Appendix C - Bio Assessment, JD, MSHCP Consistency — San Jacinto City Council, November 19, 2024

Biological Resources Assessment,
Jurisdictional Delineation Report &
MSHCP Consistency Analysis

24.5-Acre Esplanade Avenue Project on APN#439-180-011-3 Biological Resources Assessment, Jurisdictional Delineation Report And MSHCP Consistency Analysis
August 2022
Tom Dodson & Associates
Document Title
C
l
i
e
n
t
N
a
m
e
Document history and status
Revision Date Description Author Checked Reviewed Approved Distribution of copies
Revision Issue
approve
d
Date
issued
Issued to Comments
2022 Tom Dodson & Associates

24.5 Acre Esplanade Avenue Project on APN#439-180-011-3 BRA/JD & MSHCP Consistency Analysis
August 22 i

24.5-Acre Esplanade Avenue Project on APN#439-180-011-3 Project No: W3X83304 (San Jacinto)
Document Title: Biological Resources Assessment, Jurisdictional Delineation Report & MSHCP Consistency Analysis
Document No.: Final
Revision:

Date: August 2022
Client Name: Tom Dodson & Associates
Project Manager: Lisa Patterson
Author: Lisa Patterson
File Name: 2022 Esplanade (San Jacinto 3) BRA
Jacobs Engineering Group Inc.

PO Box 37
O Neals, CA 93645
T +1.909.838.1333
www.jacobs.com
© Copyright 2020 Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. The concepts and information contained in this document are the property of Jacobs. Use or copying of this document in whole or in part without the written permission of Jacobs constitutes an infringement of copyright.

Limitation: This document has been prepared on behalf of, and for the exclusive use of Jacobs’ client, and is subject to, and issued in accordance with, the provisions of the contract between Jacobs and the client. Jacobs accepts no liability or responsibility whatsoever for, or in respect of, any use of, or reliance upon, this document by any third party.
2022 Tom Dodson & Associates

24.5 Acre Esplanade Avenue Project on APN#439-180-011-3 BRA/JD & MSHCP Consistency Analysis
August 22 ii
Contents
Executive Summary.......................................................................................................................................................................1

1. Introduction ......................................................................................................................................................................2

1.1 Location.................................................................................................................................................................................................2

1.2 Environmental Setting.....................................................................................................................................................................6

2. Assessment Methodology .............................................................................................................................................7

2.1 Biological Resources Assessment ...............................................................................................................................................7

2.1.1 Biological Resources Assessment Field Survey .....................................................................................................................7

2.2 Jurisdictional Delineation...............................................................................................................................................................7

3. Results............................................................................................................................................................................. 10

3.1 Existing Biological and Physical Conditions.........................................................................................................................10

3.1.1 Habitat.................................................................................................................................................................................................10

3.1.2 Wildlife ................................................................................................................................................................................................10

3.2 Special Status Species and Habitats........................................................................................................................................10

3.2.1 Special Status Species ..................................................................................................................................................................10

3.2.2 Special Status Habitats.................................................................................................................................................................11

3.3 Jurisdictional Delineation............................................................................................................................................................11

3.4 MSHCP Consistency Analysis .....................................................................................................................................................12

4. Conclusions and Recommendations........................................................................................................................ 15

4.1 Sensitive Biological Resources ..................................................................................................................................................15

4.2 Jurisdictional Waters .....................................................................................................................................................................16

4.3 MSHCP Consistency Analysis .....................................................................................................................................................17

5. References...................................................................................................................................................................... 18 Appendix A. CNDDB Species and Habitats Documented Within the Romoland USGS 7.5-Minute Quadrangle
Appendix B. Site Photos
Appendix C. Species List
Appendix D. Regulatory Framework
2022 Tom Dodson & Associates

24.5 Acre Esplanade Avenue Project on APN#439-180-011-3 BRA/JD & MSHCP Consistency Analysis
August 22 1
Executive Summary
Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc. was retained by Tom Dodson & Associates to conduct a Biological Resources Assessment, Jurisdictional Delineation and MSHCP Consistency Analysis for a proposed residential development on an approximately 24.5-acre parcel located in the City of San Jacinto, Riverside County, California. The Subject Parcel falls entirely within the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) area and the City of San Jacinto is a signatory to the MSHCP.

In May of 2022, Jacobs’ biologists conducted a Biological Resources Assessment survey to address potential effects of the Project on designated Critical Habitats and/or special status species. Results of the Biological Resources Assessment are intended to provide sufficient baseline information to the Project Proponent and, if required, to City and/or County planning officials and federal and state regulatory agencies to determine if the Project is likely to result in any adverse effects on sensitive biological resources and to identify mitigation measures to offset those effects. Data regarding biological resources in the Project vicinity were obtained through literature review and field investigation. Available databases and documentation relevant to the Project Area were reviewed for documented occurrences of sensitive species that could potentially occur in the Project vicinity, including the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service designated Critical Habitat online mapper and Information for Planning and Consultation System, as well as the most recent versions of the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) and California Native Plant Society Electronic Inventory.

The result of the reconnaissance-level field survey was that no state or federally listed species were identified within the Project Area and the Project is not within or adjacent any federal Critical Habitat. Due to the environmental conditions on site and the adjacent disturbances, the Subject Parcel is not suitable to support any of the listed species that have been documented in the Project vicinity. Furthermore, the Subject Parcel does not contain any sensitive habitats, including any USFWS designated Critical Habitat for any federally listed species, and the Project will not result in any loss or adverse modification of Critical Habitat.

