plant and animal species have the potential, therefore, to be greater than the proposed project. The natural hillside located in the northeastern portion of the project site would not be protected by a conservation easement under this alternative.
‰ Archaeological and Paleontological Resources
Continued agricultural use of the site would not likely result in ground disturbance at greater depths than exist under existing conditions. Therefore, potential impacts to archaeological and paleontological resources under this alternative would be less than the proposed project, which proposes grading that may uncover such resources.
‰ Hydrology, Flooding, and Drainage
Under this alternative, the existing drainage conditions of the site would be maintained. Because there would be no alteration to the site’s existing hydrology, impacts would not be significant and would be less than that of the proposed project.

TTM NO. 31194 7.0 ALTERNATIVES
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 7-6
‰ Water Quality
The No Project Alternative assumes that agricultural uses on the project site would continue operating into the future. Chemical fertilizers associated with agricultural activities have the potential to create significant impacts to water quality. The proposed project would build water quality devices to clean urban runoff, resulting in no significant impacts to water quality. Because of the potential impacts to water quality associated with fertilizer application, impacts to water quality under the No Project Alternative would be greater than the proposed project. ‰ Geology and Slope Stability
Implementation of the No Project Alternative would not physically alter the proposed project site.

This alternative would therefore expose fewer people to potential seismic hazards. Because there would be no alteration to the geology and slope conditions of the project site, impacts would not be significant and would be less than impacts resulting from the proposed project. ‰ Soil, Slopes and Erosion Potential
Implementation of the No Project Alternative would not result in substantial changes to the site’s topography, soils, or current state of erosion. Although erosion conditions would not change relative to existing conditions, erosion is typically high in agricultural fields due to times when the fields are fallow and in cultivation. Therefore, erosion impacts are actually higher under this alternative as compared to the proposed project.
‰ Agriculture
Under the No Project Alternative, existing agricultural operations on the project site could continue to operate. Impacts to agriculture would not occur under this alternative, whereas the proposed project would preclude future farming activities on the site. ‰ Toxic Substances
This alternative does not propose to develop residential units; therefore this alternative would not expose people to the potential hazards associated with the use or storage of hazardous materials associated with urban development. Fertilizers and pesticides used in farming are considered to be hazardous in high concentrations and the application of such chemicals would occur with implementation of this alternative and resulting in a greater impact as compared to the proposed project.
‰ Circulation and Traffic
Under the No Project Alternative, there would be no traffic generated by the property. Roadway improvements, such as the construction of Wickerd Road and Garbani Road would not be implemented under this alternative. Because areawide intersections are projected to operate at acceptable levels of service in buildout year 2025 with improvements with or without the proposed project, continued agricultural use of the site would not result in significant traffic impacts. Under this alternative, impacts to circulation and traffic associated with the No Project Alternative would not be significant and would be less than the proposed project.

TTM NO. 31194 7.0 ALTERNATIVES
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 7-7
‰ Air Quality
Although implementation of the No Project Alternative would not generate traffic and associated vehicular air emissions, the on-site agricultural operations could continue into the future. Potential air quality impacts associated with agricultural operations include PM10 associated with tilling of the site, and exhaust associated with agricultural equipment. Because the agricultural uses associated with the No Project Alternative would contribute to the non-attainment of regional air quality standards within the South Coast Air Basin, impacts to air quality associated with the No Project Alternative would be cumulatively significant and would not be fully mitigated. Therefore, impacts to air quality associated with PM10 would be significant under this alternative and greater than PM10 impacts caused by the proposed project.
‰ Noise
Implementation of the No Project Alternative would not increase the number of average daily trips and associated vehicular noise. Potential noise impacts sources generated by this alternative would be limited to noise associated with farmland equipment, which would not be considered significant.

Therefore, impacts to noise associated with the No Project Alternative would be reduced as compared to the proposed project.
‰ Open Space, Parks, and Recreation
The No Project Alternative would not generate any new population on the project site. Therefore, implementation of this alternative would not generate a demand for parks, recreation, or open space amenities. As with the proposed project, impacts to open space, parks, and recreation would not be significant.
‰ Fire Protection
Under existing conditions, the site is identified by the Riverside County Fire Protection Master Plan as requiring a “Rural – Category III” level of service. This level of service designation would continue to apply under the No Project Alternative. Because this alternative would not generate a population or create structures requiring fire protection, implementation of the No Project Alternative would reduce impacts to fire protection services compared to the proposed project. ‰ Sheriff Services
Implementation of the No Project Alternative would not result in an increase in the area’s population.

Because this alternative would not generate a population requiring law enforcement services, implementation of the No Project Alternative would reduce impacts on sheriff’s services as compared to the proposed project.
‰ Solid Waste
Implementation of the No Project Alternative would not result in an increase in the area’s population and would not result in cumulative impacts on the capacity of existing landfills. Therefore, implementation of the No Project Alternative would eliminate the project’s potential cumulative impacts to solid waste management services.

TTM NO. 31194 7.0 ALTERNATIVES
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 7-8
‰ Water and Wastewater Services
The No Project Alternative would continue the existing agricultural operations on the site. The property is dry farmed and does not use water for irrigation and does not require wastewater services.

Therefore, implementation of the No Project Alternative would eliminate the project’s impacts on water and wastewater services.
‰ Schools
Implementation of the No Project Alternative would not generate school students and demands for school services would not increase under this alternative. Accordingly, implementation of the No Project Alternative would reduce impacts to school services as compared to the proposed project. ‰ Libraries
Implementation of the No Project Alternative would not generate a population which would place demand on library services. Accordingly, implementation of the No Project Alternative would reduce impacts to library services as compared to the proposed project. ‰ Medical Facilities
Implementation of the No Project Alternative would not generate a population which would place demand on medical facilities. Accordingly, implementation of the No Project Alternative would reduce impacts to medical facilities as compared to the proposed project. ‰ Energy Resources
Implementation of the No Project Alternative would not create new demand for additional energy resources, resulting in a reduced impact as compared to the proposed project. ‰ Utilities
Implementation of the No Project Alternative would not create new demand for additional utility services, resulting in a reduced impact as compared to the proposed project. ‰ Disaster Preparedness
Implementation of the No Project Alternative would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, erosion, seismic activity, blowsand, or flooding.

Therefore, impacts to disaster preparedness associated with the No Project Alternative would not be significant and would be reduced compared to the proposed project. ‰ Conclusion
Implementation of the No Project Alternative would reduce most of the project’s impacts to the environment to below a level of significance, except for land use, biology, water quality and air quality. The No Project Alternative would fail to meet the project’s goals and objectives, as described in EIR Section 3.0. Furthermore, the project would: 1) fail to assist the County in meeting the demand for regional housing needs; 2) would fail to implement the land use designations of the TTM NO. 31194 7.0 ALTERNATIVES
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 7-9
Riverside County General Plan and Sun City/Menifee Valley Area Plan; and 3) would fail to implement improvements to Wickerd Road as required by the General Plan Circulation Element.

7.3.2 ALTERNATIVE 2 – JURISDICTIONAL DRAINAGE AVOIDANCE ALTERNATIVE The Jurisdictional Drainage Avoidance Alternative considers reducing the development footprint of the proposed project, primarily to avoid impacts to jurisdictional wetlands. As a result, the Jurisdictional Drainage Avoidance Alternative would provide a slightly smaller residential development plan for the proposed project site that would consist of 429 6,000 minimum square foot lots on 100.5 acres, 60.6 acres of open space, three (3) neighborhood parks on 6.1 acres, two (2) water quality basins on 2.3 acres, and 35.2 acres of roadways (see Figure 7-1, Jurisdictional Drainage Avoidance Alternative).
‰ Land Use
The Jurisdictional Drainage Avoidance Alternative envisions development of the site in accordance with the overall density allowed by the SCMVAP Land Use Plan, while avoiding impacts to the onsite jurisdictional drainage area. Because the overall density would be consistent with the SCMVAP, the Wetlands Avoidance Alternative would be consistent with the SCMVAP. The jurisdictional drainage area designated within the open space area west of Wickerd Road would separate the east and west sides of the community resulting in no thru access within the project site. In addition, costs would be incurred to construct two bridges in Wickerd Road in order to avoid the jurisdictional drainage areas. Therefore, the community would be physically divided and this alternative would increase land use impacts.
‰ Aesthetics, Visual Quality, Light, and Glare
The Jurisdictional Drainage Avoidance Alternative would result in developing a slightly smaller area of the project site with a fewer number of homes. Thus, impacts associated with the introduction of new lighting sources within the Mount Palomar Observatory Special Lighting District would be less under this alternative. However, this alternative would still be required to comply with County Ordinance No. 655 regarding lighting restrictions in the District. ‰ Biological Resources
Implementation of the Jurisdictional Drainage Avoidance Alternative would provide more open space (approximately 60.6 acres) than the proposed project because a greater area in the center of the site would be preserved to avoid impacts to the natural drainage on site. Jurisdictional areas on the project site include 62,384.3 square feet (1.43 ac) of state streambeds, and of this, 37,667.9 square feet (0.86 ac) are federal jurisdictional drainages and 29,187.7 square feet (0.67 ac) are considered state wetlands. As discussed in Section 4.3, the proposed project proposes avoidance of 27,871.74 sq. ft. (0.64 acres) of state streambeds, all of which is considered state wetlands, and 18919.3 sq. ft. (0.43 acres) of federal jurisdictional drainages. Also proposed is the creation of a detention basin and jurisdictional drainages contiguous with the existing drainage and habitat and following the path of the historic blue-line stream. The Jurisdictional Drainage Avoidance Alternative proposes complete Tentative Tract Map No. 31194
Jurisdictional Drainage Avoidance Alternative

T&B PLANNING CONSULTANTS
17542 East 17th Street, Suite 100, Tustin, CA 92780
p 714.505.6360 f 714.505.6361
www.tbplanning.com
7-10
Fig. 7-1
400' 0' 100' 200' 400'
D
A
O
R
S
N
AVE

GARBANI ROAD

WICKERD
ROAD
6,000 S.F. Lots
Water Quality
Basin
Jurisdictional
Drainage
Regional
Equestrian
Trail
Park
6,000 S.F. Lots
6,000 S.F. Lots
6,000 S.F. Lots
Park
Open Space
Open Space
Water Quality
Basin
Park
Open Space
Bridge
Bridge
Jurisdictional
Drainage
Open
Space
TTM NO. 31194 7.0 ALTERNATIVES
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 7-11
avoidance of the jurisdictional areas, therefore impacts to on-site biological resources would be less under this alternative. Increased off-site impacts would occur due to the need to construct Evans Road for access to the west side of the project site of the project site. ‰ Archaeological and Paleontological Resources
The proposed project site does not contain known archaeologically significant sites or paleontological resources. However, archaeologically sensitive sites have been identified within the project vicinity, and the potential for archeological and paleontological sensitive sites exists which may be uncovered during grading. Potential impacts to such resources would be the same under this alternative and the proposed project.
‰ Hydrology, Flooding, and Drainage
The property is divided into two drainage areas. In the post-developed condition under the proposed project and under this alternative, flow rates produced from the developed condition are required to be less than the existing level. Mitigation measures are provided in EIR Section 4.5 which would apply under the proposed project and under this alternative. Therefore, potential impacts to hydrology, water and drainage would be the same under this alternative and the proposed project. ‰ Water Quality
The project area is located within the purview of the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board. Implementation of either the proposed project or the Jurisdictional Drainage Avoidance Alternative would include grading operations that would result in potential short-term erosion and sedimentation impacts. Under either scenario, the composition of the surface runoff would be altered by grading the site surfaces; by construction of impervious streets, roofs and parking facilities; and by irrigation of landscaped areas. This runoff, typical of urban use, would contribute to the incremental degradation of the water quality downstream. This is regarded as a significant cumulative water quality impact under both the proposed project and this alternative. ‰ Geology and Slope Stability
Landslides, soil failures, or other indications of natural or engineered slope stability are not known to exist on the site and there are no known active faults crossing the property. Based on the existing topography of the site, implementation of either the proposed project or this alternative would result in the creation of cut and fill slopes. The mitigation measures provided in Section 4.7 of this EIR would be applicable to the Jurisdictional Drainage Avoidance Alternative and would reduce direct and cumulative impacts to seismic safety and geology to below a level of significance. Generally, impacts would be the same under this alternative and the proposed project. ‰ Soils, Slopes and Erosion Potential
Project grading would be required to conform to the County of Riverside Grading Standards.

Grading activities on the site have the potential to increase the rate of runoff and increase erosion susceptibility which is regarded as a potentially significant short-term impact under either the proposed project or the Jurisdictional Drainage Avoidance Alternative. Erosion and dust control techniques are required to be implemented as part of the required Storm Water Pollution and Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that will incorporate Best Management Practices (BMPs) during construction. With adherence to the SWPPP, the potential for erosion and transport of material TTM NO. 31194 7.0 ALTERNATIVES
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 7-12
within the proposed project boundaries and off-site would be reduced on a direct and cumulative level to below a level of significance. Generally, impacts would be the same under this alternative and the proposed project.
‰ Agriculture
Loss of land used for dryland crop production would occur with either implementation of the proposed project or this alternative, resulting in the same level of impact. ‰ Toxic Substances
The potential for hazardous material use typical in urban developments would be the same under this alternative as would occur under the proposed project, resulting in the same level of potential impact and requiring the same or similar mitigation.
‰ Circulation and Traffic
A decrease of 57 residential dwelling units would occur under the Jurisdictional Drainage Avoidance Alternative resulting in fewer vehicle trips than the proposed project. In addition, to avoid the jurisdictional drainage areas, two bridges would be required to be constructed in Wickerd Road.

Evans Road would also be required to be constructed to provide access to the western portion of the project site. Under the Jurisdictional Drainage Avoidance Alternative, the jurisdictional drainage area west of Wickerd Road precludes thru access from the west side of the project site to the east side of the project site. There would be no thru access and the ability to construct Evans Road off-site is speculative. Therefore, impacts to circulation and traffic under the Jurisdictional Drainage Avoidance Alterative would be increased as compared to the proposed project. ‰ Air Quality
Because a fewer number of vehicle trips would be generated, mobile source air emissions would be greater under the proposed project than under this alternative. In both cases, the cumulative impact would be significant and unmitigable. Implementation of the proposed project or this alternative also would result in a potentially significant cumulative short-term air quality impact due to PM-10 and NOx emissions associated with grading activities and would generate evaporative emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOC) from paints, solvents, asphalt, roofing tar and other coatings.

However, due to the decrease in residential dwelling units under this alternative, the impact would be less than the proposed project.
‰ Noise
The Jurisdictional Drainage Avoidance Alternative would reduce the number of average daily trips, thereby reducing the number of vehicles on surrounding roadways and resulting in a decrease in vehicular related noise impacts. Due to the decrease in residential dwelling units, temporary noise impacts during construction would be less than the proposed project. ‰ Open Space, Parks, and Recreation
Based on Riverside County Ordinance No. 460, Section 10.35, and State Quimby Act requirements,

32.3 acres of open space and 6.5 acres of neighborhood/community parkland would be required.

Neither the proposed project or this alternative would meet the County standard by providing the TTM NO. 31194 7.0 ALTERNATIVES
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 7-13
required 6.5 acres of neighborhood park. The Jurisdictional Drainage Avoidance Alternative provides 6.1 acres of park and 60.6 acres of open space. Still, the proposed 6.1 acres of neighborhood park space is 0.4 acres less than that required, resulting in a significant impact. Impacts to open space, parks, and recreation would be significant under both the proposed project and the Jurisdictional Drainage Avoidance Alternative. The project applicant shall be required to pay an inlieu park fee to the County for its park deficiency prior to the issuance of building permits. ‰ Fire Protection
The Jurisdictional Avoidance Alternative would create an urban development that would require fire protection services. Direct impacts to fire services would not occur. However, when considered on a cumulative basis in conjunction with other projects in the area, the Fire Department’s ability to serve the planned population may be adversely affected. Implementation of mitigation measures would reduce the project’s cumulative contribution to fire protection impacts to below a level of significance. The Jurisdictional Drainage Avoidance Alternative proposes fewer dwelling units, as compared to the proposed project. However, the Jurisdictional Drainage Avoidance Alternative provides an inefficient internal circulation system which may preclude the Fire Department from reaching all portions of the site’s development areas within their response time goal. Thus, impacts on fire services would be potentially increased as compared to the proposed project, and may require the conveyance of a fire station site closer to the project site than existing Station No. 68 which currently provides primary service. For that reason, fire protection impacts are increased under this alternative as compared to the proposed project.
‰ Sheriff Services
The Jurisdictional Drainage Avoidance Alternative would create urban development that would require sheriff services. Direct impacts to sheriff services would not occur. However, when considered on a cumulative basis in conjunction with other projects in the area, the Sheriff’s ability to serve the planned population may be adversely affected. Mitigation measures would be required to reduce the project’s cumulative contribution to sheriff services impacts to below a level of significance. Because the Jurisdictional Drainage Avoidance Alternative would result in a decrease in population, impacts to sheriff services would be reduced as compared to the proposed project. ‰ Solid Waste
The Jurisdictional Avoidance Alternative would cumulatively degrade the capacity at existing landfills. Mitigation measures would be required to reduce these impacts to below a level of significance. The Jurisdictional Drainage Avoidance Alternative proposes fewer dwelling units than the proposed project, and would result in fewer impacts to solid waste. ‰ Water and Wastewater Services
Because the Jurisdictional Drainage Avoidance Alternative proposes fewer dwelling units, impacts to water supply and wastewater services would be reduced as compared to the proposed project. ‰ Schools
Because the Jurisdictional Drainage Avoidance Alternative proposes fewer dwelling units, the number of students generated would be less than that of the proposed project. With the payment of state-mandated school fees, impacts would be reduced to below a level of significance. Because TTM NO. 31194 7.0 ALTERNATIVES
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 7-14
fewer students would be generated by the Jurisdictional Avoidance Alternative, direct and cumulative impacts to school services would decrease under this alternative relative to the proposed project.
‰ Libraries
Because the Jurisdictional Drainage Avoidance Alternative would generate a decrease in population, impacts to library services would be reduced as compared to the proposed project. However, the increase in population to be served would require an increase in funding to the Riverside County Public Library System to maintain the current level of service. Mitigation fees would be required to reduce cumulative impacts to library services to below a level of significance. ‰ Medical Facilities
Because the Jurisdictional Drainage Avoidance Alternative proposes fewer residential dwelling units, than the proposed project, impacts to medical facilities would be reduced as compared to the proposed project. As with the proposed project, participation in the Development Mitigation Fee program would be required to reduce the project’s cumulative contribution to health services impacts to below a level of significance.
‰ Energy Resources
Because the Jurisdictional Drainage Avoidance Alternative proposes fewer residential dwelling units than the proposed project, impacts to energy resources would be reduced compared to the proposed project. As with the proposed project, impacts to energy resources would not be significant. ‰ Utilities
Because the Jurisdictional Drainage Avoidance Alternative proposes fewer dwelling units than the proposed project, impacts to utilities would be reduced as compared to the proposed project. As with the proposed project, impacts to utilities would not be significant. ‰ Disaster Preparedness
Implementation of the project and the Jurisdictional Drainages Avoidance Alternative would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, erosion, seismic activity, blowsand, or flooding, with implementation of the mitigation measures provided in the relevant sections of this EIR. Therefore, impacts under the proposed project and this alternative would be generally the same.
‰ Conclusion
Implementation of the Jurisdictional Drainages Avoidance Alternative would result in similar impacts to the environment as would occur with the proposed project. Impacts to jurisdictional wetlands and waters of the U.S. would be avoided. Additional off-site impacts to biological resources and potential cultural resources would occur due to the need to construct Evans Road.

Traffic impacts would be increased because no thru-access would be provided and the future construction of Evans Road is speculative. Impacts to fire services would be increased due to the inefficient internal circulation system shown in this alternative, potentially requiring the need for an additional fire station site within the project vicinity. This alternative would meet a majority of the TTM NO. 31194 7.0 ALTERNATIVES
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 7-15
project’s goals, but it would not reduce impacts to many areas of the environment, and would result in increased impacts to land use, circulation and traffic, and fire protection services.

7.3.3 ALTERNATIVE 2 – REDUCED DENSITY ALTERNATIVE
The Reduced Density Alternative examines an alternative residential community that would potentially reduce or avoid some of the proposed project’s significant impacts associated with a greater number of residents in the area. Accordingly, this alternative would provide for fewer dwelling units (105) on one (1)-acre minimum lot sizes within the same development envelope (on approximately 105 acres) as the proposed project, however, the local street network (consisting of

43.5 acres) and amount of natural open space (consisting of 54.1 acres, including drainage) would remain the same. However, this alternative residential community would not support development and maintenance of park space.
‰ Land Use
The Reduced Density Alternative would result in a residential development with a density that is lower than that allowed by the SCMVAP Land Use Plan. Because the overall density would not be consistent with the SCMVAP, the Reduced Density Alternative would not be consistent with the SCMVAP. Due to the fewer number of dwellings on larger lots, this alternative would not support an interconnecting pedestrian system and neighborhood parks. Thus, this alternative would not be consistent with the SCMVAP’s community design policy that encourages these amenities. In addition, because the SCMVAP anticipated a greater number residences and amenities within the project area, this alternative also would not be consistent with the efficient land use, design, and economic development policies contained in the SCMVAP.
‰ Aesthetics
The Reduced Density Alternative would result in developing the same areas of the project site with a fewer number of homes. Thus, impacts associated with the introduction of new lighting sources within the Mount Palomar Observatory Special Lighting District would be less under this alternative.

However, this alternative would still be required to comply with County Ordinance No. 655 regarding lighting restrictions in the District.
‰ Biological Resources
Although this alternative would result in the development of fewer homes on larger lots within the same footprint, it is assumed that each of the home owners would be allowed to develop and landscape his/her entire lot. Thus, the direct and indirect impacts associated with proposed project would generally be the same under this alternative.
‰ Archaeological and Paleontological Resources
The proposed project site does not contain known archaeologically significant sites or paleontological resources. However, archaeologically sensitive sites have been identified within the project vicinity, and the potential for archeological and paleontological sensitive sites exists which may be uncovered during grading. Potential impacts to such resources would be the same under this alternative and the proposed project.

TTM NO. 31194 7.0 ALTERNATIVES
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 7-16
‰ Hydrology, Flooding, and Drainage
Because the Reduced Density Alternative would be developed with a fewer number homes within the same development footprint, the same standard conditions of approval required of the proposed project would also apply to this alternative. Accordingly, as with the proposed project, impacts associated with hydrology would be avoided.
‰ Water Quality
The project area is located within the purview of the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board. Implementation of either the proposed project or the Reduced Density Alternative would include grading operations that would result in potential short-term erosion and sedimentation impacts. Under either scenario, the composition of the surface runoff would be altered by grading the site surfaces; by construction of impervious streets and roofs; and by irrigation of landscaped areas. This runoff, typical of urban use, would contribute to the incremental degradation of the water quality downstream. This is regarded as a significant cumulative water quality impact under both the proposed project and this alternative.
‰ Geology and Slope Stability
Landslides, soil failures, or other indications of natural or engineered slope stability are not known to exist on the site and there are no known active faults crossing the property. However, secondary hazards associated with seismic activity have the potential to affect the site. Accordingly, the mitigation measures provided in Section 4.7 of this EIR would also be applicable to the Reduced Density Alternative and would reduce direct and cumulative impacts to seismic safety and geology to below a level of significance. Generally, impacts would be the same under this alternative and the proposed project.
‰ Soils, Slopes and Erosion Potential
Alterations to the natural landform would occur under this alternative. Project grading would be required to conform to the County of Riverside Grading Standards. Grading activities on the site have the potential to increase the rate of runoff and increase erosion susceptibility which is regarded as a potentially significant short-term impact under either the proposed project or the Reduced Density Alternative. Erosion and dust control techniques are required to be implemented as part of the required Storm Water Pollution and Prevention Plan (SWPPP) that will incorporate Best Management Practices (BMPs) during construction. With adherence to the SWPPP, the potential for erosion and transport of material within the proposed project boundaries and off-site would be reduced on a direct and cumulative level to below a level of significance. Generally, impacts would be the same under this alternative and the proposed project. ‰ Agriculture
Loss of land used for dryland crop production would occur with either implementation of the proposed project or this alternative, resulting in the same level of impact. ‰ Mineral Resources
As with the proposed project, this alternative would not impact mineral resources because the project TTM NO. 31194 7.0 ALTERNATIVES
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 7-17
site is not designated by the State as a known mineral resource, nor is it designated in the County’s General Plan as an Aggregate Resource Area.
‰ Toxic Substances
The potential for hazardous material use typical in urban developments would be the same under this alternative as would occur under the proposed project, resulting in the same level of potential impact and requiring the same or similar mitigation.
‰ Circulation and Traffic
The Reduced Density Alternative would generate nearly one fifth (or 1,004 ADT) of the amount of daily vehicle trips (4,632 ADT) that the proposed project would. Accordingly, as with the proposed project, this alternative would not create significant impacts to study area intersections. However, as with the proposed project, this alternative also would cumulatively contribute to the need for the intersection improvements anticipated in the SCMVAP.

‰ Air Quality
Under the Reduced Density Alternative, the number of vehicle trips generated would less than the proposed project; thus, mobile source air emissions would be less. In both cases, the cumulative impact to the region’s air quality would be significant and unmitigable. Although less than the proposed project, this alternative also would result in a potentially significant cumulative short-term air quality impact due to PM-10 and NOx emissions associated with grading activities. Additionally, as with the proposed project, this alternative would generate evaporative emissions of volatile organic compounds (VOC) from paints, solvents, asphalt, roofing tar and other coatings. Generally, because the residential development under this alternative would be smaller than the proposed project, the air quality impacts would be less.
‰ Noise
Because the residential development would be smaller under this alternative when compared to the proposed project, it is anticipated that the significant short-term construction-related noise and longterm traffic-related noise impacts would less. ‰ Open Space, Parks, and Recreation
This alternative would not be subject to the County’s standard for parks and open space because it would only generate a population of 316 persons. Although open space is not required, this alternative would provide approximately 54.1 acres of natural open space (including drainage easements). Accordingly, impacts to open space, parks, and recreation would not be significant under the Reduced Density Alternative.

TTM NO. 31194 7.0 ALTERNATIVES
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 7-18
‰ Fire Protection
As with the proposed project, this alternative would have a cumulatively significant impact on fire projection services due to the additional demand that would be placed on the existing fire services in the area.
‰ Sheriff Services
Due to the smaller residential development, the proposed project’s cumulatively significant impacts on sheriff services would be less under the Reduced Density Alternative.

‰ Solid Waste
Because the Reduced Density Alternative would generate a smaller population than the proposed project, impacts to solid waste services and landfill capacity would be less. ‰ Water and Wastewater Services
As with the proposed project, the Reduced Density Alternative would not significantly impact EMWD’s ability to provide water supplies and wastewater services to the project site. ‰ Schools
Under this alternative, the additional students that would be generated from the residential development would result in a direct and cumulative impact on Menifee Elementary school. The resulting urbanization would also contribute to the cumulatively significant impacts to Menifee Valley Middle and Perris Union High schools. Because the number of students that would be generated would be less than the proposed project, these impacts to schools would be less. ‰ Libraries
Because the Reduced Density Alternative would generate a smaller population, impacts to library services would be less than the proposed project.
‰ Medical Facilities
Because the Reduced Density Alternative would generate a smaller population, cumulative impacts to medical facilities would be smaller than the proposed project. ‰ Energy Resources
As with the proposed project, this alternative would not create significant impacts to energy resources.
‰ Utilities
As with the proposed project, this alternative would not create significant impacts to utilities.

TTM NO. 31194 7.0 ALTERNATIVES
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 7-19
‰ Disaster Preparedness
With implementation of the mitigation measures provided in the relevant sections of this EIR, the project and the Reduced Density Alternative would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving wildland fires, erosion, seismic activity, blowsand, or flooding.

Therefore, impacts under the proposed project and this alternative would be generally the same. ‰ Conclusion
Implementation of the Reduced Density Alternative would result in similar impacts to the environment (biological resources, cultural resources, hydrology, water quality, geology, soils, agriculture, toxic substances, circulation, fire services, water services, energy resources, utilities, and disaster preparedness) as would occur with the proposed project. Due to the smaller residential development, this alternative would reduce some of the proposed project’s impacts (visual quality, air quality, noise, schools, libraries, and medical services). Additionally, impacts to open space and recreation would be avoided. However, this alternative would create a land use impact because the residential density would not be consistent with the SCMVAP land use plan and some of its policies.

Lastly, this alternative would not meet some of the project’s objectives – it would not provide: a residential development that is consistent with the SCMVAP land use designation; 4 acres of park space; a housing product that meets the economic profile of Riverside County; and a large enough development that supports the projected population increases.

TTM NO. 31194 8.0 REFERENCES
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 8-1

8.0 REFERENCES

ORGANIZATIONS, PERSONS AND DOCUMENTS CONSULTED
County of Riverside Planning Department (Lead Agency)
Larry Ross, Senior Planner
T&B Planning Consultants, Inc. (EIR Preparation Consultant) Barry Burnell, Principal
Tracy Zinn, Senior Associate
Connie Anderson, Project Manager
Russ Garcia, Graphics Production
Eric Horowitz, Graphics Production
Technical Reports
L&L Environmental (EIR Technical Appendices B1, B2, B3, B4, B5, B6, B7 and C) Hunsaker and Associates (EIR Technical Appendices D1, D2, J1, and J2) Urban Crossroads (Technical Appendices E and G)
Giroux and Associates (Technical Appendix F)
Leighton and Associates (EIR Technical Appendices H1 and H2.) EnGEN Corporation (EIR Technical Appendix I)
Websites Consulted
California Department of Conservation. www.consrv.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp/index.htm California Environmental Resource Evaluation System. http://ceres.ca.gov/watershed/geographic County of Riverside Transportation and Land Management Agency. http://tlma.co.riverside.ca.us Eastern Municipal Water District. www.org.water
Governor’s Office of Planning and Research. www.opr.ca.gov

Mapquest. www.mapquest.com
Menifee Union School District. www.menifeeusd.k12.ca.us Perris Union High School District. www.puhsd.org
TTM NO. 31194 8.0 REFERENCES
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 8-2
Riverside County. http://www.co.riverside.ca.us/riverside.asp Riverside County Fire Department. www.rvcfire,org
Riverside County GIS. www.co.riverside.ca.us/rivcoords.asp Riverside County Ordinances. http://www.co.riverside.ca.us/rivcoords.asp Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/rwqcb8 Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority. www.sawpa.org
Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). www.scag.ca.gov Persons Consulted/Verbal Communication

Reynolds, Emmanuelle. Business Manager, Perris Union High School District. Verbal Communication; September 22 and 23, 2003.

Shaw, Bruce. Facilities Coordinator. Menifee Union School District. Verbal Communication; September 23, 2003.

Persons Consulted/Written Communication

Davis, Chris. Lieutenant. Riverside County Sheriff Department, Southwest Station. Written Corrspondence; September 29, 2003.

Ma, Sung Key. Planner III. Riverside County Waste Management Department. Written Correspondence; September 2, 2003.

Rodriguez, Jorge. Fire Captain Specialist. Riverside County Fire Department. Written correspondence; August 13, 2003.

Shaw, Bruce. Facilities Planning Director. Menifee Union School District. Written Correspondence; August 6, September 23 and 24, 2003.

Smith, Mark. Deputy Administrator. Riverside County Library System. Written Correspondence; August 15, 2003.

Documents Incorporated by Reference

2003a, County of Riverside. Draft Environmental Impact Report Cimarron Valley Estates. Volume I. Prepared by HDR Engineering, Inc. August 2003.
2003b, County of Riverside General Plan Final Program EIR. October 2003.

TTM NO. 31194 8.0 REFERENCES
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 8-3

2002, Eastern Municipal Water District. Water Supply Assessment Report.. August 21, 2002. (This document is available for review at EMWD Headquarters; 2270 Trumble Road; Perris, CA 92574.)
2002, Eastern Municipal Water District. Report on Metropolitan’s Water Supplies. February 11, 2002. (This document is available for review at EMWD Headquarters; 2270 Trumble Road; Perris, CA 92574.)
2001, Eastern Municipal Water District. Eastern Municipal Water District 2001/2005-Year Capital Improvement Program. June 29, 2001. (This document is available for review at EMWD Headquarters; 2270 Trumble Road; Perris, CA 92574.)
2000, Eastern Municipal Water District. 2001 Urban Water Management Plan. December 31, 2000. (This document is available for review at EMWD Headquarters; 2270 Trumble Road; Perris, CA 92574.)
Documents Consulted

2001, California Department of Conservation Division of Land Resource Protection. Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program 1998-2000. www.consrv.ca.gov/ 1995, California Department of Conservation. Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. Soil Candidate Listing for Prime Farmland and Farmland of Statewide Importance. August 1, 1995. 1991, California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology. Mineral Land Classification of the Temescal Valley Area, Riverside County, California 1995, California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Santa Ana Region. Water Quality Control Plan, Santa Ana River Basin.
2003, Riverside, County of. Riverside County Comprehensive General Plan. September 2003. 2003, Riverside, County of. Riverside County Integrated Project – Sun City/Menifee Valley Area Plan. September 2003.
2003, Riverside, County of. Riverside County Municipal Code. 2001, Southern California Association of Governments. Population Growth in the SGAG Region, 1950 - 2025. http://www.scag.ca.gov/livable/GV1950_2025.pdf 1971, U.S. Department of Agriculture. Soil Survey, Western Riverside Area, California. November 1971.
1995, Western Riverside Council of Governments. WRCOG Non-Motorized Transportation Plan.

April 1995.

TTM NO. 31194 8.0 REFERENCES
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 8-4
1994, Western Riverside Council of Governments. WRCOG Subregional Comprehensive Plan.

January 1994.

Documents Appended to this EIR

The following reports and studies are contained in the TTM No. 31194 Technical Appendices. A copy of the Technical Appendices is available for review at the Riverside County Planning Department, 39493 Los Alamos Road, Suite A, Murrieta, CA. 92563-5039.

1. General Biological Survey Report for the Menifee Tract 31194, L&L Environmental, Inc. (November 30, 2004).

2. Jurisdictional Impacts on the 204.7 Acre Project, Tract 31194, Menifee, California, L&L Environmental, Inc. (July 28, 2004).

3. Focused Survey for the Coastal California Gnatcatcher on Tract 31194, Menifee Assemblage, Riverside County, California, L&L Environmental, Inc. (July 27, 2004).

4. Focused Survey for the Quino Checkerspot Butterfly on the Serrano Specific Plan, Case #441, Riverside County, California, L&L Environmental, Inc. (July 27, 2004).

5. Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation Report, L&L Environmental, Inc. (March 2005 November 2005).

6. Focused Survey for Burrowing Owl, L&L Environmental (August 24, 2005)

7. Habitat Assessment for Least Bell’s Vireo, Southwestern Willow Flycatcher and YellowBilled Cuckoo, L&L Environmental (October 26, 2005)

6. Phase I Archaeological and Paleontological Survey Report for Menifee Assemblages, L&L Environmental, Inc. (September 23).

7. Hydrology Analysis for Tentative Tract 31194, Hunsaker & Associates (June 2006 March 25, 2005).

8. Water Quality Management Plan for Tentative Tract 31194, Hunsaker & Associates (March October 27, 2005).

9. Tentative Tract 31194 Traffic Impact Analysis (Revised), Urban Crossroads, Inc. (November 22, 2004). Supplement, dated June 28, 2006.

10. Air Quality Impact Analysis, Woodside Homes, Tentative Tract 31194, Giroux & Associates (August 15, 2003October 5, 2005).

11. Tentative Tract Map 31194 EIR Noise Study, Urban Crossroads, Inc. (June 29, 2004).

TTM NO. 31194 8.0 REFERENCES
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458 PAGE 8-5

12. Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation Proposed Residential Development Evans Road and Garbani Road Menifee Area Riverside California, Leighton and Associates, (June 27, 2002).

13. Geotechnical Review of Rough Grading Plans, Tract Map No. 31194, Menifee Area, County of Riverside, California, Leighton and Associates (January 30, 2004) and Geotechnical Review Update, Tentative Tract Map No. 31194, Menifee Area, County of Riverside, California, Leighton and Associates (November 2, 2004).

14. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment, EnGEN Corporation, (June 3, 2002).

15. Master Plan Water Report, Hunsaker & Associates, (September 18, 2002).

16. Master Plan Sewer Report, Hunsaker & Associates, (September 19, 2002).

17. Water Supply Assessment for Tentative Tract Map No. 31194, Eastern Municipal Water District (August 4, 2004).

FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458

TECHNICAL APPENDICES
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 31194
CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 06764
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 00729
(SCH NO. 2003061122)

RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA

LEAD AGENCY:

Riverside County Planning Department
4080 Lemon Street, 9th Floor
Riverside, CA 92502
Attn: Larry Ross
Date: June 30, 2006
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458

TECHNICAL APPENDICES
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 31194
CHANGE OF ZONE NO. 06764
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO 00729
(SCH NO. 2003061122)

RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA

LEAD AGENCY:

Riverside County Planning Department
4080 Lemon Street, 9th Floor
Riverside, CA 92502
Attn: Larry Ross
EIR CONSULTANT:

T&B Planning Consultants, Inc.
17542 East 17th Street, Suite 100
Tustin, CA 92780
Attn: Tracy Zinn
TECHNICAL CONSULTANTS:

EnGEN Corporation | Phase I Environmental Site Assessment Giroux and Associates | Air Quality
Hunsaker & Associates | Civil Engineering, Hydrology
L&L Environmental | Biology, Archaeology
Leighton and Associates, Inc. | Geotechnical
Urban Crossroads | Acoustics, Traffic
PROJECT SPONSOR:

Woodside Homes
23121 Antonio Parkway, Ste. 120
Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688
Attn: Peter Evans
Draft EIR: May 6, 2005
Final EIR: June 30, 2006
TTM NO. 31194 TECHNICAL APPENDICES
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458

TECHNICAL APPENDICES TABLE OF CONTENTS

TAB NAME OF REPORT

A. Environmental Assessment No. 38942, Notice of Preparation and Written Comments B1. General Biological Survey Report
B2. Jurisdictional Delineation
B3. Focused Survey for the California Gnatcatcher
B4. Focused Survey for the Quino Checkerspot Butterfly
B5. Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation (DBESP) (Revised) B6. Focused Habitat for Focused Burrowing Owl
B7. Focused Habitat Assessment for Least Bell’s Vireo, Southwestern Willow Flycatcher and Yellow-billed Cuckoo
C. Archaeological and Paleontological Survey Reports
D1. Hydrology Study (Revised)
D2. Water Quality Management Plan (Revised)
E. Traffic Impact Analysis and Supplement
F. Air Quality Impact Analysis (Revised)
G. Noise Study
H1. Preliminary Geotechnical Evaluation
H2. Geotechnical Review Update
I. Phase I Environmental Site Assessment
J1. Water Report
J2. Sewer Report
J3. Water Supply Assessment
K. Written Correspondence
L. Title Report

TTM NO. 31194 TECHNICAL APPENDICES
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458

B5.

DETERMINATION OF BIOLOGICALLY EQUIVALENT OR SUPERIOR

PRESERVATION (REVISED)

Z:\Project Files\Leslie Office PC\Project Files\WHC-03-187 Menifee Assem. JD GB Prmts\DBESP\Revised Final DBESP Dec. 2005\WHC-03-187.doc 1269 Pomona Rd. • Suite 102 • Corona, CA 92882 • Phone 951.681.4929 • FAX 951.681.6531

DETERMINATION OF BIOLOGICALLY EQUIVALENT OR SUPERIOR PRESERVATION FOR THE MENIFEE TRACT 31194, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA ±206.7 Acre Property, ±206.7 Acres Surveyed
APNs 360-300-002, -003, -004, -005, -006, -009, and 360-350-001, Tract 31194 FWS/CDFG-4231.2, Menifee Area, Section 9, 15 and 16, Township 6 South, Range 3 West, of the USGS Romoland 7.5’ Series Quadrangle Map Prepared for:

Peter Evans
Woodside Homes of California
23121 Antonio Parkway, Suite 120
Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688
949-858-4980 x245
Prepared by:

Leslie Irish, Principal
Julia Fox, Technical Editor
Michael Rahe, Sr. Biologist
Guy Bruyea, Project Biologist
L & L Environmental, Inc.
1269 Pomona Road, Suite 102
Corona, California 92882
951-279-9608
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
March 22, 2005
Revised December 2, 2005
Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation Menifee Tract 31194 December 2, 2005
WHC-03-187.DB1 2 L&L

DETERMINATION OF BIOLOGICALLY EQUIVALENT OR SUPERIOR PRESERVATION (DBESP)
No specific field work was conducted for this analysis; rather this work represents an analysis of the studies performed over a period of time for the CEQA process as submitted to the county on behalf of the project proponent. This Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation (known commonly as the DBESP) is required by the county when certain impact to riparian or wetland habitat is planned. If avoidance of (covered species) riparian / wetland habitat is not feasible, a practicable alternative that minimizes direct and indirect effects to riparian/riverine areas and vernal pools (and associated functions and values) to the greatest extend possible shall be selected. Those impacts that are unavoidable shall be mitigated such that the lost functions and values (as they relate to the covered species) are replaced.

Project Location / Project Area/ Property
The project area is located within the Menifee area of southwestern Riverside County, California (Figure 1). The subject property is generally located in the Paloma Valley west of Interstate 215 (I-215), south of Newport Road, and east of Murrieta Road. The project area is located in Sections 9, 15, and 16, Township 6 South, Range 3 West within the USGS Romoland 7.5’ series quadrangle map (Figure 2).

The site is generally bounded as follows: to the west by actively cultivated agricultural areas, Evans Road (unimproved), and rural residential units; to the east by a mixture of disturbed and relatively undisturbed open space, Ascot Way (unimproved), and a Verizon Communications complex beyond; to the north by a mixture of disturbed and relatively undisturbed lands, rural residential areas, and Garbani Road (unimproved) beyond; and to the south by Wickerd Road (unimproved), rural residential areas, and a mix of disturbed and relatively undisturbed lands beyond (Figure 3). In the interest of defining the project area we have used the term “property” to indicate the land owned by the project proponent and the area that contains his planned improvements. Off-property is used to indicate land owned by “others” including adjacent developments not a part of Menifee Assemblage.

Project Summary
Woodside Homes of California (Woodside Homes: Applicant) proposes to develop approximately 488 single-family residential homes on ±206.7 acres. The project plan includes a substantial amount of open space (59.8 acres), including one large central park (5.4 acres) and two neighborhood parks (0.7 and 0.6 acres). The open space has been designed to be concentrated within the Specific Plan area to provide connectivity to adjacent open space and very low-density areas.

Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation Menifee Tract 31194 December 2, 2005
WHC-03-187.DB1 3 L&L
L&L Environmental, Inc.

BIOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL

INVESTIGATIONS AND MONITORING
WHC-03-187
December 2005
Figure 1
Project Vicinity
Woodside Homes of California
Menifee Assemblage, Menifee, California
Project Location
Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation Menifee Tract 31194 December 2, 2005
WHC-03-187.DB1 4 L&L
L&L Environmental, Inc.

BIOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL

INVESTIGATIONS AND MONITORING
WHC-03-187
December 2005
Figure 2
Project Location
Woodside Homes of California
Menifee Assemblage, Menifee, California
Project Area
Offsite
improvement
Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation Menifee Tract 31194 December 2, 2005
WHC-03-187.DB1 5 L&L
L&L Environmental, Inc.

BIOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL

INVESTIGATIONS AND MONITORING
WHC-03-187
December 2005
Figure 3
Aerial Photograph
(Provided by GlobeXplorer, Air Photo USA, 2003)
Woodside Homes of California
Menifee Assemblage, Menifee, California
Project Area
Offsite
improvements N
Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation Menifee Tract 31194 December 2, 2005
WHC-03-187.DB1 6 L&L
Biological Information
L&L Environmental, Inc. (Guy Bruyea as biological investigator) conducted a general biological survey on the ±206.7 acre project (Menifee Assemblage) in the Paloma Valley area of western Riverside County in July 2003. Spring botanical, focused coastal California gnatcatcher surveys, and focused Quino checkerspot butterfly surveys (Guy Bruyea as biological investigator) were conducted by L&L in 2004. Results of these surveys identified five vegetation communities on the project site: 1) Riversidean sage scrub (RSS) (32.81 aces), 2) disturbed Riversidean sage scrub (2.4 acres), 3) northern mixed chaparral (2.6 acres), 4) southern arroyo willow riparian/mulefat scrub (3.02 acres), and 5) disturbed/ agricultural (165.87acres).

An additional Habitat Assessment (Guy Bruyea as biological investigator) was performed on October 26, 2005 to determine the presence/absence of potential habitat for the least Bell’s vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus), southwestern willow flycatcher (Epidonax traillii extimus), and yellowbilled cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus occidentalis) on the property. This assessment was required due to a Response to Comments from the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS). The report concluded that habitat to support these species appears absent or very low based upon extensive agricultural disturbances throughout the northwestern portion of the site, the degraded nature of the blueline stream area, lack of a dense shrubby layer of understory vegetation, the isolated nature of many onsite Salix, Baccharis, Tamarix, and other riparian associate species which form only small patches (in many cases less than 2 or 3 small trees), and no dense riparian “thickets” typically associated with undisturbed lowland riparian systems and high quality LBV, SWF, and cuckoo habitat (see tree inventory attached).

Native shrubs and other conspicuous plants commonly observed in the RSS areas include flattop buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum), California sagebrush (Artemesia californica), and white sage (Salvia apiana). Other conspicuous plants include brittlebush (Encelia farinosa), yellow bush penstemmon (Keckiella antirrhinoides), wishbone bush (Mirabilis californicam), sweetbush (Bebbia juncea), blue elderberry (Sambucus mexicana), and black sage (Salvia mellifera).

Northern mixed chaparral (NMC) occurs on approximately 2.6 acres of the site and typically contains a diverse group of evergreen plants, mostly inhabited by sclerophyllous shrubs with broad leaves. Common associates of this vegetation community include chamise (Adenostoma fasciculatum), black sage, and other perennials. A poorly developed understory is usually present in association with NMC areas and is characteristic of areas observed on the subject site and in adjacent areas.

The northwestern portion of the site contains a degraded blueline stream area that is sparsely inhabited by arroyo willow, mulefat, or a combination of both species comprising approximately Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation Menifee Tract 31194 December 2, 2005
WHC-03-187.DB1 7 L&L

3.0 acres. A single Fremont’s cottonwood and scattered tamarisk (Tamarix sp.) were also observed. The understory is dominated by mostly weedy annuals, including (but not limited to) short-pod mustard, annual sunflower, fiddleneck, Indian clover (Lotus purshianus), wild radish (Raphinus sativus), mayweed (Athemis cotula), prickly lettuce (Lactuca serriola), and several non-native grasses, including wheat (Triticum aestivum), oat (Avena spp.), and other non-native grass species. A persistent water flow was not observed within any of the on-property drainages during the studies.

Agricultural and heavily disturbed or ruderal areas comprise approximately 163.9 acres of the project site. Approximately 75% of the survey area has been converted for agricultural use and contains mostly dry-farmed wheat crops. Some invasive plants were observed within these fields, including lamb’s quarters (Chenopodium murale), wild heliotrope (Heliotropium curassavicum), calabazilla (Cucurbita foetidissima), and knotweed (Polygonum aviculare).

Wheat harvesting operations were observed during a portion of our field work.

The disturbed habitat includes areas that contain mostly non-native plant species, including ornamentals and ruderal exotics. Mostly non-native weedy species have invaded portions of the hillside areas not used for agriculture, but previously disturbed. The most common invasive plants observed included short-pod mustard (Hirschfeldia incana) and various non-native grasses, such as foxtail chess (Bromus madritensis ssp. rubens) and Mediterranean grass (Schismus barbatus).

Current Functions and Values
Hydrologic Regime
Four drainages are within the project footprint. Drainage 1 is a mapped blueline stream on the site that drains from the southwest corner to roughly the northwest portion of the site. The blueline stream originates off-property to the southwest and flows north through the project site and continues off-property. Drainage 1 intersects with the proposed Garboni Road extension.

Much of this area has been severely impacted by agricultural activities, but several wetland indicator plant species were found in association with this drainage on the site and in areas immediately adjacent to the site. Drainage 2 begins on-property near the middle of the property and drains off-property in a northwestern direction where it connects with Drainage 1. Drainage 3 is located near the northeastern part of the property and flows in southwesterly direction. This drainage does not connect with on-property or off-property drainages. Just off-property (near the southeastern corner of the property) a small drainage intersects the proposed Wickerd Road extension. This drainage flows in a northeasterly direction away from the project site.

Much of the length of Drainage 1 no longer exists due to land use changes. The area where the blueline stream leaves the property has been altered over the years. The USGS topographic Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation Menifee Tract 31194 December 2, 2005
WHC-03-187.DB1 8 L&L
map (1979) shows the blueline stream exiting the northwest corner of the property at Garboni Road, however, the Riverside County Flood Control ortho-topo map (1996) shows it flowing east across the property and tapering off. During the site visit in August 2003 (delineation conducted by Leslie Irish, Becky Mangum, and Melissa Moshfegh) it was determined that the blueline had (in the past) originated off-property and traveled through the property, flowing north where it exited the property. It appears that over time cultivation of the fields altered the flow and actual path the water traveled.

Flood Storage
The hydrology report produced by Hunsaker & Associates divides the project into two drainage areas. The major area (area “A”) covers approximately 564 acres (on-property and off-property) and includes the northwestern and southern parts of the property, including Drainages 1, 2, and

3. The current Q-100 for area “A” is 799.3 cfs. The smaller area (Area “B”) encompasses 16.8 acres that includes the southeastern part of the property and has a current Q-100 of 41.4 cfs.

The current topography and wetland/riparian habitat help to maintain only minimal flood storage and allow for the slow release of surface water, rain, and flood water by spreading it over a relatively flat surface and a significant distance. Although the presence of the riparian habitat helps to retain flows, there is currently no restriction to contain floodwaters or prevent them from leaving the property at high velocity.

Nutrient Retention, Sediment Trapping and Transport, Toxicant Trapping Wetlands help improve water quality naturally by intercepting surface runoff and removing or retaining inorganic nutrients, processing organic wastes, trapping heavy metals/toxicants, and reducing suspended sediments before they reach open water. For example, as the runoff water passes through wetlands excess nitrogen and phosphorus are retained and/or processed, organic pollutants decompose, and suspended sediments that would otherwise clog waterways and affect fish and amphibian egg development are trapped.

The wetland/riparian areas within Drainages 1 and 2 receive off-property water from upstream and off-property sources (natural runoff from agricultural, residential, and natural open spaces).

The existing wetland/riparian habitat in Drainages 1 and 2 includes vegetation, soils, and hydrology which would be expected to perform a biogeochemical cycling function which would improve water quality. This will result in the retention of nitrogen, sulfur, and phosphorous and enhance reduction of sediment and toxins. The wetland area is laid out in a long narrow configuration with only a slight slope to the northwest. This causes suspended materials to settle out of the water when flow velocity is reduced and where wetland vegetation will absorb and utilize the materials, thereby naturally reducing nutrients, sediment, and toxins in the water.

Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation Menifee Tract 31194 December 2, 2005
WHC-03-187.DB1 9 L&L
Public Use
Wetlands and riparian areas provide many aesthetic and cultural benefits and contain native species that have traditional and artistic value. The multilevel and varied plant pallets provide a pleasant and cooling green-space which is enjoyed by the resident or casual passerby.

Greenbelts and open spaces, even if not approachable, have intrinsic value to humans and have been shown to produce positive emotions and improved well being.

Wetlands and riparian woodlands are important plant banks where native plants are retained for future generations and materials important to past life ways can be located and used.

Sweetgrass (Hierochloe odorata) baskets and willow furniture are two examples of indigenous household items once common to California which can still be manufactured today from the wetland/riparian storehouse.

Wetlands are natural science centers and a good source of many hours of relaxation and amusement for bird watchers and young people eager to learn about their environment. The springtime hatching cycle of frogs and toads is something of interest to most observers, as are pond water, water plants or slimes, mold, and fungi to the more adventurous. Many other playtime and/or recreational, educational, and research opportunities also exist as a result of wetland/riparian systems.

The recreational benefits associated with wetlands, of course, also serve to educate. Wetlands are studied in conjunction with environmental programs at adult continuing education facilities and at environmental centers. Furthermore, many school systems at the grammar, middle, and high school levels use these valuable ecosystems as out-of-door laboratories for environmentally-related courses, since they serve as excellent study sites to learn about vegetative structure (e.g., density and cover of vegetation) and ecological functions (e.g., nutrient cycling), natural ecological processes (e.g., plant succession), biodiversity, and plantanimal interactions. For more advanced students (particularly those at the high school and college levels) and professionals seeking to learn more about wetlands, they can serve as excellent research sites.

The location, size, and isolation of the riparian vegetation as it currently exists would tend to eliminate it from beneficial use by all but the current owner’s direct use. Currently, the public use of the on-property wetlands is limited due to the proximity to access roads and private property status. Therefore it is not being utilized for science or recreation and has little aesthetic value to the public.

Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation Menifee Tract 31194 December 2, 2005
WHC-03-187.DB1 10 L&L
Wildlife Habitat and Aquatic Habitat
The combination of shallow water, high levels of inorganic nutrients, and high rates of primary productivity in many wetlands is ideal for the development of organisms that form the base of the food web. Some animals consume the above-ground live vegetation (herbivore-carnivore food web); others utilize the dead plant leaves and stems that break down in the water to form small, nutrient-enriched particles of organic material called detritus. Wetlands provide food, water, and shelter for animals (which is why wetlands can allow for very diverse ecosystems) and drainages can provide corridors between larger native open spaces. Corridors are open space areas that provide contiguous stretches of habitat and connect chains of property or islands of habitat. They are often characterized by densely vegetated drainages or confined narrow stretches of moderate to dense habitat that connect two larger blocks of habitat. Of significance is the fact that there are numerous listed and sensitive species associated with wetland and riparian habitats.

As the site now exists, agricultural activities and other anthropogenic disturbances have directly impacted the riparian habitat over decades and indirectly impacted riparian species. These activities in and around the riparian habitat have aided in the influx of non-native species. It was apparent from the assessment of riparian habitat, habitat mapping, jurisdictional delineation, and aerial photo that the best quality habitat on-property and densest portion of the habitat is concentrated in the area where Drainage 1 and Drainage 2 run parallel within 20 feet of each other. This habitat shows little diversity, is nearly monotypic, and has a high non-native weedy understory, but it is superior to the remaining riparian habitat on the property. In its present condition, prior to enhancement, the area is poor habitat for sensitive riparian species primarily because of the frequency of activity within the highly disturbed soils involved in agricultural use (crop production). Presently, the drainage is “patchy” and disjointed and does not connect or provide a corridor to other native wildlife areas. It is a narrow area within which animals can move, forage, and rest, but it does not function as a corridor between native habitats offproperty.

During the general biological surveys and again in the focused habitat assessment (2005), it was determined that the habitat was not suitable for least Bell’s vireos and that they were not presently using the property. The only potential habitat on-property is located near where Drainages 1 and 2 parallel each other, and this area is planned for avoidance. Habitat outside this concentration is drawn out into narrow bands of sporadic native species. This riparian vegetation has little diversity, with only a few willows and mulefat that are dominated by nonnative weedy species and support scattered tamarisk with little or no understory (see tree inventory with photo log that is attached). Based on the current size of the habitat, condition, isolation, lack of visual connection, and distance from occupied habitat (5 miles, CNDDB), it was determined that suitable habitat for the least Bell’s vireos is not present on-property, adjacent to, or in the vicinity of the Menifee Assemblage property.

Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation Menifee Tract 31194 December 2, 2005
WHC-03-187.DB1 11 L&L
Habitat within the site was determined not to be suitable for the other species requiring surveys listed in MSHCP Section 6.1.2 Riparian/Riverine and Vernal Pool Habitat. Common botanical and wildlife species were observed in this area, but the habitat did not support a significantly larger population or diversity of wildlife species than the remainder of the site. The project site currently lacks habitat for sensitive riparian or vernal pool species, including southwestern willow flycatcher, western yellow-billed cuckoo, Riverside fairy shrimp, Santa Rosa Plateau fairy shrimp, or vernal pool fairy shrimp, and in its current size and configuration the habitat onproperty is not suitable for the long-term conservation of the LBV and will not benefit the species.

Unavoidable Impacts
The Menifee Assemblage project design proposes to impact 0.79 acres of riparian/mulefat scrub habitat while conserving 2.23 acres. The project impacts to riparian/mulefat scrub habitat include the Garboni Road extension, the realignment of Drainage 2, residential development of portions of Drainage 2, and Wickerd Road extension. Though the project would have a direct impact on 0.79 acres of vegetation, this impact would be largely temporary since the end result of the road construction would be no net loss based on the proposed measures below. Overall, the 0.79 acres of riparian/mulefat scrub habitat to be impacted is the least valuable on-property.

The habitat within the 0.79 acres is patchy, disjointed, disturbed, and narrow where project construction will occur. The 2.23 acres of habitat planned for conservation includes the only potential good quality riparian habitat on-property and is located near where Drainages 1 and 2 parallel each other.

Determination of Biological Equivalent or Superior Preservation The current project design avoids development on 2.23 acres of southern arroyo willow riparian/mulefat scrub and proposes to impact 0.79 acres. Enhancement of 1.2 acres of riparian vegetation will occur within Drainage 1. In order for the project design to result in biologically equivalent or superior riparian preservation, the applicant shall enhance 1.2 acres of riparian vegetation within Drainage 1 that is currently devoid of vegetation or supports non-native or disturbed riparian vegetation. These areas will be planted with native riparian vegetation with upland margins and include natural vegetation to allow for wildlife use and movement. This enhancement would provide habitat that is healthier and can support and be accessed by more species, particularly sensitive species that utilize riparian/riverine habitats.

The project design eliminated potential impacts by avoiding significant vegetated portions of Drainage 1 (the on-property blueline stream) and proposes enhancement as mentioned above.

The riparian habitat within Drainage 2 will be avoided, while the presently unvegetated area will be developed. The on-property impacts will be included in the approved grading plans and enhancement will be conducted concurrent with grading.

Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation Menifee Tract 31194 December 2, 2005
WHC-03-187.DB1 12 L&L
Additionally, water basins totaling 1.33 acres will be created on-property for the purpose of detaining water, cycling nutrients, and trapping toxicants and sediments. This combination of creation and enhancement will result in no-net-loss and would result in a correlated increase in the associated functions.

Hydrologic Regime
The proposed design for the Menifee Assemblage project will incorporate avoidance and minimization of impacts to off-property and on-property drainages. The off-property drainage impacts for the Garboni Road and Wickerd Road extensions include 0.006 acres to federal waters and 0.016 acres to state waters. These project areas have been historically altered for the unimproved roads currently present. The main water source for Drainage 1 will continue and will remain unchanged as upstream and off-property runoff and direct rainfall from the agricultural, residential, and natural areas to the south and hills beyond. Impacts to Drainage 1 will be avoided with the current project design. However, this drainage will be improved by the recreation of habitat upstream of the southernmost delineated area. Drainage 2 will have portions developed, altered, and avoided. The most upstream portion of Drainage 2 will be developed in park and residential areas. The current project design has Drainage 2 crossing 15 residential lots, three (3) roadways and a park. Linear flow distance through the park is approximately 430 feet and flow through the residential area (including roads) is 1500 linear feet.

The middle section of Drainage 2 (where the most substantial riparian/riverine habitat is present) will be avoided. The length of this area is approximately 500 linear feet. The lower section of Drainage 2 will be altered and returned to its historic location, allowing connection to the drainage that crosses the Garboni Road extension. This area will be recreated in the form of two (2) water detention basins near the northwest corner of the property.

Approximately 500 feet of Drainage 3 will be developed in the form of residential and roadways.

Currently, this drainage crosses eight (8) residential lots and three (3) roadways. Due to its disconnection from other drainages, Drainage 3 is not considered state or federal jurisdictional area. There will be a water basin that will collect water from the southeast portion of the property near the southeast corner of the property.

Avoidance and minimization of impact design is intended to restore the historic blueline stream to its approximate original location and allow for an upstream water quality basin to clean received flows prior to release into the existing and avoided riparian area. A berm and/or slight impoundment at the low point of the park will expose runoff from the park to a grass lined percolation water quality BMP prior to entering the riparian zone. Low flows and dry season runoff will be diverted around the riparian avoidance zone and into the water quality structure at Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation Menifee Tract 31194 December 2, 2005
WHC-03-187.DB1 13 L&L
the low point (downstream end of the project) prior to release into off-property adjacent/contiguous blueline drainages.

Enhancement on-property (mitigation) of the riparian habitat will include removal of exotics and installation of (1.2 acres) of riparian habitat within the 2.23 acre of sparsely vegetated almost completely monotypic and degraded willow habitat. Via enhancement/expansion and creation of greater riparian diversity within the existing habitat, this design will allow for the slower release of surface water, rain, and floodwater crossing the site.

Onsite, one newly created upstream and two downstream water quality basins will process received and produced low flows, first-flush rain events, and other urban runoff including nuisance flows from hardscape and landscaped areas prior to received water entering the avoidance/enhancement area, and again, prior to all runoff entering downstream adjacent properties.

Flood Storage and Flood Flow Modification
With the proposed development including modifications to Drainage 2, the Q-100 from the site after development has been calculated at 813.4 cfs. Utilizing three water basins on-property will decrease the volume/velocity of water from project site, due to temporary ponding of water in the three basins allowing for flood storage.

The total watershed contributing to area “A” covers approximately 564.0 acres. The postconstruction Q-100 for area “A” is 773.0 cfs. For area “A” there will be two basins: basin “A” and basin “A-1”. Basin “A” will hold 9.40 acre feet with a holding time of 36-48 hours. Basin “A1” will hold 6.87 acre feet with a holding time of 36-48 hours.

The total watershed contributing to Area “B” covers approximately 17.1 acres. The postconstruction Q-100 for area “B” is 40.4 cfs. Basin “B” will hold 1.22 acre feet with a holding time of 36-48 hours.

Nutrient Retention, Sediment Trapping and Transport, Toxicant Trapping Water Quality Improvement Structures
The created water quality basin upstream of the avoided and enhanced riparian/riverine habitat in Drainages 1 and 2 will contain facultative and obligate wetland plants that will proliferate when exposed to runoff. This will decrease contamination (e.g. hydrocarbons, nutrients, heavy metals, and sediment) from the runoff received from upstream properties prior to water entering the preserved, enhanced, and avoided riparian zone. It will also assist in mitigation of the region’s contamination of “waters of the US” downstream of the project. These water basins will Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation Menifee Tract 31194 December 2, 2005
WHC-03-187.DB1 14 L&L
be created for the sole purpose of biogeochemical cycling, removing added nutrient value and toxins from runoff prior to entering a blueline stream. This treatment will not be used as credit for creation of habitat.

Combined with the two downstream basins, the total of three (3) water quality basins will cover

1.33 acres, all of which will be vegetated with native riparian/wetland (facultative and obligate) plants. These basins will also provide temporary water storage that will last approximately 36- 48 hours. Water quality basins are designed to treat first flush runoff from rain events and low flows or dry weather urban runoff for contaminants such as hydrocarbons, nutrients, heavy metals, sediments, etc. As stated above, not only do suspended sediments settle out of the water when flow velocity is reduced in the ponds, but wetland vegetation absorbs, takes up, and utilizes inorganic nutrients, organic wastes, and heavy metals/toxins normally found in urban runoff. These basins are not now nor will they ever be intended for consideration as habitat for sensitive or endangered species.

Habitat Enhancement, Avoidance, and Preservation Zone
The mitigation program has been designed to separately provide for the enhancement, cleanup, expansion, and preservation of the existing riparian willow/mulefat scrub habitat within Drainages 1 and 2. Riparian habitat mitigation creation/improvement will include installation of approximately 1.2 acres of willow/mulefat scrub within the existing 2.23 acres of fragmented and patchy habitat (and should not be confused with the water quality ponds which are for the purpose of meeting clean water act goals). This shall be insured by counting the removal of the existing vegetation during construction and replacing it on a no less than 2:1 basis within an enhancement area with a 1.5:1 ratio. The mitigation within Drainages 1 and 2 is to compensate for habitat loss only, and though certainly this habitat will provide certain functions and values as all wetlands and riparian habitat improves water quality, the purpose of this area is habitat alone and only water that has been processed via a Riverside County Standard BMP and is consistent with the normal volumes and flows for the area will be directed toward this habitat preservation/ avoidance zone.

This proposed biological equivalent design will provide wetland/riparian functions at no-net-loss for biogeochemical cycling processes and habitat quality. Once complete, the measures described will provide a net increase in value and beneficial impact within the riparian/riverine habitat of the area. Additionally, the water received and passed through the development will be upgraded in quality via the upstream water quality basin and will have an overall beneficial impact on the project avoided habitat and the downstream bluelines via a net increase in cycling of nutrients and trapping of toxins and sediments within the property/project basins.

Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation Menifee Tract 31194 December 2, 2005
WHC-03-187.DB1 15 L&L
Public Use
As stated above, wetlands can provide many aesthetic and cultural purposes and contain native species that have traditional and artistic value. They can be used as educational and scientific centers and for recreation/aesthetics.

Currently the site design includes a pedestrian trail along and through the riparian habitat.

Three access points connect to the 5.4 acre park. The habitat area is not intended to have any direct public use beyond the pedestrian trail. Signage and community education will be incorporated to discourage contact with the water and wetland areas in order to limit anthropogenic impacts. Fencing utilizing a combination of tubular, wood, and masonry block wall will be incorporated along the residential areas that border the wetland area, preventing direct access to the wetlands. Ultimately, open space that includes the riparian habitat will be transferred to a Home Owners Association (HOA) or managing authority that will be responsible for long-term maintenance.

Wildlife Habitat and Aquatic Habitat
The proposed project design incorporates a combination of avoidance and enhancement with the result being development of a riparian community located within the same drainages as the impacts and continuing along the historic blueline. Avoidance and enhancement of this area would create a larger and denser riparian stand, with higher species diversity and an overall healthier community capable of supporting a wide variety of riparian/wetland species resulting.

This design includes creation and enhancement that would produce a healthier self-sustaining community that can support and be accessed by more species, benefiting species associated with this community over the long-term as a result of continuous habitat through the property reaching drainages upstream and downstream of the project site. The proposed project would not impact a wildlife corridor, nor would it significantly impact wildlife movement.

Creation of a riparian habitat area within Drainages 1 and 2 will encourage proliferation of the existing riparian botanical species and encourage use by an existing variety of common species, both vertebrate and invertebrate. Enhanced habitat in Drainages 1 and 2 will provide a healthier and more suitable environment for sensitive botanical species. Both drainages will potentially support a variety of common and sensitive wetland and riparian species, increasing overall habitat value.

With the proposed enhancement, anthropogenic disturbances and introduction of invasive species will be reduced. As the water basins of the project are created and filled, wetland/riparian species well begin to dominate and proliferate. Enhancement activities shall incorporate active removal of non-natives from the enhanced areas. As the native species proliferate and increase, there will be less ability for the non-natives to take hold. Any natural Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation Menifee Tract 31194 December 2, 2005
WHC-03-187.DB1 16 L&L
transition areas between riparian habitat and the development that are agricultural, non-native, or devoid of vegetation shall be seeded with a native sage scrub mix, wherever possible, to create a more natural habitat community and provide some distance between development and the riparian habitat. All of the “Plants to be Avoided Adjacent to the MSHCP Conservation Area” and “California Exotic Pest Plant Council List of Most Invasive Wildland Pest Plants” shall be prohibited in the restoration effort and on properties adjacent to the wetland area.

Once complete, the measures described will have a net increase in value and beneficial impact on the riparian/riverine habitat and wildlife species of the area.

The impacts to habitat that were unavoidable have been proposed to state and federal agencies to be mitigated at a ratio of 1.5:1 (1.2 ac: 0.79 ac). The proponent will recreate, revegetated, and enhance portions of the blueline stream that are currently devoid of vegetation or that support non-native or disturbed riparian vegetation. This restoration plan will be conducted for the sole purpose of recreating a self-sustaining vigorous riparian habitat community.

Although the project as proposed does not avoid all impacts to riparian vegetation, the area to be impacted does not constitute suitable habitat for sensitive riparian species due to disturbance, monotypic and sporadic native species, dense understory of non-native species, and presence of invasive tamarisk species. Removal of these areas of vegetation would not impact sensitive riparian species outlined in MSHCP Section 6.1.2 “Protection of Species Associated with Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools.” The proposed project design will incorporate a combination of avoidance, enhancement, and restoration. The result will be development of a larger, more diverse, and healthier community that can support sensitive riparian species and ultimately create suitable habitat for these species where it did not previously occur.

This practicable alternative minimizes direct and indirect effects to riparian/riverine areas, both owned and non-owned within the development and downstream of the development, to the greatest extend possible and feasible. Those impacts that are unavoidable are mitigated within the development such that the lost functions and values as they relate to MSHCP covered species are replaced at no-net-loss to the community and Riverside County region as a whole.

Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation Menifee Tract 31194 December 2, 2005 WHC-03-187.DB1 17 L&L CAGN
PAIR
Park
430 Lft.

Avoid
1502 Lft.

Disturb
1757 Lft.

Recreate
972 Lft.

Wickerd Rd.

Extension
Off-Site Impact
/ Garboni Rd.

Extension
[Off-Site] Garboni Rd. &
Wickerd Rd
Disturb
1020 Lft.

Please see Revised Figure 4 and/or
Figure 5a For Details on Wickerd
Rd. Extension & impact Location.

Drainage 1
Drainage 3
Revised Figure 4
Water Resources with
Development
(Original Titled “Project Impacts” in
Memo dated 5/12/04)
Woodside Homes: Menifee
Assemblage, Menifee, California
L&L Environmental, Inc.

BIOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL

INVESTIGATIONS AND MONITORING
WHC-03-187
December 2005
N
Drainage 2
Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation Menifee Tract 31194 December 2, 2005
WHC-03-187.DB1 18 L&L
L&L Environmental, Inc.

BIOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL

INVESTIGATIONS AND MONITORING
WHC-03-187
December 2005
Figure 5
Soils Map
(taken from the USDA Soil Survey, 1971)
Tract 31194, Woodside Homes Group
Garboni Road, Menifee, California
Project Area
Soils in the Study Area
Cajalco - CaC2 - Cajalco fine sandy loam, 2-8% slope
CaD2 - Cajalco fine sandy loam, 8-15% slope
CbD2 - Cajalco rocky fine sandy loam, 5-15% slope
CbF2 - Cajalco rocky fine sandy loam, 15-50% slope
Cieneba - CkD2 - Cieneba rocky sandy loam, 8-15% slope
Honcut - HnC - Honcut sandy loam, 2-8% slope
HnD2 - Honcut sandy loam, 8-15% slope
Las Posas - LaD2 - Las Posas loam, 8-15% slope
LaC - Las Posas loam, 2-8% slope
LkD2 - Las Posas rocky loam, 8-15% slope
LkF3 - Las Posas rocky loam, 15-50% slope
Porterville - PsC - Porterville clay
Vallecitos - VeC2 - Vallecitos loam
Wyman - WyC2 - Wyman loam
Yokohl - YbC - Yokohl loam, 2-8% slope
YbE3 - Yokohl loam, 8-25% slope
Offsite
improvements N
Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation Menifee Tract 31194 December 2, 2005
WHC-03-187.DB1 19 L&L
Urban Interface Guidelines
This section is intended to identify actions to be taken in order to minimize edge effects where the development interacts with open space riparian/riverine habitat preservation areas.

Drainage
The current project design includes water basins totaling 1.33 acres with a volume capacity of

17.49 acre feet. Each location is designed to receive the daily runoff from a portion of the project site. All runoff from the project site will ultimately pass through the proposed water quality systems and will continue within the storm drain discharging into the existing downstream system away from the wetland area.

During the initial five-year creation and monitoring period maintenance of the water basins will be performed by the project proponent. Following completion of a successful creation program, maintenance will be turned over to the Home Owners Association (HOA) or managing authority for as-needed maintenance in perpetuity. In addition, during the five year monitoring period, non-native plants will be removed from the riparian area.

Toxics
The water quality basins, as discussed above, will reduce the expected runoff of toxic chemicals entering the wetland area and adjoining drainages downstream. The project plan was designed to direct urban runoff to water basins (around and away from the riparian area) where water will be treated for chemicals, fertilizers, and other toxins associated with urban development.

Individual lot fencing (without backyard gates opening onto the wetland area) will be used to restrict access and discourage dumping. The proponent will cooperate in the placement of signs posted in order to inform residents and encourage stewardship, including prevention of impacts to the riparian area.

Information will be distributed to the homeowners in an educational package requesting minimal application of chemicals to yards and prevent runoff through adjusting sprinklers to prevent over-watering and overspray resulting in nuisance water and low flow dry season urban runoff.

Signage will be placed on storm drains throughout the community stating “nothing but rain in the drains.” Information on the importance of not dumping chemicals, animal waste, and debris into the street will be distributed to homeowners via the Home Owners Association (HOA) at the point of sale or by the managing authority. A stewardship program will be encouraged among homeowners living adjacent to the riparian area. Phone numbers for reporting dumping or illegal activities will be distributed throughout the community.

Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation Menifee Tract 31194 December 2, 2005
WHC-03-187.DB1 20 L&L
Lighting
During construction and throughout the development, night lighting will be directed away from the riparian area and (except for safety and other requirements) away from the boundaries of the habitat area. In the event lighting in an area adjacent to the riparian habitat area is necessary, a shield will be incorporated in project designs to ensure ambient lighting in the riparian habitat area is not increased.

Night lighting is not expected to be a significant concern, as the majority of the riparian habitat area is located along residential lots, and not along a commercial or recreational use area that may introduce more intense lighting. Homeowners will also be informed that perimeter lighting is to shine towards the home and not into the riparian habitat area.

Noise
The residential development incorporates a combination of rear yard setbacks with fencing to maintain distance between human activities and the wetland. Wildlife within the riparian habitat area is not expected to be subject to noise that exceeds residential noise standards, as the project proposed is for residential development. In addition, margins adjacent to the riparian habitat area will act as a buffer between residential development and wetland areas.

Use of motorized and off-road vehicles (which might be expected to generate noise levels exceeding residential standards) will not be allowed adjacent to or within the riparian habitat area. Residents will be encouraged to call authorities if off-road vehicles are observed in the area and posted ordinance signage will allow authorities to take action should this become an issue.

Trash/Debris
The project will follow Best Management Practices (BMPs) outlined in the Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) during construction. During as-needed maintenance activities for the water basins, the Home Owner Association (HOA) or managing authority will remove trash/debris from these areas. As outlined above, except for the walking paths, fencing will be used to restrict access and discourage dumping. No backyard gates from individual residences will open onto the wetland area.

Invasive Plants
The landscape plans for the project in areas adjacent or tributary to the wetland area will not include species listed within “Table 6-2. Plants That Should Be Avoided Adjacent to the MSHCP Conservation Area” (attached). Information regarding the importance of avoiding listed plants (even in front and backyard landscaping) will be distributed to homeowners and their Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation Menifee Tract 31194 December 2, 2005
WHC-03-187.DB1 21 L&L
cooperation will be requested. If possible, the Home Owner Association (HOA) will adopt these guidelines as policy.

During the monitoring program the project proponent will be responsible for removal of nonnative plants present within the riparian habitat area. This is part of the mitigation and monitoring program that will be enacted upon completion of the project. Beyond the proposed fencing adjacent to the riparian habitat area, no proposed monitoring or barriers will prevent non-native wildlife from occupying the riparian habitat area.

Barriers
The proposed project has incorporated access control measures to limit the local residential population from unauthorized access into the riparian habitat area. Each lot that abuts the wetland area will utilize a combination of tubular steel (view), wood, and/or block wall fencing along the rear boundary, with no gate access to the riparian habitat area. Access to riparian habitat will be limited. The current site plan proposes four access points to the riparian habitat area, including one from the 5.4 acre park and a walking path.

The Home Owner Association (HOA) or managing authority will be responsible for restricting access to only pedestrian use of the paths, in addition to discouraging non-motorized vehicles, illegal dumping, off-road vehicle use, and other anthropogenic activities.

Grading/Land Development
The project as proposed does not encroach on the proposed avoided riparian habitat area, with the exception of grading and contour grading during development of Menifee Assemblage (totaling a maximum of 0.79 acres of southern arroyo willow/mulefat scrub). The 1.2 acres of restoration and enhancement will be accomplished with hand tools and will not involve use of heavy equipment.

Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation Menifee Tract 31194 December 2, 2005
WHC-03-187.DB1 22 L&L
Table 6-2. Plants that should be avoided adjacent to the MSHCP conservation area (taken directly from Section 6.1.4 of the MSHCP).

BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME
Acacia spp. (all species) acacia
Achillea millefolium var. millefolium common yarrow
Ailanthus altissima tree of heaven
Aptenia cordifolia red apple
Arctotheca calendula cape weed
Arctotis spp. (all species & hybrids) African daisy
Arundo donax giant reed or arundo grass
Asphodelus fistulosus asphodel
Atriplex glauca white saltbush
Atriplex semibaccata Australian saltbush
Carex spp. (all species*) sedge
Carpobrotus chilensis ice plant
Carpobrotus edulis sea fig
Centranthus ruber red valerian
Chrysanthemum coronarium annual chrysanthemum
Cistus ladanifer (incl. hybrids/varieties) gum rockrose Cortaderia jubata [syn.C. Atacamensis] jubata grass, pampas grass Cortaderia dioica [syn. C. sellowana] pampas grass
Cotoneaster spp. (all species) cotoneaster
Cynodon dactylon (incl. hybrids varieties) Bermuda grass Cyperus spp. (all species*) nutsedge, umbrella plant
Cytisus spp. (all species) broom
Delosperma ‘Alba’ white trailing ice plant
Dimorphotheca spp. (all species) African daisy, Cape marigold Drosanthemum floribundum rosea ice plant
Drosanthemum hispidum purple ice plant
Eichhornia crassipes water hyacinth
Elaegnus angustifolia Russian olive
Eucalyptus spp. (all species) eucalyptus or gum tree
Eupatorium coelestinum [syn. Ageratina sp.] mist flower Festuca arundinacea tall fescue
Festuca rubra creeping red fescue
Foeniculum vulgare sweet fennel
Fraxinus uhdei (and cultivars) evergreen ash, shamel ash Gaura (spp.) (all species) gaura
Gazania spp. (all species & hybrids) gazania
Genista spp. (all species) broom
Hedera canariensis Algerian ivy
Hedera helix English ivy
Hypericum spp. (all species) St. John’s Wort
Ipomoea acuminata Mexican morning glory
Lampranthus spectabilis trailing ice plant
Lantana camara common garden lantana
Lantana montevidensis [syn. L. sellowiana] lantana
Limonium perezii sea lavender
Linaria bipartita toadflax
Lolium multiflorum Italian ryegrass
Lolium perenne perennial ryegrass
Lonicera japonica (incl. ‘Halliana’) Japanese honeysuckle Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation Menifee Tract 31194 December 2, 2005
WHC-03-187.DB1 23 L&L
Table 6-2. Plants that should be avoided adjacent to the MSHCP conservation area (continued).

BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME
Lotus corniculatus birdsfoot trefoil
Lupinus arboreus yellow bush lupine
Lupinus texanus Texas blue bonnets
Malephora crocea ice plant
Malephora luteola ice plant
Mesembryanthemum nodiflorum little ice plant
Myoporum laetum myoporum
Myoporum pacificum shiny myoproum
Myoporum parvifolium (incl. ‘Prostratum’) ground cover myoporum Oenothera berlandieri Mexican evening primrose
Olea europea European olive tree
Opuntia ficus-indica Indian fig
Osteospermum spp. (all species) trailing African daisy, African daisy, Oxalis pes-caprae Bermuda buttercup
Parkinsonia aculeata Mexican palo verde
Pennisetum clandestinum Kikuyu grass
Pennisetum setaceum fountain grass
Phoenix canariensis Canary Island date palm
Phoenix dactylifera date palm
Plumbago auriculata cape plumbago
Polygonum spp. (all species) knotweed
Populus nigra ‘italica’ Lombardy poplar
Prosopis spp. (all species*) mesquite
Ricinus communis castorbean
Robinia pseudoacacia black locust
Rubus procerus Himalayan blackberry
Sapium sebiferum Chinese tallow tree
Saponaria officinalis bouncing bet, soapwart
Schinus molle Peruvian pepper tree, California pepper
Schinus terebinthifolius Brazilian pepper tree
Spartium junceum Spanish broom
Tamarix spp. (all species) tamarisk, salt cedar
Trifolium tragiferum strawberry clover
Tropaelolum majus garden nasturtium
Ulex europaeus prickly broom
Vinca major periwinkle
Yucca gloriosa Spanish dagger
An asterisk (*) indicates some native species of the genera exist that may be appropriate.

Sources: California Exotic Pest Plant Council, United States Department of Agriculture-Division of Plant Health and Pest Prevention Services, California Native Plant Society, Fremontia Vol. 26 No. 4, October 1998, The Jepson Manual; Higher Plants of California, and County of San Diego-Department of Agriculture.

Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation Menifee Tract 31194 December 2, 2005
WHC-03-187.DB1 24 L&L
Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation Menifee Tract 31194 December 2, 2005
WHC-03-187.DB1 25 L&L
Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation Menifee Tract 31194 December 2, 2005
WHC-03-187.DB1 26 L&L
L&L Environmental, Inc.

BIOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL

INVESTIGATIONS AND MONITORING
WHC-03-187
December 2005
Figure 8
Habitat Map with
Photograph Locations
(Provided by GlobeXplorer, Air Photo USA, 2003)
Woodside Homes of California
Menifee Assemblage, Menifee, California
Project Area
Legend
Riversidean Sage Scrub White-tailed Kite
RSS/Ruderal Cooper’s Hawk
Northern Mixed Chaparral Loggerhead Shrike
S. Arroyo Willow/Mulefat Scrub # Photograph Location
Agricultural/Disturbed/Ruderal
Fence Line
Off-site Improvements
8 14
7 6d
5 4 3
2 1
9 (N) -13
15 16
6a,
6b
N
Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation Menifee Tract 31194 December 2, 2005
WHC-03-187.DB1 27 L&L
Area Location Photograph Tree Genera
Present Photo ID Species Habitat
Quality
1 Salix 9154 Absent or Very Low
(Isolated)
2 Salix 9153 Absent or Very Low
(Isolated)
3 Salix, Tamarix 9152 Absent or Very Low
(Isolated)
4 Baccharis, Tamarix 9151 Absent or Very Low
(Isolated)
5 Salix, Baccharis,
Tamarix 9118 Absent or Very Low
(Isolated)
Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation Menifee Tract 31194 December 2, 2005
WHC-03-187.DB1 28 L&L
Area Location Photograph
Tree Genera
Present Photo ID
Species Habitat
Quality
6 Salix, Baccharis,
Tamarix, Juglans,
Populus
9124
Very Low
(Isolated small
patches)
7 Eucalyptus,
Baccharis 9140
Absent
(Poor low dense
shrub layer)
8 Salix, Baccharis 9129
Absent or Very Low
(Poor low dense
shrub layer)
9 Salix 9138 Absent or Very Low
(Isolated)
10 Salix, Baccharis 9137 Absent or Very Low
(Isolated)
Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation Menifee Tract 31194 December 2, 2005
WHC-03-187.DB1 29 L&L
Area Location Photograph Tree Genera
Present
Photo ID Species Habitat
Quality
11 Salix 9136 Absent or Very Low
(Isolated)
12 Salix, Baccharis 9135 Absent or Very Low
(Isolated)
13 Baccharis, Tamarix 9134 Absent or Very Low
(Isolated)
14 Salix, Baccharis,
Tamarix 9132 Absent
(Isolated)
15 Salix 9139 Absent or Very Low
(Isolated)
Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation Menifee Tract 31194 December 2, 2005
WHC-03-187.DB1 30 L&L
16 Baccharis, Tamarix 9141 Absent or Very Low
Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation Menifee Tract 31194 December 2, 2005
WHC-03-187.DB1 31 L&L
Observed Species List
Plants
Scientific Name Common Name
Amaranthaceae Pigweed Family
Amaranthus albus Tumble Pigweed
Anacardiaceae Sumac Family
Schinus molle Peruvian Pepper Tree*
Apiaceae Carrot Family
Daucus pusillus Rattlesnake Weed
Asteraceae Sunflower Family
Acourtia microcephalla Perezia
Artemesia californica California Sagebrush
Anthemis cotula Mayweed*
Baccharis salicifolia Mulefat
Bebbia juncea Sweetbush
Centaurea melitensis Tocalote*
Chaenactis artemisifolia White Pincushion
Chamomilla sauveolens Pineapple Weed*
Conyza canadensis Horseweed
Encelia farinose Brittlebush
Filago californica California Flago
Gutierrezia californica California Matchweed
Helianthus annuus Annual Sunflower
Helianthus gracilentus Slender-leaved Sunflower
Hemizonia fasciculate Slender Tarweed
Lactuca serriola Prickly-lettuce*
Lessingia filaginifolia Cudweed Aster
Microceris lindleyi Silver Puffs
Senecio vulgaris Common Groundsel*
Sonchus oleraceus Sow-thistle*
Stephanomeria virgata Twiggy Wreath Plant
Stylocline gnaphalioides Nest-straw
Tetradymia comosa Common-thorn
Uropappus lindleyi Silver Puffs
Xanthium spinosum Spiny Cocklebur
Boraginaceae Borage Family
Amsinckia menziesii var. intermedia Fiddleneck
Cryptantha intermedia Forget-me-not
Heliotropium curvassavicum Wild Heliotrope
Plagiobothrys sp. Popcorn Flower

Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation Menifee Tract 31194 December 2, 2005
WHC-03-187.DB1 32 L&L
Scientific Name Common Name
Brassicaceae Mustard Family
Hirschfeldia incana (=Brassica geniculata) Short-pod Mustard* Lepidium nitidum Shiny Peppergrass
Sisymbrium orientale Wild Mustard*
Raphinus sativus Wild Radish*
Thysanocarpus curvipes Lacepod
Caprifolacea Honeysuckle Family
Sambucus mexicana Blue Elderberry
Chenopodiaceae Goosefoot Family
Atriplex suberecta Lagoon Saltbush
Chenopodium murale Lamb’s Quarters*
Euphorbia albomarginata Rattlesnake Weed
Salsola tragus Russian Thistle*
Convolvulaceae Mourning-Glory Family
Calystegia macrostegia Wild Morning Glory
Crassulaceae Stonecrop Family
Crassula connata Pygmy Stonecrop
Cuscutaceae Dodder Family
Cuscuta californica Dodder
Cactaceae Cactus Family
Optuntia parryi Valley Cholla
Curcurbiaceae Gourd Family
Cucurbita foetidissima Calabazilla
Marah macrocarpus Wild Cucumber
Euphorbiaceae Spurge Family
Eremocarpus setigerus Doveweed
Euphorbia albomarginata Rattlesnake Weed
Fabaceae Pea Family
Lotus scoparius Deerweed
Lotus purshianus Indian Clover*
Lupinus bicolor Dove Lupine
Lupinus sp. Unidentified Lupine
Geraniaceae Geranium Family
Erodium sp. Filaree*
Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation Menifee Tract 31194 December 2, 2005
WHC-03-187.DB1 33 L&L
Scientific Name Common Name
Hydrophyllaceae Waterleaf Family
Phacelia spp. Unidentified Phacelia
Lamiaceae Mint Family
Marrubium vulgare Horehound
Salvia apiana White Sage
Salvia columbariae Chia
Salvia mellifera Black Sage
Trichostemma lanceolatum Vinegar Weed
Liliaceae Lily Family
Muilla maratima Muilla
Malvaceae Mallow Family
Malva parviflora Cheeseweed*
Myrtaceae Myrtle Family
Eucalyptus sp. Eucalyptus*
Nyctaginaceae Four O’clock Family
Mirabilis californica Wishbone Bush
Onagraceae Evening Primrose Family
Cammisonia californica Mustard Evening Primrose
Cammisonia sp. Unidentified Primrose
Pinacea Pine Family
Pinus sp. Pine*
Poaceae Grass Family
Avena barbata Slender Wild Oat*
Avena fatua Wild Oats
Bromus sp. Brome Grass*
Bromus madritensis ssp. rubens Foxtail Chess*
Bromus diandrus Ripgut*
Hordeum murinum Barley*
Lamarkia aurea Goldentop
Schismus barbatus Mediterranean Grass*
Triticum aestivum Wheat*
Polemoniaceae Phlox Family
Eriastrum sapphirinum Sapphire Woolstar
Navarretia hamata Hooked Navarretia
Plantaginaceae Plantain Family
Plantago erecta Dot-seed Plantain

Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation Menifee Tract 31194 December 2, 2005
WHC-03-187.DB1 34 L&L
Scientific Name Common Name
Polygonaceae Buckwheat Family
Chorizanthe fimbriata Fringed Spineflower
Eriogonum fasciculatum Flat-top Buckwheat
Eriogonum gracile Slender Buckwheat
Polygonum aviculare Knotweed*
Rumex crispus Curly Dock*
Rosaceae Rose Family
Adenostoma fasciculatum Chamise
Rubiaceae Madder Family
Galium aparine Annual Bedstraw*
Salicaceae Willow Family
Salix lasiolepis Arroyo Willow
Populus fremontii Western Cottonwood
Scrophulariaceae Figwort Family
Keckiella antirrhinoides Yellow Bush Penstemmon
Mimulus aurantiacus Sticky Monkeyflower
Schropularia californica Coast Figwort
Solanaceae Nightshade Family
Datura wrightii Western Jimsonweed
Nicotiana glauca Tree Tobacco
Tamaricaceae Tamarisk Family
Tamarix sp. Tamarisk*
* denotes non-native plant taxa

Birds
Scientific Name Common Name
Accipitridae Hawk Family
Buteo jamaicensis Red-tailed Hawk
Aegithalidae Long-legged Tit Family
Psaltriparus minimus Bushtit
Alaudidae Lark Family
Eremophila alpestris Horned Lark**
Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation Menifee Tract 31194 December 2, 2005
WHC-03-187.DB1 35 L&L
Scientific Name Common Name
Cathartidae New World Vulture Family
Cathartes aura Turkey Vulture
Columbidae Pigeon Family
Columba livia Rock Dove
Zenaida macroura Mourning Dove
Corvidae Jay and Crow Family
Aphelocoma californica Western Scrub Jay
Corvus brachyrhynchos American Crow
Corvus corax clarionensis Common Raven
Cuculidae Cuckoo Family
Geococcyx californicanus Greater Roadrunner
Emberizidae Warbler / Sparrow Family
Pipilo crissalis senicula California Towhee
Falconidae Falcon Family
Falco sparverius American Kestrel
Fringillidae Finch Family
Carpodacus mexicanus House Finch
Icteridae Icterid Family
Icterus bullocki Bullock’s Oriole
Sturnella neglecta Western Meadowlark
Mimidae Mockingbird and Thrasher Family
Mimus poluglottos polyglottos Northern Mockingbird
Odontophoridae Quail Family
Callipepla californica californica California Quail
Picidae Woodpecker Family
Colaptes chrysoides Northern Flicker
Sylviidae Gnatcatcher Family
Polioptila caerulea Blue-Gray Gnatcatcher
Timiliidae Babbler Family
Chamaea fasciata Wrentit
Trochilideae Hummingbird Family
Calypte anna Anna’s Hummingbird
Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation Menifee Tract 31194 December 2, 2005
WHC-03-187.DB1 36 L&L
Scientific Name Common Name
Tyrannidae Tyrant Flycatchers
Myiarchus cinerascens Ash-throated Flycatcher
Sayornis nigricans Black Phoebe
Tyrannus verticalis Western Kingbird
Mammals
Scientific Name Common Name
Leporidae Rabbit Family
Sylvilagus audubonii Audubon’s Cottontail
Sciuridae Squirrel Family
Spermophilus beecheyi California Ground Squirrel
Reptiles and Amphibians
Scientific Name Common Name
Iguanidae Iguanid Family
Sceloporus orcutti Granite Spiny Lizard
Uta stansburiana Side-blotched Lizard
TTM NO. 31194 TECHNICAL APPENDICES
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458

B6.

FOCUSED SURVEY FOR BURROWING OWL
Z:\Project Files\Leslie Office PC\Project Files\WHC-04-435 Menifee Assem. QCB CAGN SP BO\Reports\WHC-04-R435.BO1(reviewed).doc 1269 Pomona Rd. • Suite 102 • Corona, CA 92882 • Phone 951.681.4929 • FAX 951.681.6531

A BURROWING OWL SPECIES SURVEY

FOR THE MENIFEE ASSEMBLAGE PROJECT

MENIFEE, RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
±204.7 Acre Property, ±204.7 Acres Surveyed
APNs 360-300-002, -003, -004, -005, -006, -008, and 360-350-001 Menifee Area, Sections 9, 15 and 16, Township 6 South, Range 3 West, USGS Romoland 7.5’ Topographic Quadrangle Map
Prepared for:

Peter Evans
Woodside Homes of California
23121 Antonio Parkway, Suite 120
Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688
Prepared by:

Leslie Irish, Principal
Guy Bruyea, Biologist
Jeffrey Sonnentag, Technical Editor
Christina Bosic, Technical Editor
Principal Investigator:

Guy Bruyea, Biological Investigator
L & L Environmental, Inc.
1269 Pomona Road, Suite 102
Corona, California 92882
951-681-4929
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
Surveys conducted by: Guy Bruyea
Surveys conducted on: June 24, 26, 30, July 1, 3, 8, and 10, 2005 Report Date: August 24, 2005
Burrowing Owl Survey
Menifee Assemblage August 2005
WHC-04-435.BO1 i L&L

TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY............................................................................................................. iii

1.0) INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................1

1.1) Project Location .................................................................................................................1 Figure 1. Project Vicinity Map ...............................................................................................2 Figure 2. Project Location .....................................................................................................3 Figure 3. Aerial Photograph ..................................................................................................4

1.2) Vegetation and Setting ......................................................................................................5

1.3) Soils and Topography........................................................................................................5 Figure 4. Soils Map ...............................................................................................................7

2.0) REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT ..........................................................................................8

2.1) Federal Endangered Species Act ......................................................................................8

2.2) Jurisdictional Determination of Wetlands, “Waters of the U.S.” and Streambeds..............8

2.2.1) United States Clean Water Act, Section 404 ..............................................................8

2.2.2) United States Clean Water Act, Section 401 ..............................................................9

2.2.3) California Department of Fish and Game Code, Section 1600...................................9

2.3) California Department of Fish and Game ........................................................................10

2.3.1) California Endangered Species Act ..........................................................................10

2.3.2) California Department of Fish and Game Code, Section 1600.................................10

2.3.3) California Natural Diversity Database.......................................................................10

2.4) California Native Plant Society.........................................................................................11

2.5) California Environmental Quality Act ...............................................................................11

2.6) Migratory Bird Treaty Act .................................................................................................11

2.7) Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan .........................12

3.0) METHODS AND PERSONNEL...........................................................................................13

3.1) Literature Review.............................................................................................................13

3.2) Burrow Survey Methods...................................................................................................13 Table 1. Survey time, weather conditions, and results information.....................................14

4.0) RESULTS............................................................................................................................16

4.1) Literature Review Results................................................................................................16

4.2) Vegetation Series ............................................................................................................16 Figure 5. Habitat Map..........................................................................................................17

4.2.1) Riversidean Sage Scrub ...........................................................................................18

4.2.2) Northern Mixed Chaparral.........................................................................................18

4.2.3) Southern Arroyo Willow Riparian, Mulefat Scrub, and Disturbed Wetland ...............19

4.2.4) Extensive Agriculture (Fields) ...................................................................................19

4.2.5) Disturbed / Ruderal Habitat.......................................................................................20

4.3) Wildlife Species ...............................................................................................................20

4.3.1) Amphibians and Reptiles ..........................................................................................20

4.3.2) Birds..........................................................................................................................20 Burrowing Owl.................................................................................................................20 Coastal California Gnatcatcher .......................................................................................21

4.3.3) Mammals ..................................................................................................................22

4.3.4) Other Sensitive Wildlife Resources...........................................................................22

5.0) CONCLUSIONS ..................................................................................................................23 Burrowing Owl Survey
Menifee Assemblage August 2005
WHC-04-435.BO1 ii L&L

6.0) REFERENCES ....................................................................................................................24 APPENDIX A..............................................................................................................................26 Table 1. List of Wildlife Species Identified...............................................................................26 APPENDIX B..............................................................................................................................29 Site Photos..............................................................................................................................29 Certification .............................................................................................................................33 Biological Report Summary Sheet ..........................................................................................34 Level of Significance Checklist................................................................................................36 County Notification..................................................................................................................38 Burrowing Owl Survey
Menifee Assemblage August 2005
WHC-04-435.BO1 iii L&L

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
L&L Environmental, Inc. conducted a biological survey on Woodside Homes of California’s ±207.4 acre Menifee Assemblage project in Riverside County. The purpose of this study was to examine the subject property to determine the presence/absence of biological resources on the property and potential for sensitive species to occur. L&L evaluated whether vegetation or habitat for special status species exists onsite.

Land use varies within and adjacent to the survey area and includes anthropogenic disturbances such as rural residential areas, active and fallow agricultural areas, unimproved roads, power line easements, off-road vehicle (ORV) activity, and areas of debris. Two roads are present on the property. One is located along the northern and eastern portion of the property where agricultural areas meet less disturbed sage scrub areas. A chain-link fence is now present along this road. This unimproved road begins at the eastern terminus of Daniel Road and exits at the southeastern corner of the site near the Evans Road and Ascot Way intersection. Krubsack Road (unimproved) trends north to south through previously cultivated agricultural fields at the roughly west-central portion of the property and connects with Wickerd Road to the south and Daniel Road to the north. Although this road was used during previous surveys of the site by L&L in 2003 and 2004, tall weedy annuals have now invaded this area and the road is no longer accessible.

Previous surveys conducted on this site include a general biological assessment (including a search for active BUOW and/or suitable habitat) in July 2003, a focused botanical survey in March and April 2004, and focused surveys for the federally threatened coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica, herein referred to as CAGN) and federally endangered Quino checkerspot butterfly (Euphydryas editha quino, herein referred to as QCB) in March and April 2004. Two active CAGN nests were observed onsite during the 2004 focused study and a third active CAGN nest was observed just offsite near the northwestern portion of the site during the study. No QCB or BUOW were observed during the abovereferenced previous surveys of the site.

Several special status wildlife species observed by Guy Bruyea and other L&L personnel while conducting previous surveys of the site include Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperi), southern California rufous-crowned sparrow (Aimophila rucifeps), Bell’s sage sparrow (Amphispiza belli), California horned lark (Eremophila alpestris), black-tailed jackrabbit (Lepus californicus), orange-throated whiptail (Cnemidophorus hyperythrus beldingi), western whiptail Burrowing Owl Survey
Menifee Assemblage August 2005
WHC-04-435.BO1 iv L&L
(Cnemidophorus tigris), and coast horned lizard (Phrynostoma coronatum). The California Department of Fish & Game (CDFG) considers the above listed species special species of concern to California.

An additional focused survey for BUOW was recommended based on the presence of suitable habitat on portions of the site, California ground squirrel (Spermophilus beecheyi) activity on portions of the site, and other records for BUOW in this region of southwestern Riverside County.

Based on the results of this focused nesting season BUOW study, including lack of BUOW and BUOW sign (i.e., feathers, pellets, scat, prey etc.), it can be reasonably concluded that no BUOW currently occupy any portion of the site. In addition, there were no observations of BUOW during several previous focused species surveys (for CAGN and QCB) of the site in 2003 and 2004. Based on the results of this study, BUOW is not currently present nor is BUOW expected to utilize the subject property. However, according to current MSHCP requirements if BUOW is not detected within potentially suitable habitat during a nesting season survey a winter survey must also be conducted between December 1 and January 31.

Recommendations concerning the observed coastal California gnatcatchers (CAGN) observed onsite have been previously made and can be found in the revised General Biological Survey (L&L November 2004). Clearing the site is restricted by the USFWS “take” permit (issued for the MSHCP) to outside of the nesting season. The nesting season for CAGN provided in MSHCP species documentation is from mid-February through mid-August.

A shallow drainage and mapped blueline stream area exists on the site trending from the northwest corner to roughly the southwest portion of the site. Much of this area has been severely impacted by previous agricultural activities and the spread of invasive non-native annuals, but several wetland indicator plant species are present in association with this drainage on the site and in areas immediately adjacent to the site.

A botanical evaluation was not included in the present BUOW study. A list of all plant species observed on the site was prepared by L&L in 2004. A general discussion of the vegetation communities and common plants observed on the subject property is presented as part of this report.

Burrowing Owl Survey
Menifee Assemblage August 2005
WHC-04-435.BO1 1 L&L

1.0) INTRODUCTION
The following report written by L&L Environmental, Inc. for Woodside Homes of California describes the results of a biological survey, including focused nesting season burrowing owl (BUOW) survey that was conducted on a proposed development located on lands within the County of Riverside. The project site consists of APNs 360-300-002, -003, -004, -005, -006, - 008, and 360-350-001, totaling ±204.7 acres.

Our assessment consisted of (1) a records search and literature review, conducted to determine what species of concern are in the project area and proximity to closest documented special status species and (2) field reconnaissance, intended to identify plants and animals on the property and the presence/absence of habitat for species of concern (most significantly the BUOW species).

1.1) Project Location
The subject property is generally located in the Paloma Valley west of Interstate 215 (I-215), south of Newport Road, and east of Murrieta Road in the County of Riverside (Figure 1). The project area is situated in Sections 9, 15, and 16, Township 6 South, Range 3 West within the USGS Romoland 7.5’ series quadrangle map (Figure 2).

The site is generally bounded as follows: to the west by a mixture of actively cultivated and fallow agricultural areas, Evans Road (unimproved), and rural residential units; to the east by a mixture of disturbed and relatively undisturbed open space, Ascot Way (unimproved), and a Verizon Communications complex beyond; to the north by a mixture of disturbed and relatively undisturbed lands, rural residential areas, and Garbani Road (unimproved) beyond; and to the south by Wickerd Road (unimproved), rural residential areas, and a mix of disturbed and relatively undisturbed lands beyond (Figure 3).

Burrowing Owl Survey
Menifee Assemblage August 2005
WHC-04-435.BO1 2 L&L
Figure 1
Project Vicinity Map
Menifee Assemblage
County of Riverside, California
L&L Environmental, Inc.

BIOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL

INVESTIGATIONS AND MONITORING
WHC-04-435
August 2005
N
Project Location
Burrowing Owl Survey
Menifee Assemblage August 2005
WHC-04-435.BO1 3 L&L
Figure 2
Project Location Map
Menifee Assemblage
County of Riverside, California
L&L Environmental, Inc.

BIOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL

INVESTIGATIONS AND MONITORING
WHC-04-435
August 2005
N
Project Area
Burrowing Owl Survey
Menifee Assemblage August 2005
WHC-04-435.BO1 4 L&L
L&L Environmental, Inc.

BIOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL

INVESTIGATIONS AND MONITORING
WHC-04-435
August 2005
Figure 3
Aerial Photograph
(Provided by GlobeXplorer, Air Photo USA, 2003)
Menifee Assemblage
County of Riverside, California
Project Area
Offsite N
Burrowing Owl Survey
Menifee Assemblage August 2005
WHC-04-435.BO1 5 L&L

1.2) Vegetation and Setting
Much of the subject property is disturbed (mostly in association with previous and/or active dryfarming activities). Much of the site does not support a diverse group of native low-growing annuals and other herbs because of these disturbances. Less disturbed areas are present in the roughly eastern and northern (primarily northeastern) portions of the site. A mixture of disturbed and relatively undisturbed Riversidean sage scrub (RSS) vegetation community inhabits this portion of the site and many native low-growing annuals were observed in these areas during previous botanical studies of the site.

A shallow drainage and mapped blueline stream area exists on the site trending from the northwest corner to roughly the southwest portion of the site. Much of this area has been severely impacted by previous agricultural activities and the spread of invasive non-native annuals, but several wetland indicator plant species are present in association with this drainage on the site and in areas immediately adjacent to the site.

Land use varies within and adjacent to the survey area and includes anthropogenic disturbances such as rural residential areas, active and fallow agricultural areas, unimproved roads, power line easements, off-road vehicle (ORV) activity, and debris.

Two roads are present on the property. One is located along the northern and eastern portion of the property where agricultural areas meet less disturbed sage scrub areas. A chain-link fence is now present along this road. This unimproved road begins at the eastern terminus of Daniel Road and exits at the southeastern corner of the site near the Evans Road and Ascot Way intersection. Krubsack Road (unimproved) trends north to south through previously cultivated agricultural fields at the roughly west-central portion of the property and connects with Wickerd Road to the south and Daniel Road to the north. Although this road was used during previous surveys of the site by L&L in 2003 and 2004, tall weedy annuals have now invaded this area and the road is no longer accessible.

1.3) Soils and Topography
Soils on the project site were mapped by the Soil Conservation Service (1971) as a mixture of several soil types, including Wyman loam (WyC2), Vallecitos loam (VeC2), Porterville clay (PsC), Yokohl loam (YbC and YbE3), Cajalco fine sandy loam (CaC2 and CaD2), Cajalco rocky fine sandy loam (CbF2), Honcut sandy loam (HnC and HnD2), Las Posas loam (LaD2), and Las Posas rocky loam (LkD2 and LkF3). The most common soils mapped for the subject property are Wyman loam on the central and western portion of the site in previously farmed areas and Burrowing Owl Survey
Menifee Assemblage August 2005
WHC-04-435.BO1 6 L&L
Las Posas rocky loams on densely vegetated hillsides at the northern and eastern portions of the site. Clay soils are relatively uncommon on the site, but Porterville clay is present near the southeastern portion of the property within actively farmed and recently disked areas. Claybased soils were identified during previous surveys (L&L 2004), mostly at the northeastern portion of the site within disturbed and relatively undisturbed RSS. Soils observed on the site range from mostly sandy-loamy within the disked areas to rocky loamy on the less disturbed vegetated hillsides. Cryptobiotic crusts are present only within less disturbed portions of the site away from previously farmed areas.

Topographically, much of the site is primarily flat and contains open lands with low-relief rocky outcrops and slight depressions. Gently to steeply sloping hills and ridgelines are present at the northeastern portion of the property. The site has a combined maximum vertical relief of roughly 220 feet between the highest and lowest elevation points on the property, with elevations ranging from approximately 1500 to 1720 feet above mean sea level (AMSL).

Surrounding topographic features in the project vicinity include gently to steeply sloping hills and ridgelines interspersed with lower-lying relatively flat areas. Although most surrounding areas of the Paloma Valley are primarily flat, significant topographic features are present northwest and southwest of the property at elevations of approximately 1760 to 1820 feet AMSL. Bell Mountain, a significant topographic feature located approximately 2 miles east of the subject property, has a peak reaching 1848 feet AMSL.

Burrowing Owl Survey
Menifee Assemblage August 2005
WHC-04-435.BO1 7 L&L
L&L Environmental, Inc.

BIOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL

INVESTIGATIONS AND MONITORING
WHC-04-435
August 2005
Figure 4
Soils Map
(taken from the US. Dept. of Agriculture, Soil Survey, 1971) Menifee Assemblage
County of Riverside, California
Project Area
Soils in the Study Area
Cajalco - CaC2 - Cajalco fine sandy loam, 2-8% slope
CaD2 - Cajalco fine sandy loam, 8-15% slope
CbD2 - Cajalco rocky fine sandy loam, 5-15% slope
CbF2 - Cajalco rocky fine sandy loam, 15-50% slope
Cieneba - CkD2 - Cieneba rocky sandy loam, 8-15% slope
Honcut - HnC - Honcut sandy loam, 2-8% slope
HnD2 - Honcut sandy loam, 8-15% slope
Las Posas - LaD2 - Las Posas loam, 8-15% slope
LaC - Las Posas loam, 2-8% slope
LkD2 - Las Posas rocky loam, 8-15% slope
LkF3 - Las Posas rocky loam, 15-50% slope
Porterville - PsC - Porterville clay
Vallecitos - VeC2 - Vallecitos loam
Wyman - WyC2 - Wyman loam
Yokohl - YbC - Yokohl loam, 2-8% slope
YbE3 - Yokohl loam, 8-25% slope
Offsite
Burrowing Owl Survey
Menifee Assemblage August 2005
WHC-04-435.BO1 8 L&L

2.0) REGULATORY ENVIRONMENT

2.1) Federal Endangered Species Act
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), under the auspices of the federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) of 1973 (as amended), manage and protect species listed as endangered or threatened. An endangered species is defined as a species “in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range” while a threatened species is defined as “likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future.”
“Take” of listed species is prohibited under Section 9 (a)(1)(B) of the FESA. The term “take” is defined as follows in Section 3 (18) of the FESA: “harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, trap, kill, capture or collect or to engage in any such conduct.” Harm is further defined as significant habitat alteration that results in death or injury to listed species by significantly impairing behavior patterns such as breeding, feeding, or sheltering. The USFWS can issue a permit for “take” of listed species incidental to otherwise lawful activities. Procedures for obtaining a permit for incidental take are identified under Section 7 of FESA for federal properties or where federal actions are involved and are identified under Section 10 of FESA for non-federal actions. The County of Riverside has been issued a Section 10(a) permit for the Western Riverside County MSHCP, which this project falls within.

2.2) Jurisdictional Determination of Wetlands, “Waters of the U.S.” and Streambeds Three agencies generally regulate activities within streams, wetlands, and riparian areas in California. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) regulates activities under Section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act, the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) regulates activities under Section 401 of the federal Clean Water Act, and the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) regulates activities within wetlands under Fish and Game Code Section 1600-1607.

2.2.1) United States Clean Water Act, Section 404
The ACOE has jurisdiction over “Wetlands” and “Waters of the United States” under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA). Permitting is required for activities that will result in a discharge of dredge or fill material into Waters of the United States or adjacent wetlands and associated habitat. By definition, these include all waterways, streams, and intermittent streams and their tributaries that could be used for interstate commerce. The term “interstate commerce” has been broadly interpreted to include use by migratory waterfowl and out-of-state Burrowing Owl Survey
Menifee Assemblage August 2005
WHC-04-435.BO1 9 L&L
tourism. In non-tidal waters jurisdictional limits extend to the ordinary high water mark (OHWM), which is defined as that line on the shore established by the fluctuations of water and indicated by physical characteristics such as clear natural line impression on the bank, shelving, changes in the character of soil, and destruction of the surrounding area. The upstream limit of ACOE jurisdiction is that point on the stream where the OHWM is no longer perceptible. Since flow patterns vary drastically from event to event, alluvial fans do not always exhibit an OHWM or other evidences of repeated water flow. That portion of an alluvial fan that experiences sheet flows is not generally regulated as Waters of the United States, however, an inter-braided streambed, evidenced by the OHWM, is within ACOE jurisdiction. Vernal pools and other types of wetlands are also regulated by the ACOE as Waters of the United States.

2.2.2) United States Clean Water Act, Section 401
The Regional Water Quality Control Board has jurisdiction over similar “Wetlands” and “Waters of the United States” under Section 401 of the CWA and the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act under the California Water Code. Permitting is required for activities that will result in discharge of soils, nutrients, chemicals, detrital materials, or other pollutants into Waters of the United States or adjacent wetlands, affecting water quality of those bodies and the area watershed.

2.2.3) California Department of Fish and Game Code, Section 1600 The California Department of Fish and Game, through provisions of the CDFG Code (Sections 1600-1603), is empowered to issue agreements (“Streambed Alteration Agreement”) for projects that will adversely affect wildlife habitat associated with any river, stream, or lake edges. Streams and rivers are defined by the presence of a channel bed, banks, and intermittent flow. CDFG regulates wetland areas only to the extent that those wetlands are part of a river, stream, or lake as defined by CDFG.

Determining the limits of a wetland is not typically done in obtaining CDFG Agreements because the intent of the 1600 program is to safeguard riparian associated wildlife habitat. Riparian habitat includes willows (Salix sp.), mulefat (Baccharis salicifolia), and other vegetation typically associated with the banks of a stream or lake shoreline. In most situations wetlands associated with a stream or lake fall within the limits of riparian habitat. Thus, the limits of CDFG jurisdiction based on riparian habitat automatically includes any wetland areas and may include additional areas that do not meet ACOE criteria for soils and/or hydrology (e.g., where riparian woodland canopy extends beyond the banks of a stream away from frequently saturated soils).

Burrowing Owl Survey
Menifee Assemblage August 2005
WHC-04-435.BO1 10 L&L

2.3) California Department of Fish and Game

2.3.1) California Endangered Species Act
California Endangered Species Act (CESA) definitions of endangered and threatened species parallel those defined in the FESA. CESA defines an endangered species as “. . . a native species or subspecies of a bird, mammal, fish, amphibian, reptile or plant which is in serious danger of becoming extinct throughout all, or a significant portion, of its range due to one or more causes including loss of habitat, change in habitat, over exploitation, predation, competition or disease.” Endangered species are in serious danger of becoming extinct and threatened species are likely to become endangered species in the foreseeable future, according to Sections 2062 and 2067 of the California Fish and Game Code, respectively.

Candidate species are species that are under formal review by CDFG for addition to the endangered or threatened species list (Section 2067). Prior to being considered for protected status the CDFG designates a species as being of special concern. Species of special concern are those species for which CDFG has information indicating that the species is declining. The County of Riverside has been issued a permit from the CDFG for the Western Riverside County MSHCP, which this project falls within.

2.3.2) California Department of Fish and Game Code, Section 1600 This section allows the CDFG to issue agreements (“Streambed Alteration Agreement”) for projects that will adversely affect wildlife habitat associated with any river, stream, or lake edges. A detailed discussion of Section 1600 under the Fish and Game Code can be found in section 2.2.3 above.

2.3.3) California Natural Diversity Database
The California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) is a database of sensitive species and vegetation communities that ranks overall condition of species (or communities) on global (throughout its range) and state (within California) levels. Additionally, subspecies and varieties are assigned rankings for global condition. Ranking is numerical ranging from 1 to 5, with 1 indicating very few remaining individuals or little remaining habitat and 5 indicating a demonstrably secure to ineradicable population condition. State ranks may also include a threat assessment ranging from 1 (very threatened) to 3 (no current threats known).

Burrowing Owl Survey
Menifee Assemblage August 2005
WHC-04-435.BO1 11 L&L

2.4) California Native Plant Society
The California Native Plant Society (CNPS) has cataloged California's rare and endangered plants into lists according to their population distributions and viability. These lists are numbered and indicate the following: (1A) presumed extinct in California; (1B) rare, threatened, or endangered throughout their range; (2) rare, threatened, or endangered in California, but more common in other states; (3) more information is needed to establish rarity; and (4) plants of limited distribution in California (i.e. naturally rare in the wild), but whose continued survival does not appear to be susceptible to threat.

2.5) California Environmental Quality Act
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) requires identification of environmental effects from discretionary projects. Significant effects are to be mitigated by avoidance, minimization, rectification, or compensation whenever possible.

Effects to all state and federally listed species are considered significant under CEQA. In addition to formally listed species, Section 15380(d) of CEQA considers effects to species that are demonstrably endangered or rare as important or significant within CEQA terms. These definitions can include state designated species of special concern, federal candidate and proposed species, CNDDB tracked species, and California Native Plant Society 1B and 2 plants.

Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines is more specific in addressing biological resources and encompasses a broad range of resources to be considered.

2.6) Migratory Bird Treaty Act
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) of 1918 (16 USC 703-711) is an international treaty that makes it unlawful to take, possess, buy, sell, purchase, or barter any migratory bird listed in 50 CFR Part 10, including feathers or other parts, nests, eggs, or products, except as allowed by implementing regulations (50 CFR 21). Sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3800 of the CDFG Code prohibit the take, possession, or destruction of birds, their nests, or eggs. The MBTA requires that project-related disturbance at active nesting territories be reduced or eliminated during critical phases of the nesting cycle (1 February to 31 August, annually). Disturbance that causes nest abandonment and/or loss of reproductive effort (e.g, killing or abandonment of eggs Burrowing Owl Survey
Menifee Assemblage August 2005
WHC-04-435.BO1 12 L&L
or young) or the loss of habitat upon which the birds depend can be considered “take” and constitute a violation of the MBTA.

2.7) Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan The County of Riverside, eight (8) additional land jurisdictions, and fourteen (14) cities have prepared a Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP). The plan under development by the Riverside County Integrated Project will build upon existing preserves and attempts to provide connectivity and wildlife corridors. The plan proposes to conserve approximately 500,000 acres and 146 different species. Approximately 347,000 acres are anticipated to be conserved on existing public/quasi-public lands with additional contributions of approximately 153,000 acres from willing sellers (http://www.rcip.org).

The MSHCP was approved by the county on June 17, 2003 and an Implementation Agreement (IA) between the USFWS, the CDFG, and the county was executed and associated USFWS Section 10(a)(1)(B) Permit No. TE-088609 was issued on June 22, 2004. Take Authorization is granted for certain species identified in Attachment 2 of the Permit as "Covered Species Adequately Conserved."
The MHSCP establishes seven (7) core reserve areas and associated linkages between proposed and existing core areas. The MSHCP divides areas into cells using USGS coordinates. According to the Riverside County Integrated Project website, the parcel that composes the current project site is not located within proposed criteria areas. The MSHCP conservation summary report requires a habitat assessment on the property to address, at a minimum, potential habitat for the burrowing owl. In addition, all sites must be evaluated for the presence or absence of riparian/riverine and vernal pool habitat and associated sensitive species. If potential habitat for these species is determined to be located on the property, focused surveys may be required during the appropriate season. If focused surveys are determined necessary and species identified as not adequately conserved under the MSHCP occur onsite the proponent may be required to undergo a Habitat Acquisition and Negotiation Strategy (HANS) determination with the County of Riverside.

Burrowing Owl Survey
Menifee Assemblage August 2005
WHC-04-435.BO1 13 L&L

3.0) METHODS AND PERSONNEL

3.1) Literature Review
Pertinent literature was reviewed to identify local occurrences and habitat requirements of special status species and communities occurring in the region. Literature reviewed included compendia provided by resource agencies (CDFG 2003), CNPS's online Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California (http://www.cnps.org/), previous biological reports for the subject property, and the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan.

Latin names of plants follow The Jepson Manual: Higher Plants of California (Hickman 1993).

Latin names of animals follow A Field Guide to Western Reptiles and Amphibians (Stebbins 1985) for reptiles and amphibians, California Mammals (Jameson and Peeters 1988) for mammals, American Ornithologists’ Union (1983, 1989) and National Audubon Society, The Sibley Guide To Birds (Sibley 2000) for birds.

3.2) Burrow Survey Methods
Following previous identification of potentially suitable BUOW habitat onsite, Guy Bruyea conducted a focused nesting season survey for active BUOW on June 24, 26, 30, and July 1, 3, 8, and 10, 2005. Surveys were conducted in accordance with the Burrowing Owl Survey Protocol as distributed by the California Burrowing Owl Consortium (CBOC 1993). Surveys were conducted to determine presence/absence of suitable burrow locations onsite.

The present survey was conducted during the nesting season, which is defined by the CBOC as February 1 to August 31. Based on the currently accepted survey protocol for BUOW, surveys are best performed during the peak BUOW breeding season, which is generally considered to be from April 15 to July 15 in southern California. This survey was conducted during the later portion of the peak nesting season in June and early July. Protocol guidelines specify that BUOW surveys should be conducted during weather that is conducive to observing owls outside their burrows. Because BUOW is considered mostly crepuscular in its activities, these guidelines suggest that surveys be conducted from one hour before sunrise to two hours after (morning) or from two hours before sunset to one hour after (evening). Although an effort was made to conduct these surveys accordingly, some surveys were performed outside of this suggested time window due to adverse weather conditions, which can decrease the likelihood of observing owls outside of their burrows. Conditions causing a delay (or adjustment) in survey Burrowing Owl Survey
Menifee Assemblage August 2005
WHC-04-435.BO1 14 L&L
start times during the present study included heavy marine influence (fog). In some cases mostly cloudy skies and mild temperatures can prolong early morning conditions and BUOW can be very active during the midday hours. Based upon protocol, surveys should not be conducted under any of the following weather conditions: wind speeds in excess of 20 mph, heavy rain, or dense fog. The present survey on the subject property was conducted during weather conditions suitable for BUOW activity.

Table 1. Survey time, weather conditions, and results information Date Time ° F Cloud % Visibility Wind B Biologist (s)
Start-End Start/End Start/End Start/End Start/End
06-24-05 0600-0815 64/74 0/0 10/10 0/0 Bruyea
06-26-05 0545-0745 62/70 0/0 10/10 0/0 Bruyea
06-30-05 0615-0830 66/74 0/0 10/10 0/0 Bruyea
07-01-05 1800-2000 81/75 0/0 10/10 1/1 Bruyea
07-03-05 0600-0800 63/70 0/0 10/10 0/1 Bruyea
07-08-05 1830-2015 84/79 0/0 10/10 2/1 Bruyea
07-10-05 0615-0815 67/75 20/20 10/10 2/1 Bruyea
Large portions of the site were excluded from the present BUOW study. Areas inhabited by dense sage scrub (i.e. greater than 30% shrub cover), dense patches of tall non-native annuals, and areas containing significant topographic relief were excluded from the present focused study area. Previously farmed areas on the west-central portion of the site that have not been disked or cleared within the past six months were excluded from the present survey area.

These areas are now densely inhabited by tall mustards and other non-native annuals that form an almost impenetrable thicket in some areas.

Much of the present search for BUOW was conducted in areas previously identified as containing potential BUOW habitat, including the central and eastern flatland portions of the site within recently disked or actively farmed areas, around the site perimeter where California ground squirrel activity was observed near berms, debris piles, or other suitable areas, and within suitably sized open patches of sage scrub on low-relief slopes at the northern and eastern portions of the site. These areas were surveyed during the present study and were covered on foot by conducting a series of transects across these areas where appropriate and possible, stopping periodically for observations and notations. Transects were walked along the perimeter of the subject property where suitable habitat is present, with additional transects through the center portion of these areas allowing for complete visual ground coverage of the survey area. Distance between transects was approximately 15 to 20 meters. As set forth in the conditions of survey protocol, an additional coverage of an approximately 150-meter buffer area surrounding the site was visually inspected on foot or with binoculars in areas previously Burrowing Owl Survey
Menifee Assemblage August 2005
WHC-04-435.BO1 15 L&L
identified as containing potential BUOW habitat. The site was examined for active BUOW, as well as for signs of occupation by BUOW, including tracks, pellets, feathers, animal scat, prey remains, and eggshell fragments. The locations of freshwater sources nearest to the subject property were also noted. Most surveys were conducted during the early morning or late afternoon hours when BUOW activity generally increases.

Burrowing Owl Survey
Menifee Assemblage August 2005
WHC-04-435.BO1 16 L&L

4.0) RESULTS

4.1) Literature Review Results
Certain plants and animals have been listed as threatened or endangered under state or federal Endangered Species Acts. Other species have not been formally listed, but declining populations or habitat availability are reasons for concern for their long-term viability. These species are included in lists compiled by resource management agencies or private conservation organizations. In this report the term “special status species” refers to all species included in one or more compendia or formal list of threatened or endangered species.

No sensitive species were documented in the CNDDB as previously occurring directly on the project site. The subject property is not located within MSHCP designated Criteria Area.

4.2) Vegetation Series
Much of the subject property is disturbed, mostly in association with previous and/or active dryfarming activities. Much of the site does not support a diverse group of native low-growing annuals and other herbs because of these disturbances. Less disturbed areas are present in the roughly eastern and northern (primarily northeastern) portions of the site. A mixture of disturbed and relatively undisturbed Riversidean sage scrub (RSS) vegetation community inhabits this portion of the site and many native low-growing annuals were observed in these areas during previous botanical studies of the site (Figure 5).

Burrowing Owl Survey
Menifee Assemblage August 2005
WHC-04-435.BO1 17 L&L
Burrowing Owl Nesting Pair
(Scat and Prey remains at entrance)
N 33° 43.774’ W117° 03.150’
Parry’s Spineflower
(Chorizanthe parryi parryi)
San Diego Tarplant
(Deinandra paniculata)
Very Abundant on E.

Facing Slope of
Valley/Fan and on flats
Long-spined Spineflower
(Chorizanthe polygonoides longispina)
11S 495187 3732604
California Gnatcatcher
(Polioptila c. californica)
(Vocal)
L&L Environmental, Inc.

BIOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL

INVESTIGATIONS AND MONITORING
WHC-04-435
August 2005
Figure 5
Aerial Photograph
(Photo obtained from TerraServer, 1996)
Menifee Assemblage
County of Riverside, California
Project Area
Survey Areas
(shaded)
Dense Non-Native
Annual Cover
Dense Sage Scrub
Burrowing Owl Survey
Menifee Assemblage August 2005
WHC-04-435.BO1 18 L&L

4.2.1) Riversidean Sage Scrub (Holland Element Code 32700) RSS is a xeric form of coastal sage scrub containing mostly drought-deciduous shrubs with small leaves. Relatively undisturbed RSS is present on the eastern and north (primarily northeastern) portion of the site on south, west, and east-facing slopes containing numerous rocky outcrops. Native shrubs and other conspicuous plants commonly observed in these areas include California buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum), California sagebrush (Artemesia californica), and white sage (Salvia apiana). Other conspicuous plants include brittlebush (Encelia farinosa), yellow bush penstemon (Keckiella antirrhinoides), wishbone bush (Mirabilis californicam), sweetbush (Bebbia juncea), blue elderberry (Sambucus mexicana), and black sage (Salvia mellifera). Tall annuals are also abundant in these areas, and include twiggy wreath plant (Stephanomeria virgata), slender-leaved sunflower (Helianthus gracilentus), annual sunflower (Helianthus annuus), short-pod mustard (Hirschfeldia incana), and grasses such as foxtail chess (Bromus madritensis ssp. rubens), slender wild oat (Avena barbata), Mediterranean grass (Schismus barbatus), and other unidentified native and non-native grass species.

Throughout portions of the onsite RSS open patches can be found containing a mixture of native and non-native annuals, including popcorn flower (Plagiobothrys sp.), fiddleneck (Amsinckia menziesii var. intermedia), forget-me-not (Cryptantha intermedia), evening primrose (Cammisonia sp.), American wild carrot (Daucus pusillus), slender tarweed (Deinandra fasciculata), San Diego tarplant (Deinandra paniculata), and phacelia (Phacelia sp.) Other plants observed include chia (Salvia columbariae), perezia (Acourtia microcephalla), hooked navarretia (Navarretia hamata), sapphire woolstar (Eriastrum sapphirinum), and fringed spineflower (Chorizanthe fimbriata).

4.2.2) Northern Mixed Chaparral (Holland Element Code 37130) Northern mixed chaparral (NMC) typically contains a diverse group of evergreen plants (mostly inhabited by sclerophyllous shrubs with broad leaves). Common associates of this vegetation community include chamise (Adenostoma fasciculatum), black sage, and other perennials. A poorly developed understory is usually present in association with NMC areas, and is characteristic of areas observed on the subject site and in adjacent areas.

Chamise-dominant NMC areas are uncommon on the subject property, probably due to extensive agricultural operations throughout much of the lowland areas of the site. Only small patches (or islands) of remnant NMC were observed, excluding the east-central property Burrowing Owl Survey
Menifee Assemblage August 2005
WHC-04-435.BO1 19 L&L
boundary where some relatively dense stands remain and mix with RSS (especially just offsite to the east). Dense stands containing 50-75% chamise closed-canopy cover can be found on several north and east facing slopes adjacent to the site off of Garbani Road (just north of the northeaster corner of the site) and Wickerd Road (south-central portion of the site and adjacent areas to the south). It is possible that most lowland areas of the site may have once been inhabited by this vegetation community, based on the characteristics of undisturbed lands nearby.

4.2.3) Southern Arroyo Willow Riparian (Holland Element Code 61320), Mulefat Scrub (Holland Element Code 63310), and Disturbed Wetland (Holland Element Code 11200) Southern arroyo willow riparian and mulefat scrub are dependent on periodic flooding and are characterized by the presence of mostly winter deciduous trees, including arroyo willow (Salix lasiolepis), mulefat (Baccharis salicifolia), and Fremont’s cottonwood (Populus fremontii).

The northwestern portion of the site contains a degraded blueline stream area sparsely inhabited by arroyo willow, mulefat, or a combination of both species. A single Fremont’s cottonwood and scattered tamarisk (Tamarix sp.) were also observed. The understory is dominated by mostly weedy annuals, including (but not limited to) short-pod mustard, annual sunflower, fiddleneck, Indian clover (Lotus purshianus), wild radish (Raphinus sativus), mayweed (Anthemis cotula), prickly lettuce (Lactuca serriola), and several non-native grasses, including wheat (Triticum aestivum), oat (Avena spp.), and other non-native species. A persistent water flow was not observed within any of the onsite drainages during the present survey.

4.2.4) Extensive Agriculture (Fields) (Holland Element Code 18300) Approximately 75% of the survey area was previously converted for agricultural use and contained mostly dry-farmed wheat crops. A large portion of the previously farmed area at the western portion of the site was fallow at the time of this study and was densely covered in tall non-native vegetation. The eastern portion of the site had been recently disked at the time of this study and may still contain actively cultivated wheat crops. Invasive plants were observed commonly within the flatland portions of the site, including lamb’s quarters (Chenopodium murale), wild heliotrope (Heliotropium curassavicum), calabazilla (Cucurbita foetidissima), and knotweed (Polygonum aviculare).

Burrowing Owl Survey
Menifee Assemblage August 2005
WHC-04-435.BO1 20 L&L

4.2.5) Disturbed / Ruderal Habitat (Holland Element Code 11300) Disturbed habitat includes areas that contain mostly non-native plant species including ornamentals and ruderal exotics. Portions of the site that probably once contained RSS and/or NMC are now mostly ruderal. Mostly non-native weedy species have invaded these areas, including short-pod mustard, foxtail chess, red-stemmed filaree (Erodium cicutarium), and various non-native grasses. Other plant species observed in these areas include horehound (Marrubium vulgare), Russian thistle (Salsola tragus), and tumble pigweed (Amaranthus alba).

4.3) Wildlife Species
A total of forty-three (43) wildlife species were observed and identified during the focused BUOW nesting season survey of the site. Several CAGN were observed during some site visits within less disturbed sage scrub areas at the northern portion of the site. No other federal or state-listed endangered or threatened species were observed. All vertebrate wildlife species observed and identified during the present study, either by direct observation or by vocalization (for birds), are included in Appendix A.

4.3.1) Amphibians and Reptiles
During the biological survey no amphibian species were observed on the subject property. Four (4) reptile species were observed and included a side-blotched lizard (Uta stansburiana), western fence lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis), granite spiny lizard (Sceloporus orcutti), and a western whiptail (Cnemidophorus tigris).

4.3.2) Birds
Thirty-six (36) bird species were observed during surveys (Appendix A). The federally threatened coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica, herein referred to as CAGN) was detected during the present survey. A focused study for CAGN was performed on the site by L&L in 2004 (L&L 2004). A focused study for CAGN was not performed as part of the present study, so assessment of specific locations, number of birds, nest sites, or other information regarding the current status of CAGN onsite have not been made.

Burrowing Owl
Based on the presence of relatively flat open areas with low-growing vegetation on portions of the site, close proximity to a fresh water source, and recent records of BUOW in other areas of Burrowing Owl Survey
Menifee Assemblage August 2005
WHC-04-435.BO1 21 L&L
western Riverside County, vegetative habitat suitable for use by BUOW was determined to be present on portions of the subject property during previous studies of the site. Therefore, a more in-depth assessment to determine the presence/absence of active BUOW was conducted during the present study.

During the present survey, several California ground squirrels (Spermophilus beecheyi) were observed on portions of the site, primarily on the central and eastern areas (away from densely vegetated slopes or fallow agricultural areas that now contain dense ruderal vegetation). These areas of potentially suitable BUOW habitat were the primary focus of the present survey effort.

No BUOW, occupied burrows, or burrowing owl sign (pellets, scat, feathers, tracks, etc.) were observed on the subject property or surrounding areas during the present focused BUOW nesting season study conducted in June and July 2005. Based on the results of the present study, it can be reasonably concluded that BUOW is not presently utilizing the subject property.

Areas north of the site were not considered suitable as BUOW habitat due to significant topographic relief, dense sage scrub areas, and low-density residential areas. Some areas east of the site were included in the present BUOW buffer survey, but most areas contain dense sage scrub cover and are not considered suitable as BUOW habitat. Relatively flat areas surrounding the site to the west and south away from low-density residential areas may contain potential BUOW habitat. These areas were included in the previous (2003) 150-meter buffer survey area and were surveyed again during the present (2005) study. Additional California ground squirrel activity and habitat potentially suitable for BUOW was observed in some areas surrounding the site, but no BUOW or BUOW sign were observed in areas west or south of the site.

Coastal California Gnatcatcher
CAGN was incidentally observed during the present BUOW focused nesting season survey and also during other biological surveys of the site in 2004. Two nesting pairs of CAGN were observed during focused CAGN surveys in March and April 2004. Based on incidental observations during the present study, CAGN remains active within less disturbed sage scrub areas at the northern and eastern portions of the site.

The CAGN is considered a species adequately conserved under the MSHCP. Focused surveys are not required, but clearing the site is restricted by USFWS “take” permit (issued for the MSHCP) to outside of the nesting season if suitable habitat is present. Under the current Burrowing Owl Survey
Menifee Assemblage August 2005
WHC-04-435.BO1 22 L&L
guidelines of the MSHCP, site clearing is limited to outside of the CAGN nesting season (midFebruary through mid-August).

4.3.3) Mammals
During the focused survey three (3) mammal species were identified and included black-tailed jackrabbit (Lepus californicus), desert cottontail (Sylvilagus audubonii), and California ground squirrel (Spermophilus beecheyi).

4.3.4) Other Sensitive Wildlife Resources
Several other sensitive wildlife resources observed during the previous (2003 and 2004) studies were observed during the present (2005) survey effort. These include Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperi, herein referred to as COHA), southern California rufous-crowned sparrow (Aimophila rucifeps, herein referred to as RCSP), Bell’s sage sparrow (Amphispiza belli, herein referred to as SASP), California horned lark (Eremophila alpestris, herein referred to as HOLA), blacktailed jackrabbit (Lepus californicus, herein referred to as BTJA), orange-throated whiptail (Cnemidophorus hyperythrus beldingi, herein referred to as OTWH), western whiptail (Cnemidophorus tigris, herein referred to as WEWH), and coast horned lizard (Phrynostoma coronatum, herein referred to as CHL). The California Department of Fish & Game (CDFG) considers the COHA, RCSP, SASP, HOLA, BTJ, OTWH, WEWH, and CHL special species of concern to California.

Burrowing Owl Survey
Menifee Assemblage August 2005
WHC-04-435.BO1 23 L&L

5.0) CONCLUSIONS
The purpose of this survey was to identify and characterize potential biological resources and determine presence/absence of special status species (in particular to determine presence/absence of burrowing owl [BUOW]). The information in this section should serve as a planning tool for making informed decisions about future development of the project site.

Effects and recommendations identified are based on the literature review, L&L’s biological knowledge of the species and habitats in the site vicinity, and the biological field survey.

Based on the results of the focused nesting season BUOW study (including lack of BUOW and BUOW sign [i.e., feathers, pellets, scat, prey etc.]), it can be reasonably concluded that no BUOW currently occupy any portion of the site. In addition, there were no observations of BUOW during several previous biological surveys of the site in 2003 and 2004. Based on the results of this study, BUOW is not currently present nor is BUOW expected to utilize the subject property. However, according to current MSHCP requirements if BUOW is not detected within potentially suitable habitat during a nesting season survey a winter survey is recommended between December 1 and January 31.

Recommendations concerning the observed coastal California gnatcatchers (CAGN) observed onsite have been previously made and can be found in the revised General Biological Survey (L&L November 2004). Clearing the site is restricted by the USFWS “take” permit (issued for the MSHCP) to outside of the nesting season. The nesting season for CAGN provided in MSHCP species documentation is from mid-February through mid-August.

Burrowing Owl Survey
Menifee Assemblage August 2005
WHC-04-435.BO1 24 L&L

6.0) REFERENCES
Abrams, L. 1923, 1944, 1951. Illustrated Flora of the Pacific States (Vol. I, II, III). Stanford University Press, Stanford, California.

Abrams, L. and R. Ferris. 1960. Illustrated Flora of the Pacific States (Vol. IV). Stanford University Press, Stanford, California.

American Ornithologists’ Union. 1983. Check-list of North American birds (6th ed.) Allen Press, Lawrence, Kansas. 877 pp.

American Ornithologists’ Union. 1989. Thirty-seventh supplement to the American Ornithologists’ Union check-list of North American birds. Auk, 106: 532–538.

Bartel, J. A. 1993. Dudleya in The Jepson Manual: Higher Plants of California. J. C. Hickman, ed., University of California Press, Berkeley, California.

California Native Plant Society. 2001. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California (Sixth Edition). Rare Plant Scientific Advisory Committee, David P. Tibor, Convening Editor. California Native Plant Society. Sacramento, CA. x + 388 pp.

California Natural Diversity Database. 2000. Natural Heritage Division, California Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, California.

California Department of Fish and Game. 2003. RareFind 3.0.5. California Department of Fish and Game Natural Diversity Database. USGS Romoland 7.5’ quadrangle using May 26, 2005 database.

CNPS. 2001. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California (sixth edition). Rare Plant Scientific Advisory Committee, David P. Tibor, Convening Editor. California Native Plant Society. Sacramento, CA. x + 388 pp.

Hickman, J.C. (ed.) 1993. The Jepson Manual: Higher Plants of California. University of California Press, Berkeley, California.

Jameson, E. W. and H. J. Peeters. 1988. California Mammals. Univ. of California Press, Berkeley.

Munz, P. A. 1974. A Flora of Southern California. University of California Press, Berkeley, California.

Reeder, J. R. 1993. The Jepson Manual, Higher Plants of Californica. J. C. Hickman, ed., University of California Press, Berkeley, California.

Sibley, D. A. 2000. The Sibley Guide to Birds. Alfred A. Knopf, Inc., New York, New York. 544 pp.

Burrowing Owl Survey
Menifee Assemblage August 2005
WHC-04-435.BO1 25 L&L
Skinner M. W. and B. M. Pavlik. 1994. California Native Plant Society’s Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California. Special Publication, 5th ed., California Native Plant Society.

Stebbins, R. C. 1985. A Field Guide to Western Reptiles and Amphibians. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston Mass.

Taylor, D. and D. Wilken. 1993. Atriplex, in The Jepson Manual: Higher Plants of California.

J.C. Hickman, ed., University of California Press, Berkeley, California.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1994. Proposed Rule to List Four Southwestern California Plants as Endangered or Threatened. Federal Register 59(240): 64812-64823.

Burrowing Owl Survey
Menifee Assemblage August 2005
WHC-04-435.BO1 26 L&L

APPENDIX A
Table 1. List of wildlife observed or detected on the Menifee Assemblage, WHC-04-435.BO1, site (N=43).

Scientific Name Common Name
Birds
Acciptiridae Hawk Family
Accipiter cooperii Cooper’s Hawk
Buteo jamaicensis Red-tail Hawk

Aegithalidae Long-tailed Tit Family
Psaltriparus minimus Bushtit

Alaudidae Lark Family
Eremophila alpestris Horned Lark
Anatidae Ducks, Geese, Swan Family
Anas platyrhynchos Mallard
Apodidae Swift Family
Aeronautes saxatalis White-throated Swift
Ardeidae Heron Family
Ardea alba Great Egret
Ardea herodias wardi Great Blue Heron

Cathartidae Vulture Family
Cathartes aura Turkey Vulture
Charadriidae Plover Family
Charadrius vociferus Killdeer
Columbidae Pigeon Family
Columba livia Rock Dove (Feral Pigeon)
Zenaida macroura Mourning Dove

Corvidae Jay and Crow Family
Aphelocoma californica Western Scrub Jay
Corvus brachyrhynchos American Crow
Corvus corax clarionensis Common Raven

Cuculidae Cuckoo Family
Geococcyx californianus Greater Roadrunner
Emberizidae Emberizine Sparrow Family
Pipilo crissalis California Towhee
Pipilo maculatus Spotted Towhee
Passerculus sandwichensis Savannah Sparrow
Burrowing Owl Survey
Menifee Assemblage August 2005
WHC-04-435.BO1 27 L&L
Appendix A. (Continued)
Scientific Name Common Name
Falconidae Falcon Family
Falco sparverius American Kestrel
Fringillidae Finch Family
Carduelis psaltria Lesser Goldfinch
Carpodacus mexicanus frontalis House Finch
Hirundinidae Swallow Family
Hirundo rustica Barn Swallow
Petrochelidon pyrrhonota tachina Cliff Swallow
Stelgidopteryx serripennis Northern Rough-winged
Swallow
Icteridae Icterid Family
Euphagus cyanocephalus Brewer’s Blackbird
Sturnella neglecta Western Meadowlark
Mimidae Mockingbird Family
Mimus polyglottos polyglottos Northern Mockingbird
Toxostoma redivivum redivivum California Thrasher
Odontophoridae Quail Family
Callipepla californica californica California Quail

Passeridae Old World Sparrows
Passer domesticus House Sparrow
Sturnidae Starling Family
Sturnus vulgaris European Starling
Sylviidae Gnatcatcher Family
Polioptila californica californica California Gnatcatcher Timaliidae Babbler Family
Chamaea fasciata Wrentit
Trochilideae Hummingbird Family
Calypte anna Anna’s Hummingbird
Calypte costae Costa’s Hummingbird
Troglodytidae Wren Family
Salpinctes obsoletus Rock Wren
Thryomanes bewickii Bewick’s Wren
Tyrannidae Tyrant Flycatchers
Sayornis nigricans Black Phoebe
Sayornis sayi Say’s Phoebe
Tyrannus verticalis Western Kingbird
Burrowing Owl Survey
Menifee Assemblage August 2005
WHC-04-435.BO1 28 L&L
Appendix A. (Continued)
Scientific Name Common Name
Tyrannidae (cont.) Tyrant Flycatchers
Species Unidentified Flycatcher
Mammals
Leporidae Rabbit Family
Lepus californicus Black-tailed Jackrabbit
Sylvilagus audubonii Desert Cottontail
Sciuridae Squirrel Family
Spermophilus beecheyi California Ground Squirrel
Reptiles & Amphibians
Iguanidae Iguanid Family
Uta stansburiana Side-blotched Lizard
Sceloporus occidentalis Western Fence Lizard
Sceloporus orcutti Granite Spiny Lizard
Teiidae Teiid Lizard Family
Cnemidophorus tigris Western Whiptail
* Excludes invertebrates
Burrowing Owl Survey
Menifee Assemblage August 2005
WHC-04-435.BO1 29 L&L

APPENDIX B
Site Photos
Photo 1 and 2: Overview of the project site from the south central border (within RSS) facing north (Photo 1) and northeast (Photo 2).

Burrowing Owl Survey
Menifee Assemblage August 2005
WHC-04-435.BO1 30 L&L
Photo 3 and 4: Overview of the project site from the north central border (within RSS) facing south (Photo 3) and southwest (Photo 4), which shows the riparian area.

Burrowing Owl Survey
Menifee Assemblage August 2005
WHC-04-435.BO1 31 L&L
Photo 5 and 6: View of the hills and coastal sage scrub on the northeastern corner on the project site.

Burrowing Owl Survey
Menifee Assemblage August 2005
WHC-04-435.BO1 32 L&L
Photo 7: Close-up view of the riparian area on the project site.

Photo 8: View of the residence within the western most portion of the project site.

Burrowing Owl Survey
Menifee Assemblage August 2005
WHC-04-435.BO1 33 L&L

CERTIFICATION
Certification: I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits 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 and belief.

DATE: _August 24, 2005_ SIGNED: ______________________________________________ Leslie Irish, Principal, L&L Environmental, Inc.

Burrowing Owl Survey
Menifee Assemblage August 2005
WHC-04-435.BO1 34 L&L

BIOLOGICAL REPORT SUMMARY SHEET
Applicant Name:_Woodside Homes of California_________________________________ Assessor’s Parcel Number(s): 360-300-002, -003, -004, -005, -006, -008, and 360-350-001 Section, Township and Range: _Section 15 & 16, Township 6 South, Range 3 West_____ Building and Safety Log Number: ____________________________________________ Case Number: __________________ Lot/Parcel _________ EA Number _________

MARK ITEM(S)

SURVEYED FOR
SPECIES or ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE of

CONCERN
(Mark Yes, No, or N/A
regarding species findings on
the referenced site)
Yes No n/a
Arroyo Southwestern Toad Yes No n/a
X Blueline Stream(s) Yes No n/a
X Burrowing Owl Yes No n/a
Coachella Valley Fringed-toed Lizard Yes No n/a
X Coastal California Gnatcatcher Yes No n/a
Coastal Sage Scrub Yes No n/a
Delhi Sands Flower-loving Fly Yes No n/a
Desert Pupfish Yes No n/a
Desert Slender Salamander Yes No n/a
Desert Tortoise Yes No n/a
Flat-tailed Horned Lizard Yes No n/a
Least Bell’s Vireo Yes No n/a
Oak Woodlands Yes No n/a
Quino Checkerspot Butterfly Yes No n/a
Riverside Fairy Shrimp Yes No n/a
Santa Ana River Woolystar Yes No n/a
San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat Yes No n/a
Slender-horned Spineflower Yes No n/a
Stephens’ Kangaroo Rat Yes No n/a
Vernal Pools Yes No n/a
Wetlands Yes No n/a
Burrowing Owl Survey
Menifee Assemblage August 2005
WHC-04-435.BO1 35 L&L

MARK ITEM(S)

SURVEYED FOR
SPECIES or ENVIRONMENTAL
ISSUE of CONCERN
(Mark Yes, No, or N/A regarding
species findings on the referenced
site)
X Cooper’s Hawk Yes No n/a
X Southern California Rufous-crowned Sparrow Yes No n/a X Bell’s Sage Sparrow Yes No n/a
X California Horned Lark Yes No n/a
X Black-tailed Jackrabbit Yes No n/a
X Orange-throated Whiptail Yes No n/a
X Western Whiptail Yes No n/a
X Coast Horned Lizard Yes No n/a
Species of concern shall be any unique, rare, endangered, or threatened species. It shall include species used to delineate wetlands and riparian corridors. It shall also include any hosts, perching, or food plants used by any animals listed as rare, endangered, threatened, or candidate species by either state, or federal regulations, or for Riverside County as listed by the California Department of Fish and Game Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB).

I declare under penalty of perjury that the information provided on this summary sheet is in accordance with the information provided in the biological report or habitat assessment. ______________________________L & L Environmental, Inc. _August 24, 2005___________ Signature and Company Name Date
___________________________________________________ _________________________ 10(a) Permit Number (if applicable) Permit Expiration Date County Use Only
Received By: ________________________________________ Date: ___________________ PD-B# _____________________________________________
Burrowing Owl Survey
Menifee Assemblage August 2005
WHC-04-435.BO1 36 L&L
Attachment E-4

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE CHECKLIST
For Biological Resources
(Submit two copies to the County)
Case Number: ____________ Lot/Parcel No. _____________ EA Number ________ Assessor's Parcel Number(s): 360-300-002, -003, -004, -005, -006, -008, and 360-350-001__ Date: _ August 24, 2005__
Wildlife & Vegetation:

Potentially Less than Significant Less than No
Significant Impact with Mitigation Significant Impact
Impact Incorporated Impact
Biological Resources
Would the Project?:
a) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Conservation Community Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state conservation plan?

b) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any endangered, or threatened species, as listed in Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations (Sections 670.2 or 670.5) or in Title 50, Code of Federal Regulations (Sections 17.11 or 17.12)?

c) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game, or U. S. Wildlife Service?

d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species, or with established native resident migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?

Burrowing Owl Survey
Menifee Assemblage August 2005
WHC-04-435.BO1 37 L&L

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE CHECKLIST
For Biological Resources
(Submit two copies to the County)
e) 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 Game, or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?

f) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands, as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pools, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption)

g) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?

Findings of Fact:

No burrowing owl or sign was observed.

Coastal California gnatcatchers were identified onsite.

Several species of special concern to California were identified.

Proposed Mitigation:

Conduct site clearing outside of nesting season.

Monitoring Recommended:

Source: CGP Fig. VI.36-VI.40
Revised October 1999
Burrowing Owl Survey
Menifee Assemblage August 2005
WHC-04-435.BO1 38 L&L
TTM NO. 31194 TECHNICAL APPENDICES
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458

B7.

FOCUSED HABITAT ASSESSMENT FOR LEAST BELL’S VIREO,

SOUTHWESTERN WILLOW FLYCATCHER AND YELLOW-BILLED
CUCKOO
Z:\Project Files\Leslie Office PC\Project Files\WHC-03-187.HA1 HA for LBV\Report\WHC-03-187.HA1.doc 1269 Pomona Rd. • Suite 102 • Corona, CA 92882 • Phone 951.681.4929 • FAX 951.681.6531 October 26, 2005
Peter Evans
Woodside Homes of California
23121 Antonio Parkway, Suite 120
Rancho Santa Margarita, CA 92688
Regarding: Results of a Focused Habitat Assessment Survey for the Least Bell’s Vireo, Southwestern Willow Flycatcher, and Yellow-Billed Cuckoo on Menifee Assemblage, ±204.7 Acre Project, Tract 31194, Menifee, California.

Mr. Evans:

L&L Environmental, Inc. conducted a habitat assessment on the current development area of Tract 31194 of the Menifee Assemblage project. The purpose of this study was to examine the subject property to determine the presence or absence of potential habitat for the least Bell’s vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus), southwestern willow flycatcher (Epidonax traillii extimus), and for the yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus occidentalis) on the property. This assessment was required due to a Response to Comments from the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS), who indicated that a current focused survey must be completed.

Loss and degradation of breeding habitat has been the greatest contributor to the decline of the vireo, flycatcher, and cuckoo in California and other western states. Habitat conversion for agricultural purposes has removed much of the original riparian woodland and flood control measures and channelization have further depleted riparian habitats used by the vireo, flycatcher, and cuckoo (as well as other riparian birds). The significant reduction in population size and range of the vireo resulted in it being listed as a state endangered species in June 1980. The vireo was federally listed as endangered in May 1986 (USFWS 1986). The southwestern subspecies of willow flycatcher was federally listed as endangered in March 1986 (USFWS 1995). The cuckoo was listed by the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) as a state threatened species in 1971 and then re-listed as an endangered species in 1988 (CDFG 2000). In 2001 the Service was petitioned to list the cuckoo under the federal Endangered Species Act of 1973. The 12 month finding of the Service was that federal listing Focused Habitat Assessment for Least Bell’s Vireo, Southwestern Willow Flycatcher, and Yellow-Billed Cuckoo Surveys Menifee Assemblage Site October 2005
WHC-03-187.HA1 2 L&L
was warranted but precluded by higher listing actions. The Service now considers the cuckoo a candidate for federal listing. Impacts to this habitat are regulated by state and federal agencies.

Project Location and Setting
The subject property is generally located in the Paloma Valley west of Interstate Highway 215 (I215), south of Newport Road, and east of Murrieta Road near the City of Menifee (Figure 1).

The site is located between Wickerd Road to the south and Garbani Road to the north. The project area is located in Sections 9, 15, and 16, Township 6 South, Range 3 West within the USGS Romoland 7.5’ series quadrangle map (Figure 2).

The site is generally bounded as follows: to the west by a mixture of actively cultivated and fallow agricultural areas, Evans Road (unimproved), and rural residential units; to the east by a mixture of disturbed and relatively undisturbed open space, Ascot Way (unimproved), and a Verizon Communications complex beyond; to the north by a mixture of disturbed and relatively undisturbed lands, rural residential areas and Garbani Road (unimproved) beyond; and to the south by Wickerd Road (unimproved), rural residential areas and a mix of disturbed and relatively undisturbed lands beyond (Figure 3). A chain-link fence currently surrounds the entire site perimeter except along the northern site boundary where the fence separates previously farmed areas from areas containing natural sage scrub habitat on low-relief slopes within the site boundaries.

Land use varies within and adjacent to the survey area, and includes anthropogenic disturbances such as rural residential areas, active and fallow agricultural areas, unimproved roads, power line easements, off-road vehicle (ORV) activity, and debris piling. Two roads are present on the property. One is located along the northern and eastern portion of the property where agricultural areas meet less disturbed sage scrub areas. A chain-link fence is now present along this road. This unimproved road begins at the eastern terminus of Daniel Road and exits at the southeastern corner of the site near the Evans Road and Ascot Way intersection. Krubsack Road (unimproved) trends north to south through previously cultivated agricultural fields at the roughly west-central portion of the property and connects with Wickerd Road to the south and Daniel Road to the north. Although this road was used during previous surveys of the site by L&L in 2003 and 2004, this road is no longer accessible.

Focused Habitat Assessment for Least Bell’s Vireo, Southwestern Willow Flycatcher, and Yellow-Billed Cuckoo Surveys Menifee Assemblage Site October 2005
WHC-03-187.HA1 3 L&L
L&L Environmental, Inc.

BIOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL

INVESTIGATIONS AND MONITORING
WHC-03-187
October 2005
Project Area
Figure 1
Project Vicinity Map
Menifee Assemblage, Tract 31194
Riverside County, California
Focused Habitat Assessment for Least Bell’s Vireo, Southwestern Willow Flycatcher, and Yellow-Billed Cuckoo Surveys Menifee Assemblage Site October 2005
WHC-03-187.HA1 4 L&L
L&L Environmental, Inc.

BIOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL

INVESTIGATIONS AND MONITORING
WHC-03-187
October 2005
Figure 2
Project Location
Menifee Assemblage, Tract 31194
Riverside County, California
Project Area
Offsite improvements
Focused Habitat Assessment for Least Bell’s Vireo, Southwestern Willow Flycatcher, and Yellow-Billed Cuckoo Surveys Menifee Assemblage Site October 2005
WHC-03-187.HA1 5 L&L
L&L Environmental, Inc.

BIOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL

INVESTIGATIONS AND MONITORING
WHC-03-187
October 2005
Figure 3
Aerial Photograph
(Provided by GlobeXplorer, Air Photo USA, 2003)
Menifee Assemblage, Tract 31194
Riverside County, California
Project Area
Offsite improvements Scale: 1” = ± 873’ N
Focused Habitat Assessment for Least Bell’s Vireo, Southwestern Willow Flycatcher, and Yellow-Billed Cuckoo Surveys Menifee Assemblage Site October 2005
WHC-03-187.HA1 6 L&L
Site Vegetation
Much of the subject property is disturbed, mostly in association with previously cultivated dryfarmed agricultural activities (primarily grain crops). Much of the site does not support a diverse group of native low-growing annuals and/or other herbs because of these disturbances. Less disturbed areas are present in the roughly eastern and northern (primarily northeastern) portions of the site. A mixture of disturbed and relatively undisturbed Riversidean sage scrub (RSS) vegetation community inhabits this portion of the site and many native low-growing annuals were observed in these areas during previous botanical studies of the site (Figure 4).

Southern Arroyo Willow Riparian (Holland Element Code 61320), Mulefat Scrub (Holland Element Code 63310), and Disturbed Wetland (Holland Element Code 11200) Southern arroyo willow riparian and mulefat scrub are dependent on periodic flooding and are characterized by the presence of mostly winter deciduous trees, including arroyo willow (Salix lasiolepis), mulefat (Baccharis salicifolia), and Fremont’s cottonwood (Populus fremontii).

The northwestern portion of the site contains a degraded blueline stream area sparsely inhabited by arroyo willow, black willow (Salix goodingii), mulefat, or a combination of these species. A single Fremont’s cottonwood, two California walnut (Juglans californica), and scattered tamarisk (Tamarix sp.) were also observed. The understory is dominated by mostly weedy annuals, including (but not limited to) short-pod mustard (Hirschfeldia incana), annual sunflower (Helianthus annuus), curly dock (Rumex crispus), fiddleneck (Amsinckia menziesii var. intermedia), indian clover (Lotus purshianus), wild radish (Raphinus sativus), mayweed (Anthemis cotula), prickly lettuce (Lactuca serriola), and several non-native grasses, including wheat (Triticum aestivum), oat (Avena sp.), and others. A persistent water flow was not observed within any of the onsite drainages during the present study.

Focused Habitat Assessment for Least Bell’s Vireo, Southwestern Willow Flycatcher, and Yellow-Billed Cuckoo Surveys Menifee Assemblage Site October 2005
WHC-03-187.HA1 7 L&L
L&L Environmental, Inc.

BIOLOGICAL AND CULTURAL

INVESTIGATIONS AND MONITORING
WHC-03-187
October 2005
Figure 4
Aerial Photograph
(Provided by GlobeXplorer, Air Photo USA, 2003)
Menifee Assemblage, Tract 31194
Riverside County, California
Project Area
Legend
Riversidean Sage Scrub White-tailed Kite
RSS/Ruderal Cooper’s Hawk
Northern Mixed Chaparral Loggerhead Shrike
S. Arroyo Willow/Mulefat Scrub # Photograph Location
Agricultural/Disturbed/Ruderal
Fence Line
Off-site Improvements
8 14
7 6d
5 4 3
2 1
9 (N) -13
15 16
6a,
6b
Focused Habitat Assessment for Least Bell’s Vireo, Southwestern Willow Flycatcher, and Yellow-Billed Cuckoo Surveys Menifee Assemblage Site October 2005
WHC-03-187.HA1 8 L&L
Table 1. Tree locations, density, and composition observed on the Menifee Assemblage site.

Area
Tree Genera
Present
# of
Trees GPS Location
Elev.
(Feet)
Photo
ID Notes
1 Salix 1 33°39.349’
117°11.649’ 1529 9154 Northernmost
Salix on Property
2 Salix 1 33°39.338’
117°11.640’ 1519 9153 Isolated tree
3 Salix, Tamarix ±2 33°39.318’
117°11.637’ 1516 9152 Isolated tree partially burned
4 Baccharis, Tamarix ±3 33°39.292’
117°11.625’ 1517 9151 Small patch
5 Salix, Baccharis,
Tamarix ±6 33°39.298’
117°11.722’ 1520 9118
Northwest edge
of site at fence
line
6 Salix, Baccharis,
Tamarix, Populus,
Juglans
±25 33°39.234’
117°11.579’ 1522 9124
Center of patch,
more information
below
7 Eucalyptus,
Baccharis ±20 33°39.163’ 117°11.564’ 1522 9140
4 Eucalyptus (1
mature) +
Baccharis row
8 Salix, Baccharis ±2 33°39.117’
117°11.594’ 1519 9129 Small patch
9 Salix ±4 33°39.135’
117°11.477’ 1532 9138 Small patch
10 Salix, Baccharis ±4 33°39.124’
117°11.473’ 1533 9137 Small patch; Salix mature
11 Salix 1 33°39.119’
117°11.467’ 1533 9136 Isolated tree
12 Salix, Baccharis ±3 33°39.111’
117°11.457’ 1526 9135 Small patch
13 Baccharis, Tamarix ±3 33°39.101’
117°11.450’ 1527 9134 Small patch
14 Salix, Baccharis,
Tamarix ±3 33°39.076’
117°11.417’ 1539 9132 Small patch
15 Salix ±1 33°39.140’
117°11.508’ 1529 9139 Small patch
16 Baccharis, Tamarix ±2 33°39.186’
117°11.554’ 1522 9141 Southeastern
most small patch
From a distance Area 6 may appear to be a dense riparian area. Examined more closely, Area 6 consists of two narrow rows of lowland riparian trees and other associated plants bisected and surrounded by a dry-farmed grain crop agricultural area. A persistent water flow was not observed in Area 6 or other areas inhabited by Salix, Baccharis, and other wetland indicator species on any other portion of the site. Within Area 6, each row consists of and is dominated by Salix and Baccharis with occasional Tamarix, two Juglans at its center, and a single mature Populus at the northern end. The width of a given tree or small grouping of Baccharis characterizes the width of each row. A low dense shrubby layer or dense patches (or thickets) of lowland riparian trees and other plants are largely not present. Most Salix trees observed in Focused Habitat Assessment for Least Bell’s Vireo, Southwestern Willow Flycatcher, and Yellow-Billed Cuckoo Surveys Menifee Assemblage Site October 2005
WHC-03-187.HA1 9 L&L
this area and other areas of the site are small to medium sized. Only two or three Salix trees can be characterized as mature.

Table 2. Detailed riparian Area 6 information for the Menifee Assemblage site.

Area
Tree Genera
Present
# of
Trees GPS Location
Elev.
(Feet)
Photo
ID Notes
6a
Salix, Baccharis,
Tamarix, Populus,
Juglans
±25 33°39.234’
117°11.579’ 1522 9124
Center of patch
between 2 mature
Salix
6b Populus fremontii
(mature) 1 33°39.211’
117°11.570’ 1521 9126 Northwestern
portion of patch
6c Juglans californica 2 33°39.237’
117°11.577’ 1525 9145 Mark between two Juglans trees
6d Salix, Baccharis,
Populus ±10 33°39.271’ 117°11.627’ 1512 9127 North end of patch Focused Habitat Assessment for Least Bell’s Vireo, Southwestern Willow Flycatcher, and Yellow-Billed Cuckoo Surveys Menifee Assemblage Site October 2005
WHC-03-187.HA1 10 L&L
Species Information
Least Bell’s Vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus)
The least Bell’s vireo (LBV) is a small greenish-gray songbird with a white underbelly, two white wingbars, and white spectacles across the lores. This species was once widespread throughout the Central Valley and other low elevation river valleys of California. Historically, the LBV’s breeding range extended from the interior of northern California to northwestern Baja California. The vireo typically prefers riparian areas dominated by willows (Salix sp.) of mixed age composition. These areas frequently include other trees such as cottonwood (Populus freemontii) and California sycamore (Platanus racemosa), with a dense understory of young willows, mule-fat (Baccharis salicifolia), California primrose (Rosa californica), and a variety of other shrubby species. The least Bell’s vireo is listed as an endangered species by both the USFWS and CDFG.

Southwestern Willow Flycatcher (Epidonax traillii extimus) The southwestern willow flycatcher (SWF) is a small insectivorous passerine that migrates in the spring from South America, Mexico, and Central America to breed in the southwestern desert riparian habitats of California, Arizona, New Mexico, and Texas. The SWF has a grayish-green back, whitish throat, pale yellowish belly, and two white wing bars. SWF occurs in riparian woodland habitat that is characterized by a dense growth of willows (Salix sp.), mulefat (Baccharis salicifolia), arrowweed (Pluchea sp.), buttonbush (Cephalanthus sp.) and tamarisk (Tamarix sp.) These areas frequently include other trees such as cottonwood (Populus freemontii), tamarisk, and California sycamore (Platanus racemosa).

In addition to willow riparian woodland the SWF also nests in coast live oak woodland (Quercus agrifolia) on the upper San Luis Rey River, San Diego County, California; in dense stands of tamarisk on the lower Colorado River, Imperial, and Riverside Counties, California; and in stands of mixed willow and white alder (Alnus rhombifolia) along Mill Creek in San Bernardino County, California. Surface water or saturated soils are usually present in or adjacent to nesting thickets.

The southwestern willow flycatcher is listed as an endangered species by the USFWS. The CDFG has listed the willow flycatcher (E. traillii) as an endangered species; thus, the entire species (not just the E. t. extimus subspecies) is protected under the California Endangered Species Act.

Focused Habitat Assessment for Least Bell’s Vireo, Southwestern Willow Flycatcher, and Yellow-Billed Cuckoo Surveys Menifee Assemblage Site October 2005
WHC-03-187.HA1 11 L&L
Yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus occidentalis) The cuckoo is a member of the roadrunner family (Family Cuculidae) and is a medium sized bird with grayish-brown upperparts, a white underbelly, bright brown wings, a down-curved yellow lower mandible, and a bold black and white pattern on the underside of the tail. The cuckoo is an uncommon and very local summer breeding resident, arriving in the area in late May and early June and departing in early September for its wintering ground in South America.

The cuckoo’s preferred nesting habitat is mature willow, mesquite (Prosopis sp.), and cottonwood riparian forests with a dense understory of willow, blackberry (Rubus sp.), wild grape (Vitis sp.), and nettle (Urtica sp.) The cuckoo requires an average of 43 acres (17 hectares) per pair for foraging and nesting, however, area required is dependent upon quality of habitat. Foraging is done predominantly in the cottonwood overstory and nesting is done almost exclusively in willow understory.

The cuckoo was once common in riparian habitat throughout the western United States, but in the past 70 years a severe decline has taken place. It has been extirpated from Idaho, Nevada, and Utah, and although still breeding in southern and central California, Arizona, and New Mexico its range has been greatly reduced. It is estimated that 50-75 pairs of breeding cuckoos occur annually in California. The largest breeding populations occur along the upper Sacramento River in the Sacramento Valley and the South Fork Kern River in Kern County.

The cuckoo was listed by CDFG as a state threatened species in 1971 and then re-listed as an endangered species in 1988 (CDFG 2000). In 2001 the Service was petitioned to list the cuckoo under the federal Endangered Species Act of 1973. The 12 month finding of the Service was that federal listing was warranted but precluded by higher listing actions. The Service now considers the cuckoo a candidate for federal listing.

Regulatory Environment: Migratory Bird Treaty Act
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) of 1918 (16 USC 703-711) is an international treaty that makes it unlawful to take, possess, buy, sell, purchase, or barter any migratory bird listed in 50 CFR Part 10, including feathers or other parts, nests, eggs, or products, except as allowed by implementing regulations (50 CFR 21). Sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3800 of the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) Code prohibit the take, possession, or destruction of birds, their nests, or eggs. The MBTA requires that project-related disturbance at active nesting territories be reduced or eliminated during critical phases of the nesting cycle (1 February through 31 August, annually). Disturbance that causes nest abandonment, loss of reproductive Focused Habitat Assessment for Least Bell’s Vireo, Southwestern Willow Flycatcher, and Yellow-Billed Cuckoo Surveys Menifee Assemblage Site October 2005
WHC-03-187.HA1 12 L&L
effort (e.g., killing or abandonment of eggs or young), or loss of habitat upon which the birds depend could be considered “take” and constitute a violation of the MBTA.

Survey Results
L&L biologist, Guy Bruyea surveyed the project area on September 22, 2005 to assess riparian area at northwest portion of site for potential LBV, SWF, and cuckoo habitat. The northwestern portion of the site contains a degraded blueline stream area sparsely inhabited by arroyo willow, black willow (Salix goodingii), mulefat, or a combination of these species.

A total of twenty-two (22) bird species were observed during this study. No mammals, reptiles, or amphibians were observed. No least Bell’s vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, or yellowbilled cuckoo was observed. During this study, two Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperi, herein referred to as COHA), a single loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus, herein referred to as LOSH), and two white-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus, herein referred to as WTKI) were observed at the northwestern portion of the site. The California Department of Fish and Game considers the COHA, LOSH, and WTKI as special species of concern to California. Several red-tailed hawks were observed perched on Eucalyptus and some mature Salix and Populus trees onsite, which may also serve as potential nesting locations. Other bird species observed during this survey include the following: California towhee, mourning dove, rock dove, turkey vulture, Anna’s hummingbird, lesser goldfinch, American crow, western kingbird, savannah sparrow, California quail, common raven, northern flicker, house finch, California thrasher, killdeer, black phoebe, Nuttall’s woodpecker, and spotted towhee.

Based on the results of the present focused habitat evaluation and lack of LBV, SWF, and cuckoo observations during several previous biological surveys of the site in 2003 and 2004, it can be reasonably concluded that LBV is not currently occupying any portion of the site. In addition, habitat to support these species appears absent or very low based upon extensive agricultural disturbances throughout the northwestern portion of the site, the degraded nature of the blueline stream area, lack of a dense shrubby layer of understory vegetation, and the isolated nature of many onsite Salix, Baccharis, Tamarix, and other riparian associate species which form only small patches (in many cases less than 2 or 3 small trees), not dense riparian “thickets” typically associated with undisturbed lowland riparian systems and high quality LBV, SWF, and cuckoo habitat.

Sincerely,
L & L Environmental, Inc.

Leslie Irish, Principal
Focused Habitat Assessment for Least Bell’s Vireo, Southwestern Willow Flycatcher, and Yellow-Billed Cuckoo Surveys Menifee Assemblage Site October 2005
WHC-03-187.HA1 13 L&L
Table 3. Area photographs from the Menifee Assemblage site.

Area Location Photograph
Tree Genera
Present Photo ID
Species Habitat
Quality
1 Salix 9154 Absent or Very Low
(Isolated)
2 Salix 9153 Absent or Very Low
(Isolated)
3 Salix, Tamarix 9152 Absent or Very Low
(Isolated)
4 Baccharis, Tamarix 9151 Absent or Very Low
(Isolated)
5 Salix, Baccharis,
Tamarix 9118 Absent or Very Low
(Isolated)
Focused Habitat Assessment for Least Bell’s Vireo, Southwestern Willow Flycatcher, and Yellow-Billed Cuckoo Surveys Menifee Assemblage Site October 2005
WHC-03-187.HA1 14 L&L
Area Location Photograph
Tree Genera
Present Photo ID
Species Habitat
Quality
6 Salix, Baccharis,
Tamarix, Juglans,
Populus
9124
Very Low
(Isolated small
patches)
7 Eucalyptus,
Baccharis 9140
Absent
(Poor low dense
shrub layer)
8 Salix, Baccharis 9129
Absent or Very Low
(Poor low dense
shrub layer)
9 Salix 9138 Absent or Very Low
(Isolated)
10 Salix, Baccharis 9137 Absent or Very Low
(Isolated)
Focused Habitat Assessment for Least Bell’s Vireo, Southwestern Willow Flycatcher, and Yellow-Billed Cuckoo Surveys Menifee Assemblage Site October 2005
WHC-03-187.HA1 15 L&L
Area Location Photograph Tree Genera
Present
Photo ID Species Habitat
Quality
11 Salix 9136 Absent or Very Low
(Isolated)
12 Salix, Baccharis 9135 Absent or Very Low
(Isolated)
13 Baccharis, Tamarix 9134 Absent or Very Low
(Isolated)
14 Salix, Baccharis,
Tamarix 9132 Absent (Isolated)
15 Salix 9139 Absent or Very Low
(Isolated)
Focused Habitat Assessment for Least Bell’s Vireo, Southwestern Willow Flycatcher, and Yellow-Billed Cuckoo Surveys Menifee Assemblage Site October 2005
WHC-03-187.HA1 16 L&L
Area Location Photograph Tree Genera
Present
Photo ID Species Habitat
Quality
16 Baccharis, Tamarix 9141 Absent or Very Low
Focused Habitat Assessment for Least Bell’s Vireo, Southwestern Willow Flycatcher, and Yellow-Billed Cuckoo Surveys Menifee Assemblage Site October 2005
WHC-03-187.HA1 17 L&L
Certification
Certification: I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits 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 and belief.

DATE: October 26, 2005_ SIGNED: ______________________________________________ Leslie Irish, Principal, L&L Environmental, Inc.

Focused Habitat Assessment for Least Bell’s Vireo, Southwestern Willow Flycatcher, and Yellow-Billed Cuckoo Surveys Menifee Assemblage Site October 2005
WHC-03-187.HA1 18 L&L

BIOLOGICAL REPORT SUMMARY SHEET
Applicant Name:__Woodside Homes of CA_____________________________________ Assessor’s Parcel Number(s): __360-300-002, -003, -004, -005, -006, -008, and 360-350-001 Section, Township and Range: _ Sections 9, 15 and 16, Township 6 South, Range 3 West Building and Safety Log Number: ____________________________________________ Case Number: _EIR00458__________ Lot/Parcel _________ EA Number _________

MARK ITEM(S)

SURVEYED FOR
SPECIES or ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE of

CONCERN
(Mark Yes, No, or N/A
regarding species findings on
the referenced site)
Yes No n/a
Arroyo Southwestern Toad Yes No n/a
X Blueline Stream(s) Yes No n/a
Burrowing Owl Yes No n/a
Coachella Valley Fringed-toed Lizard Yes No n/a
Coastal California Gnatcatcher Yes No n/a
Coastal Sage Scrub Yes No n/a
Delhi Sands Flower-loving Fly Yes No n/a
Desert Pupfish Yes No n/a
Desert Slender Salamander Yes No n/a
Desert Tortoise Yes No n/a
Flat-tailed Horned Lizard Yes No n/a
X Least Bell’s Vireo Yes No n/a
Oak Woodlands Yes No n/a
Quino Checkerspot Butterfly Yes No n/a
Riverside Fairy Shrimp Yes No n/a
Santa Ana River Woolystar Yes No n/a
San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat Yes No n/a
Slender-horned Spineflower Yes No n/a
Stephens’ Kangaroo Rat Yes No n/a
Vernal Pools Yes No n/a
Wetlands Yes No n/a
Focused Habitat Assessment for Least Bell’s Vireo, Southwestern Willow Flycatcher, and Yellow-Billed Cuckoo Surveys Menifee Assemblage Site October 2005
WHC-03-187.HA1 19 L&L

MARK ITEM(S)

SURVEYED FOR
SPECIES or ENVIRONMENTAL
ISSUE of CONCERN
(Mark Yes, No, or N/A regarding
species findings on the referenced
site)
X Southwestern willow flycatcher Yes No n/a
X Yellow-billed cuckoo Yes No n/a
Other Yes No n/a
Other Yes No n/a
Other Yes No n/a
Other Yes No n/a
Species of concern shall be any unique, rare, endangered, or threatened species. It shall include species used to delineate wetlands and riparian corridors. It shall also include any hosts, perching, or food plants used by any animals listed as rare, endangered, threatened, or candidate species by either state, or federal regulations, or for Riverside County as listed by the California Department of Fish and Game Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB).

I declare under penalty of perjury that the information provided on this summary sheet is in accordance with the information provided in the biological report or habitat assessment. _____________________L & L Environmental, Inc. October 26, 2005___________ Signature and Company Name Date
_TE-837439-4_______________________________ _June 5, 2006______________ 10(a) Permit Number (if applicable) Permit Expiration Date County Use Only
Received By: ________________________________________ Date: ___________________ PD-B# _____________________________________________
Focused Habitat Assessment for Least Bell’s Vireo, Southwestern Willow Flycatcher, and Yellow-Billed Cuckoo Surveys Menifee Assemblage Site October 2005
WHC-03-187.HA1 20 L&L
Attachment E-4

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE CHECKLIST
For Biological Resources
(Submit two copies to the County)
Case Number: _EIR00458____ Lot/Parcel No. _____________ EA Number ________ Assessor's Parcel Number(s): 360-300-002, -003, -004, -005, -006, -008, 360-350-001 Date: _October 26, 2005___
Wildlife & Vegetation:

Potentially Less than Significant Less than No
Significant Impact with Mitigation Significant Impact
Impact Incorporated Impact
Biological Resources
Would the Project?:
a) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Conservation Community Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state conservation plan?

b) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any endangered, or threatened species, as listed in Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations (Sections 670.2 or 670.5) or in Title 50, Code of Federal Regulations (Sections 17.11 or 17.12)?

c) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game, or U. S. Wildlife Service?

d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species, or with established native resident migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?

Focused Habitat Assessment for Least Bell’s Vireo, Southwestern Willow Flycatcher, and Yellow-Billed Cuckoo Surveys Menifee Assemblage Site October 2005
WHC-03-187.HA1 21 L&L

LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE CHECKLIST
For Biological Resources
(Submit two copies to the County)
e) 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 Game, or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service?

f) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands, as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pools, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption)

g) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance?

Findings of Fact:

High quality habitat in large quantity to support least Bell’s vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and/or yellow-billed cuckoo is not present on the site. None of the birds was observed during the survey.

Two (2) Cooper’s hawk, a single loggerhead shrike, and two white-tailed kite were observed at the northwestern portion of the site.

Proposed Mitigation:

Monitoring Recommended:

Source: CGP Fig. VI.36-VI.40
Revised October 1999
Focused Habitat Assessment for Least Bell’s Vireo, Southwestern Willow Flycatcher, and Yellow-Billed Cuckoo Surveys Menifee Assemblage Site October 2005
WHC-03-187.HA1 22 L&L

TTM NO. 31194 TECHNICAL APPENDICES
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458

D1.

HYDROLOGY STUDY (REVISED)

TTM NO. 31194 TECHNICAL APPENDICES
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458

D2.

WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN (REVISED)

TTM NO. 31194 TECHNICAL APPENDICES
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458

E.

TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS AND SUPPLEMENT
June 28, 2006
Ms. Tracy Zinn
T & B PLANNING CONSULTANTS, INC.
17542 East 17th Street, Suite 100
Tustin, CA 92780
Subject: Tract 31194 – Garbani Road Classification Evaluation Dear Ms. Zinn:

The firm of Urban Crossroads, Inc. is pleased to submit the following evaluation of Garbani Road. It is our understanding that Garbani Road is currently proposed to be downgraded from a Major Roadway (Riverside County Circulation Element) to a Collector Roadway between Wickerd Road and Bradley Road. Exhibit 7-B illustrates the proposed amendment for this segment and the other roadways in the study area.

Previously, a traffic study (Tentative Tract 31194 Traffic Impact Analysis, November 2004) was conducted for Tract 31194 that analyzed the potential traffic impacts to the study area roadway system. Long range (Post 2025) traffic forecasts were provided in the study and are illustrated on Exhibit 4-V. As indicated on Exhibit 4-V, Garbani Road, between Wickerd Road and Bradley Road is anticipated to carry approximately 12,200 vehicles per day. The Level of Service “E” capacity of a collector roadway is 13,000 vehicles per day as indicated in the County of Riverside’s Traffic Impact Analysis Preparation Guidelines (Attachment “A” contains the Link Volume Capacities/Level of Service for Riverside County Roadways). Based on these projections, it appears that the proposed downgrading of Garbani Road to a collector road status can be accommodated without exceeding the roadway capacity.

TTM NO. 31194 TECHNICAL APPENDICES
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 458

F.

AIR QUALITY IMPACT ANALYSIS (REVISED)