Western Riverside County
Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan
Consistency Analysis
Whitewood
Residential
Development
City of Murrieta
Sancerra
2618 San Miguel Dr., Suite
1223
Newport Beach, CA, 92660
Contact : Adam Smith
Consultant: WRA, Inc.
3033 Fifth Ave, Suite 315
San Diego, CA, 92103
Contact : Michael Nieto
WRA #31314
May 2024
MSHCP Consistency Analysis
i
Contents
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..................................................................................................................................... 5 2 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................... 6
2.1 Project Area .......................................................................................................................................................... 6
2.2 Project Description ............................................................................................................................................... 6
2.3 General Setting ..................................................................................................................................................... 7 3 RESERVE ASSEMBLY ANALYSIS........................................................................................................................ 7
3.1 Public Quasi-Public (PQP) Lands ......................................................................................................................... 7 4 VEGETATION MAPPING .................................................................................................................................. 7
4.1 Methods ................................................................................................................................................................. 7
4.2 Existing Vegetation Communities ...................................................................................................................... 8
4.3 Project Vegetation Impacts ............................................................................................................................. 10 5 PROTECTION OF SPECIES ASSOCIATED WITH RIPARIAN/RIVERINE AREAS AND VERNAL POOLS (SECTION 6.1.2) .................................................................................................................................. 11
5.1 Riparian/Riverine ................................................................................................................................................ 11
5.1.1 Methods ............................................................................................................................................................. 11
5.1.2 Exisiting Conditions and Results ........................................................................................................................ 11 Mulefat Scrub (Baccharis salicifolia) ......................................................................................... 12 Coast Live Oak Woodland (Quercus agrifolia Forest & Woodland Alliance) .............................. 12
5.1.3 Impacts ............................................................................................................................................................... 12
5.1.4 Mitigation ............................................................................................................................................................ 14
5.2 Vernal Pools ........................................................................................................................................................ 15
5.2.1 Methods ........................................................................................................................ 15
5.2.2 Existing Conditions and Results .................................................................................... 15
5.2.3 Impacts ........................................................................................................................ 15
5.2.4 Mitigation ...................................................................................................................... 15
5.3 Fairy Shrimp ........................................................................................................................................................ 16
5.3.1 Methods .............................................................................................................................................................. 16
5.3.2 Existing Conditions and Results .......................................................................................................................... 16
5.3.3 Impacts ................................................................................................................................................................ 16
5.3.4 Mitigation ............................................................................................................................................................ 16
5.4 Riparian Birds ...................................................................................................................................................... 16
5.4.1 Methods .............................................................................................................................................................. 16
5.4.2 Existing Conditions and Results ........................................................................................................................ 17 MSHCP Consistency Analysis
iii
5.4.3 Impacts ............................................................................................................................................................. 17
5.4.4 Mitigation ........................................................................................................................................................... 18 6 PROTECTION OF NARROW ENDEMIC PLANT SPECIES (SECTION 6.1.3) ....................................... 18
6.1 Methods ................................................................................................................................................................ 18
6.2 Exisiting Conditions and Results ........................................................................................................................... 19
6.3 Impacts ................................................................................................................................................................. 20
6.4 Mitigation .............................................................................................................................................................. 20 7 ADDITIONAL SURVEY NEEDS AND PROCEDURES (SECTION 6.3.2) ................................................ 20
7.1 Criteria Area Plant Species ............................................................................................................................... 20
7.2 Amphibians .......................................................................................................................................................... 20
7.2.1 Impacts .............................................................................................................................................................. 20
7.2.2 Mitigation ........................................................................................................................................................... 20
7.3 Burrowing Owl ................................................................................................................................................... 20
7.3.1 Methods ............................................................................................................................................................ 20
7.3.2 Existing Conditions and Results ......................................................................................................................... 21
7.3.3 Impacts ............................................................................................................................................................. 21
7.3.4 Mitigation .......................................................................................................................................................... 21
7.4 Mammals .............................................................................................................................................................. 22
7.4.1 Impacts ................................................................................................................................................................ 22
7.4.2 Mitigation ............................................................................................................................................................ 22 8 BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (VOLUME I, APPENDIX C) .............................................................. 22 9 REFERENCES ...................................................................................................................................................... 25
List of Appendices
Appendix A: Figures
MSHCP Consistency Analysis
5 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The proposed project (Project) involves a residential development on four parcels on undeveloped land in Murrieta, CA ( Appendix A, Figure 1). The project site is not within a criteria area for the MSHCP (not within a Criteria Cell, Cell Group, habitat core or linkage). The project is north of criteria cell 5673 and RCA conserved lands “Calvary Chapel of Murrietta.” According to the Regional Conservation Authority (RCA) MSHCP Information Map, the limits of work are within the burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) and narrow endemic plant species survey areas. Habitat for least Bell’s vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus) was observed on site.
Burrowing owl and narrow endemic plant surveys were conducted in 2022. No burrowing owl nor narrow endemic plant species were observed during surveys. Protocol surveys were conducted during 2022 and 2023. No least Bell’s vireo were observed during surveys.
The project site is not in a criteria area for the MSHCP (not within a Criteria Cell, Cell Group, habitat core or linkage). The project is north of criteria cell 5673 and RCA conserved lands “Calvary Chapel of Murrietta,” but is separated from preserved la nds by Clinton Keith Road, a six- lane, 130 foot wide highway. In addition, the preserved area is separated from the project and highway by an approximately 25 foot high road cut built as a part of the road construction. the project which serves as a distinct, lit, barrier between the project and preserved lands. Due to the extensive transportation infrastructure (and its associated light, noise, and drainage sources) as well as topographical boundaries separating the project from nearby preserved areas, the project has little potential of contributing indirect impacts to nearby preserves. As such, the project is not required to comply with the Guidelines Pertaining to the Urban/Wildlands Interface of the MSHCP (Section 6.1.4).
MSHCP riverine/riparian habitat was mapped within the project area. MSHCP riverine/riparian areas may support habitat for species that are not adequately conserved under the MSHCP, such as least Bell’s vireo ( Vireo bellii pusillus ), southwestern willow flycatcher ( Empidonax traillii extimus ), and western yellow- billed cuckoo ( Coccyzus americanus occidentalis ) which are discussed below.
Riverine/riparian designated areas also includes drainages within MSHCP conservation areas or which might have downstream effects on the MSHCP conservation area.
The habitat assessment for the project determined that habitat was present for the least Bell’s vireo within the riparian woodland vegetation, therefore, the MSHCP required focused surveys for them pursuant to the MSHCP Section 6.1.2, Protection of Species Associated with Riparian/ Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools. Focused surveys in accordance with USFWS protocols were conducted for the least Bell’s vireo in 2022 and 2023 with negative results. The project site does not contain habitat for fairy shrimp.
The Applicant will commit to a clearing and grubbing timeline that is outside the nesting season of least Bell’s vireo ( Vireo bellii pusillus ) and other nesting birds. A pre -construction burrowing owl survey will be conducted prior to initiation of ground disturbance. If burrowing owl are observed, a Burrowing Owl Protection and Relocation Plan will be prepared. A Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation (DBESP) and associated MSHCP riparian/riverine mitigation obligations has been prepared.
MSHCP Consistency Analysis
6 The project does not impact burrowing owl , MSHCP narrow endemic plant species, MSHCP Riparian/Riverine species, and proposes habitat mitigation via the DBESP process. Implementation of the proposed project will be consistent with all provision of the County of Riverside Municipal Codes and objectives of the MSHCP including mitigation and MSHCP related fees. Payment of the MSHCP fee and compliance with Section 6 of the MSHCP provides complete mitigation for the project’s impacts on covered species. The Project will comply with all plan requirement s and is therefore consistent with the MSHCP.
2 INTRODUCTION
The purpose of this Consistency Analysis (Analysis) report is to summarize the biological data for the proposed Whitewood Residential Development and to document project’s consistency with the goals and objectives of the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP). The proposed project consists of the development of the proposed Project consists of a Development Plan Permit and Tentative Tract Map for a 17.26-acre site. The Project would provide for development of 257 multi-family residential homes at a density of 1 4.9 dwelling units per acre (du/ac). The Project also includes construction of a 4,268 sf amenity building, including a fitness center and lounge area. The proposed 257 dwelling units comprise 2 - and 3- story townhomes. A total of 668 parking spaces would be provided with 10% of spaces designated as future electric vehicle (EV) spaces. Grading proposed by the Project would result in 16.93 acres of disturbance to the Project site. Access to the Project would be provided by two (2) full access driveways, one located on Arendt Lane, and the other located on Whitewood Road.
2.1 Project Area
The Study Area consists of approximately 17.26 acres in the northeastern portion of the City of Murrieta. From a regional perspective, the Project site is located 0.26 mile west of the French Valley area of unincorporated Riverside County. Interstate 215 (I-215) is located 0.6 mile west of the Project site. Specifically, the Project site is located east of Whitewood Road, north of Clinton Keith Road. The Project site encompasses Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs) 392-330-003, -007, -020, and -021 (Appendix A: Figure 2). All parcels within the Project area are outside of designated MSHCP criteria cells.
2.2 Project Description
The Project consists of a Development Plan Permit and Tentative Tract Map for a 17.26-acre site.
The Project would provide for development of 243 multi -family residential homes at a density of
15.1 dwelling units per acre (du/ac). The Project also includes construction of a recreational pool area with a ±900sf restroom and pool equipment building, tot lot and 65,120 sf of total common open space areas throughout the site. The proposed 243 dwelling units comprise 2- and 3-story townhomes. A total of 629 parking spaces would be provided with 10% of spaces designated as future electric vehicle (EV) spaces. Grading proposed by the Project would result in disturbance MSHCP Consistency Analysis
7 to 16.64 acres to the Project site. Access to the Project would be provided by two (2) full access driveways, one located on Arendt Lane, and the other located on Whitewood Road.
2.3 General Setting
The Study area is located within a region of Murrieta that has been designated for development under the MSCHP. As a result, the area is a combination of recent high-density development, new road infrastructure, and older sparse rural single-family homes. The biology at the site reflects its land use history containing elements of rural development, native vegetation, and new influences of high-density infrastructure. Vegetation within the Project Area consists of developed/disturbed land, chaparral, riparian scrub, and Coastal Sage scrub. The Soil Survey of Riverside County (USDA 2022) soil mapping units within the Study Area include: Cajalco and Las Posas series (Appendix A:
Figure 4).
3 RESERVE ASSEMBLY ANALYSIS
The project site is not within a criteria area for the MSHCP (not within a Criteria Cell, Cell Group, habitat core or linkage). The project is north of criteria cell 5673 and RCA conserved lands “Calvary Chapel of Murrietta,” but is separated from preserved lands by Clinton Keith Road, a six- lane, 130 foot wide highway. In addition, the preserved area is separated from the project and highway by an approximately 25 foot high road cut built as a part of the road construction. the project which serves as a distinct, lit, barrier between the project and preserved lands. Due to the extensive transportation infrastructure (and its associated light, noise, and drainage sources) as well as topographical boundaries separating the project from nearby preserved areas , the project has little potential of contributing indirect impacts to nearby preserves.
3.1 Public Quasi-Public (PQP) Lands
The Proposed Project is outside of any identified designated PQP lands and as such will not directly nor indirectly impact PQP lands.
4 VEGETATION MAPPING
4.1 Methods
The MSHCP bases its conservation areas on the vegetation map prepared by Pacific Southwest Biological Services (PSBS) and KTU+A in 1995 Mapping was based on the Holland classification (Holland 1986), and 50 vegetation communities mapped by PSBS and KTU+A withi n the Western Riverside MSHCP area were collapsed to 14 for MSHCP planning and analysis purposes. Impacts from this Project are based on this MSHCP vegetation map. Fine- scale vegetation mapping was conducted according to Manual of California Vegetation sta ndards (Sawyer et al. 2009) by WRA in 2022.
MSHCP Consistency Analysis
8 4.2 Existing Vegetation Communities
WRA observed eight land cover types within the Project Area: developed, disturbed/ruderal, coastal sage scrub, chamise chaparral, coast live oak woodland, emergent wetland, streams, mulefat scrub, and southern willow scrub (Table 1). Land cover types within the Study Area are illustrated in Figure 5 (Appendix A).
Table 1. Summary of Vegetation Communities Mapped within the Study Area
COMMUNITY/LAND
COVERS
MSHCP MAPPING UNIT CDFW RARITY
RANKING
ACRES
WITHIN
STUDY AREA
Developed Area Developed/Disturbed Land
(Residential/Urban/Exotic)
N/A 1.23
Disturbed/Ruderal Developed/Disturbed Land
(Residential/Urban/Exotic)
N/A 6.95
Coastal sage scrub Coastal Sage Scrub
(Riversidean Sage Scrub)
G5/S5 1.18
Chamise chaparral Chaparral (Chaparral) G5/S5 7.27
Coast live oak
woodland
Oak Woodland (Coast Live
Oak)
G5/S4 0.35
Southern willow scrub Riparian
Forest/Woodland/Scrub
(Riparian Scrub)
G4/S3 0.53
Mulefat Scrub Riparian
Forest/Woodland/Scrub
(Riparian Scrub)
0.04 Emergent marsh Meadows and Marshes G2?/S2? 0.01
Stream Water
(Open
Water/Reservoir/Pond)
N/A 0.05
Developed Area (no vegetation alliance). CDFW Rank: None. Approximately 1.23 acres of the Study Area is developed area. In these areas, vegetation is minimal and is primarily bare ground (i.e., dirt roads and driveways) or structures. What vegetation is present is composed of scattered annual weeds such as short -pod mustard ( Hirschfeldia incana) or ornamental trees such as Eucalyptus sp.
This community is not considered sensitive by CDFW or any other regulatory entity.
Disturbed/Ruderal Area (no vegetation alliance). CDFW Rank: None. D eveloped/ruderal areas total
6.95 acres within the Study Area. These areas intergrade with areas of mature chamise chaparral and are potentially managed as defensible space or for fuels management reasons. Vegetation is varied in terms of dominance across the Study Area but typically include one or more of the following species:
California buckwheat, deerweed, paniculate tarplant, short -pod mustard, and yellow annual sweet clover. Additional species that are found within these areas include tocalote, red brome, rattail sixweeks grass, and common sand aster. This community is not considered sensitive by CDFW or any other regulatory agency.
MSHCP Consistency Analysis
9 Coastal Sage Scrub (restored). G5/S5. CDFW Rank: Not sensitive. Approximately 1.18 acres of Diegan coastal sage scrub (restored) were observed within the study area. The Diegan coastal sage scrub is associated with the cut slope facing Clinton Keith Road along the southern boundary of the survey area. Given the standard plant palette, evidence of irrigation, and land use history, this vegetation type is likely planted as a part of a native plant erosion control/habitat restoration program.
Chamise Chaparral (A
denostoma fasciculatum Shrubland Alliance). G5/S5. CDFW Rank: Not sensitive.
Chamise chaparral totals 7.27 acres of the Study Area with the largest stands of the vegetation community located in the far eastern and central sections of the Study Area. Chamise chaparral occurs throughout cismontane California from lower mountain slopes to coastal bluffs. Chamise chaparral stands in the Study Area is dominated by chamise with other shrubs such as deerweed, California buckwheat, and lemonade berry (Rhus integrifolia) providing less than five percent cover.
Annual groundcover is sparse within the community and include common annual species found across the Study Area such as red brome, tocalote, short-pod mustard, and Cryptantha sp. This community is not considered sensitive by CDFW or any other regulatory agency.
Coast Live Oak Woodland (Q
uercus agrifolia Forest & Woodland Alliance). G5/S4. CDFW Rank: Not sensitive. Coast live oak woodland total 0.35 acres in the northwest corner of the Study Area. Coast live oak woodland occurs along cismontane coastal foothills and valleys from San Diego County to southern Mendocino County. Coast live oak is the dominant species of the upper canopy for this alliance with red willow ( Salix laevigata), blue elderberry (Sambucus nigra ssp. caerulea), and poison oak (Toxicodendron diversilobum) forming a mixed, woody mid canopy. Herbaceous groundcover is sparse and primarily composed of ripgut brome ( Bromus diandrus ) and iris -leaved rush ( Juncus xiphioides). This community is not considered sensitive; however, within the Study Area the community is associated with a stream, which may be considered riparian habitat and sensitive by CDFW as riparian habitat.
Mulefat Scrub ( B
accharis salicifolia shrubland alliance). G4/S4, CDFW Rank: Not sensitive. Mulefat scrub total 0.04 acres in the southwest corner of the Study Area and is associated with a culvert at the intersection of Clinton Keith Road and Whitewood Road. The culvert drains a natural stream course beneath Clinton Keith Road. As such, the mulefat should be considered natural and not exempt from Federal, State, or local regulation. The mulefat shrubland alliance occurs throughout the state except for the southeast deserts, high elevations of the Sierra Nevada range, and in the far northeast of the state. The alliance is commonly found in canyon bottoms, floodplains, and stream margins. This community is not considered sensitive; however, within the Study Area the community is associated with a stream, which may be considered riparian habitat and sensitive by CDFW and the MSHC, as discussed below.
Unvegetated Streambed. (no vegetation alliance). CDFW Rank: Sensitive. A pproximately 0.05 acres
of unvegetated streambed habitat was observed within the project area. Stream bed habitat is composed of small, linear unvegetated features caused by the flow of water.
Emergent Marsh. (J uncus xiphioides Provisional Herbaceous Alliance). G2?/S2? CDFW Rank: Sensitive.
Emergent marsh totals 0.01 acre and includes areas dominated by herbaceous, low -growing hydrophytic vegetation often rooted in shallow water adjacent to a larger waterbody such as a stream or lake. Emergent marsh within the Study Area is associated with a northeast trending drainage. The dominant vegetation within the emergent marsh is iris -leaved rush, and included annual beard grass MSHCP Consistency Analysis
10 (Polypogon monspeliensis ), seep monkeyflower ( Erythranthe guttata), poison hemlock ( Conium maculatum), and curly dock ( Rumex crispus ). Emergent marshlands are sensitive biological communities.
Southern Willow Scrub. (Salix gooddingii - Salix laevigata Forest & Woodland Alliance). G4/S3. CDFW Rank: Sensitive. Southern willow scrub totals 0.53 acres located in the northwest quarter of the Study Area. The forest and woodland alliance occurs throughout the state except for high elevation in the Sierra Nevada range and in the far northeast of the state. The alliance is commonly found along large rivers and canyon terraces, lake edges, seeps, springs, and stream floodplains. The dominant vegetation within the southern willow scrub is red willow ( Salix laevigata) in the tree canopy with Fremont’s cottonwood ( Populus fremontii) and coast live oak also present. Shrub cover within the alliance included coyote bush ( Baccharis pilularis) and poison oak. Herbaceous cover was light and included iris -leaved rush, annual beard grass, annual yellow sweet clover, and poison hemlock.
Southern willow scrub are sensitive biological communities.
4.3 Project Vegetation Impacts
Grading proposed by the Project would result in 16.64 acres of disturbance to the Project site. The following vegetation communities within the Survey Area will be permanently impacted by project activities (Table 2).
Table 2. Permanent Impacts to Vegetation Communities Mapped within the Study Area
MSHCP MAPPING UNIT ACRES WITHIN
STUDY AREA
Developed/Disturbed Land
(Residential/Urban/Exotic)
1.23 Developed/Disturbed Land
(Residential/Urban/Exotic)
6.81 Coastal Sage Scrub (Riversidean Sage
Scrub)
1.18 Chaparral (Chaparral) 7.16
Oak Woodland (Coast Live Oak) 0.11
Riparian Forest/Woodland/Scrub (Riparian
Scrub)
0.45 Meadows and Marshes 0.01
Water (Open Water/Reservoir/Pond) 0.02
MSHCP Consistency Analysis
11 5 PROTECTION OF SPECIES ASSOCIATED WITH RIPARIAN/RIVERINE AREAS AND VERNAL POOLS (SECTION 6.1.2)
Section 6.1.2 the MSHCP provides for protection for Riparian/Riverine areas, vernal pools, and associated species.
5.1 Riparian/Riverine
As defined by Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP, Riparian/Riverine areas are “lands which contain habitat dominated by trees, shrubs, persistent emergent, or emergent mosses and lichens, which occur close to or which depend upon soil moisture from a nearby fresh water source; or areas with fresh water flow during all or a portion of the year” (Dudek 2003).
5.1.1 Methods
MSHCP Riparian/Riverine areas within the project were surveyed during general wetland surveys conducted by WRA biologists on May 20th, 2022.
Based upon resources of the site, the MSHCP requires habitat assessments/focused surveys for certain species identified under Section 6.1.2, including riparian birds and fairy shrimp. Birds requiring assessments include the least Bell’s vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus), southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus), and western yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus occidentalis). Fairy shrimp requiring assessments include listed species such as the vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi) and Riverside fairy shrimp (Streptocephalus woottoni), as well as the Santa Rosa Plataeu fairy shrimp (Linderiella santarosae). Although not directly referenced by Section 6.1.2, assessments also should consider the San Diego fairy shrimp (Branchinecta sandiegonensis) where appropriate.
Prior to conducting the evaluation, WRA reviewed a range of background materials including the Soil Survey of Riverside County (USDA 2022), the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI; USFWS 2022), the California Aquatic Resource Inventory (SFEI 2017), and the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Murrietta 7.5-minute quadrangle map (USGS 2018). WRA also reviewed historic aerial imagery from Google Earth (Google Earth 2022).
5.1.2 Exisiting Conditions and Results
A summary of acreages of potential MSHCP Riparian/Riverine areas within the project site are provided in Table 3 below (see Appendix A- Figure 6). Descriptions of jurisdictional features follow.
MSHCP Consistency Analysis
12 Table 3. Summary of MSHCP Riparian/Riverine Mapped within the Study Area
FEATURE TYPE CLASSIFICATION
MSHCP RIPARIAN/RIVERINE
ACRES LINEAR FEET
Southern willow
scrub R4UB 0.53 N/A-
Emergent marsh R4UB 0.01 N/A-
Ephemeral Drainage R4SBA 0.05 819
Mule fat scrub R4UB 0.04 N/A
Coast Live Oak
Woodland R4UB 0.35 N/A
Total: 0.98 819
Mulefat Scrub (Baccharis salicifolia)
Mulefat scrub occurs throughout the state except for the southeast deserts, high elevations of the Sierra Nevada range, and in the far northeast of the state. This vegetation alliance is commonly found in canyon bottoms, floodplains, and stream margins.
Mulefat scrub total 0.04 acres in the southwest corner of the Study Area and are associated with a culvert at the intersection of Clinton Keith Road and Whitewood Road. Mulefat scrub within the Study Area is dominated by mulefat (Baccharis salicifolia, FAC). No hydrology nor hydric soil indicators were observed within the community. As such, mulefat scrub vegetation is likely considered jurisdictional to County of Riverside via the MSHCP Riparian/Riverine definition.
Coast Live Oak Woodland (Quercus agrifolia Forest & Woodland Alliance) Coast live oak woodland occurs along cismontane coastal foothills and valleys from San Diego County to southern Mendocino County.
Coast live oak woodland total 0.35 acres in the northwest corner of the Study Area. Coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia, UPL) is the dominant species of the upper canopy for this alliance with red willow (Salix laevigata, FACW), blue elderberry ( Sambucus nigra ssp. caerulea, FACU), and poison oak (Toxicodendron diversilobum, FACU) forming a mixed, woody mid canopy. Herbaceous groundcover is sparse and primarily composed of ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus, UPL). Coast live oak woodland is considered jurisdictional to the County of Riverside via the MSHCP Riparian/Riverine definition.
5.1.3 Impacts
While other MSHCP resources may demonstrate that they are avoiding at least 90% of the long - term conservation value of the resource, any impact to riparian/riverine or vernal pool resources requires mitigation through a DBESP.
MSHCP Consistency Analysis
13 Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP states, “If an avoidance alternative is selected, measures shall be incorporated into the project design to ensure the long-term conservation of the area to be avoided, and associated functions and values, through the use of deed restriction, conservation easement, or other appropriate mechanisms. If an avoidance alternative is not feasible, a practicable alternative that minimizes direct and indirect effects to riparian/riverine areas and vernal pools and associated functions and values to the greatest extent possible shall be selected. Those impacts that are unavoidable shall be mitigate such that the lost functions and values as they related to covered species are replaced as set forth below under the [DBESP].”
Grading proposed by the Project would result in 16.64 acres of disturbance to the Project site., The following sensitive natural communities within the Survey Area will be directly affected by project activities (Table 4).
TABLE 4. SUMMARY OF IMPACTS TO MSHCP RIPARIAN/RIVERINE MAPPED WITHIN THE STUDY AREA
FEATURE TYPE CLASSIFICATION
MSHCP RIPARIAN/RIVERINE
ACRES LINEAR FEET
Wetlands
Southern willow scrub R4UB 0.41 N/A-
Emergent marsh R4UB 0.01 N/A-
Ephemeral Drainage R4SBA 0.02 607
Mule fat scrub N/A 0.04 N/A
Coast live oak woodland N/A 0.11 N/A
Total: 0.59 607
Indirect effects are those effects that give rise to delayed, secondary effects. Examples of indirect effects include fragmentation, increased levels of environmental toxins, plant and wildlife dispersal interruption, increased risk of fire, construction noise, and invasion of nonnative animals and plants, which stresses or alters competition among natives. Indirect effects are those that can be assumed to increase mort ality, reduce productivity, and/or reduce the functions and values of natural open space for native species.
The Project site is bounded by a mixture of residential to the west, rural residential to the north and east, and open space to the south. The open space area to the south of the project is separated from the project site by the six -lane Clinton Keith Rd. As the project development will serve as an MSHCP Consistency Analysis
14 extension of existing dense residential development to the east, habitat fragmentation or isolation is likely. The elimination of wetlands and the conversion of the overall stream hydrology to subsurface pipe will have some indirect effects on downstream waters via the overall reduction of ecosystem and habitat services provided by the wetlands. Indirect effects on the open space parcel to the South may include increased traffic and its associated noise and light. However, the existence of a previously permitted and built large highway separating the project from open space parcel likely contributes to a high, baseline ambient indirect effects which surrounding area. In addition, the open space areas are separated by large slopes cut into the landscape to accommodate the highway which act as de facto barriers to both noise and light. In addition, the open space property is fenced which will deter and decrease incidental conflicts between indirect effects associated with people living near the open space and t heir associated infrastructure. As such the Project will not result in adverse indirect effects, whether short-term during construction, or long-term from the operation of the residential development.
5.1.4 Mitigation
As avoidance of MSHCP Riparian/ Riverine habitat was not possible, a Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation (DBESP) Report has been prepared by the applicant.
The applicant’s proposal includes the following options:
1) The purchase of 0. 44 acres of re -establishment mitigation credits from the San Luis Rey Mitigation Bank; and
2) The purchase of 0.56 acre of preservation credits at the Barry Jones Skunk Hollow Mitigation Bank; and
3) The planting of 100, 1 gal oak trees within preserved areas in- site and within a City owned and managed open space parcel.
Or
4) The use of an off-site PRM project with equivalent or superior natural resources to be added to the MSHCP preserve system.
With the completion of this mitigation purchase and or use of an approved PRM site, the Project’s compensatory mitigation will offset impacts to riparian/riverine resources to a biologically superior level. The San Luis Rey Mitigation Bank is located along the San Luis Rey river in the City of Oceanside in northern San Diego County. The Bank was designed to rehabilitate and re-establish wetland functions and habitat on an important stretch of the San Luis Rey river. Project impacts are located outside of designated Criteria Areas. The Barry Jones-Skunk Hollow mitigation bank is located in the French Valley area of Riverside County and includes a 33 -acre verbal pool surrounded by a 150 acre protected watershed. The Barry Jones -Skunk Hollow bank is preservation only. In addition to bank purchases, the applicant is proposing to plant 100, 1- gallon coast live oaks within preserved areas on -site and within City owned and managed property off MSHCP Consistency Analysis
15 site.
From a landscape perspective, habitats within the Project Area are isolated from larger, contiguous native habitats. This is especially true for riparian habitat where the Project Area is located within a mosaic of single-family homes and near dense, suburban development. This location increases the edge effect on habitats within the Project Area and inhibits its ability to support species targeted for conservation by the MSHCP. The purchase of credits from the proposed banks (southern willow scrub re-creation and vernal pool preservation) when combined with the enhancement of oak woodlands on and off- site would make the proposed mitigation biologically equivalent or superior to the proposed project impacts.
5.2 Vernal Pools
According to Section 6.1.2 the MSHCP, vernal pools are “seasonal wetlands that occur in depression areas that have wetlands indicators of all three parameters (soils, vegetation, and hydrology) during the wetter portion of the growing season but normally lack wetlands indicators of hydrology and/or vegetation during the drier portion of the growing season” (Dudek 2003).
5.2.1 Methods
The proposed project area was assessed for the presence of vernal pools concurrently with vegetation mapping on January 22, 2019. A desktop analysis including an examination of topography, soils, and historic aerials was conducted prior to surveys to determine the existence and/potential of ponded areas within the project area.
5.2.2 Existing Conditions and Results
No vernal pools or other seasonal ponding areas were observed within the project area during surveys. In addition, no evidence of ponding was observed in an analysis of historic aerial photography, nor are mapped soils indicative of those able to produce surface ponding for extended periods of time.
5.2.3 Impacts
As vernal pools are not present within the project area, no impacts to vernal pools are expected to occur as a part of the project.
5.2.4 Mitigation
As no impacts to vernal pools as expected as a part of the project, no mitigation for vernal pools will be required.
MSHCP Consistency Analysis
16 5.3 Fairy Shrimp
Section 6.1.2 the MSHCP requires an assessment of suitable habitat for Riverside fairy shrimp (Streptocephalus woottoni), Santa Rosa Plateau fairy shrimp (Linderiella santarosae), and vernal pool fairy shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi). These three species of invertebrates are generally found in seasonal depressions and /or vernal pools.
5.3.1 Methods
The proposed project area was assessed for the presence of ponding areas, seasonal depressions and vernal pools were conducted concurrently with vegetation mapping on January 22, 2019. A desktop analysis including an examination of topography, soils, and historic aerials was conducted prior to surveys to determine the existence and/potential of ponded areas within the project area.
5.3.2 Existing Conditions and Results
No vernal pools, other seasonal ponding areas, or any other fairy shrimp habitat were observed within the project area during surveys. In addition, no evidence of ponding was observed in an analysis of historic aerial photography, nor are mapped soils indicative of those able to produce surface ponding for extended periods of time.
5.3.3 Impacts
As fairy shrimp habitat is not present within the project area, no impacts to fairy shrimp are expected to occur as a part of the project.
5.3.4 Mitigation
As no impacts to fairy shrimp are expected as a part of the project, no mitigation for vernal pools will be required.
5.4 Riparian Birds
Section 6.1.2 the MSHCP requires an assessment of suitable habitat for least Bell’s vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher ( Empidonax traillii extimus ), and western yellow- billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus occidentalis).
5.4.1 Methods
LBV breeding habitat consists of riparian vegetation, usually in an early successional state (i.e., between five and ten years old), and near water (USFWS 1998). Such habitat is preferred because it provides both dense cover in the lower shrub layer for nest concealment, and a stratified canopy structure favorable to insect abundance and thus LBV foraging (USFWS 1998). Riparian habitat types used for breeding include those dominated by willows, cottonwood (Populus sp.), and/or oaks MSHCP Consistency Analysis
17 (Quercus sp.), with a dense understory of species such as willows, mulefat, California wild rose (Rosa californica ), poison oak ( Toxicodendron diversilobum ), and mugwort ( Artemisia douglasiana) (USFWS 1998). Nests are typically placed within three feet of the ground. LBV may attempt multiple broods during the breeding season from mid- March to late September, although one brood is typical (Brown 1993). Habitats such as chaparral and coastal sage scrub adjacent to riparian areas are used for foraging and even nesting, and thus provide another potentially important habitat component (Kus and Miner 1989). Along with habitat destruction, brood parasitism by the brown- headed cowbird (Molothrus ater) is widely considered a major contributor to the decline of LBV, and a continuing challenge to its recovery.
Focused surveys were conducted in accordance with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s “Least Bell’s Vireo Survey Guidelines” dated January 19, 2001. The protocol requires eight surveys conducted between April 10 and July 31 under normal circumstances, with a minimum of 10 days between surveys in order to maximize the detection of late and early arrivals, females, non -vocal birds, and nesting pairs. Surveys were conducted between dawn and 11:00 a.m. Eight protocol - level presence/absence surveys for LBV were conducted by WRA biologist Matthew Schliebe.
Protocol surveys were also conducted during 2023 and did not yield any positive results.
5.4.2 Existing Conditions and Results
No LBV were detected during the eight presence/absence surveys. The closest documented occurrences are between 1.5 and 4.5 miles to the south of the Survey Area along Warm Springs Creek, Santa Gertrudis Creek, an unnamed tributary to Murrieta Creek, and Murrieta Creek. The occurrences date between 1999 and 2016 (CDFW 2023). The closest LBV Critical Habitat is approximately 15 miles to the southwest along the Santa Margarita River. Habitat requirements for LBV include the presence of a dense understory within 1-2 meters of the ground for nesting and a dense, stratified canopy for foraging (USFWS 1998). Both habitat requirements are present; however, these characteristics are not consistent within the riparian habitat of the Study Area.
Generally, the coast live oak woodland provides a robust canopy and an open understory, while the southern willow scrub provides a dense understory and a moderately stratified canopy. The available habitat within the Study Area is small in relation to riparian habitat in the immediate region, such as the riparian corridors associated with Warm Springs Creek and Murrieta Creek, and especially in comparison to major riparian corridors that support LBV population centers such as the El Prado Basin and Santa Margarita River (USFWS 2006). Despite the presence of suitable habitat for LBV within the Study Area, the size of the habitat, distance of the habitat from potential source populations, and connectivity of the habitat to adjacent riparian corridors are all potential factors that may explain why LBV are absent from the Study Area.
5.4.3 Impacts
As no least Bell’s vireo were observed during protocol surveys, no impacts to the species are MSHCP Consistency Analysis
18 expected as a result of project activities.
5.4.4 Mitigation
As no impacts to least Bell’s vireo are anticipated as a part of the project, no mitigation is proposed. The applicant has committed to conducting any least Bell’s vireo habitat removal outside of the nesting season.
6 PROTECTION OF NARROW ENDEMIC PLANT SPECIES (SECTION 6.1.3)
6.1 Methods
WRA, Inc. conducted protocol -level, floristic rare plant surveys within the Whitewood Residential Development (Study Area) on April 29 and May 20th, 2022. Prior to the initial survey, WRA reviewed the California Native Plant Society’s (CNPS) Inventory of Endangered and Rare Plants, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service’s (USFWS) Information for Planning and Conservation Trust Resource Report, and the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) lists to determine which species have been documented in the vicinity of the Study Area. Based on a review of occurrence records and a comparison of species habitat requirements with Study Area conditions, it was determined that a total of five (5) rare plant species had a moderate to high likelihood to occur within the Study Area.
Protocol-level rare plant surveys were conducted in a manner that will locate any rare plants species that may be present. The California Native Plant Society’s (CNPS 2022) guidelines state that surveys should be conducted “at the proper time of year when rare, threatened, or endangered species are both evident and identifiable”. Usually, this timeline refers to when the subject species is in bloom; however, there are species that are identifiable outside of the blooming period because non -floral structures (e.g., leaves or roots) are sufficient to make a species determination and/or floral structures (e.g., fruits or buds) are necessary to be in a state of maturity beyond or prior to the documented blooming period. When rare plants are known to occur in the type(s) of habitat present in the Study Area, nearby accessible occurrences of the plant (reference sites) should be observed to determine that the plants are identifiable at the time of the survey. In addition, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW 2022) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS 2022) give detailed instructions pertaining to the adequacy of surveys and results. The following section provides details related to precipitation and other conditions that may affect the s urvey results and includes detailed information about the results of previous surveys conducted in the Study Area.
Floristic in nature, protocol-level rare plant surveys were conducted on April 29, and May 20, 2022.
The surveys entailed using meandering transects across the entirety of the Study Area, with a MSHCP Consistency Analysis
19 disproportionate focus in areas thought to be suitable for rare species and sensitive natural communities. The survey dates correspond to the peak blooming periods for observing and accurately identifying hundreds of plant species in Riverside County, including the various species with a moderate or high potential to occur in the Study Area.
6.2 Exisiting Conditions and Results
A total of 40 plant species were observed by WRA in the Study Area during the 2022 surveys, including 4 sensitive species: intermediate mariposa lily, parry’s spineflower, long-spined spineflower, and San Diego tarweed. Four, non-narrow endemic species were observed during surveys and are described below (Table 5).
TABLE 5. RARE PLANTS OBSERVED WITHIN THE STUDY AREA
SPECIES COMMON NAME SENSITIVITY
STATUS
POPULATION
SIZE
Calochortus weedii var. intermedius Intermediate mariposa lily
MSHCP,
CRPR 1B.2
6 Chorizanthe parryi var. parryi Parry’s spineflower MSHCP CRPR 1B.1
~12,000
Chorizanthe polygonoides var.
longispina
Long-spined spineflower MSHCP
CRPR 1B.2
150
Deinandra paniculata San Diego tarweed CRPR 4.2 ~ 22,000
Intermediate mariposa lily. CNPS Rank 1B.2. A total of six individuals were observed in the northwest corner of the Study Area within the disturbed/ruderal vegetation community. Individuals were often associated with shrubs such as California buckwheat and deerweed (see Figure 7).
Parry’s spineflower. CNPS Rank 1B.1. Approximately 12,000 individuals of Parry’s spineflower were observed within the Study Area. As a small, widespread annual species this population number represents a best estimate. This taxon was widespread and abundant on sandy soil within clearings of disturbed and undisturbed chamise chaparral in the southwestern portion of the study area (see Figure 7).
Long-spined spineflower. CNPS Rank 1B.2. Approximately 150 individuals of long spined spineflower were observed within the Study Area. This population was observed to be associated with clearing in chamise chaparral and Diegan coastal sage scrub in the southwestern portion of the Study area and grew adjacent to and within populations of the more widespread Parry’s spineflower (see Figure 7).
San Diego tarweed. CNPS Rank 4.2. Approximately 22,000 individuals of San Diego tarweed were observed within the Study Area. As a small, widespread annual species, this population number represents a best estimate San Diego tarweed is not covered by the MSHCP, is an annual which has a CNPS California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR) of 4.2. San Diego tarplant is not state or federally listed as threatened or endangered, and List 4 plants have a low sensitivity ranking in the CNPS system as MSHCP Consistency Analysis
20 “Plants of Limited Distribution - a Watch List.” This taxon was observed to be widespread and abundant within ruderal vegetation communities and within gaps and spaces within chamise chaparral within the survey area (see Figure 7).
6.3 Impacts
No MSHCP narrow endemic plant species were observed during sensitive species surveys.
6.4 Mitigation
As no MSCHP narrow endemic plant species were observed, no mitigation is required.
7 ADDITIONAL SURVEY NEEDS AND PROCEDURES (SECTION 6.3.2)
7.1 Criteria Area Plant Species
The proposed project does not fall within a mapped survey area for Criteria Area plant species.
7.2 Amphibians
The proposed project does not fall within the mapped survey area for amphibian species.
7.2.1 Impacts
As amphibian habitat is not present within the project area, no impacts to amphibians are expected to occur as a part of the project.
7.2.2 Mitigation
As no impacts to amphibians are expected as a part of the project, no mitigation for amphibians will be required.
7.3 Burrowing Owl
The proposed project falls within the mapped survey area for burrowing owl.
7.3.1 Methods
Burrowing owls generally inhabit flat, open areas with sparse or nonexistent tree or shrub canopies. Typical habitat is annual or perennial grassland, although human-modified areas such as agricultural land and airports are also used. While capable of creating their own burrows, burrowing owls in the west rely on burrowing mammals to provide the burrows that are characteristically used for shelter and nesting. In California, burrowing owls are often found in close association with California ground squirrels (Otospermophilus beecheyi). Anthropogenic substrates such as debris piles or pipes may also be occupied in place of burrows. In southern California, burrowing owls are non-migratory with the population increasing in the fall as birds from northern MSHCP Consistency Analysis
21 regions arrive for overwintering. The nesting period in southern California is roughly from March through July.
Survey methodology followed guidelines described in the MSHCP Burrowing Owl Survey Instructions (WRCRCA 2006) and in CDFW Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (CDFW 2012). On April 29, 2022, a site visit was conducted to determine the Study Area’s general suitability for burrowing owl, to locate burrows (or other suitable substrates), and to search for burrowing owls or burrowing owl sign. Owl sign consists of feathers, regurgitated pellets, and/or whitewash and is typically found near the entrances to occupied burrows. Burrowing owl foraging perches also often show these characteristics as well. The entirety of the Study Area was accessible and surveyed during the site visit as well as surrounding areas visible from the Study Area.
7.3.2 Existing Conditions and Results
No burrowing owls, burrowing owl sign, or potential burrows were observed within the Study Area, and the Study Area does not provide suitable habitat for this species. Most vegetated portions of the Study Area support vegetation that is too tall and too dense (e.g., chamise chaparral and willow woodland) to be suitable for burrowing owls. Flatter, open areas with more scattered perennial vegetation do exist on site, but those areas generally did not have friable soils and appear to be at least semi-regularly mowed as defensible space. While some California ground squirrels were observed during the assessment, activity was low across the Study Area. Some ground squirrel burrows were observed but were currently inhabited by ground squirrels and no whitewash, feathers, or other sign of burrowing owl were observed during the assessment.
7.3.3 Impacts
As burrowing owl habitat is not present within the project area, no impacts to burrowing owl are expected to occur as a part of the project.
7.3.4 Mitigation
Prior to the onset of Project activities, one pre-construction survey no more than 30 days prior to initial ground disturbance shall be performed in accordance with the Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation (CDFW 2012). The pre-construction survey shall include suitable habitat up to 656 feet (200 meters) from proposed activities and be conducted prior to the start of staging and construction, regardless of the time of year.
Occupied burrows will not be disturbed during the nesting season (February 1 through August 31) unless a qualified biologist verifies that either: (1) the birds have not begun egg-laying and incubation; or (2) that juveniles from the occupied burrows are foraging independently and capable of MSHCP Consistency Analysis
22 independent survival.
If burrowing owl is detected within the disturbance area during the non -nesting season and the burrow cannot be avoided, burrowing owl exclusion shall be implemented. At least 1 week will be allowed to accomplish this and allow the owls to acclimate to alternate burrows.
If burrowing owl is detected outside the disturbance area but within the Project Area during the non-nesting season, vehicle traffic and construction noise and visual disturbance shall be minimized to reduce the potential for flushing overwintering owls from protective burrows. The results of all preconstruction surveys for burrowing owl shall be provided in a written report to the City of Murrieta Planning Department and other agencies when required by applicable permits and survey protocols.
7.4 Mammals
The proposed project does not fall within a mapped survey area for mammal species. Be specific regarding which mammal species require surveys.
7.4.1 Impacts
Because the proposed project does not fall within a mapped survey area for mammal species, no impacts to mammals are expected to occur as a part of the project.
7.4.2 Mitigation
Because the proposed project does not fall within a mapped survey area for mammal species, no mitigation for mammals is required.
8 BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (VOLUME I, APPENDIX C)
Standard best management practices (BMPs) from Volume I, Appendix C of the MSHCP shall be implemented to avoid impacts to biological resources of the MSHCP, as follows:
1. A condition shall be placed on grading permits requiring a qualified biologist to conduct a training session for project personnel prior to grading. The training shall include a description of the species of concern and its habitats, the general provisions of the Endangered Species Act (Act) and the MSHCP, the need to adhere to the provisions of the Act and the MSHCP, the penalties associated with violating the provisions of the Act, the MSHCP Consistency Analysis
23 general measures that are being implemented to conserve the species of concern as they relate to the project, and the access routes to and project site boundaries within which the project activities must be accomplished.
2. Water pollution and erosion control plans shall be developed and implemented in accordance with RWQCB requirements and approved by the City of Murietta.
3. The footprint of disturbance shall be minimized to the maximum extent feasible. Access to the Project site shall be via pre-existing access routes to the greatest extent possible.
4. The upstream and downstream limits of the Project disturbance plus lateral limits of disturbance on either side of the stream shall be clearly defined and marked in the field and reviewed by the biologist prior to initiation of work.
5. Construction planning shall include designs to avoid the placement of equipment and personnel within the stream channel or on sand and gravel bars, banks, and adjacent upland habitats used by target species of concern.
6. Construction activities and phasing that cannot be conducted without placing equipment or personnel in sensitive habitats should be timed to avoid the breeding season of riparian species identified in MSHCP Global Species Objective No. 7.
7. When stream flows must be diverted, the diversions shall be conducted using sandbags or other methods requiring minimal instream impacts. Silt fencing or other sediment trapping materials shall be installed at the downstream end of construction activity to minimize the transport of sediments offsite. Settling ponds where sediment is collected shall be cleaned out in a manner that prevents the sediment from reentering the stream. Care shall be exercised when removing silt fences, as feasible, to prevent debr is or sediment from returning to the stream.
8. Equipment storage, fueling, and staging areas shall be located on upland sites with minimal risks of direct drainage into riparian areas or other sensitive habitats. These designated areas shall be located in such a manner as to prevent any runoff from ent ering sensitive habitat. Necessary precautions shall be taken to prevent the release of cement or other toxic substances into surface waters. Project related spills of hazardous materials shall be reported to appropriate entities including but not limited to City of Murietta, USFWS, and CDFW, RWQCB and shall be cleaned up immediately and contaminated soils removed to approved disposal areas.
9. Erodible fill material shall not be deposited into water courses. Brush, loose soils, or other similar debris material shall not be stockpiled within the stream channel or on its banks.
MSHCP Consistency Analysis
24 10. The qualified project biologist shall monitor construction activities for the duration of the project to ensure that all practicable measures are being employed to avoid incidental disturbance of habitat and species of concern outside the project footprint.
11. The removal of native vegetation shall be avoided and minimized to the maximum extent practicable. Temporary impacts shall be returned to pre-existing contours and revegetated with appropriate native species.
12. Exotic species that prey upon or displace target species of concern should be permanently removed from the site to the extent feasible.
13. To avoid attracting predators of the species of concern, the project site shall be kept as clean of debris as possible. All food related trash items shall be enclosed in sealed containers and regularly removed from the site(s).
14. Construction employees shall strictly limit their activities, vehicles, equipment, and construction materials to the proposed project footprint and designated staging areas and routes of travel. The construction area(s) shall be the minimal area necessary t o complete the project and shall be specified in the construction plans. Construction limits will be fenced with orange snow screen. Exclusion fencing should be maintained until the completion of all construction activities. Employees shall be instructed that their activities are restricted to the construction areas.
15. The Permittee (City of Murietta) shall have the right to access and inspect any sites of approved projects including any restoration/enhancement area for compliance with project approval conditions including these BMPs.
MSHCP Consistency Analysis
25 9 REFERENCES
Brown 1993. Brown, B.T. 1993. Bell's Vireo (Vireo bellii). In: Poole, A. and F. Gill, eds. The Birds of North America, No. 35. The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, and the American Ornithologists' Union, Washington, D.C.
CDFW 2012. California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2012. Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. Unpublished report. Sacramento, California, USA.
CDFW 2022. Protocols for Surveying and Evaluating Impacts to Rare Native Plant Populations and Natural Communities. State of California, California Natural Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Wildlife, Riverside. March 2022.
CDFW 2023. California Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2023. California Natural Diversity Database. Biogeographic Data Branch, Vegetation Classification and Mapping Program, Sacramento, California. Available online at: https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Maps- and-Data; most recently accessed: June 2023.
CNPS 2022. CNPS Botanical Survey Guidelines. Riverside, California. Available online at:
http://cnps.org/cnps/rareplants/pdf/cnps_survey_guidelines.pdf; most recently accessed:
May 2022.
Dudek and Associates, Inc. (Dudek). 2003. Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (Prepared for the Riverside County Integrated Project). Encinitas, CA: Dudek.
http://www.wrc-rca.org/about-rca/multiple-species-habitat-conservation- plan/.
Google Earth. 2022. Aerial Imagery 1993-2022. Most recently accessed: April 2022.
Holland 1986. Preliminary descriptions of the terrestrial natural communities of California.
State of California, The Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Game, Riverside, CA.
Kus and Miner 1989. Kus, B.E. and K.L. Miner. 1989. Use of Non-riparian Habitats by Least Bell's Vireos. USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-110, 299-303.
NWI; USFWS 2022. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2022. National Wetlands Inventory. Online at: http://www.fws.gov/nwi; most recently accessed: April 2022.
Sawyer et al 2009. A Manual of California Vegetation, 2nd Edition, Second edition. California Native Plant Society in collaboration with California Department of Fish and Game, Riverside, CA.
MSHCP Consistency Analysis
26 San Francisco Estuary Institute (SFEI). 2017, December 28. California Aquatic Resource Inventory (CARI) version 0.3. Available online at: https://www.sfei.org/data/california- aquatic-resource-inventory-cari-version-03-gis-data#sthash.9SjW0wBH.dpbs. Most recently accessed: April 2022
USDA 2022. U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2022. Soil Survey of Western Riverside County, California. Soil Conservation Service. In cooperation with the University of California Agricultural Experiment Station.
USFWS 1998. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998. Draft Recovery Plan for the Least Bell's Vireo. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Portland, OR. 139 pp.
USFWS 2006. Least Bell's Vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus) 5-Year Review Summary and Evaluation.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Carlsbad, CA. September.
USFWS 2022. Guidelines for Conducting and Reporting Botanical Inventories for Federally Listed, Proposed, and Candidate Plants. Riverside Fish and Wildlife Office. September.
USGS 2018. U.S. Geological Survey. 2018. Murrieta Quadrangle, California. 7.5-minute topographic map.
WRCRCA 2006. Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority. 2006.
Burrowing Owl Survey Instructions for the Western Riverside Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Area. March 29, 2006.
MSHCP Consistency Analysis
27 Appendix A: Figures
Path: L:\Acad 2000 Files\31000\31314\GIS\ArcMap\31314Base.aprx Project Area
View Extent
0 10.5
Miles
Sources: National Geographic, WRA | Prepared By: njander, 12/13/2021
Figure 1. Study Area Location
Whitewood Residential Development Project
Riverside County, California
±
Arendt L
n
Clin ton K eith Rd
Clinton Ke ith Rd
Whitewood
Rd
Path: L:\Acad 2000 Files\31000\31314\GIS\ArcMap\31314Base.aprx 0 100 50
US Feet
Sources: USDA NAIP Imagery 2020, WRA | Prepared By: njander, 12/13/2021
Figure 2. Aerial Photograph of Study Area
Whitewood Residential Development Project
Riverside County, California
±
Project Area (17.59 ac.)
Figure 3. Site Plan
Whitewood Residential Development Project
Riverside County, California
Path: L:\Acad 2000 Files\31000\31314\GIS\ArcMap\31314Base.aprx
Arendt L
n
Clin ton K eith Rd
Clinton Ke ith Rd
Whitewood
Rd
CaC2
LaD2
CbF2
CbD2
Path: L:\Acad 2000 Files\31000\31314\GIS\ArcMap\31314Base.aprx 0 100 50
US Feet
Sources: USDA NAIP Imagery 2020, WRA | Prepared By: njander, 8/5/2022 Figure 4. Soils Mapped within Survey Area
Whitewood Residential Development Project
Riverside County, California
Project Area (17.59 ac.)
CaC2 Cajalco fine sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes, eroded CbD2 Cajalco rocky fine sandy loam, 5 to 15 percent slopes, eroded CbF2 Cajalco rocky fine sandy loam, 15 to 50 percent slopes, eroded LaD2 Las Posas loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, eroded
W
hite w
ood
Rd
Mooref ield St
W
hitew
ood R
d
Wh
itewo
d Rd
Clinton Keith Rd
Rocky Glen Pl
Cli nt on Ke it h R d
Rocky Glen Pl
Arendt L
n
Clinton Keith Rd
Arendt Ln
Path: L:\Acad 2000 Files\31000\31314\GIS\ArcMap\31314Base.aprx 0 10050
F
eet
o
Sources: USDA NAIP Imagery 2020, Western Riverside Co Regional Conservation Authority, WRA | Prepared By: njander, 5/14/2024
Figure 5. Vegetation Communities within Project Area
Whitewood Residential Development Project
Riverside County, California
±
Project Area (17.59 ac.)
Land Co
ver Type
Chamise Chaparral (7.25 ac.)
Coastal sage scrub (restored) (1.18 ac.)
Developed (1.24 ac.)
Disturbed/Ruderal (6.94 ac.)
Mulefat Scrub (0.04 ac.)
Stream (0.05 ac.)
Coast Live Oak Woodland (0.35 ac.)
Emergent Marsh (0.01 ac.)
Southern Willow Scrub (0.53 ac.)
White
w
oo
d
Rd
Mooref ie ld St
W
hitewo
od R
d
Whitewo d Rd
Clinton Keith Rd
Rocky Glen Pl
Cli nt on Ke it h R d
Rocky Glen Pl
Arendt L
n
Clinton Keith Rd
Arendt Ln
Path: L:\Acad 2000 Files\31000\31314\GIS\ArcMap\31314Base_20240514.aprx 0 10050
Fee
t
o
Sources: USDA NAIP Imagery 2020, USFWS, WRA | Prepared By: njander, 5/14/2024 Figure 6. CDFW 1602 & MSHCP Riparian/Riverine Jurisdiction within Survey Area Whitewood Residential Development Project
Riverside County, California ±
Project Area (17.59 ac.)
Culvert
Potential MSHCP F
eatures
MSHCP Riparian/Riverine (0.98 ac.)
Potential CDFW 1602 F
eatures
Ephemeral drainage (0.05 ac. | 819 ln. ft.)
Riparian (0.93 ac.)
Moorfield S t
Whitewood Rd
W
hitewood Rd
Clinton Ke ith Rd Clinton Ke ith Rd
Arendt Ln
Arendt Ln
Clinton Keith Rd
Path: L:\Acad 2000 Files\31000\31314\GIS\ArcMap\31314Base.aprx Sources: USDA NAIP Imagery 2020, Western Riverside Co Regional Conservation Authority, WRA | Prepared By: njander, 10/7/2022 0 10050
Feet
Figure 7. Observed Special-Status Plant Species
in the Study Area
Whitewood Residential Development Project
Riverside County, California
Project Area (17.59 ac.)
Chorizathe parryi var. parryi (0.38 ac.)
Deinandra paniculata (1.05 ac.)
Calochortus weedii
Chorizathe parryi var. parryi
Chorizathe poligoniides var. longispina
Deinandra paniculata