The Subject Parcel is mapped within a MSHCP Burrowing Owl Survey Area. Therefore, a burrowing owl habitat suitability assessment and floristic botanical field survey were conducted by Jacobs in May of 2022 that included 100 percent visual coverage within and adjacent the Subject Parcel. The result of the survey was that no evidence of BUOW was found in the survey area and the Project Area is not suitable to support this species at the time of survey.

Jacobs’ biologists also assessed the Subject Parcel for the presence of state and/or federal jurisdictional waters that may potentially be impacted by the Project. The jurisdictional waters assessment was conducted in accordance with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual, Jurisdictional Determination Form Instructional Guidebook, Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region. The result of the jurisdictional waters assessment is that there are no wetland or non-wetland jurisdictional waters within the Subject Parcel. Therefore, the Project will not impact any jurisdictional waters and no state or federal jurisdictional waters permitting will be required under current regulation. Additionally, the Subject Parcel does not support any MSHCP riparian/riverine areas or vernal pools.

This report describes biological resources, and identifies state and/or federally listed species with potential to occur in the area and presents representative site photographs. The results and conclusions presented in this report are considered preliminary and valid under current regulatory context. Additionally, according to protocol and standard practices, the results of the habitat assessment surveys will remain valid for the period of one year, or until August 2022, after which time, if the site has not been disturbed in the interim, another survey may be required to determine the persisting absence of special status species and to verify environmental conditions on site. Regardless of survey results and conclusions given herein, if any state or federally listed species are found on site during Project-related work activities, all activities likely to affect the animal(s) should cease immediately and regulatory agencies should be contacted to determine appropriate management actions. 2022 Tom Dodson & Associates

24.5 Acre Esplanade Avenue Project on APN#439-180-011-3 BRA/JD & MSHCP Consistency Analysis
August 22 2

1. Introduction
On behalf of Tom Dodson & Associates., Jacobs Engineering Group, Inc. (Jacobs) has prepared this Biological Resources Assessment (BRA) report for an approximately 24.5-acre property (Subject Parcel) (Site) located in the City of San Jacinto, Riverside County, California. The Subject Parcel is zoned for residential development and currently consists of vacant land generally surrounded by existing development. The BRA fieldwork was conducted by Jacobs’ biologist Lisa Patterson in May of 2022. The purpose of the BRA survey was to address potential effects of developing the Subject Parcel (Project) on designated Critical Habitats and/or any species currently listed or formally proposed for listing as endangered or threatened under the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) and/or the California Endangered Species Act (CESA), as well as any species otherwise designated as sensitive by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW [formerly California Department of Fish and Game]) and/or the California Native Plant Society (CNPS).

The Project Area was assessed for sensitive species known to occur locally. Attention was focused on those state and/or federally listed as threatened or endangered species and California Fully Protected species that have been documented in the vicinity of the Project Area, whose habitat requirements are present within or adjacent to the Project Area. Results of the habitat assessment are intended to provide sufficient baseline information to the Project Proponent and, if required, to City, County or other local government planning officials and federal and state regulatory agencies, including the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and CDFW, respectively, to determine if the Project is likely to result in any adverse effects on sensitive biological resources and to identify mitigation measures to offset those effects.

In addition to the BRA survey, Jacobs’ biologists assessed the Project Area for the presence of state and/or federal jurisdictional waters potentially subject to regulation by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA), Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) under Section 401 of the CWA and Porter Cologne Water Quality Control Act, and CDFW under Section 1600 of the California Fish and Game Code (FGC), respectively.

Jacobs also prepared a Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) Consistency Analysis, which is included in the scope of this report. As part of the City of San Jacinto’s approval process, a Western Riverside County MSCHP compliance report is required. The purpose of this report is to assess whether the proposed Project is consistent with the conditions and provisions identified in the MSCHP. The City of San Jacinto is signatory to the MSHCP Implementing Agreement and thereby a permittee responsible for meeting the terms and conditions outlined in the MSHCP and the Biological Opinion issued for the MSHCP.

Therefore, the City of San Jacinto has the responsibility to ensure the projects they approve are consistent with the MSHCP and will not preclude the overall conservation goals and reserve design from being accomplished.

According to the MSHCP, the Subject Parcel is mapped within a burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia [BUOW]) Survey Area. Therefore, in addition to the BRA survey and jurisdictional waters assessment, a BUOW habitat suitability assessment was conducted for the Project Area in accordance with the MSHCP requirements.

1.1 Location
The Subject Parcel is located in the City of San Jacinto, Riverside County, California, in an un-sectioned portion of Township 5 South, Range 1 West, San Bernardino Base Meridian (Figures 1 & 2). The Project Area is depicted on the San Jacinto U. S. Geological Survey’s (USGS) 7.5-Minute Series Quadrangle map. Specifically, the Subject Parcel is located on Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APN): 436-180-011-3; situated between Esplanade Avenue to the north, Commonwealth Avenue to the south, and is bound by Hewitt Street to the east. (See Figures 1& 2 for Regional Location Map and Site Location Map).
2022 Tom Dodson & Associates

24.5 Acre Esplanade Avenue Project on APN#439-180-011-3 BRA/JD & MSHCP Consistency Analysis
August 22 3
SOURCE: Google Maps
FIGURE 1
Regional Location

24.5-Ac San Jacinto Development Project
Project Location
2022 Tom Dodson & Associates

24.5 Acre Esplanade Avenue Project on APN#439-180-011-3 BRA/JD & MSHCP Consistency Analysis
August 22 4
SOURCE: USGS 7.5 Min Topo “San Jacinto” Quad.

FIGURE 2
Topographic Map of Project Location

24.5-acre San Jacinto Development Project
Project Location
2022 Tom Dodson & Associates

24.5 Acre Esplanade Avenue Project on APN#439-180-011-3 BRA/JD & MSHCP Consistency Analysis
August 22 5
SOURCE: Google Earth
FIGURE 3
Aerial Photograph of Project Area

24.5-acre San Jacinto Development Project
2022 Tom Dodson & Associates

24.5 Acre Esplanade Avenue Project on APN#439-180-011-3 BRA/JD & MSHCP Consistency Analysis
August 22 6

1.2 Environmental Setting
The Project Area lies in the geographically based ecological classification known as the Inland Valleys – Level IV ecoregion, of the Southern California/Northern Baja Coast – Level III ecoregion (Griffith et al. 2016). The goal of regional ecological classifications is to reduce variability based on spatial covariance in climate, geology, topography, climax vegetation, hydrology, and soils. The Inland Valleys ecoregion is a heavily urbanized ecoregion that historically consisted of the alluvial fans and basin floors immediately south of the San Gabriel and San Bernardino Mountains (Griffith et al. 2016).

The Project Area is situated in the San Jacinto Valley, between the Santa Ana Mountains to the west/southwest and the San Jacinto Mountains the east/northeast. The topography of the Project Area consists of flat urban landscape, comprised of vacant land and surrounding residential and commercial development. The elevation of the Subject Parcel is approximately 1,400 feet above mean sea level (amsl).

The Project Area is within a hot-summer Mediterranean climate (Csa), subject to both seasonal and annual variations in temperature and precipitation. Average annual maximum temperatures within the Project Area peak at 94.4 degrees Fahrenheit (° F) in August and fall to an average annual minimum temperature of 39.1° F in January. Average annual precipitation is greatest from December through March and reaches a peak in February (2.20 inches). Precipitation is lowest in the month of July (0.04 inches). Annual total precipitation averages

10.21 inches.

Hydrologically, the Project Area is situated within the Gilman Hot Springs Hydrologic Sub-Area (HSA 802.21).

The Gilman Hot Springs HSA comprises a 193,598-acre drainage area, within the larger San Jacinto Valley Watershed (HUC 18070202). The San Jacinto River is the major hydrogeomorphic feature within the San Jacinto Watershed. The nearest tributaries to the San Jacinto River.

Soils within the Subject Parcel are predominantly comprised of San Emigdio fine sandy loam and Emigdio fine sandy loam deep both strongly saline-alkali 0 to 2 percent slopes. • The San Emigdio series consists of very deep, well drained soils that formed in dominantly sedimentary alluvium. San Emigdio soils are on fans and floodplains and have slopes of 0 to 15 percent. The mean annual precipitation is about 15 inches, and the mean annual air temperature is about 62 degrees F.

The City of San Jacinto consists of a mix of urban landscapes and isolated patches of undeveloped, grassland, and coastal sage scrub habitats. The Subject Parcel is entirely within an urban landscape that no longer supports any native habitat. Surrounding uses consists of commercial and residential developed areas with non-native landscaped vegetation. The entirety of the property cleared/graded vacant lands. (Figure 3). 2022 Tom Dodson & Associates

24.5 Acre Esplanade Avenue Project on APN#439-180-011-3 BRA/JD & MSHCP Consistency Analysis
August 22 7

2. Assessment Methodology

2.1 Biological Resources Assessment
Data regarding biological resources in the Project vicinity were obtained through literature review, desktop evaluation and field investigation. Prior to performing the field survey, available databases, and documentation relevant to the Project Area were reviewed for documented occurrences of sensitive species that could potentially occur in the Project vicinity. The USFWS designated Critical Habitat online mapper, USFWS threatened and endangered species occurrence data overlay, and the most recent versions of the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) and California Native Plant Society Electronic Inventory (CNPSEI) databases were searched for sensitive species data in the San Jacinto USGS 7.5-Minute Series Quadrangle. These databases contain records of reported occurrences of state and federally listed species or otherwise sensitive species and habitats that may occur within the vicinity of the Project site (approximately 3 miles). Other available technical information on the biological resources of the area was also reviewed including previous surveys and recent findings.

2.1.1 Biological Resources Assessment Field Survey
Jacobs’ biologist Lisa Patterson conducted a biological resources assessment of the Project Area on May 22, 2022. The reconnaissance-level field survey included a floristic botanical survey and a burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) habitat suitability assessment survey, which consisted of a pedestrian survey that encompassed the entire Subject Parcel and included 100 percent visual coverage of the site and adjacent earthen flood control channel to the north. Wildlife species were detected during field surveys by sight, calls, tracks, scat, and/or other sign. In addition to species observed, expected wildlife usage of the site was determined based on known habitat preferences of regional wildlife species and knowledge of their relative distributions in the area. The focus of the faunal species survey was to identify potential habitat for special status wildlife that may occur within the Project vicinity.

2.2 Jurisdictional Delineation
On May 22, 2022, Ms. Patterson also evaluated the Subject Parcel for the presence of riverine/riparian/wetland habitat and jurisdictional waters, i.e. Waters of the U.S. (WOTUS), as regulated by the USACE and RWQCB, and/or jurisdictional streambed and associated riparian habitat as regulated by the CDFW. Prior to the field visit, aerial photographs of the Project Area were viewed and compared with the surrounding USGS 7.5-Minute Topographic Quadrangle maps to identify drainage features within the survey area as indicated from topographic changes, blue-line features, or visible drainage patterns. The USFWS National Wetland Inventory (NWI) and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Water Program “My Waters” Google Earth Pro data layers were also reviewed to determine whether any hydrologic features and wetland areas had been documented within the vicinity of the site. Similarly, the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) – Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) “Web Soil Survey” was reviewed for soil types found within the Project Area to identify the soil series in the area and to check these soils to determine whether they are regionally identified as hydric soils. Upstream and downstream connectivity of waterways (if present) were reviewed on Google Earth Pro aerial photographs and topographic maps to determine jurisdictional status. The lateral extent of potential USACE jurisdiction was measured at the Ordinary High-Water Mark (OHWM) in accordance with regulations set forth in 33CFR part 328 and the USACE guidance documents listed below:
• USACE – Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual, Wetlands Research Program Technical Report Y-87-1 (on-line edition), January 1987 - Final Report. • USACE – Jurisdictional Determination Form Instructional Guidebook (JD Form Guidebook), May 30, 2007.
2022 Tom Dodson & Associates

24.5 Acre Esplanade Avenue Project on APN#439-180-011-3 BRA/JD & MSHCP Consistency Analysis
August 22 8
• USACE – A Field Guide to the Identification of the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) in the Arid West Region of the Western United States (A Delineation Manual), August 2008. • USACE – Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region (Version 2.0), September 2008.
• USACE – Minimum Standards for Acceptance of Aquatic Resources Delineation Reports (Minimum Standards), January 2016.

To be considered a jurisdictional wetland under the federal CWA, Section 404, an area must possess three (3) wetland characteristics: hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, and wetland hydrology. ► Hydrophytic vegetation: Hydrophytic vegetation is plant life that grows, and is typically adapted for life, in permanently or periodically saturated soils. The hydrophytic vegetation criterion is met if more than 50 percent of the dominant plant species from all strata (tree, shrub, and herb layers) is considered hydrophytic. Hydrophytic species are those included on the 2018 National Wetland Plant Lists for the Arid West Region (USACE 2018). Each species on the lists is rated with a wetland indicator category, as shown in Table 1. To be considered hydrophytic, the species must have wetland indicator status, i.e., be rated as OBL, FACW or FAC.

Table 1. Wetland Indicator Vegetation Categories
Category Probability
Obligate Wetland (OBL) Almost always occur in wetlands (estimated probability >99%) Facultative Wetland (FACW) Usually occur in wetlands (estimated probability 67 to 99%) Facultative (FAC)
Equally likely to occur in wetlands and non-wetlands
(estimated probability 34 to 66%)
Facultative Upland (FACU)
Usually occur in non-wetlands (estimated probability 67 to 99%)
Obligate Upland (UPL)
Almost always occur in non-wetlands (estimated probability >99%)
► Hydric Soil: Soil maps from the USDA-NRCS Web Soil Survey (USDA 2021) were reviewed for soil types found within the Project Area. Hydric soils are saturated or inundated long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions that favor growth and regeneration of hydrophytic vegetation.

There are several indirect indicators that may signify the presence of hydric soils including hydrogen sulfide generation, the presence of iron and manganese concretions, certain soil colors, gleying, and the presence of mottling. Generally, hydric soils are dark in color or may be gleyed (bluish, greenish, or grayish), resulting from soil development under anoxic (without oxygen) conditions. Bright mottles within an otherwise dark soil matrix indicate periodic saturation with intervening periods of soil aeration.

Hydric indicators are particularly difficult to observe in sandy soils, which are often recently deposited soils of flood plains (entisols) and usually lack sufficient fines (clay and silt) and organic material to allow use of soil color as a reliable indicator of hydric conditions. Hydric soil indicators in sandy soils include accumulations of organic matter in the surface horizon, vertical streaking of subsurface horizons by organic matter, and organic pans.

The hydric soil criterion is satisfied at a location if soils in the area can be inferred or observed to have a high groundwater table, if there is evidence of prolonged soil saturation, or if there are any indicators suggesting a long-term reducing environment in the upper part of the soil profile. Reducing conditions are most easily assessed using soil color. Soil colors were evaluated using the Munsell Soil Color Charts (Munsell 2000). Soil pits are dug (when necessary) to an approximate depth of 16-20 inches to evaluate soil profiles for indications of anaerobic and redoximorphic (hydric) conditions in the subsurface. 2022 Tom Dodson & Associates

24.5 Acre Esplanade Avenue Project on APN#439-180-011-3 BRA/JD & MSHCP Consistency Analysis
August 22 9
► Wetland Hydrology: The wetland hydrology criterion is satisfied at a location based upon conclusions inferred from field observations that indicate an area has a high probability of being inundated or saturated (flooded, ponded, or tidally influenced) long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the surface soil environment, especially the root zone (USACE 1987 and USACE 2008).

Evaluation of CDFW jurisdiction followed guidance in the Fish and Game Code and A Review of Stream Processes and Forms in Dryland Watersheds (CDFW, 2010). Specifically, CDFW jurisdiction would occur where a stream has a definite course showing evidence of where waters rise to their highest level and to the extent of associated riparian vegetation.
2022 Tom Dodson & Associates

24.5 Acre Esplanade Avenue Project on APN#439-180-011-3 BRA/JD & MSHCP Consistency Analysis
August 22 10

3. Results

3.1 Existing Biological and Physical Conditions
The Project Area consists of the approximately 24.5-acre Subject Parcel, as well as any adjacent undeveloped areas that may be impacted directly or indirectly by the proposed Project. The Subject Parcel consists of cleared/graded vacant lot surrounded by urban landscape predominantly consisting of commercial and residential development development to the north and commercial development to the west. Although there are other undeveloped lots adjacent to the site, as a whole those lots are surrounded by developed areas. (Figure 3). Existing disturbances within the Subject Parcel include frequent disking.

3.1.1 Habitat
The Subject Parcel is completely disturbed and no longer supports any native habitat. There is no vegetation on the site.

3.1.2 Wildlife
The predominant wildlife species observed or otherwise detected during the reconnaissance-level survey were birds, including house sparrow (Passer domesticus), Pigeon (Columba livia), and Cassin's kingbird (Tyrannus vociferans). Evidence of other species observe or detcted include California ground squirrel (Otospermophilus beecheyi), and domestic dog (Canis lupis familiaris)

3.2 Special Status Species and Habitats
According to the CNDDB, 41 sensitive species (12 plant species, 29 animal species) and have been documented in the San Jacinto USGS 7.5-Minute Series Quadrangle. This list of sensitive species and habitats includes any state and/or federally listed threatened or endangered species, California Fully Protected species, CDFW designated Species of Special Concern (SSC), and otherwise Special Animals. “Special Animals” is a general term that refers to all the taxa the CNDDB is interested in tracking, regardless of their legal or protection status. This list is also referred to as the list of “species at risk” or “special status species.” The CDFW considers the taxa on this list to be those of greatest conservation need.

3.2.1 Special Status Species
Of the 41 sensitive species documented within the within the San Jacinto quad, 15 are state and/or federally listed as threatened, endangered, or candidate species. However, the Subject Parcel consists entirely of disturbed, vacant lot surrounded by urban landscape, and the habitat requirements for these listed species are absent from the Project Area. No state and/or federally listed threatened or endangered species, or other sensitive species were observed within the Project Area during the reconnaissance-level field survey and due to the environmental conditions on site, none are expected to occur. A complete list of all sensitive species identified by the CNDDB as potentially occurring in the Project vicinity and Figure 4 – CNDDB Occurrence Map are provided in Appendix A.

Although not a state or federally listed as threatened or endangered species, BUOW are considered a state and federal SSC and this species is protected by international treaty under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 and by State law under the California FGC (FGC #3513 & #3503.5). Additionally, the Subject Parcel is within a MSHCP BUOW Survey Area, and this species has been documented in the Project vicinity (approximately 3 miles).

Therefore, BUOW will be included in the discussion below. 2022 Tom Dodson & Associates

24.5 Acre Esplanade Avenue Project on APN#439-180-011-3 BRA/JD & MSHCP Consistency Analysis
August 22 11
Burrowing Owl – SSC
The BUOW is a ground dwelling owl typically found in arid prairies, fields, and open areas where vegetation is sparse and low to the ground. The BUOW is heavily dependent upon the presence of mammal burrows, with ground squirrel burrows being a common choice, in its habitat to provide shelter from predators, inclement weather and to provide a nesting place (Coulombe 1971). They are also known to make use of human-created structures, such as cement culverts and pipes, for burrows. According to the definition provided in the 2012 CDFG Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation, “Burrowing owl habitat generally includes, but is not limited to, short or sparse vegetation (at least at some time of year), presence of burrows, burrow surrogates or presence of fossorial mammal dens, well-drained soils, and abundant and available prey.” BUOW spend a great deal of time standing on dirt mounds at the entrance to a burrow or perched on a fence post or other low to the ground perch from which they hunt for prey. They feed primarily on insects such as grasshoppers, June beetles and moths, but will also take small rodents, birds, and reptiles. They are active during the day and night but are considered a crepuscular owl; generally observed in the early morning hours or at twilight. The breeding season for BUOW is February 1 through August 31.

BUOW have disappeared from significant portions of their range in the last 15 years and, overall, nearly 60 percent of the breeding groups of owls known to have existed in California during the 1980s had disappeared by the early 1990s (Burrowing Owl Consortium 1993). The BUOW is not listed under the state or federal ESAs but is considered both a state and federal SSC. Additionally, the BUOW is a migratory bird protected by the international treaty under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918 and by State law under the California FGC (FGC #3513 & #3503.5).

Findings: BUOW have not been documented within the Subject Parcel. According to the literature review, the nearest documented BUOW occurrence (2007) is approximately 0.7 miles east of the Subject Parcel (CNDDB 2022). The BUOW habitat assessment survey was structured, in part, to detect BUOW.

The survey consisted of walking transects spaced approximately 10 meters (30 feet) apart to provide 100 percent visual coverage of the Subject Parcel, including the adjacent earthen flood control channel to the north. The result of the survey was that no evidence of BUOW was found in the survey area and much of the Subject Parcel is not suitable to support this species. BUOW prefer short or sparse vegetation and the entire site has zero vegetation, with a shrub cover > 90 percent.

No BUOW individuals or sign including castings, feathers or whitewash were observed within the Subject Parcel during the habitat assessment survey. Furthermore, no burrow surrogates or appropriately sized fossorial mammal dens were observed within the Subject Parcel. Therefore, BUOW are considered absent from the Project Area at the time of survey and the Project is not likely to adversely affect this species.

3.2.2 Special Status Habitats
The Subject Parcel does not contain any sensitive habitats, including any USFWS designated Critical Habitat for any federally listed species. The nearest Critical Habitat unit is approximately 1 mile to the east of the Subject Parcel for San Bernardino Merriam’s kangaroo rat, and approximately 4 miles to the west for Spreading navarretia (Navarretia fossalis) However, no portion of the Subject Parcel is within or adjacent this Critical Habitat unit, or any other Critical Habitat. Therefore, the Project will not result in any loss or adverse modification of USFWS designated Critical Habitat, or any other special status habitats.

3.3 Jurisdictional Delineation
The Subject Parcel is within the Gilman Hot Springs HSA (HSA 802.21). The Gilman Hot Springs HSA comprises a 193,598-acre drainage area, within the larger San Jacinto Valley Watershed (HUC 18070202). The San 2022 Tom Dodson & Associates

24.5 Acre Esplanade Avenue Project on APN#439-180-011-3 BRA/JD & MSHCP Consistency Analysis
August 22 12
Jacinto Watershed is bound on the west/northwest by the Santa Ana Watershed, on the east/northeast by the Whitewater River Watershed, and on the south by the Santa Margarita and Aliso-San Onofre Watersheds. The San Jacinto Watershed encompasses the San Jacinto, Moreno, San Jacinto, and Menifee Valleys, as well a portion of the Santa Jacinto Mountains to the east, The Badlands to the north, and the Elsinore Mountains to the southwest. The San Jacinto Watershed is approximately 765.26 square miles in area. The San Jacinto River is the major hydrogeomorphic feature within the San Jacinto Watershed and the nearest tributaries to the San Jacinto River are two unnamed flood control channels that border the Subject Parcel: a man-made, concrete lined channel that flows northward along the western border of the Subject Parcel, and an earthen channel that flows westward along the northern border of the Subject Parcel.

Waters of the U.S.

The USACE has authority to permit the discharge of dredged or fill material in WOTUS under Section 404 of the CWA ” WOTUS are defined as: “The territorial seas and traditional navigable waters; perennial and intermittent tributaries that contribute surface water flow to such waters; certain lakes, ponds, and impoundments of jurisdictional waters; and wetlands adjacent to other jurisdictional waters.” (85 FR 22250).

There are no wetland or non-wetland WOTUS within the Subject Parcel or adjacent to the subject parcel. The Project will not result in any permanent or temporary impacts to WOTUS. Therefore, the Project would be exempt from CWA Section 404/401 permitting.

State Lake/Streambed
There are no “waters of the State” within the Subject Parcel and the Project will not result in any permanent or temporary impacts to jurisdictional waters of the State. Therefore, the Project would be exempt from FGC Section 1602 and RWQCB permitting as well.

3.4 MSHCP Consistency Analysis
Western Riverside County MSHCP
The Western Riverside County MSHCP is a criteria-based plan and identification of planning units on which to base the Criteria is necessary for such a criteria-based plan. The MSHCP Conservation Area is comprised of a variety of existing and proposed Cores, Extensions of Existing Cores, Linkages, Constrained Linkages and Noncontiguous Habitat Blocks. The MSHCP coverage area is divided into Area Plans based on the Riverside County’s General Plan Area Plan boundaries. Each of the Area Plans has: 1) established conservation criteria, 2) species specific surveys that may be required based on an on-site Habitat Assessment or field investigation, and 3) resources and areas identified for conservation. In each Area Plan, Core Habitat areas and Linkages have been identified.

The MSHCP is intended to satisfy the legal requirements to authorize the “take” of species covered under the Plan during otherwise lawful activities, by providing for the conservation of the Covered Species. There are 146 species covered by the MSHCP. Surveys are not required for 106 of these covered species. The remaining 40 species are conditionally covered under the MSHCP and may require focused surveys for proposed development projects. The 40 species that are not fully covered under the MSHCP include four birds, three mammals, three amphibians, three crustaceans, 14 Narrow Endemic Plants, and 13 Criteria Area plants. The need to conduct focused surveys for all but six of these 40 species is determined by the presence of suitable habitat within designated ‘survey areas’ mapped for each of the species. The remaining six species that require focused surveys throughout the entire MSHCP area are associated with riparian/riverine areas and vernal pools and include three riparian obligate bird species and three vernal pool associated fairy shrimp species. 2022 Tom Dodson & Associates

24.5 Acre Esplanade Avenue Project on APN#439-180-011-3 BRA/JD & MSHCP Consistency Analysis
August 22 13
The Subject Parcel is located within the MSHCP’s San Jacinto Valley Area Plan. According to the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority’s online MSHCP Information Tool query, the Subject Parcel is within the San Jacinto Habitat Management Unit (HMU) but is not mapped within or adjacent a Criteria Cell or Cell Group, and therefore not targeted for conservation. Furthermore, the Subject Parcel is not mapped within any required survey areas for amphibians, mammals, invertebrates, or other Criteria Area Species. However, Burrowing Owl Surveys are required within the Subject Parcel. Therefore, in addition to the BRA survey, a BUOW habitat suitability assessment survey was conducted for the Project Area in accordance with the MSHCP requirements.

Subunit Area/Cell Criteria
Pursuant to Section 3.3.12 of the MSHCP, Subunits are areas within an Area Plan that contain target conservation acreages along with a description of the planning species, biological issues, and considerations.

Findings: According to the Western Riverside County MSHCP GIS overlay, the Subject Parcel is not located within a Subunit Area or Criteria Cell. No further discussion on this subject is required in this analysis.

Amphibian, Mammal, Invertebrate and Other Criteria Area Species Pursuant to Section 6.3.2 of the MSHCP, additional surveys may be needed for certain species in conjunction with Plan implementation to achieve coverage for these species.

Findings: According to the Western Riverside County MSHCP GIS overlay, the Subject Parcel is not located in an area where additional surveys are required for any amphibians, mammals, invertebrates, or other Criteria Area species. No further discussion on this subject is required in this analysis.

Burrowing Owl
Pursuant to Section 6.3.2 of the MSHCP, surveys shall be conducted within suitable habitat for BUOW, according to accepted protocols.

Findings: According to the Western Riverside County MSHCP GIS overlay, the Subject Parcel is located in an area where surveys are required for BUOW. As discussed in Section 3.2.1 (above), a BUOW habitat suitability assessment survey that included 100 percent visual coverage of the Subject Parcel and adjacent earthen flood control channel was conducted by Jacobs in May of 2022. The result of the survey was that no evidence of BUOW was found in the survey area and all of the Subject Parcel is not suitable to support this species. BUOW prefer short or sparse vegetation and the undisked portion of the Subject Parcel consists mostly of the residential dwelling and outbuilding, dense ruderal vegetation, with a shrub cover > 90 percent, and landscape trees.

Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools
The MSHCP describes the protection of Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools within the MSHCP Plan Area as important to the conservation of certain amphibian, avian, fish, invertebrate and plant species. The MSHCP 2022 Tom Dodson & Associates

24.5 Acre Esplanade Avenue Project on APN#439-180-011-3 BRA/JD & MSHCP Consistency Analysis
August 22 14
describes guidelines to ensure that the biological functions and values for species inside the MSHCP Conservation Areas are maintained, as outlined in Volume 1, Section 6.1.2.

Pursuant to Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP, Riparian/Riverine areas are lands which contain habitat dominated by trees, shrubs, persistent emergent vegetation, or emergent mosses and lichens, which occur close to or which depend upon soil moisture from nearby fresh water sources, or areas with freshwater flow during all or a portion of the year. Riverine habitat includes all wetlands and deep-water habitats contained in natural or artificial channels periodically or continuously containing flowing water or which forms a connecting link between the two bodies of standing water. Riverine habitat is bounded on the landward side by upland, by the channel bank (including natural and man-made levees), or by wetlands dominated by trees, shrubs, persistent emergent, mosses, or lichens. In braided streams, the system is bounded by the banks forming the outer limits of the depression within which the braiding occurs. Springs discharging into a channel are considered part of the riverine habitat. The term riparian is used to define the type of wildlife habitat found along the banks of a river, stream, lake or other body of water. Riparian habitats are ecologically diverse and can be found in many types of environments including grasslands, wetlands, and forests.

Pursuant to Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP, Vernal Pools are seasonal wetlands that occur in depression areas that have wetlands indicators of all three parameters (soils, vegetation, and hydrology) during the wetter portion of the growing season but normally lack wetlands indicators of hydrology and/or vegetation during the drier portion of the growing season. 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. The determination that an area exhibits vernal pool characteristics should consider (1) the length of time the area exhibits upland and wetland characteristics, and (2) the manner in which the area fits into the overall ecological system as a wetland. Evidence concerning the persistence of an area's wetness can be obtained from its history, vegetation, soils, and drainage characteristics, uses to which it has been subjected, and weather and hydrologic records.

Findings: No Riparian/Riverine areas were found within the Subject Parcel. There are no natural or manmade features that support any aquatic resources, stream-dependent wildlife resources, or riparian habitats within the Subject Parcel. Additionally, no vernal pools were identified within the Subject Parcel and based on a review of historic aerial imagery and USGS topographic maps, no vernal pools or other natural wetland features existed historically within the Subject Parcel.

Urban/Wildlands Interface
Section 6.1.4 of the MSHCP presents guidelines to minimize indirect effects of projects adjacent to MSCHP Conservation Areas. These guidelines are intended to reduce potential Edge Effects that could adversely affect biological resources within the MSHCP Conservation Areas. This section provides mitigation measures for impacts associated with Drainage, Toxics, Lighting, Noise, Invasives, Barriers, and Grading/Land Development.

Findings: There are no MSCHP Conservation Areas within or adjacent to the Subject Parcel. No further discussion on this subject is required in this analysis. 2022 Tom Dodson & Associates

24.5 Acre Esplanade Avenue Project on APN#439-180-011-3 BRA/JD & MSHCP Consistency Analysis
August 22 15

4. Conclusions and Recommendations

4.1 Sensitive Biological Resources
A reconnaissance level BRA survey of the Subject Parcel was conducted by Jacobs in May of 2022 to identify potential habitat for special status wildlife within the Project Area. No sensitive species were observed within the Project Area during the reconnaissance-level field survey and due to the environmental conditions on site, none are expected to occur. The Subject Parcel is completely disturbed and no longer supports any native habitats (see attached Site Photos). The Subject Parcel consists of vacant cleared/graded lands surrounded by urban landscape consisting commercial and residential developments. Existing disturbances within the Subject Parcel include frequent disking. Due to the environmental conditions on site and the adjacent disturbances, the Subject Parcel is likely not suitable to support any of the listed species that have been documented in the Project vicinity (within approximately 3 miles). Furthermore, the Subject Parcel does not contain any sensitive habitats, including any USFWS designated Critical Habitat for any federally listed species, and the Project will not result in any loss or adverse modification of Critical Habitat.

Burrowing Owl
The Subject Parcel is within a MSHCP Burrowing Owl Survey Area. Therefore, a BUOW habitat suitability assessment was conducted by Jacobs on May 22, 2022 that included 100 percent visual coverage of any potentially suitable BUOW habitat within the Project Area. The result of the survey was that no evidence of BUOW was found in the survey area and much of the Subject Parcel is not suitable to support this species. No BUOW individuals or sign including castings, feathers or whitewash were observed and BUOW are considered absent from the Project Area at the time of survey. Although the Project is not likely to adversely affect this species, there is still a low potential for the Subject Parcel to become occupied by BUOW between the time the survey was conducted and the commencement of Project-related site disturbance. Therefore, the following precautionary avoidance measures are recommended to ensure the Project does not result in any impacts to BUOW:
➢ Pre-construction surveys for BUOW should be conducted no more than 3 days prior to commencement of Project-related ground disturbance to verify that BUOW remain absent from the Project Area.

The BUOW is a state and federal SSC and is also protected under the MBTA and by state law under the California FGC (FGC #3513 & #3503.5). In general, impacts to BUOW can be avoided by conducting work outside of their nesting season (peak BUOW breeding season is identified as April 15th to August 15th). However, if all work cannot be conducted outside of nesting season, a project specific BUOW protection and/or passive relocation plan can be prepared to determine suitable buffers and/or artificial burrow construction locations. Regardless of survey results and conclusions given herein, BUOW are protected by applicable state and federal laws. As such, if a BUOW is found on-site at the time of construction, all activities likely to affect the animal(s) should cease immediately and regulatory agencies should be contacted to determine appropriate management actions.

Importantly, nothing given in this report is intended to authorize any form of disturbance to BUOW. Such authorization must come from the appropriate regulatory agencies, including CDFW and/or USFWS. 2022 Tom Dodson & Associates

24.5 Acre Esplanade Avenue Project on APN#439-180-011-3 BRA/JD & MSHCP Consistency Analysis
August 22 16
Nesting Birds
The Project Area is marginally suitable to support nesting birds, including open ground nesting species. Most native bird species are protected from unlawful take by the MBTA (Appendix D). In December 2017, the Department of the Interior (DOI) issued a memorandum concluding that the MBTA’s prohibitions on take apply “[…] only to affirmative actions that have as their purpose the taking or killing of migratory birds, their nests, or their eggs” (DOI 2017). Then in April 2018, the USFWS issued a guidance memorandum that further clarified that the take of migratory birds or their active nests (i.e., with eggs or young) that is incidental to, and not the purpose of, an otherwise lawful activity does not constitute a violation of the MBTA (USFWS 2018).

However, the State of California provides additional protection for native bird species and their nests in the FGC (Appendix D). Bird nesting protections in the FGC include the following (Sections 3503, 3503.5, 3511, 3513 and 3800):
• Section 3503 prohibits the take, possession, or needless destruction of the nest or eggs of any bird. • Section 3503.5 prohibits the take, possession, or needless destruction of any nests, eggs, or birds in the orders Falconiformes (new world vultures, hawks, eagles, ospreys, and falcons, among others), and Strigiformes (owls).
• Section 3511 prohibits the take or possession of Fully Protected birds. • Section 3513 prohibits the take or possession of any migratory nongame bird or part thereof, as designated in the MBTA. To avoid violation of the take provisions, it is generally required that Projectrelated disturbance at active nesting territories be reduced or eliminated during the nesting cycle. • Section 3800 prohibits the take of any any non-game bird (i.e., bird that is naturally occurring in California that is not a gamebird, migratory game bird, or fully protected bird).

In general, impacts to all bird species (common and special status) can be avoided by conducting work outside of the nesting season, which is generally February 1st through August 31st. However, if all work cannot be conducted outside of nesting season, the following is recommended:
➢ To avoid impacts to nesting birds (common and special status) during the nesting season, a qualified Avian Biologist should conduct pre‐construction nesting bird surveys prior to Project‐related disturbance to suitable nesting areas to identify any active nests. If no active nests are found, no further action would be required. If an active nest is found, the biologist should set appropriate no‐work buffers around the nest which would be based upon the nesting species, its sensitivity to disturbance, nesting stage and expected types, intensity and duration of disturbance. The nest(s) and buffer zones should be field checked weekly by a qualified biological monitor. The approved no‐work buffer zone should be clearly marked in the field, within which no disturbance activity should commence until the qualified biologist has determined the young birds have successfully fledged and the nest is inactive.

4.2 Jurisdictional Waters
In addition to the BRA and BUOW habitat suitability assessment survey, Jacobs also assessed the Subject Parcel for the presence of any state and/or federal jurisdictional waters. The result of the jurisdictional waters assessment is that there are no wetland or non-wetland WOTUS or waters of the State within the Subject Parcel that would potentially be subject to regulation by the USACE under Section 404 of the CWA, the RWQCB under Section 401 of the CWA and/or Porter Cologne Water Quality Control Act, or the CDFW under Section 1602 of 2022 Tom Dodson & Associates

24.5 Acre Esplanade Avenue Project on APN#439-180-011-3 BRA/JD & MSHCP Consistency Analysis
August 22 17
the California FGC, respectively. Therefore, the Project will not impact any jurisdictional waters and no state or federal jurisdictional waters permitting will be required.

4.3 MSHCP Consistency Analysis
The Project is consistent with the MSHCP policies found in Sections 3 and 6 of the MSHCP, which include Riparian/Riverine Areas/Vernal Pools, Narrow Endemic Plant Species, Criteria Area Species, Urban/Wildlands Interface, and Surveys for Special Status Species (BUOW). The Subject Parcel is within the Western Riverside County MSHCP boundary but is not within or adjacent any MSHCP Criteria Cells or Cell Groups. Therefore, implementation of the MSHCP Section 6.1.4 Guidelines Pertaining to the Urban/Wildlands Interface is not required. The Project Proponent should be prepared to pay the MSHCP fees and restrict all Project related impacts to existing right-of-way and/or other areas outside of Conserved Lands. No conservation or avoidance measures are expected, and development of the Subject Parcel would be consistent with the San Jacinto Area Plan conservation criteria and overall conservation goals and objectives set forth in the MSHCP. 2022 Tom Dodson & Associates

24.5 Acre Esplanade Avenue Project on APN#439-180-011-3 BRA/JD & MSHCP Consistency Analysis
August 22 18

5. References
Calflora: Information on California plants for education, research and conservation. [web application]. 2021.

Berkeley, California: The Calflora Database [a non-profit organization]. