Agenda packet — Moreno Valley City Council, January 18, 2022 (part 5 of 15)

TRU EF 0.12 g/bhp-hr
TRU HP 23 HP
TRU Load Factor 0.46
TRU EF @23 HP and 0.53 LF 1.2696 g/idle-hr
Emission Factor:

TRU EF 0.01 g/bhp-hr
TRU HP 34 HP
TRU Load Factor 0.53
TRU EF @34 HP and 0.53 LF 0.1802 g/idle-hr
Emission Factor:

Weighted Avg TRU EF (60% 25+ HP, 40% <25 HP) 0.61596 g/idle-hr F.1.d
Packet Pg. 1265 Attachment: Appendix A2-HRA Report (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Source: EMFAC2017 (v1.0.3) Emissions Inventory
Region Type: County
Region: Riverside
Calendar Year: 2022
Season: Annual
Vehicle Classification: EMFAC2007 Categories
Units: miles/year for VMT, trips/year for Trips, tons/year for Emissions, 1000 gallons/year for Fuel Consumption Region Calendar Year Vehicle Category Model YearSpeed Fuel Population Riverside 2022 HHDT AggregatedAggregatedGasoline 7.255052 Riverside 2022 HHDT AggregatedAggregatedDiesel 27819.82 Riverside 2022 HHDT AggregatedAggregatedNatural Gas316.9854 Riverside 2022 LHDT1 AggregatedAggregatedGasoline 20620.88 Riverside 2022 LHDT1 AggregatedAggregatedDiesel 20161.77 Riverside 2022 MHDT AggregatedAggregatedGasoline 2027.159 Riverside 2022 MHDT AggregatedAggregatedDiesel 15610.04 HHDT% GAS/NG 0.011521
HHDT% DSL 0.988479
LHDT1% GAS 0.505629
LHDT1% DSL 0.494371
MHDT% GAS 0.114937
MHDT% DSL 0.885063
F.1.d
Packet Pg. 1266 Attachment: Appendix A2-HRA Report (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) Compass Danbe Centerpointe Mobile Source Health Risk Assessment 13661-02 HRA Report
APPENDIX 2.2:

RISK CALCULATIONS
F.1.d
Packet Pg. 1267 Attachment: Appendix A2-HRA Report (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) Source Weight Contaminant
Fraction URF CPF DOSE RISK REL RfD RESP CNS/PNS CV/BL IMMUN KIDN GI/LV REPRO EYES (ug/m3) (mg/m3) (ug/m3)
-1 (mg/kg/day)-1 (mg/kg-day) (ug/m3
)
(mg/kg/day)
( a ) ( b ) ( c ) ( d ) ( e ) ( f ) ( g ) ( h ) (i ) ( j ) ( k) ( l ) ( m ) ( n ) ( o ) ( p ) ( q ) ( r) ( s)

0.00793 7.93E-06 1.00E+00 Diesel Particulate 3.0E-04 1.1E+00 2.7E-06 8.7E-08 5.0E+00 1.4E-03 1.6E-03 TOTAL 8.7E-08 1.6E-03 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 ** Key to Toxicological Endpoints
RESP Respiratory System
CNS/PNS Central/Peripheral Nervous System
CV/BL Cardiovascular/Blood System
IMMUN Immune System
KIDN Kidney
GI/LV Gastrointestinal System/Liver
REPRO Reproductive System (e.g. teratogenic and developmental effects) EYES Eye irritation and/or other effects
Note: Exposure factors used to calculate contaminant intake exposure frequency (days/year) 350
exposure duration (years) 0.25
inhalation rate (L/kg-day)) 361
inhalation absorption factor 1
averaging time (years) 70
fraction of time at home 0.85
age sensitivity factor (age third trimester to 2 years old) 10 Table 1
Quantification of Carcinogenic Risks and Noncarcinogenic Hazards -0.25 to 0 Age Bin Exposure Scenario
Mass GLC Carcinogenic Risk Noncarcinogenic Hazards/ Toxicological Endpoints** F.1.d
Packet Pg. 1268 Attachment: Appendix A2-HRA Report (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Source Weight Contaminant
Fraction URF CPF DOSE RISK REL RfD RESP CNS/PNS CV/BL IMMUN KIDN GI/LV REPRO EYES (ug/m3) (mg/m3) (ug/m3)
-1 (mg/kg/day)-1 (mg/kg-day) (ug/m3
)
(mg/kg/day)
( a ) ( b ) ( c ) ( d ) ( e ) ( f ) ( g ) ( h ) (i ) ( j ) ( k) ( l ) ( m ) ( n ) ( o ) ( p ) ( q ) ( r) ( s)

0.00793 7.93E-06 1.00E+00 Diesel Particulate 3.0E-04 1.1E+00 8.3E-06 2.1E-06 5.0E+00 1.4E-03 1.6E-03 TOTAL 2.1E-06 1.6E-03 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 ** Key to Toxicological Endpoints
RESP Respiratory System
CNS/PNS Central/Peripheral Nervous System
CV/BL Cardiovascular/Blood System
IMMUN Immune System
KIDN Kidney
GI/LV Gastrointestinal System/Liver
REPRO Reproductive System (e.g. teratogenic and developmental effects) EYES Eye irritation and/or other effects
Note: Exposure factors used to calculate contaminant intake exposure frequency (days/year) 350
exposure duration (years) 2
inhalation rate (L/kg-day)) 1090
inhalation absorption factor 1
averaging time (years) 70
fraction of time at home 0.85
age sensitivity factor (0 to 2 years old) 10
Table 2
Quantification of Carcinogenic Risks and Noncarcinogenic Hazards 0-2 Age Bin Exposure Scenario
Mass GLC Carcinogenic Risk Noncarcinogenic Hazards/ Toxicological Endpoints** F.1.d
Packet Pg. 1269 Attachment: Appendix A2-HRA Report (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Source Weight Contaminant
Fraction URF CPF DOSE RISK REL RfD RESP CNS/PNS CV/BL IMMUN KIDN GI/LV REPRO EYES (ug/m3) (mg/m3) (ug/m3)
-1 (mg/kg/day)-1 (mg/kg-day) (ug/m3
)
(mg/kg/day)
( a ) ( b ) ( c ) ( d ) ( e ) ( f ) ( g ) ( h ) (i ) ( j ) ( k) ( l ) ( m ) ( n ) ( o ) ( p ) ( q ) ( r) ( s)

0.00793 7.93E-06 1.00E+00 Diesel Particulate 3.0E-04 1.1E+00 4.3E-06 2.0E-06 5.0E+00 1.4E-03 1.6E-03 TOTAL 2.0E-06 1.6E-03 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 ** Key to Toxicological Endpoints
RESP Respiratory System
CNS/PNS Central/Peripheral Nervous System
CV/BL Cardiovascular/Blood System
IMMUN Immune System
KIDN Kidney
GI/LV Gastrointestinal System/Liver
REPRO Reproductive System (e.g. teratogenic and developmental effects) EYES Eye irritation and/or other effects
Note: Exposure factors used to calculate contaminant intake exposure frequency (days/year) 350
exposure duration (years) 14
inhalation rate (L/kg-day)) 572
inhalation absorption factor 1
averaging time (years) 70
fraction of time at home 0.72
age sensitivity factor (ages 2 to 16 years old) 3
Table 3
Quantification of Carcinogenic Risks and Noncarcinogenic Hazards 2-16 Age Bin Exposure Scenario
Mass GLC Carcinogenic Risk Noncarcinogenic Hazards/ Toxicological Endpoints** F.1.d
Packet Pg. 1270 Attachment: Appendix A2-HRA Report (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Source Weight Contaminant
Fraction URF CPF DOSE RISK REL RfD RESP CNS/PNS CV/BL IMMUN KIDN GI/LV REPRO EYES (ug/m3) (mg/m3) (ug/m3)
-1 (mg/kg/day)-1 (mg/kg-day) (ug/m3
)
(mg/kg/day)
( a ) ( b ) ( c ) ( d ) ( e ) ( f ) ( g ) ( h ) (i ) ( j ) ( k) ( l ) ( m ) ( n ) ( o ) ( p ) ( q ) ( r) ( s)

0.00793 7.93E-06 1.00E+00 Diesel Particulate 3.0E-04 1.1E+00 2.0E-06 3.0E-07 5.0E+00 1.4E-03 1.6E-03 TOTAL 3.0E-07 1.6E-03 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00

0.30 ** Key to Toxicological Endpoints
RESP Respiratory System
CNS/PNS Central/Peripheral Nervous System
CV/BL Cardiovascular/Blood System
IMMUN Immune System
KIDN Kidney
GI/LV Gastrointestinal System/Liver
REPRO Reproductive System (e.g. teratogenic and developmental effects) EYES Eye irritation and/or other effects
Note: Exposure factors used to calculate contaminant intake exposure frequency (days/year) 350
exposure duration (years) 14
inhalation rate (L/kg-day)) 261
inhalation absorption factor 1
averaging time (years) 70
fraction of time at home 0.73
age sensitivity factor (ages 16 to 30 years old) 1
Total Risk for All Age Bins (per million) 4.48
Table 4
Quantification of Carcinogenic Risks and Noncarcinogenic Hazards 16-30 Age Bin Exposure Scenario
Mass GLC Carcinogenic Risk Noncarcinogenic Hazards/ Toxicological Endpoints** F.1.d
Packet Pg. 1271 Attachment: Appendix A2-HRA Report (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Table 5
Quantification of Carcinogenic Risks and Noncarcinogenic Risks 25-Year Worker Exposure Scenario
Source Weight Contaminant
Fraction URF CPF DOSE RISK REL RfD RESP CNS/PNS CV/BL IMMUN KIDN GI/LV REPRO EYES (ug/m3) (mg/m3) (ug/m3)
-1 (mg/kg/day)-1 (mg/kg-day) (ug/m3
) (mg/kg/day)
( a ) ( b ) ( c ) ( d ) ( e ) ( f ) ( g ) ( h ) (i ) ( j ) ( k) ( l ) ( m ) ( n ) ( o ) ( p ) ( q ) ( r) ( s) 1 Diesel Particulates 2.80E-03 2.80E-06 1.00E+00 Diesel Particulate 3.0E-04 1.1E+00 4.4E-07 1.7E-07 5.0E+00 1.4E-03 5.6E-04 TOTAL 1.8E-07 6.0E-04 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00

0.18 ** Key to Toxicological Endpoints Note: Exposure factors used to calculate contaminant intake RESP Respiratory System exposure frequency (days/year) 250 CNS/PNS Central/Peripheral Nervous System exposure duration (years) 25 CV/BL Cardiovascular/Blood System inhalation rate (L/kg-day)) 230 IMMUN Immune System inhalation absorption factor 1
KIDN Kidney averaging time (years) 70
GI/LV Gastrointestinal System/Liver
REPRO Reproductive System (e.g. teratogenic and developmental effects) EYES Eye irritation and/or other effects
Mass GLC Carcinogenic Risk Noncarcinogenic Hazards/ Toxicological Endpoints** 5 of 6
F.1.d
Packet Pg. 1272 Attachment: Appendix A2-HRA Report (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Table 6
Quantification of Carcinogenic Risks and Noncarcinogenic Risks 9-Year School Child Exposure Scenario
Source Weight Contaminant
Fraction URF CPF DOSE RISK REL RfD RESP CNS/PNS CV/BL IMMUN KIDN GI/LV REPRO EYES (ug/m3) (mg/m3) (ug/m3)
-1 (mg/kg/day)-1 (mg/kg-day) (ug/m3
) (mg/kg/day)
( a ) ( b ) ( c ) ( d ) ( e ) ( f ) ( g ) ( h ) (i ) ( j ) ( k) ( l ) ( m ) ( n ) ( o ) ( p ) ( q ) ( r) ( s) 1 Diesel Particulates 4.60E-04 4.60E-07 1.00E+00 Diesel Particulate 3.0E-04 1.1E+00 1.3E-07 5.3E-08 5.0E+00 1.4E-03 9.2E-05 TOTAL 7.3E-08 1.3E-04 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00 0.0E+00

0.07 ** Key to Toxicological Endpoints Note: Exposure factors used to calculate contaminant intake RESP Respiratory System exposure frequency (days/year) 180 CNS/PNS Central/Peripheral Nervous System exposure duration (years) 9 CV/BL Cardiovascular/Blood System inhalation rate (L/kg-day)) 572 IMMUN Immune System inhalation absorption factor 1
KIDN Kidney averaging time (years) 70
GI/LV Gastrointestinal System/Liver age sensitivity factor (ages 4-13) 3 REPRO Reproductive System (e.g. teratogenic and developmental effects) EYES Eye irritation and/or other effects
Mass GLC Carcinogenic Risk Noncarcinogenic Hazards/ Toxicological Endpoints** 6 of 6
F.1.d
Packet Pg. 1273 Attachment: Appendix A2-HRA Report (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass MSHCP General Biological Resources Assessment & Compliance Analysis Alessandro Project Site
City of Moreno Valley, Riverside County, California
Prepared for:

Compass Danbe Real Estate Partners
523 Main St
El Segundo, CA 90245
Prepared by:

MIG
1650 Spruce Street, Suite 102
Riverside, California 92507
October 2020
F.1.e
Packet Pg. 1274 Attachment: Appendix B1-MSHCP Compliance Analysis (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) This document is formatted for double
-sided printing
F.1.e
Packet Pg. 1275 Attachment: Appendix B1-MSHCP Compliance Analysis (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) MSHCP General Biological Resources Assessment & Compliance Analysis Table of Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................................................................ I

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

1.1 Project Location............................................................................................................................. 1

2.0 REGULATORY SETTING......................................................................................................................... 1

2.1 Federal .......................................................................................................................................... 1

2.1.1 Federal Endangered Species Act .......................................................................................... 1

2.1.2 The Migratory Bird Treaty Act................................................................................................ 2

2.1.3 Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act................................................................................... 2

2.1.4 Wetlands and Waters of the US............................................................................................. 2

2.1.5 Executive Order 11990 for Protection of Wetlands ................................................................ 4

2.2 State .............................................................................................................................................. 4

2.2.1 California Endangered Species Act ....................................................................................... 4

2.2.2 Native Plant Protection Act .................................................................................................... 5

2.2.3 California Environmental Quality Act ..................................................................................... 5

2.2.4 Fully Protected Species and Species of Special Concern ..................................................... 5

2.2.5 California Fish and Game Code Sections 3503 and 3513 ..................................................... 6

2.2.6 Other Special-Status Plants – California Native Plant Society............................................... 6

2.2.7 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System.................................................................. 6

2.2.8 Sensitive Natural Communities.............................................................................................. 7

2.2.9 Waters of the State................................................................................................................ 7

2.3 Local.............................................................................................................................................. 8

2.3.1 Western Riverside County MSHCP ....................................................................................... 8

3.0 METHODS............................................................................................................................................ 9

3.1 Literature Review........................................................................................................................... 9

3.2 Field Surveys ............................................................................................................................... 10

3.2.1 Vegetation Communities...................................................................................................... 10

3.2.2 Special-Status Species Habitat Assessment ....................................................................... 10

3.2.3 Focused Special-Status Plant Assessment ......................................................................... 11

3.2.4 Focused Special-Status Wildlife Surveys ............................................................................ 11

3.2.6 Jurisdictional Wetlands and Waters Assessment ................................................................ 12

3.2.7 MSHCP Section 6.1.2 Riparian, Riverine, & Vernal Pool Resources Assessment .............. 12

4.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS........................................................................................................................ 13

4.1 Physical Characteristics............................................................................................................... 13

4.2 Soils............................................................................................................................................. 13

4.3 Vegetation Communities.............................................................................................................. 13

4.4 Wildlife ......................................................................................................................................... 14

4.5 Sensitive Natural Communities.................................................................................................... 15

4.6 Special-Status Plants................................................................................................................... 15

4.7 Special-Status Animals................................................................................................................ 15

4.8 Jurisdictional Wetlands and Waters Assessment ........................................................................ 16

4.9 MSHCP Riparian/Riverine Resources and Vernal Pool Analysis................................................. 16

4.10 Wildlife Movement Corridors........................................................................................................ 17

5.0 MSHCP & CEQA COMPLIANCE ANALYSIS ......................................................................................... 17

5.1 Mitigation Measures and Conditions of Approval......................................................................... 19 F.1.e
Packet Pg. 1276 Attachment: Appendix B1-MSHCP Compliance Analysis (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) MSHCP General Biological Resources Assessment & Compliance Analysis ii

6.0 REFERENCES..................................................................................................................................... 21 List of Figures
Figure 1 Regional Location Map
Figure 2 Project Site Map
Figure 3 Soils Association Map
Figure 4 Vegetation Communities Map
Figure 5 (a-b) Current Project Site Photographs
Figure 6 MSHCP Section 6.1.2 Resources Map
Figure 7 Project Site Impact Map
List of Tables
Table 1 Summary of Survey Dates and Personnel
Table 2 Project Site Plant Communities and Land Cover Types List of Appendices
Appendix A Burrowing Owl Survey Report for the Alessandro Project Site Appendix B Least Bell’s Vireo Survey Results for the Alessandro Project Site F.1.e
Packet Pg. 1277 Attachment: Appendix B1-MSHCP Compliance Analysis (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) MSHCP Biological Resources Assessment and MSHCP Compliance Analysis iii List of Abbreviated Terms
APN Assessor Parcel Number
AWRS Arid West Regional Supplement
BMP Best Management Practice
CCR California Code of Regulations
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CESA California Endangered Species Act
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CNDDB California Natural Diversity Database
CNPS California Native Plant Society
CRPR California Rare Plant Ranking
CSC California Species of Special Concern
CWA Clean Water Act
DBESP Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation EPA Environmental Protection Agency
FE Federally Endangered
FT Federally Threatened
FESA Federal Endangered Species Act
GPS Global Positioning System
HANS Habitat Acquisition and Negotiation Strategy
HCP Habitat Conservation Plan
JPR Joint Project Review
MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act
MSHCP Western Riverside Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan MOU Memorandum of Understanding
NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administrations
NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service
NPPA Native Plant Protection Act
NRCS Natural Resource Conservation Service
OHWM Ordinary High Water Mark
RCA Regional Conservation Authority
RCIP Riverside County Integrated Project
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
SE State Endangered
ST State Threatened
SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan
SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board
TNW Traditionally Navigable Water
USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers
USDA United States Department of Agriculture
USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service
USGS United States Geological Survey
F.1.e
Packet Pg. 1278 Attachment: Appendix B1-MSHCP Compliance Analysis (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) F.1.e
Packet Pg. 1279 Attachment: Appendix B1-MSHCP Compliance Analysis (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) MSHCP General Biological Resources Assessment & Compliance Analysis

1.0 INTRODUCTION
This report presents the results of MIG’s Biological Resources Assessment and Western Riverside Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) Compliance Analysis of the 17.66-acre (2.65-acre offsite) Alessandro Project Site (Project Site). The purpose of this report is to verify the type, location, and extent of potential sensitive biological resources on and around the Project Site based on an initial habitat evaluation by MIG biologists on May 21st, 2020 and additional field surveys conducted during spring/summer 2020.

These surveys include a jurisdictional wetlands delineation and MSHCP riparian/riverine analysis (July 2020), burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) surveys (May-July 2020), and protocol-level surveys for least Bell’s vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus) (May-July 2020). Based on information gathered from the field surveys listed above, this draft report provides a description of the biological setting of the Project Site, as well as a description of vegetation communities, wildlife, potential movement/migration corridors, special-status plant and animal species, sensitive natural communities including riparian/riverine resources, potentially jurisdictional waters and wetlands, and assessment of the project impacts and recommended mitigation measures/conditions of approval to ensure compliance with all California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and MSHCP conservation goals and guidelines.

1.1 Project Location
The 17.66-acre (2.65-acre offsite) Project Site is located immediately south of Alessandro Boulevard in the City of Moreno Valley (City), Riverside County, California, Assessor Parcel Numbers (APNs) 297-170-002 and 279-170-003 (Figure 1 and Figure 2). Offsite impacts extend into the Alessandro right-of-way to the north and APNs 297-170-088 and 279-170-089 to the south (Figure 2). The Project Site occurs within the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5’ series Riverside East Quadrangle, Township 3 South, Range 4 West, Section 12.

The Project Site is located entirely within the MSHCP Reche Canyon/Badlands Area Plan and is not located within an MSHCP Criteria Area, Cell Group, or Linkage Area.

2.0 REGULATORY SETTING
The following discussion identifies federal, state, and local environmental regulations that serve to protect sensitive biological resources relevant to the proposed Project Site, as well as the MSHCP and CEQA review process.

2.1 Federal

2.1.1 Federal Endangered Species Act
The Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) of 1973, as amended, provides the regulatory framework for the protection of plant and animal species (and their associated critical habitats), which are formally listed, proposed for listing, or candidates for listing as endangered or threatened under FESA. FESA has the following four major components: (1) provisions for listing species, (2) requirements for consultation with the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Marine Fisheries Service (NOAA NMFS), (3) prohibitions against “taking” (meaning harassing, harming, hunting, shooting, wounding, killing, trapping, capturing, collecting, or attempting to engage in any such conduct) of listed species, and (4) provisions for permits that allow incidental “take”. The FESA also discusses recovery plans and the designation of critical habitat for listed species. Section 7 requires federal F.1.e
Packet Pg. 1280 Attachment: Appendix B1-MSHCP Compliance Analysis (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) MSHCP General Biological Resources Assessment & Compliance Analysis 2 agencies, in consultation with, and with the assistance of the USFWS or NOAA NMFS, as appropriate, to ensure that actions they authorize, fund, or carry out are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of threatened or endangered species or result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat for these species. Both the USFWS and NOAA NMFS share the responsibility for administration of FESA.

For purposes of this assessment, the following acronyms are used for federally-listed species: federally endangered (FE) and federally threatened (FT).

The MSHCP serves as a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) pursuant to Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the FESA of 1973, allowing participating jurisdictions to authorize "take" of plant and wildlife species. The MSHCP has been issued under this Section and provides incidental “take” for all covered species.

2.1.2 The Migratory Bird Treaty Act
The Federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) (16 USC. 703 et seq.), Title 50 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 10, prohibits taking, killing, possessing, transporting, and importing of migratory birds, parts of migratory birds, and their eggs and nests, except when specifically authorized by the Department of the Interior. As used in the act, the term “take” is defined as meaning, “to pursue, hunt, capture, collect, kill or attempt to pursue, hunt, shoot, capture, collect or kill, unless the context otherwise requires.” With a few exceptions, most birds are considered migratory under the MBTA. Disturbances that cause nest abandonment and/or loss of reproductive effort or loss of habitat upon which these birds depend would be in violation of the MBTA.

2.1.3 Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act
The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act that was first passed in 1940 regulates take, possession, sale, purchase, barter, transport, import and export of any bald or golden eagle or their parts (e.g., nests, eggs, young) unless allowed by permit (16 U.S.C. 668(a); 50 CFR 22). Take was broadly defined to include shoot, wound, kill, capture, collect, molest, or disturb. In the 1972 amendments, penalties for violations were raised to a maximum of fine $250,000 for an individual or a maximum of two years in prison for a felony conviction, with a doubling for organizations instead of individuals.

2.1.4 Wetlands and Waters of the US
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
The objective of the Clean Water Act (CWA) is to maintain and restore the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the waters of the US (33 CFR Part 328 Section 328.4). “Waters of the US” is the encompassing term for areas that qualify for federal regulation under Section 404 of the CWA. Section 404 of the CWA gives the US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) regulatory and permitting authority regarding discharge of dredged or fill material into “navigable waters of the US.” Section 502(7) of the CWA defines navigable waters as “waters of the US, including territorial seas.” Section 328 of Chapter 33 in the CFR defines the term “waters of the US” as it applies to the jurisdictional limits of the authority of the USACE under the CWA. A summary of this definition of “waters of the US” in 33 CFG 328.3 includes: (1) waters used for commerce and subject to tides; (2) interstate waters and wetlands; (3) “other waters” such as intrastate lakes, rivers, streams, and wetlands; (4) impoundments of waters; (5) tributaries of waters; (6) territorial seas; and (7) wetlands adjacent to waters. Therefore, for purposes of determining USACE jurisdiction under the CWA, “navigable waters” as defined in the CWA are the same as F.1.e
Packet Pg. 1281 Attachment: Appendix B1-MSHCP Compliance Analysis (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) MSHCP Biological Resources Assessment and MSHCP Compliance Analysis 3 “waters of the US” defined in the CFR above. Waters of the US include non-isolated “wetlands” and “other waters of the US”
The term “wetlands” (a subset of “waters of the US”) is defined at 33 CFR 328.3(b) as "those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support...a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions." The USACE developed field methods for identifying the location and extent of jurisdictional wetlands (a subset of waters of the US) using the USACE Wetland Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987) Arid West Regional Supplement (AWRS) (USACE 2008a). This supplement was intended to address specific wetland issues within the arid west and supersedes much of the 1987 Wetland Delineation Manual in arid regions.

In the absence of wetlands, other waters of the US refer to unvegetated waterways and other water bodies with a defined bed and bank, such as drainages, creeks, rivers, and lakes. This approximately translates to the bank-to-bank portion of water bodies, up to the ordinary high water mark (OHWM). The limits of USACE jurisdiction in non-tidal waters, such as intermittent streams, extend to the OHWM which is defined at 33 CFR 328.3(c)(6) as: “...that line on the shore established by the fluctuation of water and indicated by physical characteristics such as clear, natural line impressed on the bank, shelving, changes in the character of soil, destruction of terrestrial vegetation, the presence of litter and debris, or other appropriate means that consider the characteristics of the surrounding area.”
The OHWM in the Arid West Region is consistent with the physical and biological signature established and maintained at the boundaries of the active channel. Delineation of the active channel signature, and thus the OHWM, is based largely on identification of three primary physical or biological indicators—topographic break in slope, change in sediment characteristics, and change in vegetation characteristics. A break in slope refers to a localized and distinct change in the lateral topographic gradient (i.e., perpendicular to the principal direction of flow) within a stream system. Changes in sediment characteristics include any transition in the physical, chemical, or biological qualities of the sediments within and adjacent to a stream channel. For the purposes of OHWM identification, changes in vegetation characteristics include any lateral transition (i.e., perpendicular to the principal direction of flow) in the abundance, growth stage, or plant cover and composition within and adjacent to a stream channel. Supporting features including drift/wrack (i.e., debris deposits), signs of erosion/scour, bank undercutting, root exposure, point bars (meanders), silt deposits, and shelving (“benches” and breaks in slope along the active channel), were also used to help determine the location of the OHWM.

Isolated Areas Excluded from Section 404 Jurisdiction
In addition to areas that may be exempt from Section 404 jurisdiction, some isolated wetlands and waters may also be considered outside of USACE jurisdiction as a result of the Supreme Court’s decision in Solid Waste Agency of Northern Cook County (SWANCC) v. USACE (531 US 159 [2001]). Isolated wetlands and waters are those areas that do not have a surface or groundwater connection to and are not adjacent to a navigable waters of the US, and do not otherwise exhibit an interstate commerce connection.

Rapanos v. United States and Carabell v. United States
On June 5, 2007, the USACE and the EPA issued joint guidance on implementing the June 19, 2006 US Supreme Court opinions resulting from Rapanos v. United States and Carabell v. United States (Rapanos) cases. The agencies received 66,047 public comments on the Rapanos Guidance (65,765 form letters, 282 non-form letters), from states, environmental and conservation organizations, regulated entities, industry associations, and the general public. EPA and the USACE jointly reviewed the comments and released a F.1.e
Packet Pg. 1282 Attachment: Appendix B1-MSHCP Compliance Analysis (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) MSHCP General Biological Resources Assessment & Compliance Analysis 4 revised version of the guidance on December 2, 2008 (USACE 2008b). The revised guidance states that the agencies will assert jurisdiction over:
• Non-navigable tributaries that are not relatively permanent, where the tributaries typically flow yearround or have continuous flow at least seasonally (i.e., typically three months) • Wetlands adjacent to non-navigable tributaries that are not relatively permanent • Wetlands adjacent to but that do not directly abut a relatively permanent non-navigable tributary The agencies generally will not assert jurisdiction over the following features:
• Swales or erosional features (e.g., gullies, small washes characterized by low volume, infrequent, or short duration flow)
• Ditches (including roadside ditches) excavated wholly in and draining only uplands and that do not carry a relatively permanent flow of water
The agencies will apply the significant nexus standard as follows:
• A significant nexus analysis will assess the flow characteristics and functions of the tributary itself and the functions performed by all wetlands adjacent to the tributary to determine if they significantly affect the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of downstream traditional navigable waters (TNW)
• Significant nexus includes consideration of hydrologic and ecologic factors

2.1.5 Executive Order 11990 for Protection of Wetlands
Executive Order 11990 for the Protection of Wetlands (May 24, 1977) establishes a national policy to avoid adverse impacts on wetlands whenever there is a practicable alternative. On federally funded projects, impacts on wetlands must be identified in the environmental document. Alternatives that avoid wetlands must be considered. If wetland impacts cannot be avoided, then all practicable measures to minimize harm must be included. This must be documented in a specific “Wetlands Only Practicable Alternative Finding” in the final environmental document. An additional requirement is to provide early public involvement in projects affecting wetlands.

2.2 State

2.2.1 California Endangered Species Act
The State of California enacted similar laws to FESA including the California Native Plant Protection Act (NPPA) in 1977 and the California Endangered Species Act (CESA) in 1984. CESA expanded upon the original NPPA and enhanced legal protection for plants, but the NPPA remains part of the California Fish and Game Code. To align with FESA, CESA created the categories of “threatened” and “endangered” species. It converted all “rare” animals into the CESA as threatened species, but did not do so for rare plants. Thus, these laws provide the legal framework for protection of California-listed rare, threatened, and endangered plant and animal species. The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) implements NPPA and CESA, and its Wildlife and Habitat Data Analysis Branch maintains the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), a computerized inventory of information on the general location and status of California’s rarest plants, animals, and natural communities. During the CEQA review process, the CDFW is given the opportunity to comment on the potential of the proposed project to affect listed plants and animals.

F.1.e
Packet Pg. 1283 Attachment: Appendix B1-MSHCP Compliance Analysis (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) MSHCP Biological Resources Assessment and MSHCP Compliance Analysis 5 For purposes of this assessment, the following acronyms are used for state-listed species: state endangered (SE) and state threatened (ST).

2.2.2 Native Plant Protection Act
The NPPA of 1977 (California Fish and Game Code, §§ 1900 through 1913) directed CDFW to carry out the Legislature’s intent to “preserve, protect and enhance rare and endangered plants in this State.” The NPPA is administered by the CDFW, which has the authority to designate native plants as endangered or rare and to protect them from “take.”

2.2.3 California Environmental Quality Act
The CEQA was enacted in 1970 to provide for full disclosure of environmental impacts to the public before issuance of a permit by state and local public agencies. CEQA (Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et. seq.) requires public agencies to review activities which may affect the quality of the environment so that consideration is given to preventing damage to the environment. When a lead agency issues a permit for development that could affect the environment, it must disclose the potential environmental effects of the project. This is done with an Initial Study and Negative Declaration (or Mitigated Negative Declaration) or with an Environmental Impact Report. Certain classes of projects are exempt from detailed analysis under CEQA. CEQA Guidelines Section 15380 defines endangered, threatened, and rare species for purposes of CEQA and clarifies that CEQA review extends to other species that are not formally listed under the state or federal Endangered Species Acts but that meet specified criteria.

2.2.4 Fully Protected Species and Species of Special Concern The classification of “fully protected” was the CDFW’s initial effort to identify and provide additional protection to those animals that were rare or faced possible extinction. Lists were created for fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals. Most of the species on these lists have subsequently been listed under CESA and/or FESA. The Fish and Game Code sections (fish at §5515, amphibian and reptiles at §5050, birds at §3511, and mammals at §4700) dealing with “fully protected” species states that these species “…may not be taken or possessed at any time and no provision of this code or any other law shall be construed to authorize the issuance of permits or licenses to take any fully protected species,” (CDFW Fish and Game Commission 1998) although “take” may be authorized for necessary scientific research. This language makes the “fully protected” designation the strongest and most restrictive regarding the “take” of these species. In 2003, the code sections dealing with fully protected species were amended to allow the CDFW to authorize take resulting from recovery activities for state-listed species.

Species of special concern are broadly defined as animals not listed under the FESA or CESA, but which are nonetheless of concern to the CDFW because they are declining at a rate that could result in listing, or because they historically occurred in low numbers and known threats to their persistence currently exist. This designation is intended to result in special consideration for these animals by the CDFW, land managers, consulting biologists, and others, and is intended to focus attention on the species to help avert the need for costly listing under FESA and CESA and cumbersome recovery efforts that might ultimately be required. This designation also is intended to stimulate collection of additional information on the biology, distribution, and status of poorly known at-risk species, and focus research and management attention on them. Although these species generally have no special legal status, they are given special consideration under the CEQA during project review.

F.1.e
Packet Pg. 1284 Attachment: Appendix B1-MSHCP Compliance Analysis (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) MSHCP General Biological Resources Assessment & Compliance Analysis 6

2.2.5 California Fish and Game Code Sections 3503 and 3513 According to Section 3503 of the California Fish and Game Code, it is unlawful to take, possess, or needlessly destroy the nest or eggs of any bird (with limited exceptions). Section 3503.5 specifically protects birds in the orders Falconiformes and Strigiformes (birds-of-prey). Section 3513 essentially overlaps with the MBTA, prohibiting the take or possession of any migratory non-game bird. Disturbance that causes nest abandonment and/or loss of reproductive effort is considered “take” by the CDFW.

2.2.6 Other Special-Status Plants – California Native Plant Society The California Native Plant Society (CNPS), a non-profit plant conservation organization, publishes and maintains an Inventory of Rare and Endangered Vascular Plants of California in both hard copy and electronic version (http://www.cnps.org/cnps/rareplants/inventory/).

The Inventory employs the California Rare Plant Ranking (CRPR) to assign plants to the following categories:
1A Presumed extinct in California
1B Rare, threatened, or endangered in California and elsewhere 2A Plants presumed extirpated in California but common elsewhere 2B Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California but more common elsewhere 3 Plants for which more information is needed – A review list 4 Plants of limited distribution – A watch list
Additional endangerment codes are assigned to each taxon as follows:

0.1 Seriously endangered in California (over 80% of occurrences threatened/high degree of immediacy of threat)

0.2 Fairly endangered in California (20-80% occurrences threatened)

0.3 Not very endangered in California (<20% of occurrences threatened or no current threats known)
CRPR 1A, 1B, and 2 plants consist of individuals that may qualify for listing by state and federal agencies.

As part of the CEQA process, such species should be fully considered, as they meet the definition of threatened or endangered under the NPPA and Sections 2062 and 2067 of the California Fish and Game Code. CRPR 3 and 4 species are considered to be plants about which more information is needed or are uncommon enough that their status should be regularly monitored. Such plants may be eligible or may become eligible for state listing, and CNPS and CDFW recommend that these species be evaluated for consideration during the preparation of CEQA documents (CNPS 2001, 2020).

2.2.7 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
The National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program requires permitting for activities that discharge pollutants into waters of the US. This includes discharges from municipal, industrial, and construction sources. These are considered point-sources from a regulatory standpoint. Generally, these permits are issued and monitored under the oversight of the State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB) and administered by each regional water quality control board. Construction activities that disturb one acre or more (whether a single project or part of a larger development) are required to obtain coverage under the state’s General Permit for Dischargers of Storm Water Associated with Construction Activity. All dischargers are required to obtain coverage under the Construction General Permit. The activities covered under the F.1.e
Packet Pg. 1285 Attachment: Appendix B1-MSHCP Compliance Analysis (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) MSHCP Biological Resources Assessment and MSHCP Compliance Analysis 7 Construction General Permit include clearing, grading, and other disturbances. The permit requires preparation of a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and implementation of Best Management Practices (BMPs) with a monitoring program. The project will require coverage under the Construction General Permit.

2.2.8 Sensitive Natural Communities
Sensitive natural communities are vegetation communities and habitats that are either unique in constituent components, of relatively limited distribution in the region, or of particularly high wildlife value. These communities may or may not necessarily contain special-status species. Sensitive natural communities are usually identified in local or regional plans, policies or regulations, or by the CDFW (i.e., CNDDB) or the USFWS. The CNDDB identifies a number of natural communities as rare, which are given the highest inventory priority (Holland 1986; CNDDB 2020). Impacts to sensitive natural communities and habitats must be considered and evaluated under the CEQA California Code of Regulations (CCR): Title 14, Div. 6, Chap.

3. 2.2.9 Waters of the State
Section 401 of the Clean Water Act
The Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) regulates activities in “waters of the state”, including wetlands, through Section 401 of the CWA. “Waters of the state” are defined by the Porter-Cologne Control Act (see below) as “any surface water or groundwater, including saline waters, within the boundaries of the state.” While the USACE administers permitting programs that authorize impacts to “waters of the US”, any USACE permit authorized for a project would be invalid unless the RWQCB has issued a project-specific water quality certification or waiver of water quality. A water quality certification requires a finding by the RWQCB that the activities permitted by the USACE will not violate water quality standards individually or cumulatively over the term of the issued USACE permit.

Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act
The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Act (Porter-Cologne Act) (California Water Code Section 13260) requires “any person discharging waste, or proposing to discharge waste, within any region that could affect the “waters of the state” to file a report of discharge” with the RWQCB through an application for waste discharge.

The RWQCB protects all waters in its regulatory scope, but has special responsibility for isolated wetlands and headwaters. These water bodies have high resource value, are vulnerable to filling, and may not be regulated by other programs (e.g. Section 404 of the CWA).

California Fish and Game Code Section 1600-1603
Under Section 1602 of California Fish and Game Code, CDFW has authority over any proposed activity that may substantially modify a river, stream, or lake. CDFW requires notification for any activity that will do one or more of the following: (1) substantially obstruct or divert the natural flow of a river, stream, or lake; (2) substantially change or use any material from the bed, channel, or bank of a river, stream, or lake; or (3) deposit or dispose of debris, waste, or other material containing crumbled, flaked, or ground pavement where it can pass into a river, stream, or lake.

The notification requirement applies to any work undertaken in or near a river, stream, or lake that flows at least intermittently through a bed or channel. This includes ephemeral streams, desert washes, and watercourses with a subsurface flow. The CDFW typically considers a river, stream, or lake to include its F.1.e
Packet Pg. 1286 Attachment: Appendix B1-MSHCP Compliance Analysis (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) MSHCP General Biological Resources Assessment & Compliance Analysis 8 riparian vegetation, but it may also extend to its floodplain. The term “stream”, which includes creeks and rivers, is defined in the CCR as follows: “a body of water that flows at least periodically or intermittently through a bed or channel having banks and supports fish or other aquatic life”. This includes watercourses having a surface or subsurface flow that supports or has supported riparian vegetation (14 CCR 1.72). In addition, the term stream can include ephemeral streams, dry washes, watercourses with subsurface flows, canals, aqueducts, irrigation ditches, and other means of water conveyance if they support aquatic life, riparian vegetation, or stream-dependent terrestrial wildlife. Riparian is defined as “on, or pertaining to, the banks of a stream”; therefore, riparian vegetation is defined as, “vegetation which occurs in and/or adjacent to a stream and is dependent on, and occurs because of, the stream itself” (CDFW 1994).

If the CDFW determines that the activity may substantially adversely affect fish and wildlife resources, a Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement (LSAA) will be prepared, which includes reasonable conditions necessary to protect those resources. The applicant may then proceed with the activity in accordance with the final LSAA. Section 1602 does not extend to isolated wetlands and waters, such as small ponds not located on drainages.

2.3 Local

2.3.1 Western Riverside County MSHCP
The proposed Project Site is located completely within the MSHCP, which is a comprehensive multijurisdictional effort that includes western Riverside County (County) and eighteen (18) cities. Rather than addressing sensitive species on an individual basis, the MSHCP focuses on the conservation of 146 species, including those listed at the federal and state levels and those that could become listed in the future. The MSHCP provides mitigation for project-specific impacts to these species so that the impacts would be reduced to below a level of significance pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The MSHCP proposes a reserve system of approximately 500,000 acres, of which 347,000 acres are currently within public ownership and 153,000 acres will need to be assembled from lands currently in private ownership. On June 7th, 2003, the County Board of Supervisors certified the Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement, adopted the MSHCP, and authorized the Chairman to sign the Implementing Agreement with USFWS and CDFW, the respective Wildlife Agencies. The Incidental Take Permit was issued by the Wildlife Agencies on June 22, 2004.

In order to meet overall conservation goals of the MSHCP, some of the 146 species have additional survey requirements based on a project’s occurrence within a predetermined survey area and/or based on the presence of suitable habitat. These include Narrow Endemic Plant Species and Criteria Area Plant Species; animal species identified by Survey Areas (burrowing owl, mammals, and amphibians); species associated with riparian/riverine areas and vernal pool habitats, including the least Bell’s vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, western yellow-billed cuckoo, and listed fairy shrimp; and an additional 28 species (Table 9.3 of the MSHCP document) that are not yet adequately conserved. If portions of a property occur within Criteria Areas (areas that may be needed for inclusion in the MSHCP Conservation Area), development of the property is subject to the Habitat Evaluation and Acquisition Negotiation Strategy (HANS) process of the MSHCP. Through the HANS process, the County determines whether the portions of the subject property within the Criteria Areas (and/or supporting the above-mentioned habitats) will need to be dedicated for inclusion in the MSHCP Conservation Area.

F.1.e
Packet Pg. 1287 Attachment: Appendix B1-MSHCP Compliance Analysis (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) MSHCP Biological Resources Assessment and MSHCP Compliance Analysis 9 MSHCP Sensitive Species Surveys
The Project Site is not located within an MSHCP Amphibian Species, Mammal Species, Narrow Endemic Plant or Criteria Area Plant Species Survey Area. Therefore, surveys for these species are not required (Regional Conservation Authority (RCA) GIS Data Downloads 2020). The Project Site occurs within a predetermined Survey Area for the burrowing owl. If suitable habitat is documented onsite during the habitat assessment within and adjacent to the Project Site, focused surveys and a 30-day preconstruction survey are required.

MSHCP Section 6.1.2 Riparian/Riverine and Vernal Pool Surveys Regulated activities within inland streams, wetlands and riparian areas in Western Riverside County fall under the jurisdiction of the MSHCP Section 6.1.2. Riparian/riverine areas are defined as lands which contain habitat dominated by trees, shrubs, persistent emergents, or emergent mosses and lichens, which occur close to or which depend upon soil moisture from a nearby fresh water source; or areas with fresh water that flows during all or a portion of the year. Vernal pools are defined as seasonal wetlands that occur in depression areas that have wetland indicators of all three parameters (soils, vegetation and hydrology) during the wetter portion of the growing season but normally lack wetland indicators of hydrology and/or vegetation during the drier portion of the growing season. Obligate hydrophytes and facultative wetland plant species are normally dominant during the wetter portion of the growing season, while upland species (annuals) may be dominant during the drier portion of the growing season (Riverside County 2003). As projects are proposed within the MSHCP Plan Area, an assessment of the potentially significant effects of those projects on riparian/riverine areas and vernal pools will be performed as currently required by CEQA, using available information supported by project-specific mapping and evaluation.

MSHCP Reserve Design & Criteria Area Objectives
Regions within the MHSCP have been organized into Area Plans that generally coincide with logical political boundaries, including City limits or long-standing unincorporated communities. The Project Site is located within the Reche Canyon/Badlands Area Plan and is not located within an MSHCP Criteria Area, Cell Group, or Linkage Area. Therefore, no HANS or Joint Project Review (JPR) are required.

3.0 METHODS
This analysis of potential biological resources located on the Project Site includes a review of available background information in and around the vicinity of the Project Site and completion of multiple field surveys conducted from May to July 2020.

3.1 Literature Review
Prior to conducting field surveys, MIG biologists reviewed available background information pertaining to biological resources on and in the vicinity of the Project Site. Available literature and resource mapping reviewed included the occurrence records for special-status species and sensitive natural communities and numerous other information sources listed below:
• CNDDB record search of Riverside East and surrounding USGS 7.5’ Quadrangles (CNDDB 2020) • CNPS Online Inventory (CNPS 2020)
• Soil Survey Staff, Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS), United States Department of Agricultural (USDA) (Soil Survey Staff 2020)
F.1.e
Packet Pg. 1288 Attachment: Appendix B1-MSHCP Compliance Analysis (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) MSHCP General Biological Resources Assessment & Compliance Analysis 10 • State & Federally Listed Endangered, & Threatened Animals of California (CDFW 2019a) • State and Federally Listed Endangered, Threatened, and Rare Plants of California (CDFW 2019b) • USFWS National Wetlands Inventory (USFWS 2019a)
• USFWS, Carlsbad Office, Threatened and Endangered Species (USFWS 2019b) • Jepson Manual: Vascular Plants of California, Second Edition (Baldwin et al. 2012) • Western Riverside County MHSCP Burrowing Owl Survey Instructions (MSHCP 2006)

3.2 Field Surveys
Several biological field surveys were conducted to assess the existing conditions of the Project Site, record observed plant and wildlife species, characterize and delineate onsite vegetation communities and associated wildlife habitats, habitat for special-status species, and sensitive natural communities. MIG biologists conducted an initial biological field survey on May 21st, 2020. Additional field surveys conducted in in spring/summer 2020 include a jurisdictional wetlands delineation and MSHCP riparian/riverine analysis, and resource agency mandated protocol-level surveys for burrowing owl, and least Bell’s vireo. The biological field surveys were conducted according to the schedule shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Summary of Survey Dates and Personnel
Survey Type Date Personnel1
Biological site reconnaissance May 21st, 2020 JC
Jurisdictional delineation and
MSHCP riparian/riverine analysis
July 2020 JF
Burrowing owl surveys May 21st, June 20th, July 10th and 30th, 2020 JC, RR Riparian bird habitat suitability
assessment
May 21st, 2020 JC
Least Bell’s vireo surveys May 21st, 31st, June 10th, 20th, 30th, July 10th, 20th, and 30th, 2020
JC, RR

3.2.1 Vegetation Communities
During the field surveys, MIG biologists traversed the entire Project Site by foot and evaluated the suitability of onsite vegetation communities to support special-status species or sensitive natural communities documented in the vicinity of the Project Site. Vegetation communities were preliminarily mapped on aerial photography per A Manual of California Vegetation (MCV), 2nd Edition (Sawyer et. al 2009) or Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California (Holland 1986) vegetation community classification systems when appropriate. When a vegetation community could not be accurately characterized using the cited literature, an updated community classification was developed to represent onsite habitat types more accurately.

3.2.2 Special-Status Species Habitat Assessment
The potential occurrence of special-status plant and animal species on the Project Site was initially evaluated by developing a list of special-status species that are known to or have the potential to occur in the vicinity of the Project Site based on: (1) a review of past studies including species-specific studies; (2) a search of current database records (e.g., CNDDB and CNPS Electronic Inventory records); and (3) a review of the 1 JC=Dr. Jonathan Campbell, RR=Ruben Ramirez, JF=Julie Fontaine F.1.e
Packet Pg. 1289 Attachment: Appendix B1-MSHCP Compliance Analysis (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) MSHCP Biological Resources Assessment and MSHCP Compliance Analysis 11 USFWS list of federal endangered and threatened species. The potential for occurrence of those species included on the list were then evaluated based on the habitat requirements of each species relative to the conditions observed during the field survey conducted by MIG biologists. Each species was evaluated for its potential to occur on or in the immediate vicinity of the Project Site per the following criteria:

Not Expected. There is no suitable habitat present on the Project Site (i.e., habitats on the Project Site are clearly unsuitable for the species requirements [e.g., foraging, breeding, cover, substrate, elevation, hydrology, vegetation community, disturbance regime, etc.]). Additionally, there are no recent known records of occurrence in the vicinity of the Project Site. The species has no potential of being found on the Project Site.

Low Potential. Limited suitable habitat is present on the Project Site (i.e., few of the habitat components meeting the species requirements are present and/or the majority of habitat on the Project Site is unsuitable or of very low quality). Additionally, there are no or few recent known records of occurrence in the vicinity of the Project Site. The species has a low probability of being found on the Project Site.

Moderate Potential. Suitable habitat is present on the Project Site (i.e., some of the habitat components meeting the species requirements are present and/or the majority of the habitat on the Project Site is suitable or of marginal quality). Additionally, there are few or many recent known records of occurrences in the vicinity of the Project Site. The species has a moderate probability of being found on the Project Site.

High Potential. Highly suitable habitat is present on the Project Site (i.e., all habitat components meeting the species requirements are present and/or all of the habitat on the Project Site is highly suitable or of high quality). Additionally, there are few or many recent known records of occurrences in the vicinity of the Project Site. This species has a high probability of being found on the Project Site.

Present. Species was observed on the Project Site (i.e., species was either observed during recent surveys or has a recorded observation in the CNDDB on the Project Site).

Nomenclature used for plant names follows the Second Edition of the Jepson Manual (Baldwin, B.G., et al. 2012). Nomenclature for wildlife follows CDFW’s Complete List of Amphibian, Reptile, Bird, And Mammal Species in California (CDFW 2019c) and any changes made to species nomenclature as published in scientific journals since the publication of CDFW’s list were updated accordingly.

3.2.3 Focused Special-Status Plant Assessment
The Project Site does not occur within a predetermined MSHCP Survey Area for Criteria Area or Narrow Endemic plant species. Therefore, no surveys are required.

3.2.4 Focused Special-Status Wildlife Surveys
Burrowing Owl Surveys
The Project Site is situated within a predetermined MSHCP Burrowing Owl Survey Area (Regional Conservation Authority GIS Data Downloads 2020). Conducted by MIG biologist on May 21st, 2020, a F.1.e
Packet Pg. 1290 Attachment: Appendix B1-MSHCP Compliance Analysis (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) MSHCP General Biological Resources Assessment & Compliance Analysis 12 burrowing owl habitat assessment confirmed the presence of low potential habitat on the Project Site.

Subsequently, focused surveys were conducted on May 21st, June 20th, July 10th and 30th, 2020 within and adjacent to the Project Site. The surveys were conducted in accordance with the Burrowing Owl Survey Instructions for the Western Riverside Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Area (Riverside County 2006). The protocol consists of three parts: habitat assessment, burrow mapping, and owl detection. The burrow search was conducted utilizing 100-foot belt transects to ensure 100 percent coverage of the site.

Least Bell’s Vireo
Conducted by MIG biologist on May 21st, 2020, a least Bell’s vireo habitat assessment confirmed the presence of low potential habitat on the Project Site. A focused survey for least Bell’s vireo was conducted according to Least Bell’s Vireo Survey Guidelines (USFWS 2001). In accordance with USFWS guidelines, the protocol consists of eight (8) surveys undertaken by a qualified biologist between April and July, 2020 with a ten (10) day interval between each site visit. The surveys for least Bell’s vireo were conducted on May 21st, 31st, June 10th, 20th, 30th, July 10th, 20th, and 30th, 2020. All low potential habitat including black willow woodland were surveyed to listen for calls and used binoculars to aid in visual identification. No least Bell’s vireo calls were used. All surveys were conducted within the prescribed time, temperature, and wind conditions as outlined in the survey guidelines (USFWS 2001).

3.2.6 Jurisdictional Wetlands and Waters Assessment
A formal jurisdictional delineation was conducted by MIG biologist in July 2020. The delineation determined the boundaries or absence of potential wetland and non-wetland waters of the U.S. subject to the regulatory jurisdiction of the USACE pursuant to CWA Section 404; wetland and non-wetland waters of the State subject to the regulatory jurisdiction of the RWQCB pursuant to CWA Section 401 and State Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Porter-Cologne); streambed and riparian habitat subject to the regulatory jurisdiction of the CDFW pursuant Sections 1600 et seq. of the California Fish and Game Code (CFG Code); and Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools defined in Section 6.1.2 of the Western Riverside County MSHCP.

3.2.7 MSHCP Section 6.1.2 Riparian, Riverine, & Vernal Pool Resources Assessment Pursuant to Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP (Riverside County 2003), habitats were assessed to determine if MSHCP riparian/riverine resources and/or vernal pools are present onsite. The purpose of this assessment is to ensure that the biological functions and values of these areas throughout the MSHCP Plan Area are maintained such that habitat values for riparian/riverine species inside the MSHCP Conservation Area are maintained. The MSHCP requires that as projects are proposed within the overall Plan Area, the effect of those projects on riparian/riverine areas and vernal pools must be addressed. Riparian/riverine resources are those lands that contain habitat dominated by trees, shrubs, persistent emergents, or emergent mosses and lichens, which occur close to or which depend upon soil moisture from a nearby fresh water source, or areas with fresh water flow during all or a portion of the year. Vernal pools are seasonal wetlands that occur in depression areas that have wetland indicators of all three parameters (soils, vegetation, and hydrology) during the wetter portion of the growing season but normally lack wetland indicators of hydrology and/or vegetation during the drier portion of the growing season. In addition, stock ponds, ephemeral pools, and other areas of potential fairy shrimp habitat were noted, if applicable.

F.1.e
Packet Pg. 1291 Attachment: Appendix B1-MSHCP Compliance Analysis (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) MSHCP Biological Resources Assessment and MSHCP Compliance Analysis 13

4.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS
The following provides a description of the soils, vegetation communities, wildlife, and wildlife movement corridors present on the Project Site.

4.1 Physical Characteristics
The Project Site is heavily disturbed and annually disked as part of weed abatement requirements. The Project Site is flat and bordered to the south by industrial buildings, north by high density residential development, and east and west by disturbed lands. Two (2) drainage features bisect the property in a north to south direction which currently sustains disturbed wetland and riparian vegetation as described below.

4.2 Soils
The USDA NRCS Web Soil Survey maps the following soil classification within the boundary of the Project Site as shown on Figure 3 (Soil Survey Staff, NRCS, USDA 2020) and described in detail below.

Monserate sandy loam 0 to 5 percent slopes (MmB). This map unit occurs throughout the Project Site.

The Monserate series consist of well to well drained and moderately slow permeable soils. These soils are found primarily on nearly level to moderately steep terraces and fans in southern California and are primarily used for growing grain or pasture. The NRCS does not list this soil as hydric.

4.3 Vegetation Communities
As described in Section 3 (Methods), vegetation communities were mapped in the field onto a color aerial photograph (Figure 4) and were evaluated to determine if they are considered sensitive under federal, state, or local regulations or policies. Vegetation communities were classified as sensitive or non-sensitive as defined by CEQA and other applicable laws and regulations. Vegetation community names and hierarchical structure follows the CDFW “List of California Terrestrial Natural Communities” or Holland (1986) classification systems. A summary of the acreages of each mapped vegetation community or land cover type is provided in Table 2. Distribution of onsite vegetation communities and representative photographs are provided as Figure 4, and 5 (a-b). The species listed below represent those individuals identified onsite during the field surveys listed in this report. All 20.31 acres of the Project Site will be permanently or temporarily (offsite) impacted as a result of project initiation. As outlined in the MSHCP, impacts will be mitigated by payment of the local development mitigation fee as established by the City of Moreno Valley (Section 5.1, BIO-1: Payment of Local Development Mitigation Fee for Conservation of Covered Species) Table 2. Project Site Plant Communities and Land Cover Types Plant Communities/Land Cover Type Onsite
Area
(acres)
Offsite
Area
(acres)
TOTAL
Impacts
(acres)
Disturbed/Non-Native Grassland 17.19 0.00 17.19
Black Willow Woodland 0.39 0.00 0.39
Developed 0.05 2.65 2.70
Disturbed Wetland – Cattail 0.02 0.00 0.02
Ornamental (individual tree) 0.01 0.00 0.01
Mule Fat (individual shrub) 0.001 0.00 0.001
Total 17.66 2.65 20.31
F.1.e
Packet Pg. 1292 Attachment: Appendix B1-MSHCP Compliance Analysis (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) MSHCP General Biological Resources Assessment & Compliance Analysis 14 Disturbed/Non-Native Grassland
The majority of the Project Site is characterized as disturbed/non-native grassland and experiences annual disking activities. Dominant plant species observed within this vegetation community include hairy vetch (Vicia villosa), black mustard (Brassica nigra), field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis), kochia (Bassia scoparia), prickly lettuce (Lactuca serriola), jointed charlock (Raphanus sativus), Italian rye (Lolium multiflorum), horseweed (Erigeron canadensis), Bermuda grass (Cynodon dactylon), puncture vine (Tribulus terrestris), tumbling pigweed (Amaranthus albus), common wild oat (Avena fatua), prickly sow thistle (Sonchus asper), jimsonweed (Datura wrightii), telegraph weed (Heterotheca grandiflora), cheeseweed (Malva parviflora), ripgut grass (Bromus diandrus), foxtail chess (Bromus madritensis), mayweed (Anthemis cotula), prostrate knotweed (Polygonum aviculare), Spanish lotus (Acmispon americanus), and western witchgrass (Panicum capillare).

Black Willow Woodland
The northern region of Drainage A is dominated by black willow woodland. Common species documented within this vegetation community include Gooding’s willow (Salix gooddingii), velvet ash (Fraxinus velutina), and an understory of non-native grasses and ruderal species as described above.

Developed
Developed regions of the Project Site include a culvert structure located at the southern terminus of Drainage A and existing paved roads located within the offsite impact areas.

Disturbed Wetland – Cattail
Two small patches of disturbed wetland-cattail habitat are located in the northern region of both Drainage A and B, immediately adjacent to Alessandro Boulevard. Dominant plant species observed within this vegetation community include curly dock (Rumex crispus), common cattail (Typha latifolia), tall nutsedge (Cyperus eragrostis), annual beard grass (Polypogon monspeliensis), Mexican fan palm (Washingtonia robusta), dallis grass (Paspalum dilatatum), barnyard grass (Echinochloa crus-galli), and tarragon (Artemisia dracunculus).

Ornamental
A single ornamental tree, Mexican palo verde (Parkinsonia aculeata) is located adjacent to the black willow woodland.

Mule Fat
A single mule fat (Baccharis salicifolia) shrub is located near the northeast corner of the Project Site.

4.4 Wildlife
General wildlife species documented onsite or within the vicinity of the Project Site include but are not limited to red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), turkey vulture (Cathartes aura), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), Anna’s hummingbird (Calypte anna), song sparrow (Melospiza melodia), house sparrow (Passer domesticus), Nuttall's woodpecker (Picoides nuttallii), Cassin's kingbird (Tyrannus vociferans), western kingbird (Tyrannus verticalis), black phoebe (Sayornis nigricans), Say’s phoebe (Sayornis saya), cliff swallow (Petrochelidon pyrrhonota), northern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos), European starling (Sturnus vulgaris), American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), western meadowlark (Sturnella neglecta) common raven (Corvus corax), house sparrow (Passer domesticus), American goldfinch (Spinus tristis), house finch (Haemorhous mexicanus), western tanager (Piranga ludoviciana), and desert cottontail (Sylvilagus audubonii).

F.1.e
Packet Pg. 1293 Attachment: Appendix B1-MSHCP Compliance Analysis (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) MSHCP Biological Resources Assessment and MSHCP Compliance Analysis 15

4.5 Sensitive Natural Communities
CDFW and CNPS have identified native vegetation communities that are rare and unique to California. While they have no legal, protective status, impacts to these natural communities may be considered “significant” under CEQA. A total of 0.39-acre of black willow woodland (G4 S3) is present on the Project Site (Figure 4 and Figure 5a) that would qualify as a sensitive natural community. These features would be regulated as CDFW riparian habitat pursuant to Division 2, Chapter 6, Section 1600-1603 of the California Fish and Game Code.

All 20.31 acres of the Project Site will be permanently or temporarily (offsite) impacted as a result of project initiation. As outlined in the MSHCP, impacts will be mitigated by payment of the local development mitigation fee as established by the City of Moreno Valley (Section 5.1, BIO-1: Payment of Local Development Mitigation Fee for Conservation of Covered Species)

4.6 Special-Status Plants
The MSHCP has determined that all of the sensitive species potentially occurring onsite have been adequately covered (MSHCP Table 2-2 Species Considered for Conservation Under the MSHCP Since 1999, 2004). However, additional surveys may be required for narrow endemic plants and/or criteria area plant species if suitable habitat is documented onsite and/or if the property is located within a predetermined “Survey Area” (MSHCP 2003).

The Project Site does not occur within a predetermined Survey Area for MSHCP criteria area or narrow endemic plant species (RCA GIS Data Downloads 2020). No surveys are required.

4.7 Special-Status Animals
The MSHCP has determined that all of the sensitive wildlife species potentially occurring onsite have been adequately covered (MSHCP Table 2-2 Species Considered for Conservation Under the MSHCP Since 1999, 2004). However, additional surveys may be required for criteria area wildlife species if suitable habitat is documented onsite and/or if the property is located within a predetermined “Survey Area” (MSHCP 2003).

The Project Site does not occur within a predetermined Survey Area for amphibians (RCA GIS Data Downloads 2020). No surveys are required.

Burrowing Owl
The Project Site occurs within a predetermined MSHCP Survey Area for burrowing owl (RCA GIS Data Downloads 2020). Based on the presence of low potential habitat documented during the May 21st, 2020 habitat assessment2 within and adjacent to the Project Site, focused surveys for burrowing owl were conducted. No burrowing owl or their sign (e.g., molted feathers, pellets with characteristic prey remains, or excrement (wash) near a burrow entrance) was observed. In compliance with the conservation goals outlined in the MSHCP, a 30-day preconstruction survey will be conducted prior to the initiation of construction to ensure protection for this species (Section 5.1 BIO-2: Conduct 30-Day Burrowing Owl Preconstruction Survey). The Burrowing Owl Survey Report for the Alessandro Project Site is provided in Appendix A. 2 Personnel: Dr. Jonathan Campbell
F.1.e
Packet Pg. 1294 Attachment: Appendix B1-MSHCP Compliance Analysis (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) MSHCP General Biological Resources Assessment & Compliance Analysis 16 Least Bell’s Vireo
Low potential habitat for least Bell’s vireo was initially identified onsite in the black willow woodland vegetation community (Figure 4, Vegetation Communities Map). Focused protocol surveys were conducted in spring/summer 2020 to determine the presence/absence of this species on the Project Site. No least Bell’s vireo were detected during the 2020 surveys. The Least Bell’s Vireo Survey Report for the Alessandro Project Site is provided in Appendix B.

The Project Site does not occur within a predetermined Survey Area for mammals (RCA GIS Data Downloads 2020). No surveys are required.

The Project Site falls within the Stephens’ kangaroo rat (Dipodomys stephensi, SKR) Fee Area outlined in the Riverside County SKR Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) (Section 5.1, BIO-3: SKR Mitigation Fee).

Nesting Songbirds and Raptors
Onsite vegetation communities represent suitable nesting habitat for common, as well as special-status resident and migratory bird/raptor species with the potential to occur within the Project Site. Typically, migratory birds and raptors nest within trees and other vegetation in areas that are removed from human disturbance; however, some species such as great horned owl (Bubo virginianus) and red-tailed hawk are known to nest in and adjacent to developed areas where there is nearby undeveloped land supporting an abundance of prey. The Project Site provides potential foraging and/or nesting habitat for migratory birds and raptors. The loss of an active nest of common or special-status bird species would be considered a violation of the CDFW Code, Section 3503, 3503.5, 3513. The following condition of approval will ensure no nesting birds or raptors are impacted as a result of project initiation (Section 5.1, BIO-4: Pre-Construction Surveys for Nesting and Breeding Songbirds and Raptors)

4.8 Jurisdictional Wetlands and Waters Assessment
The two (2) drainage features including A and B that bisect the Project Site represent jurisdictional resources which may be regulated by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board and California Department of Fish and Wildlife. A formal jurisdictional delineation will be required, and all applicable regulatory permits acquired for direct and/or indirect impacts to these features (Section 5.1, BIO-5: CDFW/RWQCB Regulatory Resources, Permits and Certifications).

4.9 MSHCP Riparian/Riverine Resources and Vernal Pool Analysis No vernal pools or suitable resources for the vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi) and Riverside fairy shrimp (Streptocephalus woottoni) were documented onsite. No surveys are required.

No suitable habitat for the southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus) or western yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus) was detected within or adjacent to the Project Site. These species are not expected to be present. No surveys are required.

Both drainage features A and B and associated riparian vegetation (black willow woodland and disturbed wetland-cattail) represent MSHCP Section 6.1.2 riverine/riparian resources. Direct or indirect impacts to these MSHCP Section 6.1.2 resources will require the development of an MSHCP DBESP (Section 5.1, BIO5: MSHCP Riverine and Riparian Resources Section 6.1.2 Compliance) F.1.e
Packet Pg. 1295 Attachment: Appendix B1-MSHCP Compliance Analysis (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) MSHCP Biological Resources Assessment and MSHCP Compliance Analysis 17

4.10 Wildlife Movement Corridors
Providing functional habitat connectivity between natural areas is essential to sustaining healthy wildlife populations and allowing for the continued dispersal of native plant and animal species. The regional movement and migration of wildlife species has been substantially altered due to habitat fragmentation over the past century. This fragmentation is most commonly caused by development of open areas, which can result in large patches of land becoming inaccessible and forming a virtual barrier between undeveloped areas. Roads associated with development, although narrow, may result in barriers to smaller or less mobile wildlife species. Habitat fragmentation results in isolated islands of habitat, which affects wildlife behavior, foraging activity, reproductive patterns, immigration and emigration or dispersal capabilities, and survivability.

Wildlife corridors can consist of a sequence of stepping-stones across the landscape (i.e., discontinuous areas of habitat such as isolated wetlands), continuous lineal strips of vegetation and habitat (e.g., riparian strips and ridge lines), or they may be parts of larger habitat areas selected for their known or likely importance to local wildlife.

The Project Site likely supports habitat for resident and transient species locally, and would not facilitate regional wildlife movement. Regional movement through the Project Site is substantively constrained by proximate urban development, major roads, and marginal habitat. The Project Site is not within an MSHCP Core Area or Linkage and is not otherwise identified as a regionally important wildlife movement corridor.

5.0 MSHCP & CEQA COMPLIANCE ANALYSIS
The purpose of this report is to document the existing biological resources, identify general vegetation types, and assess the potential biological and regulatory constraints associated with the proposed development within the Project Site as outlined by the MSHCP. The following sections summarize the Project Site’s relationship to MSHCP criteria areas and MSHCP/CEQA compliance guidelines.

CRITERIA AREAS
The 17.66-acre Project Site including offsite assessment area (2.65-acre) is located entirely within the MSHCP Reche Canyon/Badlands Area Plan and is not located within an MSHCP Criteria Area, Cell Group, or Linkage Area.

No Habitat Evaluation and Acquisition Negotiation Strategy, Joint Project Review or Criteria Area Consistency Analysis is required.

CRITERIA AREA SPECIES SURVEY AREA
The Project Site does not occur within a predetermined Survey Area for MSHCP criteria area plant species; therefore, no surveys are required (RCA GIS Data Downloads 2020).

The project is compliant with MSHCP Section 6.3.2.

NARROW ENDEMIC PLANT SPECIES SURVEY AREA
F.1.e
Packet Pg. 1296 Attachment: Appendix B1-MSHCP Compliance Analysis (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) MSHCP General Biological Resources Assessment & Compliance Analysis 18 The Project Site does not occur within a predetermined Survey Area for MSHCP narrow endemic plant species; therefore, no surveys are required (RCA GIS Data Downloads 2020).

The project is compliant with MSHCP Section 6.1.3

AMPHIBIAN SPECIES SURVEY AREA
The Project Site does not occur within a predetermined Amphibian Species Survey Area; therefore, no surveys are required (RCA GIS Data Downloads 2020).

The project is compliant with MSHCP Section 6.3.2.

MAMMAL SPECIES SURVEY AREA
The Project Site does not occur within a predetermined Mammal Species Survey Area; therefore, no surveys are required (RCA GIS Data Downloads 2020).

The project is compliant with MSHCP Section 6.3.2.

BURROWING OWL SURVEY AREA
The Project Site occurs within a predetermined Survey Area for the burrowing owl. Based on the presence of low potential habitat documented during the May 21st, 2020 habitat assessment within and adjacent to the Project Site, focused surveys for burrowing owl were conducted. No burrowing owl or their sign (e.g., molted feathers, pellets with characteristic prey remains, or excrement (wash) near a burrow entrance) was observed. In compliance with the conservation goals outlined in the MSHCP, a 30-day preconstruction survey will be conducted prior to the initiation of construction to ensure protection for this species (MIG 2020a).

Following submittal, review and approval of the 30-day burrowing owl preconstruction survey report by the City of Moreno Valley and compliance with all species-specific conservation goals, if detected within or adjacent to the Project Site, the project will be compliant with MSHCP Section 6.3.2.

MSHCP RIPARIAN/RIVERINE AREAS AND VERNAL POOLS
Both drainage features A and B and associated riparian vegetation (black willow woodland and disturbed wetland-cattail) represent MSHCP Section 6.1.2 riverine/riparian resources. Direct or indirect impacts to these MSHCP Section 6.1.2 resources will require the development of an MSHCP DBESP.

No vernal pool resources, seasonal depressions or associated clay substrates were documented onsite.

Following submittal, review and approval of the DBESP report by the City of Moreno Valley and wildlife agencies, the project will be compliant with MSHCP Section 6.1.2.

URBAN/WILDLANDS INTERFACE
The MSHCP Urban/Wildlands Interface guidelines presented in Section 6.1.4 are intended to address indirect effects associated with locating commercial, mixed uses and residential developments in proximity to a F.1.e
Packet Pg. 1297 Attachment: Appendix B1-MSHCP Compliance Analysis (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) MSHCP Biological Resources Assessment and MSHCP Compliance Analysis 19 MSHCP Conservation Area. The Project Site is not located adjacent to an existing or proposed MSHCP Conservation Area.

The project is compliant with MSHCP Section 6.1.4.

FUELS MANAGEMENT
The fuels management guidelines presented in Section 6.4 of the MSHCP are intended to address brush management activities around new development within or adjacent to MSHCP Conservation Areas. The Project Site is not located adjacent to an existing or proposed MSHCP Conservation Area.

The project is compliant with MSHCP Section 6.4.

5.1 Mitigation Measures and Conditions of Approval
The following section summarizes potential constraints, mitigation measures, preconstruction survey requirements and conditions of approval which will need to be implemented to ensure development of the Project Site remains in compliance with CEQA and MSHCP guidelines.

BIO-1: Payment of Local Development Mitigation Fee for Conservation of Covered Species

In Volume 3 of the MSHCP (Implementing Agreement), a Local Development Mitigation Fee (Section 4) has been established to assist in providing revenue to acquire and preserve vegetation communities and natural areas within Riverside County which are known to support threatened, endangered or key sensitive populations of plant and wildlife species. Acquisition and preservation of these vegetation communities and natural areas will also benefit common species. The Applicant will pay the Local Development Mitigation Fee for the development of the proposed Project Site, established by the City of Moreno Valley.

BIO-2: Conduct 30-Day Burrowing Owl Preconstruction Survey A 30-day burrowing owl preconstruction survey will be required to ensure protection for this species and compliance with the conservation goals as outlined in the MSHCP. The survey will be conducted in compliance with both MSHCP and CDFW guidelines (MSHCP 2006, CDFW 2012). A report of the findings prepared by a qualified biologist shall be submitted to the City of Moreno Valley for review and approval prior to any permit or ground disturbing activities.

If burrowing owls are detected onsite during the 30-day preconstruction survey, during the breeding season (February 1st to August 31st) then construction activities shall be limited to beyond 300 feet of the active burrows until a qualified biologist has confirmed that nesting efforts are competed or not initiated. In addition to monitoring breeding activity, if construction is proposed to be initiated during the breeding season or active relocation is proposed, a burrowing owl mitigation plan will be developed based on the City of Moreno Valley, CDFW and USFWS requirements for the passive or active relocation of individuals.

BIO-3: SKR Mitigation Fee
F.1.e
Packet Pg. 1298 Attachment: Appendix B1-MSHCP Compliance Analysis (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) MSHCP General Biological Resources Assessment & Compliance Analysis 20 The Project Site falls within the SKR Fee Area outlined in the Riverside County SKR HCP. The project applicant shall pay the fees pursuant to County Ordinance 663.10 for the SKR HCP Fee Assessment Area as established and implemented by the County of Riverside.

BIO-4: Pre-Construction Surveys for Nesting and Breeding Songbirds and Raptors To avoid impacts to nesting birds associated with the proposed development, initial construction related grubbing and grading activities should occur outside the avian nesting season (prior to February 1 or after September 1). If construction and construction noise occur within the avian nesting season (during the period from February 1 to September 1), all suitable habitats within 100 feet of the Project Site shall be thoroughly surveyed for the presence of nests by a qualified biologist no more than five (5) days before commencement of any vegetation removal. If it is determined that the Project Site is occupied by nesting birds, protective measures shall be implemented as described below.

If pre-construction nesting bird surveys result in the location of active nests, no grading, vegetation removal, or heavy equipment activity shall take place within 300 feet of non-raptor nests and 500 feet of raptor nests, or as determined by a qualified biologist. Protective measures (e.g., sampling) shall be required to ensure compliance with the California Fish and Game Code requirements. The qualified biologist shall serve as a construction monitor during those periods when construction activities occur near active nest areas to ensure that no inadvertent impacts occur. A report of the findings, prepared by a qualified biologist, shall be submitted to the City of Moreno Valley prior to construction-related activities that have the potential to disturb any active nests during the nesting season.

BIO-5: CDFW/RWQCB Regulatory Resources, Permits and Certifications Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the project applicant will conduct a formal jurisdictional delineation to determine the extent of resources onsite regulated by the CDFW, or RWQCB. The project applicant will be required to obtain all applicable permits which may include a 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement from CDFW and a 401 Certification issued by the RWQCB pursuant to the California Water Code Section 13260.

Impacts to jurisdictional features shall not occur until the permits are received from the appropriate regulatory agencies, or correspondence is received from the agencies indicating that a permit is not required.

BIO-5: MSHCP Riverine and Riparian Resources Section 6.1.2 Compliance Both drainage features A and B and associated riparian vegetation represent MSHCP Section 6.1.2 riverine/riparian resources. Direct or indirect impacts to these MSHCP Section 6.1.2 resources will require the development of an MSHCP DBESP.

To meet the criteria of a biologically equivalent or superior alternative, the applicant will offset impacts to any MSHCP riverine or riparian habitat as directed by the City of Moreno Valley. Specifically, an MSHCP DBESP will be prepared and submitted to the City of Moreno Valley, and wildlife agencies for review and approval.

F.1.e
Packet Pg. 1299 Attachment: Appendix B1-MSHCP Compliance Analysis (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) MSHCP Biological Resources Assessment and MSHCP Compliance Analysis 21

6.0 REFERENCES
Baldwin B, D. Goldman, D Keil, R. Patterson, T. Rosatti, T. Wilken. 2012. The Jepson Manual – Vascular Plants of California. University of California Press.

CDFW. 1994. A Field Guide to Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreements, Sections 1600-1607, California Fish and Game Code, Environmental Services Division.

CDFW. 2010. The Vegetation Classification and Mapping Program – List of California Terrestrial Natural Communities Recognized by The California Natural Diversity Database. September 2010.

CDFW. July 2019a. State & Federally Listed Endangered, & Threatened Animals of California. Natural Heritage Division, Natural Diversity Data Base.

CDFW. July 2019b. State and Federally Listed Endangered, Threatened, and Rare Plants of California. Natural Heritage Division, Natural Diversity Data Base.

CDFW. 2019c. Complete List of Amphibian, Reptile, Bird and Mammal Species in California.

CNDDB. 2020. Sensitive Element Record Search for the Riverside East and Surrounding USGS Quadrangles.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Sacramento, California. Accessed [July 2020].

CNPS. 2001. Botanical survey guidelines of the California Native Plant Society. Fremontia 29: 64-65.

CNPS. 2020. Online Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (8th edition). California Native Plant Society, Sacramento. Available online at http://cnps.org/inventory. Accessed [July 2020].

Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report Y-87-1, U.S.

Army Engineer Waterways Experimental Station, Vicksburg, MS. 117 pp.

Holland, R. 1986. Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California. Nongame-Heritage Program. California Department of Fish and Wildlife.

Regional Conservation Authority (RCA). 2020. Online GIS Database. Available online at http://wrcrca.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=a73e69d2a64d41c29ebd3acd67467abd Riverside County Environmental Programs Division. 2006. Burrowing Owl Survey Instructions – Western Riverside Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Area.

Riverside County Transportation and Land Management Agency. 2003. Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP). Final MSHCP—Volumes 1 and 2. Approved June 17, 2003.

Sawyer, J.O., T. Keeler-Wolf, and J. Evans. 2009. A Manual of California Vegetation, 2nd Addition. California Native Plant Society. Sacramento, CA.

Soil Survey Staff, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 2020. Web Soil Survey. Available online at http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/. Accessed [July 2020].

USACE. 2008a. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region (Version 2.0). Eds. J. S. Wakeley, R. W. Lichvar, and C. V. Noble. ERDC/EL TR-06-16, U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center, Vicksburg, MS. May 2008.

F.1.e
Packet Pg. 1300 Attachment: Appendix B1-MSHCP Compliance Analysis (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) MSHCP General Biological Resources Assessment & Compliance Analysis 22 USACE. 2008b. CWA Guidance to Implement the U.S. Supreme Court Decision for the Rapanos and Carabell Cases. (http://www.usace.army.mil/CECW/Pages/cwa_guide.aspx. December 2008.

USDA Soil Conservation Service. 1994. Changes in hydric soils of the United States. Federal Register 59 (133): 35680- 35681, July 13, 1994.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2001. Least Bell’s Vireo Survey Guidelines. Carlsbad Fish and Wildlife Office.

Carlsbad, CA. January 2001.

USFWS. 2020a. National Wetlands Inventory. Wetlands Mapper. Available online at: http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/ data/mapper.html. Accessed [July 2020].

USFWS. 2020b. Threatened and Endangered Species. Pacific Southwest Region. Carlsbad Office. Available online at http://www.fws.gov/carlsbad/ TEspecies.html. Accessed [July 2020].

F.1.e
Packet Pg. 1301 Attachment: Appendix B1-MSHCP Compliance Analysis (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) MSHCP General Biological Resources Assessment & Compliance Analysis

FIGURES
F.1.e
Packet Pg. 1302 Attachment: Appendix B1-MSHCP Compliance Analysis (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) not to scale
·|þ}60
Project Site
§¨¦215
§¨¦10
·|þ}60
City of
Moreno Valley
§¨¦10
§¨¦215
Figure 1 Regional Location Map
Alessandro Project Site, City of Moreno Valley, CA
E
E Ales .. andro
S T
...
~ 5 th St
3rd SI (/) " a. ~ ~ Greenspot Rel
~ EAS T HI GHLA ND S
CJ
>
i ll St< Cl
> 0
< C
1:1 C 0 ,,; Cl
Q.

San Bem dino
Intl Airport (/) + "' e
1:1
.J:J
"'
(/)
II)
C)
C:
1:1
..
0 Redl d$
Munf
Airport
+ II)
:,.
<
4>
C: I'll''' er gonia Av e E Lu gonia Ave Mentone Blvd :; Moreno Valley ~
0 "' 0
0 u
1:1
C,

MARCH FIELD
0 Nu Vo Rd Nu evo Rd
MEN TONE t,
ve G1
>
<
NUEVO
0 0 CRAFTON
Yucaipa Bl
en DUNLAP ACRE S

EL CASCO
~ 0 -
Ramona Expy
Cl
>
<
C:

GI
(II
C:
1:1
Colrtour Av
F.1.e
Packet Pg. 1303 Attachment: Appendix B1-MSHCP Compliance Analysis (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) Figure 2 Project Site Map
Alessandro Project Site, City of Moreno Valley, CA
Alessandro Boulevard
Chagall Court
Project Site Boundary (17.66 acres)
Offsite Assessment Area (2.65 acres)
297-170-003
279-170-002
297-170-088
279-170-089
ROW
ROW
297-170-003
279-170-002
297-170-088
279-170-089
ROW
ROW
1 inch = 180 feet
Project Site Boundary
# Photo Point & Direction
2 1
3 4
D
D
C=C>
r,
..,
I'/ ~I
.., ,·,
~n:- n n
l'I
"'
""' n I'
,., >I,
,, ""' ,,, n ~I
,f,
r· ~-
f l
I. .~ 1•1
r,
,1
"II "lfttrf
.EHi
F.1.e
Packet Pg. 1304 Attachment: Appendix B1-MSHCP Compliance Analysis (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) Figure 3 Soils Associations Map
Alessandro Project Site, City of Moreno Valley, CA
Alessandro Boulevard
Chagall Court
Project Site Boundary (17.66 acres)
Offsite Assessment Area (2.65 acres)
297-170-003
279-170-002
297-170-088
279-170-089
ROW
ROW
297-170-003
279-170-002
297-170-088
279-170-089
ROW
ROW
1 inch = 180 feet
Project Site Boundary
MmB - Monserate Sandy Loam
0 to 5 Percent Slopes
MmB - Monserate Sandy Loam (NRCS 2020)
D
D
-
F.1.e
Packet Pg. 1305 Attachment: Appendix B1-MSHCP Compliance Analysis (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) Figure 4 Vegetation Communities Map
Alessandro Project Site, City of Moreno Valley, CA
Alessandro Boulevard
Chagall Court
297-170-003 297-170-088
279-170-089
ROW
ROW
279-170-002
297-170-088
279-170-089
ROW
ROW
1 inch = 180 feet
Project Site Boundary
Project Site Boundary (17.66 acres)
Offsite Assessment Area (2.65 acres)
Black Willow Woodland
Disturbed (Non-native Grassland)
Developed
Ornamental (Mexican palo verde)
Disturbed Wetland - Cattail
Mule Fat (individual shrub)
BW
DG
DV
OR
DW
MF
BW
BW
DG
DG
DG
DG
DV
DV
DV
DV
DV
MF
DW
DW
OR
Drainage BDrainage B
Drainage ADrainage A
D
D
-,, I
..,
..,
-., I
..,
..,
..,
,,,
..,
2Jll.17GMDII' r
,, l'I
..,
II
~l
~,
.., l'I r, ,.,
'''15
,r,
, ..
>'I
;, 1li
,., !'·
(1 ,.,
"'C'"·lt8 i
.EHi
F.1.e
Packet Pg. 1306 Attachment: Appendix B1-MSHCP Compliance Analysis (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) Figure 5a Current Project Site Photographs
Alessandro Project Site, City of Moreno Valley, CA
Photograph 1 - Southeast view of Project Site from northwest corner adjacent to Alessandro Boulevard.

Photograph 2 - Southward view of down drain located at end of the end of Drainage A F.1.e
Packet Pg13
Figure 5b Current Project Site Photographs
Alessandro Project Site, City of Moreno Valley, CA
Photograph 3 - Northwest view of Project Site from southeast corner. The Project Site is dominated by annually disked disturbed non-native grassland.

Photograph 4 - Westward view of Drainage B from northeast corner of Project Site near Alessandro Boulevard.

F.1.e
Packet Pg13
Figure 6 MSHCP Section 6.1.2 Resources Map
Alessandro Project Site, City of Moreno Valley, CA
Alessandro Boulevard
Chagall Court
297-170-003 297-170-088
279-170-089
ROW
ROW
279-170-002
297-170-088
279-170-089
ROW
ROW
1 inch = 180 feet
Project Site Boundary
Project Site Boundary (17.66 acres)
Offsite Assessment Area (2.65 acres)
BW Black Willow Woodland
DW Disturbed Wetland - Cattail
BW
BW
DW
DW
Drainage BDrainage B
Drainage ADrainage A
MSHCP Section 6.1.2 Riparian Resources D
D
...
,,,
I' ... ,.,
m;.17GMDII
r, ,, n ..,
,., ~I
Ii ~. ... l'I
,·, ,., n 1•1
,.,
,r,
.,.
·~
I, 1!)
,., ,., 11:
n ,.,
"'1; "'•rP
F.1.e
Packet Pg. 1309 Attachment: Appendix B1-MSHCP Compliance Analysis (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) Figure 7 Project Site Impact Map
Alessandro Project Site, City of Moreno Valley, CA
Alessandro Boulevard
Chagall Court
297-170-003 297-170-088
279-170-089
ROW
ROW
279-170-002
297-170-088
279-170-089
ROW
ROW
1 inch = 180 feet
Project Site Boundary
Project Site Boundary (17.66 acres)
Offsite Assessment Area (2.65 acres)
Black Willow Woodland
Disturbed (Non-native Grassland)
Developed
Ornamental (Mexican palo verde)
Disturbed Wetland - Cattail
Mule Fat (individual shrub)
BW
DG
DV
OR
DW
MF
BW
BW
DG
DG
DG
DG
DV
DV
DV
DV
DV
MF
DW
DW
OR
Drainage BDrainage B
Drainage ADrainage A
Impact Boundary (20.31 acres)
..,
,,,
.., if,
2Jll.17GMDII' r , .. ,, l'I >'I
..,
II ;, ~l 1li
,., ~, !'·
.., l'I r, ,., (1 ,.,
'''15 "' C'"·lt8i
.EHi
rn El D
15:;] D
E.:I 1511 .. -. I .. _.

F.1.e
Packet Pg. 1310 Attachment: Appendix B1-MSHCP Compliance Analysis (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) MSHCP General Biological Resources Assessment & Compliance Analysis 2

APPENDICES
F.1.e
Packet Pg. 1311 Attachment: Appendix B1-MSHCP Compliance Analysis (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) MSHCP General Biological Resources Assessment & Compliance Analysis Appendix A
Burrowing Owl Survey Report for the Alessandro Project Site F.1.e
Packet Pg. 1312 Attachment: Appendix B1-MSHCP Compliance Analysis (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) Burrowing Owl Focused Survey Report
Alessandro Project Site
City of Moreno Valley, Riverside County, California
Prepared for:

Compass Danbe Real Estate Partners
523 Main St
El Segundo, CA 90245
Prepared by:

MIG
1500 Iowa Avenue, Suite 110
Riverside, California 92507

August 2020
F.1.e
Packet Pg. 1313 Attachment: Appendix B1-MSHCP Compliance Analysis (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) This document is formatted for double
-sided printing
F.1.e
Packet Pg. 1314 Attachment: Appendix B1-MSHCP Compliance Analysis (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) MSHCP Focused Burrowing Owl Survey Report
Table of Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................................................................ I

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

1.1 Project Location............................................................................................................................. 1

2.0 METHODS AND RESULTS ...................................................................................................................... 1

2.1 Step 1 – Habitat Assessment......................................................................................................... 1

2.2 Step II – Locating Burrows and Burrowing Owls............................................................................ 3

2.3 Step III – Reporting Requirements................................................................................................. 4

2.4 Preconstruction Surveys................................................................................................................ 4

3.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................... 4

4.0 REFERENCES....................................................................................................................................... 5 List of Figures
Figure 1 Regional Location Map
Figure 2 Project Site Map
Figure 3 Vegetation Communities Map
Figure 4 (a-b) Current Project Site Photographs
Figure 5 Burrowing Owl Survey Area Map
List of Tables
Table 1 Summary of Focused Survey Weather Conditions during the Breeding Season F.1.e
Packet Pg. 1315 Attachment: Appendix B1-MSHCP Compliance Analysis (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) MSHCP Focused Burrowing Owl Survey Report

1.0 INTRODUCTION
This report presents the results of focused burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) surveys conducted at the

Specifically, the MSHCP Additional Surveys Needs and Procedures identify a burrowing owl Survey Area within the MSHCP Plan Area. The Project Site occurs within this predetermined Survey Area. Suitable low potential habitat was identified on the Project Site during an initial site reconnaissance conducted in May 21st, 2020. Subsequently, focused burrowing owl surveys were conducted during the breeding season in order to comply with MSHCP requirements. The purpose of this report is to document the results of the burrowing owl habitat assessment and focused burrow and burrowing owl surveys.

The Project Site is located entirely within the MSHCP Reche Canyon/Badlands Area Plan and is not located within an MSHCP Criteria Area, Cell Group, or Linkage Area.

2.0 METHODS AND RESULTS
The survey was conducted in accordance with the Burrowing Owl Survey Instructions for the Western Riverside Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Area (2006). Survey protocol consists of three steps:

Step I – Habitat Assessment; Step II – Locating Burrows and Burrowing Owls; and Step III – Reporting Requirements. Each step conducted during this survey is briefly outlined below. Surveys were conducted during weather that is conducive to observing burrowing owls outside of their burrows and detecting burrowing owl sign. All surveys were conducted from two hours before sunset to one hour after or from one hour before to two hours after sunrise. Surveys were not conducted during rain, high winds (> 20 mph), dense fog, or temperatures over 90 °F. Surveys were not conducted within five days of measurable precipitation.

2.1 Step 1 – Habitat Assessment
Step 1 of the burrowing owl focused survey consists of walking the Project Site to determine if suitable habitat is present. This initial habitat assessment was conducted on May 21st, 2020 by MIG Senior Biologist Jonathan Campbell, PhD (Table 1. Summary of Focused Survey Weather Conditions during the Nesting Season).

Upon arrival at the Project Site and prior to initiating the assessment survey, binoculars were used to scan all suitable habitats on and adjacent to the property, including perch locations, to ascertain owl presence.

F.1.e
Packet Pg. 1316 Attachment: Appendix B1-MSHCP Compliance Analysis (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) MSHCP Burrowing Owl Focused Survey Report 2
All suitable areas of the Project Site were surveyed on foot by walking slowly and methodically across each habitat type while recording/mapping areas that may represent suitable owl habitat onsite. Primary indicators of suitable burrowing owl habitat include, but are not limited to: native and non-native grassland, grassland interspersed with shrubland along ecotonal areas, shrublands with low density shrub cover, concrete rubble, and earthen berms. Burrowing owls typically use burrows made by fossorial mammals, such as ground squirrels (Otospermophilus beecheyi) or badgers (Taxidea taxus), but they often utilize man-made structures, such as earthen berms, cement culverts, cement, asphalt, rock or wood debris piles, or openings beneath cement or asphalt pavement. Burrowing owls are often found within, under, or near man-made structures. A majority of the habitat mapped onsite represents low potential habitat for burrowing owl.

According to the MSHCP (2006) guidelines, if suitable habitat is present, the biologist should also walk the perimeter of the property, which consists of a 150-meter (approximately 500 feet) buffer zone around the Project Site boundary. If permission to access the buffer area cannot be obtained, the biologist shall not trespass, but visually inspect adjacent habitats with binoculars.

The largest area and center of the Project Site is characterized as “disturbed/non-native grassland” and currently offers limited habitat value to plants and wildlife. The Project Site is heavily disturbed and annually disked as part of weed abatement requirements. The Project Site is flat and bordered to the south by industrial buildings, north by high density residential development, and east and west by disturbed lands.

Two (2) drainage features bisect the property in a north to south direction which currently sustains disturbed wetland and riparian vegetation as described below. Natural community names and hierarchical structure follows List of Alliances and Associations (CDFW September 2010) which have been refined and augmented where appropriate to better characterize the habitat types observed onsite when not addressed by the classification system. Scientific nomenclature and common names used for plants in this report follows Hickman (1993). Vertebrate taxonomy follows Stebbins (2003) for amphibians and reptiles, the American Ornithologists’ Union (1998 and supplemental) for birds, and Jones et al. (1992) for mammals. The onsite plant communities are as follows (Figure 3, Vegetation Communities Map, Figures 4a/4b, Current Project Site Photographs):

Disturbed/Non-Native Grassland
The majority of the Project Site is characterized as disturbed/non-native grassland and experiences annual dicking activities. Dominant plant species observed within this vegetation community include hairy vetch (Vicia villosa), black mustard (Brassica nigra), field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis), kochia (Bassia scoparia), prickly lettuce (Lactuca serriola), jointed charlock (Raphanus sativus), Italian rye (Lolium multiflorum), horseweed (Erigeron canadensis), Bermuda grass (Cynodon dactylon), puncture vine (Tribulus terrestris), tumbling pigweed (Amaranthus albus), common wild oat (Avena fatua), prickly sow thistle (Sonchus asper), jimsonweed (Datura wrightii), telegraph weed (Heterotheca grandiflora), cheeseweed (Malva parviflora), ripgut grass (Bromus diandrus), foxtail chess (Bromus madritensis), mayweed (Anthemis cotula), prostrate knotweed (Polygonum aviculare), Spanish lotus (Acmispon americanus), and western witchgrass (Panicum capillare).

F.1.e
Packet Pg. 1317 Attachment: Appendix B1-MSHCP Compliance Analysis (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) MSHCP Focused Burrowing Owl Survey Report 3
Developed
Developed regions of the Project Site include a culvert structure located at the southern terminus of Drainage A and existing paved roads located within the offsite impact areas.

Ornamental
A single ornamental tree, Mexican palo verde (Parkinsonia aculeata) is located adjacent to the black willow woodland.

Mule Fat
A single mule fat (Baccharis salicifolia) shrub is located near the northeast corner of the Project Site.

Results from the Step I - Habitat Assessment indicate that the disturbed/non-native grassland (described above) represent low potential habitat for the burrowing owl. Accordingly, due to the presence of potential habitat onsite, Step II – Locating Burrows and Burrowing Owls is required. In addition, due to the presence of potential habitat onsite, a pre-construction survey within 30 days of any project-related or constructionrelated activities is therefore required.

2.2 Step II – Locating Burrows and Burrowing Owls
Part A – Focused Burrow Survey
Due to the presence of low potential burrowing owl habitat, focused burrow surveys, including documentation of appropriately sized natural burrows or suitable man-made structures that may be utilized by burrowing owl, were conducted as part of the protocol on May 21st, 2020 (Table 1. Summary of Focused Survey Weather Conditions during the Nesting Season).

The systematic surveys for burrows, including burrowing owl signs, were conducted by walking across all potential habitat mapped at the Project Site. Pedestrian survey transects were spaced to allow 100% visual coverage of the ground surface. The distances between transect centerlines were no more than 30 meters (approximately 100 feet) apart. The burrow survey began within two hours prior to sunset. Accordingly, due to the presence of suitable burrowing owl burrows onsite, Step II, Part B – Focused Burrowing Owl Surveys are required.

General wildlife species documented onsite or within the vicinity of the Project Site include but are not limited to red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), turkey vulture (Cathartes aura), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), Anna’s hummingbird (Calypte anna), song sparrow (Melospiza melodia), house sparrow (Passer domesticus), Nuttall's woodpecker (Picoides nuttallii), Cassin's kingbird (Tyrannus vociferans), western kingbird (Tyrannus verticalis), black phoebe (Sayornis nigricans), Say’s phoebe (Sayornis saya), cliff swallow (Petrochelidon pyrrhonota), northern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos), European starling (Sturnus vulgaris), F.1.e
Packet Pg. 1318 Attachment: Appendix B1-MSHCP Compliance Analysis (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) MSHCP Burrowing Owl Focused Survey Report 4
American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), western meadowlark (Sturnella neglecta) common raven (Corvus corax), house sparrow (Passer domesticus), American goldfinch (Spinus tristis), house finch (Haemorhous mexicanus), western tanager (Piranga ludoviciana), and desert cottontail (Sylvilagus audubonii).

Part B – Focused Burrowing Owl Surveys
If any burrows are found during the Part A – Focused Burrow Survey, Part B – Focused Burrowing Owl Surveys are required to determine presence or absence of the species. The Part B effort consists of at least four focused surveys to search for signs of occupation at the burrows, or observations of burrowing owls.

Focused surveys are to be conducted within the breeding season between March 1st and August 31st. A review of local documentation (CNDDB 2020) suggests that no burrowing owls have been historically identified within the extent of the Project Site boundary. In addition to the breeding season survey conducted on May 21st, 2020, three additional breeding season surveys were conducted throughout the Project Site on June 20th, July 10th, and 30th, 2020 (Figure 5, Burrowing Owl Survey Area Map). All surveys were conducted during times and conditions conducive to observing burrowing owl (Table 1. Summary of Focused Survey Weather Conditions during the Breeding Season). A thorough investigation of the potentially suitable burrows concluded that no evidence of burrowing owl activity was present in any of the onsite burrow complexes.

Table 1. Summary of Focused Survey Weather Conditions during the Breeding Season Date Time
Start/End
Temperature (°F) Wind Speed (mph) Conditions
5/21/2020 6:30AM – 7:30AM 72 2-5 Clear
6/20/2020 6:00AM – 9:00AM 68 0-4 Clear
7/10/2020 6:00AM – 9:00AM 66 4-8 Clear
7/30/2020 6:00AM – 9:00AM 66 2-8 Clear

2.3 Step III – Reporting Requirements
This report represents the third step of the burrowing owl focused survey, the preparation of a report that provides the results of each step of the survey protocol. After completion of appropriate surveys, a final report shall be submitted to the City of Moreno Valley, which discusses the survey methodology, transect width, duration, conditions, and results of the survey.

2.4 Preconstruction Surveys
All project sites containing burrows or suitable habitat (based on Step I/Habitat Assessment), whether owls were found or not, require pre-construction surveys that shall be conducted within 30 days prior to ground disturbance to avoid direct take of burrowing owls (MSHCP Species-Specific Objective 6).

3.0 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Both low potential burrowing owl habitat and burrowing owl burrows were identified within the Project Site during the Step I – Habitat Assessment performed on May 21st, 2020 and the Step II, Part A – Focused Burrow Survey performed on May 21st, 2020. Three additional Step II, Part B – Focused Burrowing Owl Surveys were therefore performed during the breeding season on June 20th, July 10th, and 30th, 2020 throughout the Project Site. No evidence of burrowing owl activity was observed during any of the surveys.

F.1.e
Packet Pg. 1319 Attachment: Appendix B1-MSHCP Compliance Analysis (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) MSHCP Focused Burrowing Owl Survey Report 5
A pre-construction burrowing owl survey will need to be completed within 30 days prior to any project-related or construction-related disturbances to onsite areas.

4.0 REFERENCES
American Ornithologist Union (AOU). 1998. Check-list of North American Birds. 8th ed. American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, DC.

CDFW. 2010. The Vegetation Classification and Mapping Program – List of California Terrestrial Natural Communities Recognized by The California Natural Diversity Database. September 2010.

CNDDB. 2020. Sensitive Element Record Search for the Riverside East and Surrounding USGS Quadrangles.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Sacramento, California. Accessed [July 2020].

Riverside County Environmental Programs Division. 2006. Burrowing Owl Survey Instructions – Western Riverside Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Area.

Riverside County Transportation and Land Management Agency. 2003. Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP). Final MSHCP—Volumes 1 and 2. Approved June 17, 2003.

USFWS. 2020. Threatened and Endangered Species. Pacific Southwest Region. Carlsbad Office. Available online at http://www.fws.gov/carlsbad/ TEspecies.html. Accessed [July 2020].

F.1.e
Packet Pg. 1320 Attachment: Appendix B1-MSHCP Compliance Analysis (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) MSHCP Focused Burrowing Owl Survey Report

FIGURES
F.1.e
Packet Pg. 1321 Attachment: Appendix B1-MSHCP Compliance Analysis (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) not to scale
·|þ}60
Project Site
§¨¦215
§¨¦10
·|þ}60
City of
Moreno Valley
§¨¦10
§¨¦215
Figure 1 Regional Location Map
Alessandro Project Site, City of Moreno Valley, CA
E
E Ales .. andro
S T
...
~ 5 th St
3rd SI (/) " a. ~ ~ Greenspot Rel
~ EAS T HI GHLA ND S
CJ
>
i ll St< Cl
> 0
< C
1:1 C 0 ,,; Cl
Q.

San Bem dino
Intl Airport (/) + "' e
1:1
.J:J
"'
(/)
II)
C)
C:
1:1
..
0 Redl d$
Munf
Airport
+ II)
:,.
<
4>
C: I'll''' er gonia Av e E Lu gonia Ave Mentone Blvd :; Moreno Valley ~
0 "' 0
0 u
1:1
C,

MARCH FIELD
0 Nu Vo Rd Nu evo Rd
MEN TONE t,
ve G1
>
<
NUEVO
0 0 CRAFTON
Yucaipa Bl
en DUNLAP ACRE S

EL CASCO
~ 0 -
Ramona Expy
Cl
>
<
C:

GI
(II
C:
1:1
Colrtour Av
F.1.e
Packet Pg. 1322 Attachment: Appendix B1-MSHCP Compliance Analysis (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) Figure 2 Project Site Map
Alessandro Project Site, City of Moreno Valley, CA
Alessandro Boulevard
Chagall Court
Project Site Boundary (17.66 acres)
Offsite Assessment Area (2.65 acres)
297-170-003
279-170-002
297-170-088
279-170-089
ROW
ROW
297-170-003
279-170-002
297-170-088
279-170-089
ROW
ROW
1 inch = 180 feet
Project Site Boundary
# Photo Point & Direction
2 1
3 4
D
D
C=C>
r,
..,
I'/ ~I
.., ,·,
~n:- n n
l'I
"'
""' n I'
,., >I,
,, ""' ,,, n ~I
,f,
r· ~-
f l
I. .~ 1•1
r,
,1
"II "lfttrf
.EHi
F.1.e
Packet Pg. 1323 Attachment: Appendix B1-MSHCP Compliance Analysis (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) Figure 3 Vegetation Communities Map
Alessandro Project Site, City of Moreno Valley, CA
Alessandro Boulevard
Chagall Court
297-170-003 297-170-088
279-170-089
ROW
ROW
279-170-002
297-170-088
279-170-089
ROW
ROW
1 inch = 180 feet
Project Site Boundary
Project Site Boundary (17.66 acres)
Offsite Assessment Area (2.65 acres)
Black Willow Woodland
Disturbed (Non-native Grassland)
Developed
Ornamental (Mexican palo verde)
Disturbed Wetland - Cattail
Mule Fat (individual shrub)
BW
DG
DV
OR
DW
MF
BW
BW
DG
DG
DG
DG
DV
DV
DV
DV
DV
MF
DW
DW
OR
Drainage BDrainage B
Drainage ADrainage A
D
D
-,, I
..,
..,
-., I
..,
..,
..,
,,,
..,
2Jll.17GMDII' r
,, l'I
..,
II
~l
~,
.., l'I r, ,.,
'''15
,r,
, ..
>'I
;, 1li
,., !'·
(1 ,.,
"'C'"·lt8 i
.EHi
F.1.e
Packet Pg. 1324 Attachment: Appendix B1-MSHCP Compliance Analysis (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) Figure 4a Current Project Site Photographs
Alessandro Project Site, City of Moreno Valley, CA
Photograph 1 - Southeast view of Project Site from northwest corner adjacent to Alessandro Boulevard.

Photograph 2 - Southward view of down drain located at end of the end of Drainage A F.1.e
Packet Pg13
Figure 4b Current Project Site Photographs
Alessandro Project Site, City of Moreno Valley, CA
Photograph 3 - Northwest view of Project Site from southeast corner. The Project Site is dominated by annually disked disturbed non-native grassland.

Photograph 4 - Westward view of Drainage B from northeast corner of Project Site near Alessandro Boulevard.

F.1.e
Packet Pg13
Figure 5 Burrowing Survey Area Map
Alessandro Project Site, City of Moreno Valley, CA
Alessandro Boulevard
Chagall Court
297-170-003 297-170-088
279-170-089
ROW
ROW
1 inch = 180 feet
Project Site Boundary (17.66 acres)
Offsite Assessment Area (2.65 acres)
Drainage A
Survey Transects
Project Site Boundary
297-170-003
279-170-002
-----------• D
D
II
...
l'I ~I
I' ... ,.,
271M7GMDII
11 n ,., ,,,
... l'I
I'
,.. ~11
,, ... ,,, ,-, 11
,r,
f
f
t, ,,. ,,,
r,
,.,
''ll'"lt!a'f
.EHi
F.1.e
Packet Pg. 1327 Attachment: Appendix B1-MSHCP Compliance Analysis (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) MSHCP General Biological Resources Assessment & Compliance Analysis 2 Appendix B
Least Bell’s Vireo Survey Results for the Alessandro Project Site F.1.e
Packet Pg. 1328 Attachment: Appendix B1-MSHCP Compliance Analysis (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) Least Bell’s Vireo Focused Survey Report
Alessandro Project Site
City of Moreno Valley, Riverside County, California
Prepared for:

Compass Danbe Real Estate Partners
523 Main St
El Segundo, CA 90245
Prepared by:

MIG
1500 Iowa Avenue, Suite 110
Riverside, California 92507

August 2020
F.1.e
Packet Pg. 1329 Attachment: Appendix B1-MSHCP Compliance Analysis (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) This document is formatted for double
-sided printing
F.1.e
Packet Pg. 1330 Attachment: Appendix B1-MSHCP Compliance Analysis (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) MSHCP Least Bell’s Vireo Survey Report
Table of Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................................................................ I

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

1.1 Project Location............................................................................................................................. 1

2.0 METHODS AND RESULTS ...................................................................................................................... 1

3.0 CONCLUSIONS ..................................................................................................................................... 5

4.0 REFERENCES....................................................................................................................................... 5 List of Figures
Figure 1 Regional Location Map
Figure 2 Project Site Map
Figure 3 Vegetation Communities Map
Figure 4 (a-b) Current Project Site Photographs
List of Tables
Table 1 Summary of Focused Survey Weather Conditions during the Breeding Season F.1.e
Packet Pg. 1331 Attachment: Appendix B1-MSHCP Compliance Analysis (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) MSHCP Least Bell’s Vireo Survey Report

1.0 INTRODUCTION
This report presents the results of focused least Bell’s vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus) surveys conducted at the

17.66-acre (2.65-acre offsite) Alessandro project site (Project Site) in the City of Moreno Valley, Riverside County, California. The Project Site is located within the Western Riverside Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) planning area. The MSHCP is a regional multi-jurisdictional habitat conservation program that addresses multiple species’ habitat needs in western Riverside County. According to MSHCP Section 6.1.2 guidelines, surveys for riparian birds are to be conducted as part of the environmental review process, if suitable habitat is present. Suitable low potential habitat was identified on the Project Site during an initial site reconnaissance conducted in May 21st, 2020 for the least Bell’s vireo. Subsequently, focused surveys were conducted during the breeding season in order to comply with MSHCP Section 6.1.2 requirements. The purpose of this report is to document the results of the least Bell’s vireo assessment and focused surveys.

The Project Site is located entirely within the MSHCP Reche Canyon/Badlands Area Plan and is not located within an MSHCP Criteria Area, Cell Group, or Linkage Area.

2.0 METHODS AND RESULTS
An initial habitat assessment for potential least Bell’s vireo habitat was conducted on May 21st, 2020. As described below, all vegetation communities onsite were mapped and assessed for suitability for least Bell’s vireo. A single vegetation community including black willow woodland was characterized as representing low potential habitat for the species. Therefore, focused United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) protocol surveys were initiated. As stated by the USFWS:
“Under normal circumstances, all riparian areas and any other potential vireo habitats should be surveyed at least eight (8) times during the period from April 10 to July 31.

However, we may concur, on a case by case basis, with a reduced effort if unusual circumstances dictate that this is a prudent course of action. For instance, intensive surveys of small, marginal or extralimital habitats by experienced personnel may well result in defensible conclusions that eight (or more) individual surveys are unnecessary.

Under such unusual circumstances, we will consider requests for reductions in the prescribed number of individual surveys. In any case, site visits should be conducted at least 10 days apart to maximize the detection of, for instance, late and early arrivals, females, particularly “non-vocal” birds of both sexes, and nesting pairs. 1) Although the period from April 10 to July 31 encompasses the period during which most vireo nesting activity occurs, eight surveys are generally sufficient to detect most F.1.e
Packet Pg. 1332 Attachment: Appendix B1-MSHCP Compliance Analysis (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) MSHCP Least Bell’s Vireo Survey Report 2
(if not all) vireo adults in occupied habitats. Precise vireo censuses and estimations of home range likely will not be possible unless surveys are conducted outside of this time window. Although focused surveys conducted in accordance with these guidelines substantially reduce the risk of an unauthorized take* that could potentially occur as a result of land development or other projects, individual project proponents may wish to conduct surveys that are more rigorous than those that would otherwise result from strict adherence to these survey guidelines. If additional information (e.g., extent of occupied habitat, total numbers of adult and juvenile vireos in study area) is desired or necessary, surveys should be extended to August 31 and conducted in such a manner as to collect the data necessary to prepare reports that reflect the methods and standards established in the current scientific literature on this subject.

F.1.e
Packet Pg. 1333 Attachment: Appendix B1-MSHCP Compliance Analysis (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) MSHCP Least Bell’s Vireo Survey Report 3
7) The numbers and locations of all brown-headed cowbirds (Molothrus ater) detected within vireo territories should be recorded during each survey and subsequently reported to us. In addition, all detections of the State and federally endangered southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax trallii extimus, flycatcher) and State endangered yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus, cuckoo) should be recorded and reported. Any and all cuckoo and flycatcher adults, young, or nests should not be approached, and taped vocalizations of these species should not be used unless authorized in advance by scientific permits to take* issued by us (if appropriate) and the California Department of Fish and Game. Flycatcher presence/absence surveys require a recovery permit issued by us per section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Endangered Species Act.” (USFWS 2001)
A total of eight (8) focused least Bell’s vireo surveys were conducted on May 21st, 31st, June 10th, 20th, 30th, July 10th, 20th, and 30th, 2020 by Senior Biologist Jonathan Campbell, PhD and Ruben Ramirez throughout the black willow woodland documented onsite and described below. All surveys were conducted during times and conditions conducive to observing least Bell’s vireo (Table 1. Summary of Focused Survey Weather Conditions during the Breeding Season).

Table 1. Summary of Focused Survey Weather Conditions during the Breeding Season Date Time
Start/End
Temperature (°F) Wind Speed (mph) Conditions
5/21/2020 7:30AM – 9:00AM 74 0-5 Clear
5/31/2020 8:00AM – 9:30AM 70 3-5 Clear
6/10/2020 6:00AM – 9:00AM 66 2-8 Clear
6/20/2020 6:00AM – 9:00AM 68 0-4 Clear
6/30/2020 6:00AM – 9:00AM 64 0-4 Clear
7/10/2020 6:00AM – 9:00AM 66 4-8 Clear
7/20/2020 6:00AM – 9:00AM 70 2-8 Clear
7/30/2020 6:00AM – 9:00AM 66 2-8 Clear
The largest area and center of the Project Site is characterized as “disturbed/non-native grassland” and currently offers limited habitat value to plants and wildlife. The Project Site is heavily disturbed and annually disked as part of weed abatement requirements. The Project Site is flat and bordered to the south by industrial buildings, north by high density residential development, and east and west by disturbed lands.

F.1.e
Packet Pg. 1334 Attachment: Appendix B1-MSHCP Compliance Analysis (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) MSHCP Least Bell’s Vireo Survey Report 4
Disturbed/Non-Native Grassland
The majority of the Project Site is characterized as disturbed/non-native grassland and experiences annual dicking activities. Dominant plant species observed within this vegetation community include hairy vetch (Vicia villosa), black mustard (Brassica nigra), field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis), kochia (Bassia scoparia), prickly lettuce (Lactuca serriola), jointed charlock (Raphanus sativus), Italian rye (Lolium multiflorum), horseweed (Erigeron canadensis), Bermuda grass (Cynodon dactylon), puncture vine (Tribulus terrestris), tumbling pigweed (Amaranthus albus), common wild oat (Avena fatua), prickly sow thistle (Sonchus asper), jimsonweed (Datura wrightii), telegraph weed (Heterotheca grandiflora), cheeseweed (Malva parviflora), ripgut grass (Bromus diandrus), foxtail chess (Bromus madritensis), mayweed (Anthemis cotula), prostrate knotweed (Polygonum aviculare), Spanish lotus (Acmispon americanus), and western witchgrass (Panicum capillare).

Developed
Developed regions of the Project Site include a culvert structure located at the southern terminus of Drainage A and existing paved roads located within the offsite impact areas.

Ornamental
A single ornamental tree, Mexican palo verde (Parkinsonia aculeata) is located adjacent to the black willow woodland.

Mule Fat
A single mule fat (Baccharis salicifolia) shrub is located near the northeast corner of the Project Site.

General wildlife species documented onsite or within the vicinity of the Project Site include but are not limited to red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), turkey vulture (Cathartes aura), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), Anna’s hummingbird (Calypte anna), song sparrow (Melospiza melodia), house sparrow (Passer domesticus), Nuttall's woodpecker (Picoides nuttallii), Cassin's kingbird (Tyrannus vociferans), western kingbird (Tyrannus verticalis), black phoebe (Sayornis nigricans), Say’s phoebe (Sayornis saya), cliff swallow (Petrochelidon pyrrhonota), northern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos), European starling (Sturnus vulgaris), American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), western meadowlark (Sturnella neglecta) common raven (Corvus corax), house sparrow (Passer domesticus), American goldfinch (Spinus tristis), house finch (Haemorhous mexicanus), western tanager (Piranga ludoviciana), and desert cottontail (Sylvilagus audubonii).

F.1.e
Packet Pg. 1335 Attachment: Appendix B1-MSHCP Compliance Analysis (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) MSHCP Least Bell’s Vireo Survey Report 5

3.0 CONCLUSIONS
No least Bell’s vireo were detected onsite during the focused survey efforts conducted during the 2020 breeding season.

4.0 REFERENCES
American Ornithologist Union (AOU). 1998. Check-list of North American Birds. 8th ed. American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, DC.

CDFW. 2010. The Vegetation Classification and Mapping Program – List of California Terrestrial Natural Communities Recognized by The California Natural Diversity Database. September 2010.

CNDDB. 2020. Sensitive Element Record Search for the Riverside East and Surrounding USGS Quadrangles. California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Sacramento, California. Accessed [July 2020].

Riverside County Transportation and Land Management Agency. 2003. Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP). Final MSHCP—Volumes 1 and 2. Approved June 17, 2003.

USFWS. 2020. Threatened and Endangered Species. Pacific Southwest Region. Carlsbad Office. Available online at http://www.fws.gov/carlsbad/ TEspecies.html. Accessed [July 2020].

USFWS. 2006. Least Bell’s Vireo 5-Year Review Summary and Evaluation.

USFWS. 2001. Least Bell’s Vireo Survey Guidelines, Carlsbad California.

F.1.e
Packet Pg. 1336 Attachment: Appendix B1-MSHCP Compliance Analysis (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) MSHCP Least Bell’s Vireo Survey Report

FIGURES
F.1.e
Packet Pg. 1337 Attachment: Appendix B1-MSHCP Compliance Analysis (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) not to scale
·|þ}60
Project Site
§¨¦215
§¨¦10
·|þ}60
City of
Moreno Valley
§¨¦10
§¨¦215
Figure 1 Regional Location Map
Alessandro Project Site, City of Moreno Valley, CA
E
E Ales .. andro
S T
...
~ 5 th St
3rd SI (/) " a. ~ ~ Greenspot Rel
~ EAS T HI GHLA ND S
CJ
>
i ll St< Cl
> 0
< C
1:1 C 0 ,,; Cl
Q.

San Bem dino
Intl Airport (/) + "' e
1:1
.J:J
"'
(/)
II)
C)
C:
1:1
..
0 Redl d$
Munf
Airport
+ II)
:,.
<
4>
C: I'll''' er gonia Av e E Lu gonia Ave Mentone Blvd :; Moreno Valley ~
0 "' 0
0 u
1:1
C,

MARCH FIELD
0 Nu Vo Rd Nu evo Rd
MEN TONE t,
ve G1
>
<
NUEVO
0 0 CRAFTON
Yucaipa Bl
en DUNLAP ACRE S

EL CASCO
~ 0 -
Ramona Expy
Cl
>
<
C:

GI
(II
C:
1:1
Colrtour Av
F.1.e
Packet Pg. 1338 Attachment: Appendix B1-MSHCP Compliance Analysis (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) Figure 2 Project Site Map
Alessandro Project Site, City of Moreno Valley, CA
Alessandro Boulevard
Chagall Court
Project Site Boundary (17.66 acres)
Offsite Assessment Area (2.65 acres)
297-170-003
279-170-002
297-170-088
279-170-089
ROW
ROW
297-170-003
279-170-002
297-170-088
279-170-089
ROW
ROW
1 inch = 180 feet
Project Site Boundary
# Photo Point & Direction
2 1
3 4
D
D
C=C>
r,
..,
I'/ ~I
.., ,·,
~n:- n n
l'I
"'
""' n I'
,., >I,
,, ""' ,,, n ~I
,f,
r· ~-
f l
I. .~ 1•1
r,
,1
"II "lfttrf
.EHi
F.1.e
Packet Pg. 1339 Attachment: Appendix B1-MSHCP Compliance Analysis (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) Figure 3 Vegetation Communities Map
Alessandro Project Site, City of Moreno Valley, CA
Alessandro Boulevard
Chagall Court
297-170-003 297-170-088
279-170-089
ROW
ROW
279-170-002
297-170-088
279-170-089
ROW
ROW
1 inch = 180 feet
Project Site Boundary
Project Site Boundary (17.66 acres)
Offsite Assessment Area (2.65 acres)
Black Willow Woodland
Disturbed (Non-native Grassland)
Developed
Ornamental (Mexican palo verde)
Disturbed Wetland - Cattail
Mule Fat (individual shrub)
BW
DG
DV
OR
DW
MF
BW
BW
DG
DG
DG
DG
DV
DV
DV
DV
DV
MF
DW
DW
OR
Drainage BDrainage B
Drainage ADrainage A
D
D
-,, I
..,
..,
-., I
..,
..,
..,
,,,
..,
2Jll.17GMDII' r
,, l'I
..,
II
~l
~,
.., l'I r, ,.,
'''15
,r,
, ..
>'I
;, 1li
,., !'·
(1 ,.,
"'C'"·lt8 i
.EHi
F.1.e
Packet Pg. 1340 Attachment: Appendix B1-MSHCP Compliance Analysis (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) Figure 4a Current Project Site Photographs
Alessandro Project Site, City of Moreno Valley, CA
Photograph 1 - Southeast view of Project Site from northwest corner adjacent to Alessandro Boulevard.

Photograph 4 - Westward view of Drainage B from northeast corner of Project Site near Alessandro Boulevard.

F.1.e
Packet Pg13
Alessandro and Frederick Project Site
Jurisdictional Delineation Report & Impact Analysis City of Moreno Valley, Riverside County, CA Prepared for:

Compass Danbe Real Estate Partners
523 Main St
El Segundo, CA 90245
Prepared by:

MIG, Inc.
1500 Iowa Avenue, Suite 110
Riverside, California 92507
Contact: Jonathan Campbell (310) 903-7876
[email protected]
March 2021
F.1.f
Packet Pg. 1343 Attachment: Appendix B2-JD Report (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) Alessandro and Frederick Project
Jurisdictional Delineation Report
2 Contents Page
1 Introduction 5

1.1 Project Location 5

1.2 Applicant Information 5

1.3 Directions to the Project 5

1.4 Project Description 5

1.5 Adjacent Land Uses 6

1.6 Field Delineator Contact Information 6
2 Summary of Regulations 7

2.1 Waters of the U.S. 7

2.2 California Department of Fish and Wildlife Jurisdiction 9

2.3 Regional and State Water Quality Control Board Jurisdiction 9

2.4 MSHCP Riparian/Riverine and Vernal Pool Habitat 12
3 Jurisdictional Delineation Methodology 13

3.1 Database and Literature Review 13

3.2 Field Surveys 13

3.3 Delineation of Wetland Waters of the US 14

3.4 Delineation of Non-Wetland Waters of the US 15

3.5 Delineation of Wetland and Non-Wetland Waters of the State under RWQCB 16

3.6 Delineation of CDFW Streambed & Riparian Habitat 16

3.7 Delineation of MSHCP Riparian/Riverine and Vernal Pools 16 4 Environmental Setting 18

4.1 Topography 18

4.2 Soils 18

4.3 Precipitation 18

4.4 Hydrologic Unit 18

4.5 Hydrology 19

4.6 Vegetation Communities 19

4.7 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetland Inventory 20

4.8 Federal Emergency Management Agency 21
5 Jurisdictional Delineation Results and Discussion 22

5.1 Sample Point Summary 23

5.2 Waters of the US Under the USACE 25

5.3 Waters of the State Under the RWQCB 25

5.4 CDFW Jurisdictional Areas 25

5.5 MSHCP Riparian/Riverine Resources 26
6 Impacts to Jurisdictional Resources & Habitat Mitigation 27

6.1 Impacts to Jurisdictional Resources 27

6.2 Habitat Mitigation 27
7 Conclusions and Summary 28
F.1.f
Packet Pg. 1344 Attachment: Appendix B2-JD Report (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) Alessandro and Frederick Project
Jurisdictional Delineation Report
3 8 References 29
List of Figures
Figure 1. Vicinity Map 31
Figure 2. Project Site Map 32
Figure 3. USGS Topographic Map 33
Figure 4. NRCS Soils Map 34
Figure 5. Vegetation Communities Map 35
Figure 6. RWQCB Jurisdiction 36
Figure 7. CDFW Jurisdiction 37
Figure 8. MSHCP Riparian/Riverine Habitat Map 38
List of Tables
Table 1: Classification of Wetland-Associated Plant Species 14 Table 2: Vegetation Communities 20
Table 3: Summary of Jurisdictional Waters and Habitats within the Project 21 List of Appendices
Appendix A: Plants Observed Onsite 39
Appendix B: USACE Wetland Determination Forms 40
Appendix C: Photo Locations & Site Photographs 41
F.1.f
Packet Pg. 1345 Attachment: Appendix B2-JD Report (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) Alessandro and Frederick Project
Jurisdictional Delineation Report
4 List of Abbreviated Terms
APN Assessor’s Parcel Number
AWRS Arid West Regional Supplement
CCR California Code of Regulations
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CWA Clean Water Act
EPA Environmental Protection Agency
°F degrees Fahrenheit
FAC Facultative
FACU Facultative Upland
FACW Facultative Wetland
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
GPS Global Positioning System
HUC Hydrologic Unit Code
LSAA Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement
MSCHP Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan
NCDC National Climatic Data Center
NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NRCS Natural Resource Conservation Service
NTCHS National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils
NWI National Wetland Inventory
NWS National Weather Service
OBL Obligate
OHWM Ordinary High Water Mark
RPW Relatively Permanent Waters
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
SP Sample Point
TNW Traditional Navigable Water
TOB Top of Bank
UPL Upland
US United States
USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers
USDA United States Department of Agriculture
USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service
USGS United States Geological Survey
F.1.f
Packet Pg. 1346 Attachment: Appendix B2-JD Report (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) 5 1 Introduction
On April 21, 2020, MIG, Inc. (MIG) conducted a routine-level delineation of jurisdictional waters, wetlands, riparian/riverine and vernal pool resources on the Compass Danbe Real Estate Partners-owned Alessandro Project Site (Project) located in Moreno Valley, Riverside County, California. The Project is located in the Western Riverside Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) Plan Area.

The purpose of this jurisdictional delineation is to identify the extend of local, federal and state wetlands and waters within the Project boundaries to support necessary documentation and analysis under the California Environmental Quality Control Act (CEQA), as well as resource-agency permitting process under Sections 401 and 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), Section 13260 of the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Porter-Cologne Act), Section 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code and the MSHCP.

Details regarding each of these resource agencies as well as their regulatory authority, jurisdiction, permits, and regulatory processes are provided in Chapter 2, “Summary of Regulations.” The information and results presented herein document the investigation, best professional judgment and conclusions of MIG. It is correct and complete to the best of our knowledge. However, all jurisdictional determinations should be considered preliminary until reviewed and approved by the regulatory agencies.

1.1 Project Location
The 17.66-acre Project is located in the City of Moreno Valley, Riverside County, California and includes Assessor Parcel Numbers (APN): 297-170-002 and -003 (Figure 1 and Figure 2). The Project is south of Alessandro Boulevard, east of Frederick Street, and west of Graham Street. It is situated in the Riverside East U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute quadrangle, Riverside County, Section 13, Township 3 South, Range 4 West (Figure 3). NAD83 Long/Lat is: -117.25391, 33.9151.

1.2 Applicant Information
Compass Danbe Real Estate Partners, LLC
523 Main St
El Segundo, CA 90245
Attn: Mark Bachli

1.3 Directions to the Project
Regional access to the Project is provided by taking the Alessandro Boulevard exit (exit 27-c) from Interstate 215 (I-215). Head east on Alessandro Boulevard and travel for approximately 1.5 miles to Frederick Street.

The Project is located south of Alessandro Boulevard between Frederick and Graham Streets.

1.4 Project Description
The proposed Project includes the construction of two industrial warehouse buildings with a combined footprint of 372,309 square feet. Building 1 is 277,181 square feet and Building 2 is 95,128 square feet.

Landscaping will be installed around the perimeter of the parcels and the buildings; and interspersed in the parking areas. Both buildings provide parking spaces for automobiles, ADA, Clean Air recharging, and trailer parking spaces according to the City’s parking standards. The entire 17.66 acres will be developed.

F.1.f
Packet Pg. 1347 Attachment: Appendix B2-JD Report (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) 6 1.5 Adjacent Land Uses
The Project lies in a mostly developed landscape in Moreno Valley. To the north and south of the Project is residential and commercial development. Directly east and west of the Project are small parcels of annually disced land, but beyond those parcels the general landscape is developed.

1.6 Field Delineator Contact Information
Jonathan Campbell
MIG, Inc.
500 Iowa Avenue, Suite 110
Riverside, California 92507
Contact: (310) 903-7876
[email protected]
F.1.f
Packet Pg. 1348 Attachment: Appendix B2-JD Report (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) 7 2 Summary of Regulations
There are four primary agencies that regulate activities within creeks, wetlands and riparian areas in the City of Moreno Valley.
1) The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Regulatory Program regulates activities pursuant to Section 404 of the Federal Clean Water Act (CWA).
2) The State Water Resources Control Board (SWRCB), administered by the Regional Water Quality Control Board regulates activities pursuant to Section 401 of the Federal CWA and the California Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act of 1969 (California Water Code). 3) The California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) regulates activities within streambeds, lakes, and wetlands pursuant to Division 2, Chapter 6, Section 1600 of the Fish and Game Code. 4) Western Riverside Regional Conservation Authority (RCA) regulates activities within riparian areas, riverine areas, and vernal pools pursuant to the Western Riverside MSHCP, Section 6.1.2.

If a proposed project impacts waters, wetlands, riparian/riverine or vernal pool habitat, the project limits must be evaluated to determine the presence of jurisdictional waters and wetlands.

2.1 Waters of the U.S.

The Army Corps of Engineers and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) have issued a set of guidance documents detailing the process for determining Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction over waters of the U.S. (including wetlands) under the 2020 USACE Navigable Waters Protection Rule (2020 Rule). This supersedes all previous court decisions and rules. The EPA and USACE issued this Rule in January of 2020 and is in full effect at the time of this report preparation and is utilized for determining the jurisdiction over waters of the United States under the CWA. The complete set of guidance documents, summarized as key points below, were used to collect relevant data for evaluation to determine USACE jurisdiction over the project limits.

The 2020 Rule redefines “Waters of the United States” (WoUS) so that it includes only four simple categories of jurisdictional waters and provides clear exclusions for many water features that traditionally have not been regulated. The significant nexus test is no longer in effect.

These four categories protect the nation’s navigable waters and the core perennial and intermittent tributary systems that flow into those waters.
(1) Territorial seas and traditional navigable waters (TNWs) [Category (a)(1)] The 2020 Rule regulates territorial seas and traditional navigable waters include large rivers and lakes and tidally-influenced waterbodies used in interstate or foreign commerce. (2) Tributaries [Category (a)(2)]
The 2020 Rule regulates tributaries and includes perennial and intermittent rivers and streams that contribute surface flow to traditional navigable waters in a typical year. These tributaries must have perennial or intermittent flow. Ephemeral drainages are no longer regulated under the 2020 Rule.

F.1.f
Packet Pg. 1349 Attachment: Appendix B2-JD Report (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) 8 Tributaries can connect to a traditional navigable water or territorial sea in a typical year either directly or through other WoUS, through channelized non-jurisdictional surface waters, through artificial features (including culverts and spillways), or through natural features (including debris piles and boulder fields).

Ditches are to be considered tributaries only where they satisfy the flow conditions of the perennial and intermittent tributary definition and either were constructed in or relocate a tributary or were constructed in an adjacent wetland and contribute perennial or intermittent flow to a traditional navigable water in a typical year.
(3) Lakes, ponds, and impoundments of jurisdictional waters [Category (a)(3)] Lakes, ponds, and impoundments of jurisdictional waters are jurisdictional where they contribute surface water flow to a traditional navigable water or territorial sea in a typical year either directly or through other WoUS through channelized non-jurisdictional surface waters, through artificial features (including culverts and spillways) or through natural features (including debris piles and boulder fields).

Lakes, ponds, and impoundments of jurisdictional waters are also jurisdictional where they are flooded by a WoUS in a typical year.
(4) Adjacent wetlands [Category (a)(4)]
Wetlands that physically touch other jurisdictional waters are “adjacent wetlands”. This includes marshland habitats in tidal estuaries.

Wetlands separated from a WoUS by only a natural berm, bank or dune are also “adjacent.” Wetlands inundated by flooding from a WoUS in a typical year are “adjacent.” Wetlands that are physically separated from a jurisdictional water by an artificial dike, barrier, or similar artificial structure are “adjacent” so long as that structure allows for a direct hydrologic surface connection between the wetlands and the jurisdictional water in a typical year, such as through a culvert, flood or tide gate, pump, or similar artificial feature.

An adjacent wetland is jurisdictional in its entirety when a road or similar artificial structure divides the wetland, as long as the structure allows for a direct hydrologic surface connection through or over that structure in a typical year.

The USACE generally takes jurisdiction within rivers and streams to the "ordinary high water mark (OHWM)," determined by erosion, the deposition of vegetation or debris, and changes in vegetation or soil characteristics.

The 2020 also outlines what are not WoUS. The following waters/features are not jurisdictional under the 2020 Rule:
• Waterbodies that are not included in the four categories of WoUS listed above.

F.1.f
Packet Pg. 1350 Attachment: Appendix B2-JD Report (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) 9 • Groundwater, including groundwater drained through subsurface drainage systems, such as drains in agricultural lands.
• Ephemeral features, including ephemeral streams, swales, gullies, rills, and pools. • Diffuse stormwater run-off and directional sheet flow over upland. • Many farm and roadside ditches.
• Prior converted cropland retains its longstanding exclusion, but is defined for the first time in the 2020 Rule. The agencies are clarifying that this exclusion will cease to apply when cropland is abandoned (i.e., not used for, or in support of, agricultural purposes in the immediately preceding five years) and has reverted to wetlands.
• Artificially irrigated areas, including fields flooded for agricultural production, that would revert to upland should application of irrigation water to that area cease. • Artificial lakes and ponds, including water storage reservoirs and farm, irrigation, stock watering, and log cleaning ponds, constructed or excavated in upland or in non-jurisdictional waters. • Water-filled depressions constructed or excavated in upland or in non-jurisdictional waters incidental to mining or construction activity, and pits excavated in upland or in non-jurisdictional waters for the purpose of obtaining fill, sand, or gravel.
• Stormwater control features excavated or constructed in upland or in non-jurisdictional waters to convey, treat, infiltrate, or store stormwater run-off.
• Groundwater recharge, water reuse, and wastewater recycling structures, including detention, retention and infiltration basins and ponds, that are constructed in upland or in non-jurisdictional waters • Waste treatment systems have been excluded from the definition of WoUS since 1979 and will continue to be excluded under the 2020 Rule.

2.2 California Department of Fish and Wildlife Jurisdiction Pursuant to Division 2, Chapter 6, Section 1602 of the Fish and Game Code, CDFW regulates all diversions, obstructions, or changes to the natural flow or bed, channel or bank of any river, stream, or lake which supports fish or wildlife. A notification of a Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement must be submitted to CDFW for “any activity” that may substantially change the bed, channel, or bank of any river, stream, or lake.” In addition, CDFW has jurisdiction over riparian habitats associated with watercourses. Jurisdictional waters are delineated by the outer edge of riparian vegetation or at the top of the bank of a stream or lake, whichever is wider. CDFW jurisdiction does not include tidal areas or isolated resources. The CDFW reviews proposed actions, and if necessary, submits to the applicant a proposal that includes measures to protect affected fish and wildlife resources. The final proposal that is mutually agreed upon by CDFW and the applicant is the Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreement (LSAA).

2.3 Regional and State Water Quality Control Board Jurisdiction The SWRCB together with the local RWQCB are the principal state agency with primary responsibility for the coordination and control of water quality. In Riverside County, the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board regulates water quality activities, pursuant to Section 401(a)(1) of the federal CWA as well as the Porter Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Porter-Cologne) (Water Code Section 13260). Section 401 of the CWA specifies that certification from the State is required for any applicant requesting a federal license or permit to conduct any activity including but not limited to the construction or operation of facilities that may result in any discharge into navigable waters. The certification shall originate from the State in which the discharge originates or will originate, or, if appropriate, from the interstate water pollution control agency having jurisdiction over the navigable water at the point where the discharge originates or will originate. Any F.1.f
Packet Pg. 1351 Attachment: Appendix B2-JD Report (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) 10 such discharge will comply with the applicable provisions of Sections 301, 302, 303, 306, and 307 of the CWA.

In April 2019, the SWRCB adopted a “State Wetland Definition and Procedures for Discharges of Dredged or Fill Material to Waters of the State” (Procedures). The Procedures consist of four major elements for Stateregulated wetlands: 1) a wetland definition; 2) wetland delineation procedures; 3) a framework for determining if a feature that meets the wetland definition is a Water of the State; and 4) procedures for the submittal, review and approval of applications for Water Quality Certifications and Waste Discharge Requirements for dredge or fill activities. In adopting the Procedures, the State Water Board directed staff to develop implementation guidance for potential applicants.

In April 21, 2020 the SWRCB issued the “Implementation Guidance for the State Wetland Definition and Procedures for Discharges of Dredged or Fill Material to Waters of the State” , providing guidance for implementing the 2019 Procedures. The wetland definition and delineation methods set forth in the Procedures apply to wetlands only, and not to non-wetland Waters of the State.

Wetland Waters of the State
The Procedures define an area as wetland if, under normal circumstances:
1) The area has continuous or recurrent saturation of the upper substrate caused by groundwater, or shallow surface water, or both;
2) The duration of such saturation is sufficient to cause anaerobic conditions in the upper substrate; and
3) The area’s vegetation is dominated by hydrophytes or the area lacks vegetation.

This modified three-parameter definition is similar to the federal definition in that it identifies three wetland characteristics that determine the presence of a wetland: wetland hydrology, hydric soils and hydrophytic vegetation. Unlike the federal definition however, the Procedures’ wetland definition allows for the presence of hydric substrates as a criteria for wetland identification (not just wetland soils) and wetland hydrology for an area devoid of vegetation (less than 5% cover) to be considered a wetland. However, if any vegetation is present then the USACE delineation procedures would apply to the vegetated component (i.e., hydrophytes must dominate). When determining the boundary of wetlands (vegetated or not) applicants can rely on Part II of the 1987 USACE Manual that provides information that is sufficient to determine wetland boundaries for compliance with the Procedures.

The USACE definition refers to “saturated soil conditions,” whereas the Procedures’ definition refers to saturated substrate leading to “anaerobic conditions in the upper substrate” which is a more inclusive term.

Both of these descriptions define conditions that would lead to dominance of hydrophytes, if the site is vegetated. The Procedures definition refers to “continuous or recurrent saturation of the upper substrate.” Continuous saturation describes hydrological conditions that are perennial or tend to persist for at least twelve months. Recurrent saturation describes hydrological conditions that persist for less than twelve months.

Hydrological conditions may be periodic and sustained regularly (i.e., tidewater) or episodic and intermittent, (i.e., vernal pools). In order for the recurrent saturation to support the development of anaerobic conditions, the substrate must become, and remain, saturated for a duration of 14 days during an annual cycle.

F.1.f
Packet Pg. 1352 Attachment: Appendix B2-JD Report (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) 11 Waters of the State
California Code of Regulations, title 23, section 3831(w) states that” “[a]ll Waters of the United States (WoUS) are also ‘Waters of the State.’” The regulation reflects the SWRCB intent to include a broad interpretation of Waters of the US into the definition of Waters of the State. Waters of the State includes features that have been determined by the U.S. EPA or the USACE to be WoUS in an approved jurisdictional determination; WoUS identified in an aquatic resource report certified by the USACE upon which a permitting decision was based; and features that are consistent with any current or historic final judicial interpretation of WoUS or any current or historic federal regulation defining WoUS. Because the interpretation of waters of the U.S. in place at the time section 3831(w) was adopted was broader than any post-Rapanos or post-SWANCC regulatory definitions that incorporated more limitations into the scope of federal jurisdiction, it is consistent with the SWRCB’s intent to include both historic and current definitions of Waters of the US into the SWRCB’s wetland jurisdictional framework.

A wetland will continue to be protected when it has been regulated in the past as a WoUS regardless of any subsequent changes in federal regulations. The inclusion of both current and historic definitions of WoUS ensures regulatory stability in an area that has otherwise been in flux. Like the other categories of the SWRCB’s wetland jurisdictional framework, the status as a WoUS may only be used to establish that a wetland qualifies as a Water of the State. It cannot be used to exclude a wetland from qualifying as a Water of the State. Thus, wetlands that are categorically excluded from qualifying as a WoUS may nevertheless qualify as Waters of the State under another jurisdictional category.

Jurisdictional Framework
The jurisdictional framework is intended to exclude small (less than an acre) artificially-created, temporary features, such as tire ruts or other transient depressions caused by human activity from regulation, while still capturing smaller, naturally-occurring features, such as seasonal wetlands and small vernal pools that may be outside of federal jurisdiction. All artificial wetlands that are less than an acre in size and do not satisfy the criteria listed in section II.2, II.3.a, II.3.b, or II.3.c are not Waters of the State. Note that this jurisdictional framework applies only to features meeting the technical definition of a wetland.

If an aquatic feature does not meet the definition of a wetland, it may nonetheless be a different type of aquatic feature that may still be regulated as a non-wetland Water of the State (e.g., lakes, streams, and ocean waters). The Procedures do not include guidance for jurisdictional determinations for other Waters of the State. Non-wetland Waters of the State typically follow USACE regulations, however under the 2020 Rule, ephemeral drainages are excluded. No regulatory guidance has been issued by the SWRCB regarding the delineation of ephemeral drainages. However, until further notice the use of the OHWM will be used to delineate such resources.

Porter-Cologne Act
In the Porter-Cologne, the Legislature declared that the “State must be prepared to exercise its full power and jurisdiction to protect the quality of the waters in the State from degradation...” (California Water Code Section 13000). Porter-Cologne grants the Boards the authority to implement and enforce the water quality laws, regulations, policies and plans to protect the groundwater and surface waters of the State. It is important to note that enforcement of the State's water quality requirements is not solely the purview of the Boards and their staff. Other agencies [e.g., CDFW] have the ability to enforce certain water quality provisions in state law.

F.1.f
Packet Pg. 1353 Attachment: Appendix B2-JD Report (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) 12 The Porter Cologne Act requires "any person discharging waste, or proposing to discharge waste, within any region that could affect the Waters of the State to file a report of discharge (an application for waste discharge requirements (WDRs))" (Water Code § 13260(a)(1)). Discharge of fill material into Waters of the State which does not fall under the jurisdiction of the USACE pursuant to Section 404 of the CWA may require authorization through application for WDRs or through waiver of WDRs.

2.4 MSHCP Riparian/Riverine and Vernal Pool Habitat
The MSHCP serves as an HCP pursuant to Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the FESA, as well as a NCCP under the NCCP Act of 2001. The MSHCP is being used to allow the participating jurisdictions to authorize "Take" of covered plant and wildlife species identified within the Plan Area. As projects are proposed within a Western Riverside MSHCP Plan Area, an assessment of the potentially significant effects of those projects on riparian/riverine areas, and vernal pools are required, as currently mandated by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), using available information augmented by project-specific mapping provided to and reviewed by the Permittee’s biologist(s).

Riparian/riverine areas and vernal pools are defined for this section as follows in accordance with Section

6.1.2, Vol I, of the Final MSHCP Plan:
“Riparian/Riverine Areas are lands which contain habitat dominated by trees, shrubs, persistent emergents, or emergent mosses and lichens, which occur close to or which depend upon soil moisture from a nearby fresh water source; or areas with fresh water flow during all or a portion of the year.”
Vernal pools are defined as:
“…seasonal wetlands that occur in depression areas that have wetlands indicators of all three parameters (soils, vegetation and hydrology) during the wetter portion of the growing season but normally lack wetlands indicators of hydrology and/or vegetation during the drier portion of the growing season. Obligate hydrophytes and facultative wetlands plant species are normally dominant during the wetter portion of the growing season, while upland species (annuals) may be dominant during the drier portion of the growing season”.

Although not expressly defined, it is assumed that the Army Corps of Engineer’s 1987 Manual for delineating wetlands should be used in determining the presence of wetland indicators in vernal pools. With the exception of wetlands created for the purpose of providing wetlands habitat or resulting from human actions to create open waters or from the alteration of natural stream courses, areas demonstrating characteristics as described above which are artificially created are not included in these definitions.

F.1.f
Packet Pg. 1354 Attachment: Appendix B2-JD Report (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) 13 3 Jurisdictional Delineation Methodology

3.1 Database and Literature Review
Prior to conducting the field survey, MIG reviewed available background information pertaining to wetlands and streams on and in the vicinity of the study area. Available literature and resources reviewed included:
• Regional Climate Data (PRISM Climate Group 2020),
• NOAA Palmer Drought Indices. https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-and-precip/drought/historicalpalmers/ (NOAA 2020), • United States Department of Agricultural (USDA) Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) web soil survey (NRCS 2020b),
• Aerial photographs (Google Earth Pro 2020),
• UC Santa Barbara Library's collection of aerial photography (UCSB 2019), • NWI map data for the Riverside East 7.5-minute USGS quadrangle that characterize wetland and waters of the United States according to the Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States developed by the Unites States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) (Cowardin et al. 1979; NWI 2020), and
• Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Map Service Center (FEMA 2020).

3.2 Field Surveys
MIG’s senior biologist Jonathan Campbell, PhD performed the field investigation on April 21, 2020 to evaluate the extent of jurisdictional features subject to the USACE, the RWQCB and the CDFW, as well as riparian, riverine and vernal pool habitat subject to the MSHCP. The limits of WoUS and Waters of the State, as well as riparian/riverine features were recorded in the field within accessible areas using aerial maps and Google earth
The jurisdictional delineation was conducted in accordance with the Corps of Engineers 1987 Wetlands Delineation Manual (Corps Manual; Environmental Laboratory 1987) and the SWQCB 2019 Procedures.

Additionally, the Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West (Version 2.0) (Regional Supplement) (USACE 2008a) the Arid West Supplement wetland delineation methodology for wetlands (USACE 2008a) and A Field Guide to the Identification of the Ordinary High-Water Mark (OHWM) in the Arid West Region of the Western United States (USACE 2008b) were followed to document site conditions relative to hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland hydrology.

During the survey, the Project was examined for topographic features, drainages, alterations to hydrology or vegetation, and recent significant disturbance. A determination was then made as to whether normal environmental conditions were present at the time of the field survey. In the field, the techniques used to identify jurisdictional wetland waters of the US/State included observing the vegetation growing near the soil sample points and characterizing the current surface and subsurface hydrologic features present near the sample points through both wetland indicators and direct observation of hydrology. Features meeting wetland vegetation, soil, and hydrology criteria were then mapped in the field. A Trimble GeoXT geographic positioning system (GPS) unit with sub meter accuracy was used to collect geospatial data in the field. These GPS data, aerial photographic interpretation, and notes were then used in the office to identify jurisdictional boundaries on high resolution, geo-rectified aerial photography.

F.1.f
Packet Pg. 1355 Attachment: Appendix B2-JD Report (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) 14 This report was prepared in accordance with guidance provided in Updated Map and Drawing Standards for the South Pacific Division Regulatory Program (USACE 2016a) and Information Requested for Verification of USACE Jurisdiction (USACE 2016b).

3.3 Delineation of Wetland Waters of the US
Where wetland field characteristics were present, Dr. Campbell examined vegetation, soils, and hydrology using the Routine Determination Method outlined in the Corps Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987), using the Arid West data forms, vegetation sampling methods, and hydric soil and hydrology indicators developed for the Regional Supplement (USACE 2008a).

Hydrophytic Vegetation. Plant species identified on the Project were assigned a wetland status according to the USFWS list of plant species that occur in wetlands (Lichvar et al. 2016) and the USACE California Wetland Plant list (USACE, 2018). This wetland classification system is based on the expected frequency of occurrence in wetlands as shown in Table 1.

Table 1. Classification of Wetland-Associated Plant Species (Lichvar et al. 2016) Indicator Category Symbol Frequency (Percent) of Occurrence in Wetlands1 Obligate OBL >99 (Almost always is a hydrophyte, rarely in uplands) Facultative wetland FACW 67 – 99 (Usually a hydrophyte but occasionally found in uplands) Facultative FAC 34 – 66 (Commonly occurs as either a hydrophyte or non-hydrophyte) Facultative upland FACU 1 – 33 (Occasionally is a hydrophyte, but usually occurs in uplands) Upland2 UPL <1% (Rarely is a hydrophyte, almost always in uplands) Not listed2 NI Considered to be an upland species
The USACE Arid West Supplement requires that a three-step process be conducted to determine if hydrophytic vegetation is present. The procedure first requires the delineator to apply the “50/20 rule” (Indicator 1) described in the manual. To apply the “50/20 rule,” dominant species are evaluated within each herb, shrub, and tree stratum of the community. In general, dominants are the most abundant species that individually or collectively account for more than 50 percent of the total coverage of vegetation in the stratum, plus any other species that, by itself, accounts for at least 20 percent of the total. If greater than 50 percent of the dominant species can be classified by an OBL, FACW, or FAC wetland indicator status, ignoring + and - qualifiers, hydrophytic vegetation is present.

If the community passes Indicator 1 then the community is hydrophytic. If the community fails Indicator 1 and neither hydric soils nor wetland hydrology is present, then the hydrophytic vegetation criterion is not met, unless the site is a problematic wetland situation due to natural processes or recent disturbances. However, if the plant community fails Indicator 1 but hydric soils and wetland hydrology are both present, the delineator must apply Indicator 2.
1 Based on information contained in the Corps Manual.
2 Plant species that are not listed in the Arid West 2016 Regional Wetland Plant List (Lichvar et al. 2016) are considered UPL species F.1.f
Packet Pg. 1356 Attachment: Appendix B2-JD Report (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) 15 Indicator 2 is known as the Prevalence Index. The prevalence index is a weighted average of the wetland indicator status for all plant species within the sampling plot. Each indicator status is given a numeric code (OBL = 1, FACW = 2, FAC = 3, FACU = 4, and UPL = 5). Indicator 2 requires the delineator to estimate the percent cover of each species in every stratum of the community and sum the cover estimates for any species that is present in more than one stratum. All species are then organized into groups according to their wetland indicator status and the Prevalence Index is calculated using the following formula:

AOBL + 2AFACW + 3AFAC + 4AFACU + 5AUPL
PI = ________________________________
AOBL + AFACW + AFAC + AFACU + AUPL
The Prevalence Index will yield a number between 1 and 5. If the Prevalence Index is equal to or less than 3, hydrophytic vegetation is present. However, if the community fails Indicator 2, the delineator must proceed to Indicator 3.

Indicator 3 is known as Morphological Adaptations. Some hydrophytes in the Western Mountain Region develop easily recognized physical characteristics (or morphological adaptations) when they occur in wetland areas. Some of these adaptations may include, but are not necessarily limited to, adventitious roots and shallow root systems developed on or near the soil surface. If more than 50 percent of the individuals of a FACU species exhibit morphological adaptations for life in wetlands, that species is considered to be a hydrophyte and its wetland indicator status should be reassigned to FAC. If such observations are made, the delineator must recalculate Indicator 1 and 2 using a FAC indicator status for this species. The vegetation is hydrophytic if either test is satisfied.

Hydric Soils. The National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils (NTCHS) defines a hydric soil as a soil that formed under conditions of saturation, flooding, or ponding long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the in the upper part [top 12 inches of soil] (NRCS 2010). Hydric soils are listed by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) on the National Hydric Soils List (NRCS 2020a). Nearly all hydric soils exhibit characteristic morphologies that result from repeated periods of saturation or inundation for more than a few days, including redoximorphic features such as orange oxidized mottles or light-colored (high value, low chroma) reduced matrix or mottle colors.

The Arid West Supplement (USACE 2008b) contains a list of 23 hydric soil indicators that are known to occur in the Arid West region. Soils samples were collected and described according to the methodology provided in the NRCS. Soil chroma and values were determined by utilizing a standard Munsell soil color chart (Kollmorgen Instruments Corporation 2009). Hydric soils were determined to be present if any of the soil samples met the criteria defining wetland soils, as described in the Arid West Supplement (USACE 2008b).

Wetland Hydrology. Wetland hydrology exists in areas that are periodically inundated or have saturated soils at some time during the growing season, and for a sufficient duration to support hydrophytic vegetation (Environmental Laboratory 1987). This condition can either be observed through direct observation of primary indicators (such as ponding, saturation, sediment deposits, algal matting), or through indirect or “secondary” indicators (such as drainage pattern, saturation visible on an aerial photograph, raised ant mounds).

3.4 Delineation of Non-Wetland Waters of the US
Non-wetland waters (“Other waters”) were also identified in the field and mapped. This could include lakes, slough channels, seasonal ponds, tributary waters, non-wetland linear drainages, and salt ponds. Nonwetland waters meet the one or more of the wetland criteria, but not all three. In non-tidal or muted tidal F.1.f
Packet Pg. 1357 Attachment: Appendix B2-JD Report (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) 16 waters USACE jurisdiction extends to the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) which is defined in 33 CFR Part 328.3 as “the line on the shore established by the fluctuations of water and indicated by physical characteristics, such as a clear, natural line impressed on the bank, shelving, changes in the character of the soil, destruction of terrestrial vegetation or the presence of litter and debris.” In tidal waters, USACE jurisdiction extends to the landward extent of vegetation associated with salt or brackish water or the high tide line (HTL) (see 33 CFR, Part 328.4). The HTL is defined in 33 CFR, Part 328.3 as “the line of intersection of the land with the water’s surface at the maximum height reached by a rising tide. The HTL may be determined, in the absence of actual data, by a line of oil or scum along shore objects, a more or less continuous deposit of fine shell or debris on the foreshore or berm, other physical markings or characteristics, vegetation lines, tidal gauges, or other suitable means that delineate the general height reached by a rising tide. The line encompasses spring high tides and other tides that occur with periodic frequency, but does not include storm surges in which there is a departure from the normal or predicted reach of the tide due to the piling up of water against a coast by strong winds such as those accompanying a hurricane or other intense storm.”

3.5 Delineation of Wetland and Non-Wetland Waters of the State under RWQCB Evaluation of jurisdiction under the RWQCB was completed, and traditionally follows guidance from Section 401 of the CWA. It generally has the same jurisdictional areas as the USACE. In addition, the wetland delineation procedures were followed per the “State Wetland Definition and Procedures for Discharges of Dredged or Fill Material to Waters of the State” (April 2019).

3.6 Delineation of CDFW Streambed & Riparian Habitat
CDFW jurisdiction was identified, including any unvegetated streambed, aquatic and riparian areas.

Evaluation of potentially jurisdictional areas followed the guidance of relevant CDFW materials and standard practices by CDFW personnel. CDFW jurisdiction was delineated by measuring the outer width and length boundaries of potentially jurisdictional areas, consisting of the greater of either the top of bank measurement or the extent of associated riparian or wetland vegetation.

Ephemeral and intermittent streams, rivers, creeks, dry washes, sloughs, blue line streams on USGS maps, and watercourses with subsurface flows fall under CDFW jurisdiction. Canals, aqueducts, irrigation ditches, and other means of water conveyance may also be considered streams if they support aquatic life, riparian vegetation, or stream-dependent terrestrial wildlife. Jurisdiction does not include tidal areas such as tidal sloughs unless there is freshwater input. This includes watercourses having surface or subsurface flow that supports or has supported riparian vegetation.

3.7 Delineation of MSHCP Riparian/Riverine and Vernal Pools Habitats were assessed to determine if MSHCP riparian/riverine resources and vernal pools, pursuant to section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP are present onsite. MSHCP riparian/riverine resources are defined as, “those lands that contain habitat dominated by trees, shrubs, persistent emergents, or emergent mosses and lichens, which occur close to or which depend upon soil moisture from a nearby fresh water source; or areas with fresh water flow during all or a portion of the year. Vernal pools are seasonal wetlands that occur in depression areas that have wetlands indicators of all three parameters (soils, vegetation, and hydrology) during the wetter portion of the growing season but normally lack wetlands indicators of hydrology and/or vegetation during the drier portion of the growing season” (MSHCP 2004).

F.1.f
Packet Pg. 1358 Attachment: Appendix B2-JD Report (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) 17 In addition, stock ponds, ephemeral pools, and other areas of potential fairy shrimp habitat are identified and mapped, where present.

F.1.f
Packet Pg. 1359 Attachment: Appendix B2-JD Report (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) 18 4 Environmental Setting
This chapter describes the topography, land use, hydrology, vegetation characteristics, and soils associated with the Project.

4.1 Topography
Elevation within the Project ranges from 1,562 to 1,574 feet NAVD88, and gently slopes from the north to the south (Google Earth 2020). The site is mostly flat.

4.2 Soils
The NRCS has identified one soil series within the Project (Figure 4), and is described below (NRCS 2020b).

The National List and California List of Hydric Soils was reviewed to determine if the soil type within the Project is hydric. The mapped soil series is not classified as a hydric soil on the National List or California List of Hydric soils (NRCS 2020a).

Monserate sandy loam, 0 to 5 percent slopes. The Monserate series is a member of the fine-loamy, mixed, thermic family of Typic Durixeralfs. This soil type has an impermeable layer (duripan) approximately 28 inches below the surface, which can form a perched water table when water is present, since infiltration through this soil layer is very slow. This may be a strong influence on the emergent cattail ponds that are present onsite, and allow for willow and other hydrophytic vegetation to persist in the swales.

The soils formed in alluvium derived principally from granitic rocks. Monserate soils have brown and yellowish red, slightly acid, sandy loam A horizons, reddish brown, neutral, sandy clay loam B2t horizons underlain by a silica-cemented duripan. Monserate soils are found in the interior valleys in the western part of southern California. Monserate soils are moderately well to well drained with slow to rapid runoff. Permeability is moderately slow below 10 to 20 inches and very slow in the duripan.

4.3 Precipitation
In Moreno Valley, the climate is hot-summer Mediterranean, with most rain falling in the winter and spring.

Mild cool temperatures are common in the winter and hot to very hot temperatures are common in the summer. Climate conditions include a 30-year average (1986-2015) of approximately 8.7 inches of annual precipitation with an average temperature range from 53ºF to 81ºF (PRISM Climate Group 2020).

The jurisdictional delineation was conducted during normal conditions that were categorized as Mid-Range on the Palmer Drought Severity Index (NOAA 2020). The jurisdictional delineation field investigation took place during the wet season (April 2020). Relative to the 30-year climate normal, precipitation was normal for the 2019-20 wet season prior to the delineation. Total precipitation recorded in the area from October 2019 through February 2020 was 5.4 inches, which is approximately 87% of the 30-year average (PRISM Climate Group 2020). These normal conditions were taken into account when assessing the jurisdictional features present.

4.4 Hydrologic Unit
The Project is located in the San Jacinto sub-watershed (USGS Hydrologic Unit 18070202), which is part of the larger Santa Ana Watershed (USGS Hydrologic Unit 180702).

F.1.f
Packet Pg. 1360 Attachment: Appendix B2-JD Report (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) 19 4.5 Hydrology
There are two small emergent marshes that connect with, and flow into, two ephemeral drainage swales within the Project limits (Figure 2). The primary sources of hydrology that support these features are runoff from storm flows, as well as nuisance flows (irrigation overspray, etc) from surrounding residential and commercial areas. The underlying duripan found within Monserate soils keeps water present in the marsh, and retains moisture sufficient for willows to grow, since the duripan can create a perched water table.

The drainage features are the remnants of natural braided channels that were present prior to urbanization.

Evidence of these channels are visible in aerial photography in 1977 (UCSB 2020). The present day drainage swales convey runoff through overland flow into culverts that terminate at a detention basin, approximately

0.75 mile east of the Project, located at Brodiaea Avenue and Gilbert Street.

The drainage swales within the project are not confluent with the Sunnymead or Perris Valley Storm Drain Channels based on stormwater facility maps published by the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District.

The Sunnymead Storm Drain Channel is the nearest named hydrologic feature and is located offsite, and approximately 0.3 mile west of the Project. The Sunnymead Channel is confluent with the Perris Valley Storm Drain Channel which is located approximately 2.4 miles southeast of the Project. The Perris Valley Storm Drain Channel is confluent to the San Jacinto River, which flows into Lake Elsinore. Lake Elsinore generally acts as a sink, although high water flows are occasionally diverted through the Elsinore Spillway Channel to Temescal Creek. Temescal Creek flows to the Santa Ana River (nearest Traditional Navigable Water [TNW]) and finally to the Pacific Ocean.

4.6 Vegetation Communities
The Project supports four main vegetation communities, of which two are aquatic/riparian in nature (Figure 5). Vegetation communities were mapped using CDFW’s Vegetation Classification and Mapping Program’s (VegCAMP) currently accepted list of vegetation alliances and associations (CDFW 2020). Table 2 provides a summary of the main vegetation communities onsite. One mule fat and one palo verde individuals were separately mapped and constitute 0.011 acre, which is not included in the table or discussion below.

Appendix A list of plant species recorded onsite.

Riparian or Wetland Habitat
Black Willow Riparian Woodland (0.39 acre). This riparian community is dominated by black willow (Salix gooddingii) [FACW] and occurs primarily within the onsite western drainage swale (Drainage A). A small patch of black willow is also found on the eastern swale. One mule fat (Baccharis salicifolia) [FACW] individual was also mapped within this vegetation community. Understory plants include ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus) [UPL], wild raddish (Rhapanus sativus) [FAC], chickweed (Stellaria media) [FACU], bedstraw (Galium aparine) [FACU], small-flowered fiddleneck (Amsinckia menziesii) [UPL], and hairy vetch (Vicia villosa) [UPL].

Typha Alliance (Disturbed Wetland - Cattail Marsh) (0.02 acre). Cattail marsh occurs at the upstreammost end of both onsite drainages, and form as a result of urban runoff in combination with the hardpan layer below the surface. The dominant specie is southern cattail (Typha domingensis) [OBL].

Wet Meadow (0.81 acre). Wet meadow vegetation community includes the seasonally inundated drainage pattern which bisects the non-native grassland. Dominant plant species observed within this vegetation community include hairy vetch (Vicia villosa), black mustard (Brassica nigra), field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis), kochia (Bassia scoparia), prickly lettuce (Lactuca serriola), jointed charlock (Raphanus sativus), F.1.f
Packet Pg. 1361 Attachment: Appendix B2-JD Report (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) 20 Italian rye (Lolium multiflorum), horseweed (Erigeron canadensis), Bermuda grass (Cynodon dactylon), puncture vine (Tribulus terrestris), tumbling pigweed (Amaranthus albus), common wild oat (Avena fatua), prickly sow thistle (Sonchus asper), jimsonweed (Datura wrightii), telegraph weed (Heterotheca grandiflora), cheeseweed (Malva parviflora), ripgut grass (Bromus diandrus), foxtail chess (Bromus madritensis), mayweed (Anthemis cotula), prostrate knotweed (Polygonum aviculare), Spanish lotus (Acmispon americanus), and western witchgrass (Panicum capillare).

Upland Habitat
Non-native Grassland (16.39 acre). Non-native grassland is the dominant vegetation community throughout the property and is a result of annual discing operations. The dominant species is foxtail barley (Hordeum murinum) [FACU].

Developed Land (0.05 acre). Developed areas include buildings, impervious surfaces, and areas that are regularly disturbed, or are devoid of substantial vegetation cover. The concrete drainage at a culvert inlet at the terminus of Drainage A is considered developed land.

Table 2 - Vegetation Communities
Vegetation Community Within Project Limits (acres)
Riparian or Wetland
Black Willow Riparian Woodland 0.39
Typha Alliance (Disturbed wetland - cattail marsh) 0.02 Wet Meadow 0.81
Upland
Non-Native Grassland 16.39
Developed (onsite only) 0.05
TOTAL 17.66

4.7 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service National Wetland Inventory As part of the evaluation for the presence of jurisdictional resources, USFWS National Wetland Inventory (NWI) map data were reviewed. NWI maps are based on interpretation of aerial photography, limited verification of mapped units, and/or classification of wetland types using the classification system developed by Cowardin et al. (1979). These wetland data are available for general reference purposes and do not necessarily correspond to jurisdictional waters/wetlands as defined in the USACE Arid West Supplement.

According to the NWI map no wetlands are mapped within the Project, although the two onsite cattail marshes would be considered emergent wetland (PEM1C).

Nearby offsite wetland features include two intermittent riverine features (R4SBA): one approximately 0.5 mile east, and the other one approximately 0.3 mile west of the Project. The NWI also maps a freshwater emergent wetland (PEM1C) approximately 0.3 mile west of the Project Site.

F.1.f
Packet Pg. 1362 Attachment: Appendix B2-JD Report (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) 21 4.8 Federal Emergency Management Agency
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) produces maps depicting flood zones that are generally associated with rivers, oceans and other water bodies. Like the NWI maps, the FEMA flood zone maps are based predominantly on topography and regional modeling.

Based upon a review of the FEMA flood zone maps, no portion of the Project occurs within the 100-year flood zone. The area is mapped as Zone X – Area of Minimal Flood Hazard (FEMA 2020).

F.1.f
Packet Pg. 1363 Attachment: Appendix B2-JD Report (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) 22 5 Jurisdictional Delineation Results and Discussion
This chapter describes the delineated features, existing conditions and expected jurisdictional status within the Project limits. The information and results included herein document the investigation, best professional judgment, and conclusions of MIG. It is correct and complete to the best of our knowledge. However, all jurisdictional determinations should be considered preliminary until reviewed and approved by the regulatory agencies.

The Project contain two ephemeral drainages, willow woodland, and two emergent cattail marshes that are drainage subject to the jurisdiction of the RWQCB, the CDFW, and the MSHCP. A total of eight sample points (SP1 to SP8) were examined to identify jurisdictional features. See Figures 6 through 8 for a map of each jurisdiction. Table 3 provides a summary of acreage. The Arid Land JD Forms are found in Appendix B. Site photos locations and photographs are depicted are depicted in Appendix C.

A total of 1.22 acres of potentially jurisdictional waters & riparian/riverine habitat regulated by the RWQCB, the CDFW and the MSHCP were mapped onsite (see Table 3 below). The onsite aquatic and drainage swale features are not subject to the jurisdiction of the USACE under the 2020 Rule, since they do not meet any of the definitions of Category (a)(1-4) waters.

Table 3. Summary of Jurisdictional Waters and Habitats within the Project Jurisdictional Waters Acres1
RWQCB Jurisdiction Total 0.38 acre
Section 401 Waters of the State
Wetland Waters of the State
Cattail marshes 0.02 acre
Non-Wetland Waters of the State
Drainages A & B (1,149 linear feet) 0.35 acre
Developed land (concrete drainage inlet, impacted) 0.01 acre CDFW Jurisdiction Total 1.22 acre
Streambed 0.81 acre
Riparian/Aquatic 0.41 acre
MSHCP Riparian/Riverine Total 1.22 acre
Riverine 0.81 acre
Riparian/Aquatic 0.41 acre
1Note: Values are approximate due to rounding.

Cattail Marshes
Two cattail marshes, totaling 0.02 acre, each situated on the north end of the two drainage swales met the definition of a Wetland Waters of the State, under the SWQCB 2019 Procedures and are considered Special Aquatic Sites. These two marshes are regulated by the RWQCB, CDFW and MSHCP. They are not jurisdictional under the USACE.

F.1.f
Packet Pg. 1364 Attachment: Appendix B2-JD Report (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) 23 Black Willow Woodland
Black willow woodland is found just downstream of the cattail marsh along the western Drainage A and forms a broad woodland habitat. A small patch is also present on the upstream end of Drainage B. This area constitutes 0.39 acre of riparian habitat and is regulated by the CDFW and under the MSHCP to the outer dripline of the trees.

It did not meet the 3-parameter definition of a Wetland, and therefore it would be considered a non-wetland Water of the State subject to the RWQCB jurisdiction. Hydric soil characteristics were lacking. Examination of historic aerial photographs (Google Earth 1994-present) indicates an OHWM of approximately 20 feet wide in Drainage A and 7 feet wide in Drainage B under the canopy, which the RWQCB would take jurisdiction over. The acreage is included in Drainage A and B below.

Drainage A
Directly downstream of the Black Willow Woodland, woody vegetation disappears and is dominated by an array of grasses and forbs. The dominant plant species range from FAC to UPL and do not meet the criteria of hydrophytic vegetation and hydric soil characteristics are absent. These areas remain green for much longer duration than the surrounding area, indicating the presence of soil moisture, resulting from the urban hydrologic input. Examination of historic aerial photographs confirmed a defined bed and bank under nondisced conditions, indicating that wetland hydrology is present. This drainage would be considered ephemeral in nature and extends for 218 linear feet beyond the willow woodland until it terminates in a concrete drainage inlet (already impacted jurisdictional feature) and exits the site. The total drainage length is 546 feet. The width of jurisdiction was determined by the presence of hydrology which averages 20 feet wide, for a total of

0.25 acre of jurisdiction. This drainage is regulated by the RWQCB, CDFW and under the MSHCP as nonwetland Waters of the State and Riverine habitat (MSHCP).

Drainage B
Drainage B Is located directly downstream and adjacent to the eastern cattail marsh. Like Drainage A, woody vegetation as absent and grasses and forbs are dominant. The Project limits are regularly disced, so this occurs under a highly disturbed conditions. The dominant plant species are mostly FACU, but range from a few FACW to UPL species. This drainage does not meet the criteria of hydrophytic vegetation and hydric soil characteristics are absent. Like Drainage A, these areas remain green for much longer duration than the surrounding area, indicating the presence of soil moisture, resulting from the urban hydrologic input.

Examination of historic aerial photographs confirmed a defined bed and bank under non-disced conditions.

Wetland hydrology is present. This drainage would be considered ephemeral in nature and extends for 603 linear feet until it terminates off-site in a concrete inlet. The width of jurisdiction was determined by the presence of hydrology which averages 7 feet wide, for a total of 0.10 acre of jurisdiction. This drainage is regulated by the RWQCB, CDFW and under the MSHCP as non-wetland Waters of the State and Riverine habitat (MSHCP).

5.1 Sample Point Summary
A total of eight (8) Sample Points (SP) were collected during the jurisdictional delineation. Arid West Wetland Determination Data Forms and SP locations are found in Appendix B. • SP1 was located just outside the cattail marsh of Drainage A. Dominant species were a mix of grasses and forbs which were FACU to UPL. It did not meet the criteria for hydrophytic vegetation or soils. Soils are regularly disced. Based upon historic aerial photographs this location is outside the OHWM. This Sample Point is not subject to the jurisdiction to any of the authorities that F.1.f
Packet Pg. 1365 Attachment: Appendix B2-JD Report (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) 24 regulate wetlands and waters.
• SP2 is situated on the edge of the cattail marsh. Dominant species was southern cattail (Typha domingensis) [OBL]. The pond was inundated at the time of the survey. Due to the present of the OBL vegetation with the ponded water, hydric soils were assumed. This Sample Point meets the RWQCB definition of a wetland. It is an aquatic feature also regulated by the CDFW and MSHCP. • SP3 is located just downstream of the cattail pond of SP1 and SP2 on the western-most drainage (Drainage A). Overstory is black willow (FACW), with an understory of various invasive grasses and forbs (UPL and FACU plants). Soils did not exhibit hydric characteristic. Hydrology is from upstream sources with the duripan most likely acting as a perched water table. This SP does not meet the RWQCB definition of a wetland, but it would be considered a Waters of the State under the Porter Cologne Act, and Riparian Habitat regulated by the CDFW and the MSHCP. • SP4 is situated just outside the dripline of the Black Willow Woodland. It is dominated by forbs and grasses that occur in non-wetland areas, including annual fescue (Vulpia myuros) [FACU], wild radish [FAC], sweet clover (Melilotus officinalis) [FACU], chickweed [FACU], hairy vetch [UPL] and bobtail barley (Hordeum intercedens) [FAC]. No hydric soils were noted. Normal circumstances do not exist due to annual discing. Examination of historic aerial photographs indicate this sample point is outside any OHWM. This Sample Point is not subject to the jurisdiction to any of the authorities that regulate wetlands and waters.
• SP5 is downstream of SP1-4 in the same drainage, in the center of the swale where annual grasses and forbs dominate and willows are absent. Dominant plants include annual fescue [FACU], wild radish [FAC], sweet clover [FACU], chickweed [FACU], and Pacific popcorn flower (Plagiobothrys tenellus) [FACU]. There was no evidence of hydric soils. Normal circumstances do not exist due to annual discing. Examination of historic aerial photographs indicate a drainage with an OHWM of ~20 feet wide. This Sample Point meets the RWQCB definition of non-wetland waters of the State, is considered streambed by the CDFW and riverine habitat under the MSHCP. • SP6 lies at the edge of the eastern cattail marsh upstream of Drainage B. The dominant plant species was southern cattail [OBL], with curly dock (Rumex crispus) [FAC] and perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne) [FAC] also present, but comprise a minor component. The pond was inundated.

Due to the dominance of the OBL vegetation with the ponded water, hydric soils were assumed.

This Sample Point meets the RWQCB definition of a wetland, and would also be regulated by the CDFW and under the MSHCP.
• SP7 is along the eastern Drainage B with one mule fat [FACW] and black willow [FACW] present, along with a mix of FACW to FACU annual grasses and forbs. It met the Prevalence Index for hydrophytic vegetation, but did not meet the criteria for hydric soils. Examination of historic aerial photographs indicate a drainage with an OHWM of ~7 feet wide. This Sample Point meets the RWQCB definition of non-wetland waters of the State, is considered streambed by the CDFW and riverine habitat under the MSHCP.
• SP8 is further downstream of SP7 in Drainage B. Dominant plants that are common in upland habitats, and were dominated by FACU species such as annual fescue, sweet clover and storksbill (Erodium cicutarium) [FAC]. It did not meet the criteria for hydrophytic vegetation or soils.

Examination of historic aerial photographs indicate a drainage with an OHWM of ~7 feet wide. This F.1.f
Packet Pg. 1366 Attachment: Appendix B2-JD Report (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) 25 Sample Point meets the RWQCB definition of non-wetland waters of the State, is considered streambed by the CDFW and riverine habitat under the MSHCP.

5.2 Waters of the US Under the USACE
The two onsite cattail marshes, the willow woodland, and two drainages swales do not meet the definition of Waters of the US under the 2020 Rule, and thus the USACE will likely not exert jurisdiction, as of the date of this report. It should be noted however, that at least one state (Colorado) has an injunction, thus regulations in Colorado revert back to the pre-2020 Rule. Should a California injunction occur prior to permit application submittal, the USACE might exert jurisdiction over these features.

5.3 Waters of the State Under the RWQCB
Wetland Waters of the State
Both cattail marshes meet the definition of a Wetland under the SWQCB 2019 Procedures. All three wetland parameters are met, and thus these would be considered Wetland Waters of the State, and falls under the category of Special Aquatic Sites (§ 230.41 Wetlands in the 2019 Procedures). A total of 0.02 acre of RWQCB jurisdictional wetlands were identified onsite (Figure 6).

Non-Wetland Waters of the State
The OHWM under the black willow riparian woodland, Drainage A and B, and the already impacted concrete stormdrain inlet are considered non-wetland Waters of the State. Because they are not jurisdictional under the CWA, the RWQCB may exert jurisdiction under the California Porter Cologne Act and a Waste Discharge Requirement (WDR) or waiver of WDR would be required, should any waters of the State be impacted.

The RWQCB would take jurisdiction just the OHWM below the canopy in the black willow woodland. This acreage has been included as part of the overall acreage of the two drainage swales. Annual discing of the soil along Drainages A and B, has disturbed any OHWM features, thus historic aerial photographs were examined (Google Earth 1994-present). Evidence of an OHWM was observed and estimated widths extrapolated. Drainage A is estimated at 20 feet wide and is 546 feet long, for a total of 0.25 acre. Drainage B is estimated at 7 feet wide and extends for 603 linear feet, for a total of 0.10 acre. Total length of both drainages sums to 1,149 acres. Drainages A and B are non-wetland Waters of the US due to the presence of hydrology. They would take jurisdiction over 0.35 acre.

The concrete drainage inlet conveying water offsite is a non-wetland Water of the State. However, it is already considered “impacted” and therefore would not be subject to compensatory mitigation requirements over the

0.01 acre.

5.4 CDFW Jurisdictional Areas
All ecological systems associated with drainages (i.e., riparian vegetation) and drainage and pond features with bed and bank topography are regulated by the CDFW under Sections 1600-1616 of the California Fish and Game Code. This includes the 0.02 acre of cattail marshes, 0.39 acre of black willow woodland, and

0.81 acre of wetland meadow along Drainages A and B outside the black willow woodland, (Figure 7). A total of 1.22 acres of CDFW jurisdictional resources were identified onsite.

F.1.f
Packet Pg. 1367 Attachment: Appendix B2-JD Report (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) 26 The cattail marsh and black willow woodland would be considered riparian/aquatic and generally requires higher mitigation ratios (e.g., 2:1) if impacted than the non-native grassland dominated wet meadow (1:1 mitigation ratio).

The concrete drainage inlet where water is conveyed offsite is a unvegetated stream channel by the CDFW since it conveys water. However, it is already considered “impacted” and therefore would not be subject to compensatory mitigation requirements over the 0.01 acre.

5.5 MSHCP Riparian/Riverine Resources
The cattail marshes and black willow woodlands are consideredRiparian resources under the MSHCP. Drainages A and B are considered Riverine resources under the MSHCP. Thus, a total of 0.41 acre of riparian habitat and

0.81 acre of riverine habitat is present onsite for a total of 1.22 acres (Figure 8).

The concrete drainage inlet would not be regulated under the MSHCP. No vernal pool habitat occurs onsite.

F.1.f
Packet Pg. 1368 Attachment: Appendix B2-JD Report (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) 27 6 Impacts to Jurisdictional Resources & Habitat Mitigation

6.1 Impacts to Jurisdictional Resources
Impacts to jurisdictional resources listed in this report as a result of the proposed development would trigger the need for regulatory permits. The current design would impact all jurisdictional resources. Impacts to Wetlands under the 2019 Procedures triggers the requirement for an Alternatives Analysis by the RWQCB.

The 0.02 acre of cattail marsh would fall under this category.

6.2 Habitat Mitigation
Any permanent impacts to jurisdictional resources require that the resources be mitigated for (aka replaced or preserved). Impacts to 0.81 acre of wet meadow, which are ephemeral in nature and low quality, will be mitigated for by purchasing re-establishment credits at a1:1 ratio from the Riverpark Mitigation Bank. Impacts to 0.41 acre of cattail marsh and black willow woodland will be mitigated for by purchasing rehabilitation credits at a 2:1 ratio at the Riverpark Mitigation Bank.

Habitat mitigation credits can be purchased either at an approved Habitat Mitigation Bank (privately owned) or via an In-Lieu Fee Program (public agency). Approval to purchase the mitigation credits must be granted in advance by the resource agencies. The Riverpark Mitigation Bank may be the preferred bank for purchase by the resource agencies, due to the approved Service Area that includes Riverside County. .

F.1.f
Packet Pg. 1369 Attachment: Appendix B2-JD Report (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) 28 7 Conclusions and Summary
The Project limits support jurisdictional resources subject to the RWQCB, CDFW and under the MSHCP. • Wetland habitat (Wetland Waters of the State) includes 0.02 acre of cattail marshes. • Riparian habitat (non-Wetland Waters of the State & MSHCP habitat) includes 0.39 acre of black willow woodland.
• RWQCB streambed (Non-Wetland Waters of the State) includes Drainages A and B, which extend for 1,149 linear feet, totaling 0.35 acre.
• CDFW and MSHCP streambed totals 0.81 acre, includes Drainages A and B outside the willow woodland.

This acreage is included with the total RWQCB jurisdiction. • The onsite 0.01 acre concrete outlet is also considered jurisdictional by the RWQCB and CDFW but is already an impacted feature thus would not be subject to any mitigation requirement. It is not regulated under the MSHCP.

Under the USACE 2020 Rule, none of the features would be regulated under Section 404 of the CWA, since none meet the definition of Category (a)(1-4) regulated waters. Should there be a California injunction over the new rule, this may be subject to change. Obtaining a letter of non-jurisdiction by the USACE is recommended.

Impacts to 0.81 acre of CDFW and MSHCP streambed, which are ephemeral in nature and low quality, will be mitigated for by purchasing re-establishment credits at a 1:1 ratio from the Riverpark Mitigation Bank. Impacts to

0.41 acre of CDFW and MSHCP riparian areas will be mitigated for by purchasing rehabilitation credits at a 2:1 ratio at the Riverpark Mitigation Bank.

F.1.f
Packet Pg. 1370 Attachment: Appendix B2-JD Report (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) 29 References
Baldwin, Goldman, Keil, Patterson, Ronatti, and Wilkin (eds.) 2012. The Jepson Manual: Vascular Plants of California. 2nd Edition. University of California Press, Berkeley, California. [CDFW] California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2020. VegCAMP Natural Communities Lists. Accessed April 2020 from https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/data/vegcamp/natural-communities.

California State Water Resources Control Board. April 2019. State Wetland Definition for Discharges of Dredged or Fill Material to Waters of the State.

California State Water Resources Control Board. April 2020. State Wetland Definition and Procedures for the Discharges of Dredged or Fill Material to Waters of the State (Procedures).

Cowardin, L. M., V. Carter, F. C. Golet, E. T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U. S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C.

Jamestown, ND: Northern Prairie Wildlife Research Center Home Page. (Version 04DEC98).

Environmental Laboratory. 1987. U.S. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Department of the Army.
[FEMA] Federal Emergency Management Agency. 2020. Flood Zone Map Number 06065C0745G. Riverside County, California. Accessed April 2020 from https://msc.fema.gov/portal/search.

Google Inc. 2020. Google Earth Pro (Version 7.1.5.1557) [Software]. Available from earth.google.com.

Lichvar, R. W., D. L. Banks, W. N. Kirchner, and N. C. Melvin. 2016. Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast 2016 Regional Plant List. The National Wetland Plant List: 2016 wetland ratings. Phytoneuron 2016- 30: 1-17. Prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

Lichvar, RW and S.M. McColley. 2008. Field Guide to the Identification of the Ordinary High Water Mark. [MSHCP] Western Riverside Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan. 2004. Riverside County Integrated Project (RCIP). Accessed April 2020 from https://www.wrc-rca.org/Permit_Docs/MSHCP/MSHCPVolume%201.pdf Munsell Color. 2009. Munsell® Soil Color Charts. Macbeth Division of Kollmorgen Instruments Corporation.

Baltimore, Maryland.
[NOAA] National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. 2020. Drought Severity Index by Division – Weekly Value for Period Ending March 20, 2020 – Long Term Palmer. Accessed April 2020 from http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ regional monitoring/palmer.gif. [NRCS] Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2018. Field Indicators of Hydric Soils in the U.S.: A Guide for Identifying and Delineating Hydric Soils (Version 7.0). U.S. Department of Agriculture. Prepared with the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils.
[NRCS] National Resource Conservation Service. 2020a. National Hydric Soils List. Accessed April 2020 from http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/wps/portal/nrcs/main/soils/use/hydric/. [NRCS] Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2020b. Web Soil Survey. U.S. Department of Agriculture.

Accessed April 2020 from http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov. [NWI] National Wetlands Inventory. 2020. Wetlands Mapper. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Accessed April 2020 from http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Wetlands-Mapper.html.

PRISM Climate Group. 2020. Online PRISM Data Explorer. Oregon State University, Corvallis, Oregon.

Accessed April 2020 from http://www.prism.oregonstate.edu/. [UCSB] University of California Santa Barbara Library. 2020. Digital Aerial Photography Collections.

Accessed April 2020 from https://www.library.ucsb.edu/src/airphotos F.1.f
Packet Pg. 1371 Attachment: Appendix B2-JD Report (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) 30 [USACE] U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2008b. A Field Guide to the Identification of the Ordinary HighWater Mark (OHWM) in the Arid West Region of the Western United States. August 2008. U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center.
[USACE] U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2016a. Updated Map and Drawing Standards for the South Pacific Division Regulatory Program.
[USACE] U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2018. California Wetland Plant List.

United States Environmental Protection Agency. Navigable Waters Protection Rule. Published January 2020.

F.1.f
Packet Pg. 1372 Attachment: Appendix B2-JD Report (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) not to scale
·|þ}60
Project Site
§¨¦215
§¨¦10
·|þ}60
City of
Moreno Valley
§¨¦10
§¨¦215
Figure 1 Vicinity Map
Alessandro Project Site, City of Moreno Valley, CA
E
E Ales .. andro
S T
...
~ 5 th St
3rd SI (/) " a. ~ ~ Greenspot Rel
~ EAS T HI GHLA ND S
CJ
>
i ll St< Cl
> 0
< C
1:1 C 0 ,,; Cl
Q.

San Bem dino
Intl Airport (/) + "' e
1:1
.J:J
"'
(/)
II)
C)
C:
1:1
..
0 Redl d$
Munf
Airport
+ II)
:,.
<
4>
C: I'll''' er gonia Av e E Lu gonia Ave Mentone Blvd :; Moreno Valley ~
0 "' 0
0 u
1:1
C,

MARCH FIELD
0 Nu Vo Rd Nu evo Rd
MEN TONE t,
ve G1
>
<
NUEVO
0 0 CRAFTON
Yucaipa Bl
en DUNLAP ACRE S

EL CASCO
~ 0 -
Ramona Expy
Cl
>
<
C:

GI
(II
C:
1:1
Colrtour Av
F.1.f
Packet Pg. 1373 Attachment: Appendix B2-JD Report (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) Figure 2 Project Site Map
Alessandro Project Site, City of Moreno Valley, CA
Alessandro Boulevard
Chagall Court
Project Site Boundary (17.66 acres)
Offsite Assessment Area (2.65 acres)
297-170-003
279-170-002
297-170-088
279-170-089
ROW
ROW
297-170-003
279-170-002
297-170-088
279-170-089
ROW
ROW
1 inch = 180 feet
Project Site Boundary
D
D
r,
..,
I'/ ~I
.., ,·,
~n:- n n
l'I
"'
""' n I'
,., >I,
,, ""' ,,, n ~I
,f,
r· ~-
f l
I. .~ 1•1
r,
,1
"II "lfttrf
.EHi
F.1.f
Packet Pg. 1374 Attachment: Appendix B2-JD Report (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) Figure 3 USGS Map
Alessandro Project Site, City of Moreno Valley, CA
Project Site Boundary (17.66 acres)
Offsite Assessment Area (2.65 acres)
1 inch = 180 feet 1 inch = 1,800 feet
Source: USGS Riverside East 2018
Project Site
Alessandro Boulevard
§¨¦215
§¨¦215
·|þ}60
·|þ}60
4 SIERRA RIDGE DR
§ Cal
"'
~ °" EASTRIDGE AVE ~ 1-------.---~=======~==t'i
3:

C
"' ';"
r,
l>
:a:
,
~ to
~
TJS R4W
Edgemont
13 F.1.f
Packet Pg. 1375 Attachment: Appendix B2-JD Report (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) Figure 4 Soils Associations Map
Alessandro Project Site, City of Moreno Valley, CA
Alessandro Boulevard
Chagall Court
Project Site Boundary (17.66 acres)
Offsite Assessment Area (2.65 acres)
297-170-003
279-170-002
297-170-088
279-170-089
ROW
ROW
297-170-003
279-170-002
297-170-088
279-170-089
ROW
ROW
1 inch = 180 feet
Project Site Boundary
MmB - Monserate Sandy Loam
0 to 5 Percent Slopes
MmB - Monserate Sandy Loam (NRCS 2020)
D
D
-
F.1.f
Packet Pg. 1376 Attachment: Appendix B2-JD Report (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) Figure 5 Vegetation Communities Map
Alessandro Project Site, City of Moreno Valley, CA
Alessandro Boulevard
Chagall Court
297-170-003 297-170-088
279-170-089
ROW
ROW
279-170-002
297-170-088
279-170-089
ROW
ROW
1 inch = 180 feet
Project Site Boundary
Project Site Boundary (17.66 acres)
Offsite Assessment Area (2.65 acres)
Black Willow Woodland
Disturbed (Non-native Grassland)
Developed
Ornamental (Mexican palo verde)
Disturbed Wetland - Cattail
Mule Fat (individual shrub)
BW
DG
DV
OR
DW
MF
BW
DG
DG
DG
DG
DV
DV
DV
DV
DV
MF
DW
DW
OR
Drainage BDrainage B
Drainage ADrainage A
WM Wet Meadow
BW
WM
WM
WM
WM
WM
I .
... . ..
~
11 ' n
.
• ...
l'I ,·
... r• 1lj
271M7GMD111
r1 if
"i
t. 1',
1'1
ti ,,, 1·1
,.,
"II ~"it:DI'-
rn El D
15:;] D
E.:I 1511
CZ] '
F.1.f
Packet Pg. 1377 Attachment: Appendix B2-JD Report (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) Figure 6 RWQCB Jurisdiction
Alessandro Project Site, City of Moreno Valley, CA
Alessandro Boulevard
Chagall Court
Project Site Boundary (17.66 acres)
Offsite Assessment Area (2.65 acres)
1 inch = 180 feet
Project Site Boundary
Drainage BDrainage B
Drainage ADrainage A
Wetland Waters of the State (0.02 acre)
Non-Wetland Waters of the State (0.35 acre, 1,149 LF)
Concrete Stormdrain, already impacted (0.01 acre, 32 LF) •
•
D
D
r,
I ,
l'I
r:
,r,
._, I
...
...
..
..
..,
..,
.. r•
,.,
..
..,
,,, 1f
II
iii
n I'
,,,
I. ,,,
1'1
t" I
l'I I',
,·1
11 ~11~'\£\:a-,-
F.1.f
Packet Pg. 1378 Attachment: Appendix B2-JD Report (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) Figure 7 CDFW Jurisdiction
Alessandro Project Site, City of Moreno Valley, CA
Alessandro Boulevard
Chagall Court
Project Site Boundary (17.66 acres)
Offsite Assessment Area (2.65 acres)
1 inch = 180 feet
Project Site Boundary
Drainage BDrainage B
Drainage ADrainage A
CDFW Disturbed Wetland (0.02 acre)
CDFW Wet Meadow (0.81)
Concrete Stormdrain, already impacted (0.01 acre, 32 LF) CDFW Riparian (0.39 acre)
•
D
D
, .
,.,
n
,,;
~,
,,
...
... I
...
...
"'° I
...
..,
...
... ,.,
l'I
...
,.,
,., ....
'"ii
"
11\
l'I if
,· ,,,
,,,
1'1 ~. ,·1
'" r, ,·, l'I
"'ll ""tt:al'
F.1.f
Packet Pg. 1379 Attachment: Appendix B2-JD Report (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) Figure 8 MSHCP Section 6.1.2 Jurisdiction
Alessandro Project Site, City of Moreno Valley, CA
Alessandro Boulevard
Chagall Court
Project Site Boundary (17.66 acres)
Offsite Assessment Area (2.65 acres)
1 inch = 180 feet
Project Site Boundary
Drainage BDrainage B
Drainage ADrainage A
MSHCP Aquatic (0.02 acre)
MSHCP Riparian (0.39 acre)
MSHCP Riverine (0.81 acre)
D
D
, .
,.,
n
,,;
~,
,,
...
... I
...
...
"'° I
...
..,
...
... ,.,
l'I
...
,.,
,., ....
'"ii
"
11\
l'I if
,· ,,,
,,,
1'1 ~. ,·1
'" r, ,·, l'I
"'ll ""tt:al'
F.1.f
Packet Pg. 1380 Attachment: Appendix B2-JD Report (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) 39 Appendix A: Plants Observed Onsite
Disturbed/Non-Native Grassland
The majority of the Project Site is characterized as disturbed/non-native grassland and experiences annual dicking activities. Dominant plant species observed within this vegetation community include hairy vetch (Vicia villosa), black mustard (Brassica nigra), field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis), kochia (Bassia scoparia), prickly lettuce (Lactuca serriola), jointed charlock (Raphanus sativus), Italian rye (Lolium multiflorum), horseweed (Erigeron canadensis), Bermuda grass (Cynodon dactylon), puncture vine (Tribulus terrestris), tumbling pigweed (Amaranthus albus), common wild oat (Avena fatua), prickly sow thistle (Sonchus asper), jimsonweed (Datura wrightii), telegraph weed (Heterotheca grandiflora), cheeseweed (Malva parviflora), ripgut grass (Bromus diandrus), foxtail chess (Bromus madritensis), mayweed (Anthemis cotula), prostrate knotweed (Polygonum aviculare), Spanish lotus (Acmispon americanus), and western witchgrass (Panicum capillare).

Ornamental
A single ornamental tree, Mexican palo verde (Parkinsonia aculeata) is located adjacent to the black willow woodland.

Mule Fat
A single mule fat (Baccharis salicifolia) shrub is located near the northeast corner of the Project Site.

F.1.f
Packet Pg. 1381 Attachment: Appendix B2-JD Report (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) 40 Appendix B: USACE Wetland Determination Forms
Sample Point Locations
F.1.f
Packet Pg. 1382 Attachment: Appendix B2-JD Report (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) 41 Appendix C: Site Photographs
F.1.f
Packet Pg. 1383 Attachment: Appendix B2-JD Report (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) 42 Photo 1: View of Black Willow Woodland along Drainage A.

Photo 2: View of Concrete inlet at terminus of Drainage A.

F.1.f
Packet Pg. 1384 Attachment: Appendix B2-JD Report (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) 43 Photo 3: View of disced field where Drainage B is situated. Taken from SE corner.

Photo 4: View of Drainage B and cattail marsh near Alessandro Blvd.

F.1.f
Packet Pg. 1385 Attachment: Appendix B2-JD Report (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) MSHCP Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation Alessandro Project Site
City of Moreno Valley, Riverside County, California
Prepared for:

Compass Danbe Real Estate Partners
523 Main St
El Segundo, CA 90245
Attn: Mark Bachli
Prepared by:

MIG, Inc.
1500 Iowa Avenue, Suite 110
Riverside, California 92507
Contact: Jonathan Campbell (310) 903-7876
[email protected]

March 2021
F.1.g
Packet Pg. 1386 Attachment: Appendix B3-MSHCP DBESP (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) This document is formatted for double
-sided printing
F.1.g
Packet Pg. 1387 Attachment: Appendix B3-MSHCP DBESP (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) MSHCP Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation Table of Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................................................................ I

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .......................................................................................................................... 1

2.0 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................................... 1

2.1 Project Site .................................................................................................................................... 1

2.2 Project Description......................................................................................................................... 2

2.3 Existing Conditions ........................................................................................................................ 2

3.0 RIPARIAN, RIVERINE, VERNAL POOL MITIGATION (SECTION 6.1.2)........................................................... 5

3.1 Methods......................................................................................................................................... 5

3.2 Results/Impacts ............................................................................................................................. 8

3.3 Mitigation and Equivalency ............................................................................................................ 9

3.3.1 Direct Effects ......................................................................................................................... 9

3.2.2 Indirect Effects..................................................................................................................... 10

4.0 NARROW ENDEMIC PLANT SPECIES MITIGATION SECTION (6.1.3).......................................................... 10

4.1 Methods....................................................................................................................................... 11

4.2 Results/Impacts ........................................................................................................................... 11

4.3 Mitigation and Equivalency .......................................................................................................... 11

4.3.1 Direct Effects ....................................................................................................................... 11

4.3.2 Indirect Effects..................................................................................................................... 11

5.0 CRITERIA AREA SPECIES MITIGATION (SECTION 6.3.2)......................................................................... 11

5.1 Criteria Area Species Survey Area – Plants ................................................................................ 11

5.1.1 Methods............................................................................................................................... 11

5.1.2 Results/Impacts ................................................................................................................... 11

5.1.3 Mitigation and Equivalency .................................................................................................. 12

5.2 Criteria Area Species Survey Area – Burrowing Owl................................................................... 12

5.2.1 Methods............................................................................................................................... 12

5.2.2 Results/Impacts ................................................................................................................... 13

5.2.3 Mitigation and Equivalency .................................................................................................. 13

5.3 Criteria Area Species Survey Area – Mammals........................................................................... 14

5.3.1 Methods............................................................................................................................... 14

5.3.2 Results/Impacts ................................................................................................................... 14

5.3.3 Mitigation and Equivalency .................................................................................................. 14

5.4 Criteria Area Species Survey Area – Amphibians........................................................................ 14

5.4.1 Methods............................................................................................................................... 14

5.4.2 Results/Impacts ................................................................................................................... 14

5.4.3 Mitigation and Equivalency .................................................................................................. 15

6.0 REFERENCES..................................................................................................................................... 15 F.1.g
Packet Pg. 1388 Attachment: Appendix B3-MSHCP DBESP (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) MSHCP Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation List of Figures
Figure 1 Regional Location Map
Figure 2 Project Site Map
Figure 3 Vegetation Communities Map
Figure 4(a-b) Current Project Site Photographs
Figure 5 Soils Association Photographs
Figure 6 MSHCP Section 6.1.2 Jurisdictional Resources Impact Map List of Tables
Table 1 Project Site Plant Communities and Land Cover Types Table 2 MSHCP Section 6.1.2 Riparian and Riverine Impacts List of Appendices
Appendix A Burrowing Owl Focused Survey Report, Alessandro Project Site Appendix B Least Bell’s Vireo Focused Survey Report, Alessandro Project Site Appendix C Alessandro and Frederick Project Site Jurisdictional Delineation Report & Impact Analysis F.1.g
Packet Pg. 1389 Attachment: Appendix B3-MSHCP DBESP (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) MSHCP Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
This following document presents the results of a Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation (DBESP) analysis conducted by MIG, Inc. (MIG) for the Compass Danbe Real Estate Partners-owned Alessandro project. The DBESP analysis is based on existing conditions, MSHCP Section 6.1.2 assessments, focused surveys and MSHCP compliance determination outlined in the following documents prepared by MIG:
• Burrowing Owl Focused Survey Report, Alessandro Project Site (MIG, Inc. 2020a). • Least Bell’s Vireo Focused Survey Report, Alessandro Project Site (MIG, Inc. 2020b). • Alessandro Project Site Jurisdictional Delineation Report & Impact Analysis (MIG, Inc 2021). • MSHCP General Biological Resources Assessment & Compliance Analysis (MIG, Inc. 2020d) A total of 1.22-acre of permanent impacts will occur within the two drainages as a result of project initiation.

Of this area, 0.41 acre represents MSHCP riparian resources, and 0.81 acres represents MSHCP riverine resources To meet the criteria of a biologically equivalent or superior alternative, the applicant will offset permanent impacts to all 1.22-acre of MSHCP Section 6.1.2 riparian and riverine resources located within the two (2) unnamed drainages as described below.

To meet the criteria of a biologically equivalent or superior alternative, the applicant will offset permanent impacts to MSHCP Section 6.1.2 Riparian and Riverine resources by:

1. Permanent impacts to 0.41-acre of MSHCP Section 6.1.2 riparian resources would be mitigated at a ratio of 2:1 through purchase of 0.82 acre of rehabilitation credits from the Riverpark Mitigation Bank.

2. Permanent impacts to 0.81-acre of MSHCP Section 6.1.2 riverine resources would be mitigated at a ratio of 1:1 through purchase of 0.81 acre of re-establishment credits from the Riverpark Mitigation Bank.

2.0 INTRODUCTION
This document presents the results of a Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation analysis conducted by MIG, Inc. (MIG) for the Compass Danbe Real Estate Partners-owned Alessandro Project Site located in Moreno Valley, Riverside County, California, as required under Section 6.1.2, Protection of Species Associated with Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools, of the Western Riverside County MSHCP (MSHCP 2004).

2.1 Project Site
The 17.66-acre (2.65-acre offsite) Project Site is located immediately south of Alessandro Boulevard in the City of Moreno Valley, Riverside County, California, Assessor Parcel Numbers (APNs) 297-170-002 and 279- 170-003 (Figure 1 and Figure 2). Offsite impacts extend into the Alessandro right-of-way to the north and APNs 297-170-088 and 279-170-089 to the south (Figure 2). The Project Site occurs within the U.S.

F.1.g
Packet Pg. 1390 Attachment: Appendix B3-MSHCP DBESP (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) MSHCP Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5’ series Riverside East Quadrangle, Township 3 South, Range 4 West, Section

12. The Project Site lies in a mostly developed landscape in Moreno Valley. To the north and south of the Project Site is residential and commercial development. Directly east and west of the Project Site are small parcels of annually disked land, but beyond those parcels the general landscape is developed.

The Project Site is located entirely within the MSHCP Reche Canyon/Badlands Area Plan and is not located within an MSHCP Criteria Area, Cell Group, or Linkage Area.

2.2 Project Description
The proposed action includes the construction of two industrial warehouse buildings with a combined footprint of 372,309 square feet. Building 1 is 277,181 square feet and Building 2 is 95,128 square feet. Landscaping will be installed around the perimeter of the parcels and the buildings; and interspersed in the parking areas.

Both buildings provide parking spaces for automobiles, ADA, Clean Air recharging, and trailer parking spaces according to the City of Moreno Valley parking standards. The entire 17.66 acres will be developed.

2.3 Existing Conditions
The Project Site is heavily disturbed and annually disked as part of weed abatement requirements. The Project Site is flat and bordered to the south by industrial buildings, north by high density residential development, and east and west by disturbed lands. Two (2) drainage features bisect the property in a north to south direction which currently sustains disturbed wetland and riparian vegetation as described below. A summary of the acreages of each mapped vegetation community or land cover type is provided in Table 1.

Table 1. Project Site Plant Communities and Land Cover Types Plant Communities/Land Cover Type Onsite
Area
(acres)
Offsite
Area
(acres)
TOTAL
Impacts
(acres)
Disturbed/Non-Native Grassland 16.38 0.00 16.38
Wet Meadow 0.81 0.00 0.81
Black Willow Woodland 0.39 0.00 0.39
Developed 0.05 2.65 2.70
Disturbed Wetland – Cattail 0.02 0.00 0.02
Ornamental (individual tree) 0.01 0.00 0.01
Mule Fat (individual shrub) 0.001 0.00 0.001
Total 17.66 2.65 20.31
Vegetation Communities
Vegetation communities were mapped in the field onto a color aerial photograph (Figure 3) and were evaluated to determine if they are considered sensitive under federal, state, or local regulations or policies.

Vegetation communities were classified as sensitive or non-sensitive as defined by CEQA and other applicable laws and regulations. Vegetation community names and hierarchical structure follows the CDFW “List of California Terrestrial Natural Communities” or Holland (1986) classification systems. Distribution of F.1.g
Packet Pg. 1391 Attachment: Appendix B3-MSHCP DBESP (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) MSHCP Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation 3 onsite vegetation communities and representative photographs are provided as Figure 3, and 4 (a-b). The species listed below represent those individuals identified onsite during the field surveys listed in this report.

Wet Meadow
The seasonally inundated swales associated with Drainage A and B are characterized as wet meadow based on a review of historic aerial photography. Dominant plant species observed within this region are similar to those listed above in disturbed/non-native grassland.

Developed
Developed regions of the Project Site include a culvert structure located at the southern terminus of Drainage A and existing paved roads located within the offsite impact areas.

Ornamental
A single ornamental tree, Mexican palo verde (Parkinsonia aculeata) is located adjacent to the black willow woodland.

Mule Fat
F.1.g
Packet Pg. 1392 Attachment: Appendix B3-MSHCP DBESP (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) MSHCP Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation A single mule fat (Baccharis salicifolia) shrub is located near the northeast corner of the Project Site.

Soils
The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) has identified one soil series within the Project Site (Figure 5), and is described below (NRCS 2020). The National List and California List of Hydric Soils was reviewed to determine if the soil type within the Project Site is hydric. The mapped soil series is not classified as a hydric soil on the National List or California List of Hydric soils (NRCS 2020).

Monserate sandy loam, 0 to 5 percent slopes.

The Monserate series is a member of the fine-loamy, mixed, thermic family of Typic Durixeralfs. This soil type has an impermeable layer (duripan) approximately 28 inches below the surface, which can form a perched water table when water is present, since infiltration through this soil layer is very slow. This may be a strong influence on the Disturbed Wetland–Cattail that are present onsite, and allow for willow and other hydrophytic vegetation to persist in the swales.

Drainages
There are two small emergent disturbed cattail wetlands that connect with, and flow into, two ephemeral drainage swales within the Project Site limits (Figure 2). The primary sources of hydrology that support these features are runoff from storm flows, as well as nuisance flows (irrigation overspray, etc.) from surrounding residential and commercial areas. The underlying duripan found within Monserate soils keeps water present in the disturbed wetlands-cattail, and retains moisture sufficient for willows to grow, since the duripan can create a perched water table.

The drainage features are the remnants of natural braided channels that were present prior to urbanization.

Evidence of these channels are visible in aerial photography in 1977 (UCSB 2020). The present-day drainage swales convey runoff through overland flow into culverts that terminate at a detention basin, approximately

0.75 mile east of the Project Site, located at Brodiaea Avenue and Gilbert Street.

The drainage swales within the Project Site are not confluent with the Sunnymead or Perris Valley Storm Drain Channels based on stormwater facility maps published by the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District.

The Sunnymead Storm Drain Channel is the nearest named hydrologic feature and is located offsite, and approximately 0.3 mile west of the Project Site. The Sunnymead Channel is confluent with the Perris Valley Storm Drain Channel which is located approximately 2.4 miles southeast of the Project Site. The Perris Valley Storm Drain Channel is confluent to the San Jacinto River, which flows into Lake Elsinore. Lake Elsinore generally acts as a sink, although high water flows are occasionally diverted through the Elsinore Spillway F.1.g
Packet Pg. 1393 Attachment: Appendix B3-MSHCP DBESP (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) MSHCP Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation 5 Channel to Temescal Creek. Temescal Creek flows to the Santa Ana River (nearest Traditional Navigable Water [TNW]) and finally to the Pacific Ocean.

3.0 RIPARIAN, RIVERINE, VERNAL POOL MITIGATION (SECTION 6.1.2) The MSHCP serves as an HCP pursuant to Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the FESA, as well as a NCCP under the NCCP Act of 2001. The MSHCP is being used to allow the participating jurisdictions to authorize "Take" of covered plant and wildlife species identified within the Plan Area. As projects are proposed within a Western Riverside MSHCP Plan Area, an assessment of the potentially significant effects of those projects on riparian/riverine areas, and vernal pools are required, as currently mandated by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), using available information augmented by project-specific mapping provided to and reviewed by the Permittee’s biologist(s).

Riparian/riverine areas and vernal pools are defined for this section as follows in accordance with Section

3.1 Methods
MSHCP Riparian, Riverine, and Vernal Pool Resources Assessment MIG’s senior biologist Jonathan Campbell, PhD performed the field investigation on April 21st, 2020 to evaluate the extent of jurisdictional features subject to the MSHCP Section 6.1.2 riparian, riverine and vernal pool resources. The limits of riparian/riverine features were recorded in the field within accessible areas using aerial maps and Google earth
F.1.g
Packet Pg. 1394 Attachment: Appendix B3-MSHCP DBESP (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) MSHCP Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation Specifically, habitats were assessed to determine if MSHCP riparian/riverine resources and vernal pools, pursuant to section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP are present onsite. MSHCP riparian/riverine resources are defined as,
“those lands that contain habitat dominated by trees, shrubs, persistent emergents, or emergent mosses and lichens, which occur close to or which depend upon soil moisture from a nearby fresh water source; or areas with fresh water flow during all or a portion of the year. Vernal pools are seasonal wetlands that occur in depression areas that have wetlands indicators of all three parameters (soils, vegetation, and hydrology) during the wetter portion of the growing season but normally lack wetlands indicators of hydrology and/or vegetation during the drier portion of the growing season” (MSHCP 2004).

In addition, stock ponds, ephemeral pools, and other areas of potential fairy shrimp habitat are identified and mapped, where present.

Focused Riparian Bird Surveys
Low potential habitat for least Bell’s vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus) was initially identified onsite in the black willow woodland vegetation community (Figure 3, Vegetation Communities Map). Focused protocol surveys were conducted in spring/summer 2020 to determine the presence/absence of this species on the Project Site.

The Least Bell’s Vireo Survey Report for the Alessandro Project Site is provided in Appendix B.

An initial habitat assessment for potential least Bell’s vireo habitat was conducted on May 21st, 2020. As described below, all vegetation communities onsite were mapped and assessed for suitability for least Bell’s vireo. A single vegetation community including black willow woodland was characterized as representing low potential habitat for the species. Therefore, focused United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) protocol surveys were initiated. As stated by the USFWS:
“Under normal circumstances, all riparian areas and any other potential vireo habitats should be surveyed at least eight (8) times during the period from April 10 to July 31.

Under such unusual circumstances, we will consider requests for reductions in the prescribed number of individual surveys. In any case, site visits should be conducted at least 10 days apart to maximize the detection of, for instance, late and early arrivals, females, particularly “non-vocal” birds of both sexes, and nesting pairs. 1) Although the period from April 10 to July 31 encompasses the period during which most vireo nesting activity occurs, eight surveys are generally sufficient to detect most (if not all) vireo adults in occupied habitats. Precise vireo censuses and estimations of home range likely will not be possible unless surveys are conducted outside of this time window. Although focused surveys conducted in accordance with these guidelines substantially reduce the risk of an unauthorized take* that could potentially occur as a result of land development or other projects, individual project proponents may wish to conduct surveys that are more rigorous than those that would otherwise F.1.g
Packet Pg. 1395 Attachment: Appendix B3-MSHCP DBESP (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) MSHCP Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation 7 result from strict adherence to these survey guidelines. If additional information (e.g., extent of occupied habitat, total numbers of adult and juvenile vireos in study area) is desired or necessary, surveys should be extended to August 31 and conducted in such a manner as to collect the data necessary to prepare reports that reflect the methods and standards established in the current scientific literature on this subject.

In particular, information collected after July 15 will reflect a broader extent to the riparian habitat and other adjacent habitat types that the vireo typically utilizes during the latter phase of the breeding season, especially when the young become independent of the adults.
2) Surveys should be conducted by a qualified biologist familiar with the songs, whisper songs, calls, scolds, and plumage characteristics of adult and juvenile vireos. These skills are essential to maximize the probability of detecting vireos and to avoid potentially harassing the species in occupied habitats. 3) Surveys should be conducted between dawn and 11:00 a.m. Surveys should not be conducted during periods of excessive or abnormal cold, heat, wind, rain, or other inclement weather that individually or collectively may reduce the likelihood of detection.
4) Surveyors should not survey more than 3 linear kilometers or more than 50 hectares of habitat on any given survey day. Although surveyors should generally station themselves in the best possible locations to hear or see vireos, care should be taken not to disturb potential or actual vireo habitats and nests or the habitat of any sensitive or listed riparian species.
5) All vireo detections (e.g., vocalization points, areas used for foraging, etc.) should be recorded and subsequently plotted to estimate the location and extent of habitats utilized. These data should be mapped on the appropriate USGS quadrangle map. 6) Data pertaining to vireo status and distribution (e.g., numbers and locations of paired or unpaired territorial males, ages and sexes of all birds encountered) should be noted and recorded during each survey. In addition, surveyors should look for leg bands on vireo adults and juveniles if, in fact, it is possible to do so without disturbing or harassing the birds. If leg bands or other markers are observed, then surveyors should record and report the detection and associated circumstances to us by telephone, facsimile, or electronic mail as soon as possible. Reports should include the colors and relative locations of any and all bands detected, the age and sex of the marked bird, and the precise location of the detection. 7) The numbers and locations of all brown-headed cowbirds (Molothrus ater) detected within vireo territories should be recorded during each survey and subsequently reported to us. In addition, all detections of the State and federally endangered southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax trallii extimus, flycatcher) and State endangered yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus, cuckoo) should be recorded and reported. Any and all cuckoo and flycatcher adults, young, or nests should not be approached, and taped vocalizations of these species should not be used unless F.1.g
Packet Pg. 1396 Attachment: Appendix B3-MSHCP DBESP (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) MSHCP Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation authorized in advance by scientific permits to take* issued by us (if appropriate) and the California Department of Fish and Game. Flycatcher presence/absence surveys require a recovery permit issued by us per section 10(a)(1)(A) of the Endangered Species Act.” (USFWS 2001)
A total of eight (8) focused least Bell’s vireo surveys were conducted on May 21st, 31st, June 10th, 20th, 30th, July 10th, 20th, and 30th, 2020 by Senior Biologist Jonathan Campbell, PhD and Ruben Ramirez throughout the black willow woodland documented onsite and described below. All surveys were conducted during times and conditions conducive to observing least Bell’s vireo.

No least Bell’s vireo was detected during the 2020 surveys.

3.2 Results/Impacts
The Project Site contain two ephemeral drainages, willow woodland, and two small patches of disturbed wetland–cattail that are subject to the jurisdiction of the MSHCP Section 6.1.2. A total of eight sample points (SP1 to SP8) were examined to identify MSHCP jurisdictional wetland features. Table 2 provides a summary of MSHCP Section 6.1.2 riparian and riverine acreage impacts.

A total of 1.22 acre of MSHCP riparian and riverine were mapped onsite (see Table 2 below).

Table 2. MSHCP Section 6.1.2 Riparian and Riverine Impacts MSHCP Jurisdictional Resources Impacts Acres1
Riverine 0.81 acre
Riparian/Aquatic 0.41 acre
MSHCP Riparian/Riverine Total 1.22 acre
1Note: Values are approximate due to rounding.

Disturbed Wetland – Cattail
Two (2) patches of disturbed wetlands-cattail, totaling 0.02 acre, each situated on the north end of the two drainage swales met the definition of MSHCP Section 6.1.2 riparian (aquatic) resources.

Black Willow Woodland
Black willow woodland is found just downstream of the disturbed wetlands-cattail along the western Drainage A and forms a broad woodland habitat. A small patch is also present on the upstream end of Drainage B.

These areas constitute 0.39 acre of riparian habitat and is regulated by the MSHCP Section 6.1.2 riparian resources to the outer dripline of the trees.

Drainage A
Directly downstream of the black willow woodland, woody vegetation disappears and is dominated by an array of grasses and forbs. The dominant plant species range from FAC to UPL and do not meet the criteria of hydrophytic vegetation and hydric soil characteristics are absent. These areas remain green for much longer duration than the surrounding area, indicating the presence of soil moisture, resulting from the urban F.1.g
Packet Pg. 1397 Attachment: Appendix B3-MSHCP DBESP (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) MSHCP Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation 9 hydrologic input. Examination of historic aerial photographs confirmed a defined bed and bank under nondisked conditions, indicating that wetland hydrology is present. This drainage would be considered ephemeral in nature and extends for 218 linear feet beyond the willow woodland until it terminates in a concrete drainage inlet (already impacted jurisdictional feature) and exits the Project Site. The total drainage length is 546 feet.

The width of jurisdiction was determined by the presence of hydrology and review of historic aerials, for a total of 0.49 acre of jurisdiction. This drainage is regulated by the MSHCP riverine habitat.

Drainage B
Drainage B Is located directly downstream and adjacent to the eastern patch of disturbed wetland-cattail.

Like Drainage A, woody vegetation is absent and grasses and forbs are dominant. The Project Site limits are regularly disked, so this occurs under highly disturbed conditions. The dominant plant species are mostly FACU, but range from a few FACW to UPL species. This drainage does not meet the criteria of hydrophytic vegetation and hydric soil characteristics are absent. Like Drainage A, these areas remain green for much longer duration than the surrounding area, indicating the presence of soil moisture, resulting from the urban hydrologic input. Examination of historic aerial photographs confirmed a defined bed and bank under nondisked conditions. Wetland hydrology is present. This drainage would be considered ephemeral in nature and extends for 603 linear feet until it terminates off-site in a concrete inlet. The width of jurisdiction was determined by the presence of hydrology and review of historic aerials, for a total of 0.32 acre of jurisdiction.

This drainage is regulated by the MSHCP as riverine habitat.

No vernal pool resources, seasonal depressions or associated clay substrates were documented onsite. No vernal pools or suitable resources for the vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi) and Riverside fairy shrimp (Streptocephalus woottoni) were documented onsite. No surveys are required.

No least Bell’s vireo was detected during the 2020 surveys. No suitable habitat for the southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus) or western yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus) was detected within or adjacent to the Project Site. These species are not expected to be present. No surveys are required.

3.3 Mitigation and Equivalency

3.3.1 Direct Effects
Direct impacts are considered to be those that involve the loss, modification, or disturbance of natural resources or habitats (i.e., vegetative communities or substrate) that in turn, directly affect plant and wildlife species dependent on that habitat. Direct impacts include the destruction of individual plants or wildlife of low mobility (i.e., plants, amphibians, reptiles, and small mammals). The collective loss of individuals may also directly affect area-wide population numbers or result in the physical isolation of populations thereby reducing genetic diversity and population stability.

A total of 1.22-acre of permanent impacts will occur within the two drainages as a result of project initiation.

F.1.g
Packet Pg. 1398 Attachment: Appendix B3-MSHCP DBESP (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) MSHCP Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation

3.2.2 Indirect Effects
Indirect impacts are considered to be those impacts associated with the project that involve the effects of alteration of the existing habitat and an increase in human population and or landuse within the Project Site.

These impacts are commonly referred to as “edge effects” and may result in changes in the behavioral patterns of wildlife and reduced wildlife diversity and abundance in habitats adjacent to the Project Site.

Indirect impacts also include the effects of increases in ambient levels of sensory stimuli (e.g., noise and light), unnatural predators (e.g., domestic cats and other non-native animals), competitors (e.g., exotic plants and non-native animals), and trampling and unauthorized recreational use due to the increase in human population. Other permanent indirect effects may occur that are related to water quality and storm water management, including trash/debris, toxic materials, and dust.

Initiation of the proposed project will not result in temporary or permanent indirect edge effects to sensitive receptors as a result of noise or lighting levels. The Project Site is located immediately adjacent to developed and disturbed lands and do not provide suitable resources or open space habitat for common or sensitive species.

The ultimate Project Site storm water conveyed and released into the existing concrete drainage inlets will be in compliance with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) regulations and County of Riverside Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) as required of the developer of the proposed project and the City of Moreno Valley for treatment of storm water prior to discharge.

4.0 NARROW ENDEMIC PLANT SPECIES MITIGATION SECTION (6.1.3) This analysis of potential biological resources located on the Project Site includes a review of available background information in and around the vicinity of the Project Site and completion of multiple field and focused surveys conducted from May to August 2020.

The MSHCP has determined that all of the sensitive species potentially occurring onsite have been adequately covered (MSHCP Table 2-2 Species Considered for Conservation Under the MSHCP Since 1999, 2004). However, additional surveys may be required for narrow endemic plants if suitable habitat is documented and the assessment area is located within a predetermined “Survey Area” (MSHCP 2004).

The Project Site does not occur within a predetermined Survey Area for MSHCP narrow endemic plant species. Compliance with Section 6.1.3 respective of MSHCP narrow endemic plants is not applicable to the proposed Project Site.

F.1.g
Packet Pg. 1399 Attachment: Appendix B3-MSHCP DBESP (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) MSHCP Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation 11

4.1 Methods
Compliance with Section 6.1.3 respective of MSHCP narrow endemic plants is not applicable to the proposed Project Site.

4.2 Results/Impacts
Compliance with Section 6.1.3 respective of MSHCP narrow endemic plants is not applicable to the proposed Project Site.

4.3 Mitigation and Equivalency
Compliance with Section 6.1.3 respective of MSHCP narrow endemic plants is not applicable to the proposed Project Site.

4.3.1 Direct Effects
Compliance with Section 6.1.3 respective of MSHCP narrow endemic plants is not applicable to the proposed Project Site.

4.3.2 Indirect Effects
Compliance with Section 6.1.3 respective of MSHCP narrow endemic plants is not applicable to the proposed Project Site.

5.0 CRITERIA AREA SPECIES MITIGATION (SECTION 6.3.2)
The MSHCP has determined that all of the sensitive species potentially occurring onsite have been adequately covered (MSHCP Table 2-2 Species Considered for Conservation Under the MSHCP Since 1999, 2004). However, additional surveys may be required for criteria area species if suitable habitat is documented onsite and the assessment areas are located within a predetermined “Survey Area” (MSHCP 2004).

5.1 Criteria Area Species Survey Area – Plants
The Project Site does not occur within a predetermined Survey Area for MSHCP criteria area plant species.

Compliance with Section 6.1.3 respective of MSHCP criteria area plants is not applicable to the proposed Project Site.

5.1.1 Methods
Compliance with Section 6.1.3 respective of MSHCP criteria area plants is not applicable to the proposed Project Site.

5.1.2 Results/Impacts
F.1.g
Packet Pg. 1400 Attachment: Appendix B3-MSHCP DBESP (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) MSHCP Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation Compliance with Section 6.1.3 respective of MSHCP criteria area plants is not applicable to the proposed P Project Site.

5.1.3 Mitigation and Equivalency
Compliance with Section 6.1.3 respective of MSHCP criteria area plants is not applicable to the proposed Project Site.

5.2 Criteria Area Species Survey Area – Burrowing Owl
The Project Site occurs within a predetermined Survey Area for the burrowing owl. Based on the presence of low potential habitat documented during the May 21st, 2020 habitat assessment within and adjacent to the Project Site, focused surveys for burrowing owl were conducted. The surveys were conducted in accordance with the Burrowing Owl Survey Instructions for the Western Riverside Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Area (2006). Survey protocol consists of three steps: Step I – Habitat Assessment; Step II – Locating Burrows and Burrowing Owls; and Step III – Reporting Requirements. Each step conducted during this survey is briefly outlined below. Surveys were conducted during weather that is conducive to observing burrowing owls outside of their burrows and detecting burrowing owl sign. All surveys were conducted from two hours before sunset to one hour after or from one hour before to two hours after sunrise. Surveys were not conducted during rain, high winds (> 20 mph), dense fog, or temperatures over 90 °F. Surveys were not conducted within five days of measurable precipitation.

5.2.1 Methods
Step I – Habitat Assessment
Step 1 of the burrowing owl focused survey consists of walking the Project Site to determine if suitable habitat is present. This initial habitat assessment was conducted on May 21st, 2020 by MIG Senior Biologist Jonathan Campbell, PhD. Upon arrival at the Project Site and prior to initiating the assessment survey, binoculars were used to scan all suitable habitats on and adjacent to the property, including perch locations, to ascertain owl presence.

All suitable areas of the Project Site were surveyed on foot by walking slowly and methodically across each habitat type while recording/mapping areas that may represent suitable owl habitat onsite. Primary indicators of suitable burrowing owl habitat include, but are not limited to: native and non-native grassland, grassland interspersed with shrubland along ecotonal areas, shrublands with low density shrub cover, concrete rubble, and earthen berms. Burrowing owls typically use burrows made by fossorial mammals, such as ground squirrels (Otospermophilus beecheyi) or badgers (Taxidea taxus), but they often utilize man-made structures, such as earthen berms, cement culverts, cement, asphalt, rock or wood debris piles, or openings beneath cement or asphalt pavement. Burrowing owls are often found within, under, or near man-made structures. A majority of the habitat mapped onsite represents low potential habitat for burrowing owl.

F.1.g
Packet Pg. 1401 Attachment: Appendix B3-MSHCP DBESP (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) MSHCP Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation 13 Step II – Locating Burrows and Burrowing Owls
If any burrows are found during the Part A – Focused Burrow Survey, Part B – Focused Burrowing Owl Surveys are required to determine presence or absence of the species. The Part B effort consists of at least four focused surveys to search for signs of occupation at the burrows, or observations of burrowing owls.

Focused surveys are to be conducted within the breeding season between March 1st and August 31st. A review of local documentation suggests that no burrowing owls have been historically identified within the extent of the Project Site boundary. In addition to the breeding season survey conducted on May 21st, 2020, three additional breeding season surveys were conducted throughout the Project Site on June 20th, July 10th, and 30th, 2020. All surveys were conducted during times and conditions conducive to observing burrowing owl. A thorough investigation of the potentially suitable burrows concluded that no evidence of burrowing owl activity was present in any of the onsite burrow complexes.

Part A: Focused Burrow Survey
Due to the presence of low potential burrowing owl habitat, focused burrow surveys, including documentation of appropriately sized natural burrows or suitable man-made structures that may be utilized by burrowing owl, were conducted as part of the protocol on May 21st, 2020.

Part B: Focused Burrowing Owl Surveys

5.2.2 Results/Impacts
Both low potential burrowing owl habitat and burrowing owl burrows were identified within the Project Site during the Step I – Habitat Assessment performed on May 21st, 2020 and the Step II, Part A – Focused Burrow Survey performed on May 21st, 2020. Three additional Step II, Part B – Focused Burrowing Owl Surveys were therefore performed during the breeding season on June 20th, July 10th, and 30th, 2020 throughout the Project Site. No evidence of burrowing owl activity was observed during any of the surveys.

5.2.3 Mitigation and Equivalency
A 30-day preconstruction survey will be required immediately prior to the initiation of construction within the Project Site to ensure protection for this species and compliance with the conservation goals as outlined in the MSHCP. If burrowing owls are detected onsite during the 30-day preconstruction survey, during the breeding season (February 1st to August 31st) then construction activities shall be limited to beyond 300 feet of the active burrows until a qualified biologist has confirmed that nesting efforts are competed or not initiated.

In addition to monitoring breeding activity, if construction is proposed to be initiated during the breeding season or active relocation is proposed, a burrowing owl mitigation plan will be developed based on the City F.1.g
Packet Pg. 1402 Attachment: Appendix B3-MSHCP DBESP (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) MSHCP Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation of Moreno Valley, CDFW and USFWS requirements for the relocation of individuals to the Lake Mathews Preserve.

5.3 Criteria Area Species Survey Area – Mammals
The MSHCP has determined that all of the sensitive species potentially occurring onsite have been adequately covered (MSHCP Table 2-2 Species Considered for Conservation Under the MSHCP Since 1999, 2004). However, additional surveys may be required if suitable habitat for mammals is documented onsite and the property is located within a predetermined “Survey Area” (MSHCP 2004).

The Project Site does not occur within a predetermined Survey Area for mammal species. Compliance with Section 6.1.3 respective of MSHCP mammals is not applicable to the proposed Project Site.

5.3.1 Methods
Compliance with Section 6.1.3 respective of MSHCP mammals is not applicable to the proposed Project Site.

5.3.2 Results/Impacts
Compliance with Section 6.1.3 respective of MSHCP mammals is not applicable to the proposed Project Site.

5.3.3 Mitigation and Equivalency
Compliance with Section 6.1.3 respective of MSHCP mammals is not applicable to the proposed Project Site.

5.4 Criteria Area Species Survey Area – Amphibians
The MSHCP has determined that all of the sensitive species potentially occurring onsite have been adequately covered (MSHCP Table 2-2 Species Considered for Conservation Under the MSHCP Since 1999, 2004). However, additional surveys may be required if suitable habitat for amphibian species is documented onsite and the property is located within a predetermined “Survey Area” (MSHCP 2004).

The Project Site does not occur within a predetermined Survey Area for amphibian species. Compliance with Section 6.1.3 respective of MSHCP amphibians is not applicable to the proposed Project Site.

5.4.1 Methods
Compliance with Section 6.1.3 respective of MSHCP amphibians is not applicable to the proposed Project Site.

5.4.2 Results/Impacts
F.1.g
Packet Pg. 1403 Attachment: Appendix B3-MSHCP DBESP (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) MSHCP Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation 15 Compliance with Section 6.1.3 respective of MSHCP amphibians is not applicable to the proposed Project Site.

5.4.3 Mitigation and Equivalency
Compliance with Section 6.1.3 respective of MSHCP amphibians is not applicable to the proposed Project Site.

6.0 REFERENCES
MIG, Inc. 2020a. Burrowing Owl Focused Survey Report, Alessandro Project Site MIG, Inc. 2020b. Least Bell’s Vireo Focused Survey Report, Alessandro Project Site MIG, Inc. 2020d. MSHCP General Biological Resources Assessment & Compliance Analysis.

MIG, Inc. 2021. Alessandro Project Site Jurisdictional Delineation Report & Impact Analysis.

Regional Conservation Authority. Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation Report Template (April 2019).

Riverside County Integrated Project (RCIP) Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP), March 2004.

United States Department of Agriculture. 2020. Custom Soil Resources Report for Western Riverside Area, California. Natural Resources Conservation Service.
https://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx, accessed July 2020.

F.1.g
Packet Pg. 1404 Attachment: Appendix B3-MSHCP DBESP (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) MSHCP Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation

FIGURES
F.1.g
Packet Pg. 1405 Attachment: Appendix B3-MSHCP DBESP (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) not to scale
·|þ}60
Project Site
§¨¦215
§¨¦10
·|þ}60
City of
Moreno Valley
§¨¦10
§¨¦215
Figure 1 Regional Location Map
Alessandro Project Site, City of Moreno Valley, CA
W Foolhill Blv :i:

B er n a r.d · fl o
Ill SI W Mil l
Olive St
S T
-g
a:::
-g
0 0
:i:'.

CO L TO

TERRA CE
E
E
3rd St
> ill S t<I:
" >
<(
" 0
-g
C
LINDA<t
..
~
Ill
5 th St ;;
a.

S:inBem cino
Intl Airport Ill + "' c
~ "'
B~YN M AWR
,,'"
Ill
.,
Q
C
" ...
0 "G Green spot Re,

EAS T HI G HLA ND S
Redl ds
,!uni
Airp
+
Lugonia Ave
.,
e llontone Blvd:;

MENTO NE C,
ve u
>
<(
0 CRAFTON
t;'\''' er
Yucalp Bl
Ill DUNLAP ACRES

EL CASCO
0 Valley

MARC FIELD
0 -
V
Nu 110 Rd Nuevo Rd NUEV O
0 R:imona xpy
Cl
>
<(
C:

I)
Ill
e
... Contour Ave
F.1.g
Packet Pg. 1406 Attachment: Appendix B3-MSHCP DBESP (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) Figure 2 Project Site Map
Alessandro Project Site, City of Moreno Valley, CA
Alessandro Boulevard
Chagall Court
Project Site Boundary (17.66 acres)
Offsite Assessment Area (2.65 acres)
297-170-003
279-170-002
297-170-088
279-170-089
ROW
ROW
297-170-003
279-170-002
297-170-088
279-170-089
ROW
ROW
1 inch = 180 feet
Project Site Boundary
# Photo Point & Direction
2 1
3 4
D
D
C=C>
r,
..,
I'/ ~I
.., ,·,
~n:- n n
l'I
"'
""' n I'
,., >I,
,, ""' ,,, n ~I
,f,
r· ~-
f l
I. .~ 1•1
r,
,1
"II "lfttrf
.EHi
F.1.g
Packet Pg. 1407 Attachment: Appendix B3-MSHCP DBESP (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) Figure 3 Vegetation Communities Map
Alessandro Project Site, City of Moreno Valley, CA
Alessandro Boulevard
Chagall Court
297-170-003 297-170-088
279-170-089
ROW
ROW
279-170-002
297-170-088
279-170-089
ROW
ROW
1 inch = 180 feet
Project Site Boundary
Project Site Boundary (17.66 acres)
Offsite Assessment Area (2.65 acres)
Black Willow Woodland
Disturbed (Non-native Grassland)
Developed
Ornamental (Mexican palo verde)
Disturbed Wetland - Cattail
Mule Fat (individual shrub)
BW
DG
DV
OR
DW
MF
BW
DG
DG
DG
DG
DV
DV
DV
DV
DV
MF
DW
DW
OR
Drainage BDrainage B
Drainage ADrainage A
WM Wet Meadow
BW
WM
WM
WM
WM
WM
I .
... . ..
~
11 ' n
.
• ...
l'I ,·
... r• 1lj
271M7GMD111
r1 if
"i
t. 1',
1'1
ti ,,, 1·1
,.,
"II ~"it:DI'-
rn El D
15:;] D
E.:I 1511
CZ] '
F.1.g
Packet Pg. 1408 Attachment: Appendix B3-MSHCP DBESP (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) Figure 4a Current Project Site Photographs
Alessandro Project Site, City of Moreno Valley, CA
Photograph 1 - Southeast view of Project Site from northwest corner adjacent to Alessandro Boulevard.

Photograph 2 - Southward view of down drain located at end of the end of Drainage A F.1.g
Packet Pg14
Figure 4b Current Project Site Photographs
Alessandro Project Site, City of Moreno Valley, CA
Photograph 3 - Northwest view of Project Site from southeast corner. The Project Site is dominated by annually disked disturbed non-native grassland.

Photograph 4 - Westward view of Drainage B from northeast corner of Project Site near Alessandro Boulevard.

F.1.g
Packet Pg14
Figure 5 Soils Associations Map
Alessandro Project Site, City of Moreno Valley, CA
Alessandro Boulevard
Chagall Court
Project Site Boundary (17.66 acres)
Offsite Assessment Area (2.65 acres)
297-170-003
279-170-002
297-170-088
279-170-089
ROW
ROW
297-170-003
279-170-002
297-170-088
279-170-089
ROW
ROW
1 inch = 180 feet
Project Site Boundary
MmB - Monserate Sandy Loam
0 to 5 Percent Slopes
MmB - Monserate Sandy Loam (NRCS 2020)
D
D
-
F.1.g
Packet Pg. 1411 Attachment: Appendix B3-MSHCP DBESP (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) Figure 8 MSHCP Section 6.1.2 Jurisdiction Resources Impact Map Alessandro Project Site, City of Moreno Valley, CA
Alessandro Boulevard
Chagall Court
Project Site Boundary (17.66 acres)
Offsite Assessment Area (2.65 acres)
1 inch = 180 feet
Project Site Boundary
Drainage BDrainage B
Drainage ADrainage A
MSHCP Aquatic (0.02 acre)
MSHCP Riparian (0.39 acre)
MSHCP Riverine (0.81 acre) Impact Boundary (20.31 acres) D
D
--. I•_.
, .
,.,
n
,,;
~,
,,
...
... I
...
...
"'° I
...
..,
...
... ,.,
l'I
...
,.,
,., ....
'"ii
"
11\
l'I if
,· ,,,
,,,
1'1 ~. ,·1
'" r, ,·, l'I
"'ll ""tt:al'
F.1.g
Packet Pg. 1412 Attachment: Appendix B3-MSHCP DBESP (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) MSHCP Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation

APPENDICES
F.1.g
Packet Pg. 1413 Attachment: Appendix B3-MSHCP DBESP (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) MSHCP Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation Appendix A
Burrowing Owl Focused Survey Report, Alessandro Project Site F.1.g
Packet Pg. 1414 Attachment: Appendix B3-MSHCP DBESP (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) Burrowing Owl Focused Survey Report
Alessandro Project Site
City of Moreno Valley, Riverside County, California
Prepared for:

Compass Danbe Real Estate Partners
523 Main St
El Segundo, CA 90245
Prepared by:

MIG
1650 Spruce Street, Suite 102
Riverside, California 92507
October 2020
F.1.g
Packet Pg. 1415 Attachment: Appendix B3-MSHCP DBESP (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) This document is formatted for double-sided printing
F.1.g
Packet Pg. 1416 Attachment: Appendix B3-MSHCP DBESP (5554 : PEN20-0118-0119, PEN20-0122 and PEN 20-0124 Compass Danbe) MSHCP Focused Burrowing Owl Survey Report
Table of Contents
TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................................................................ I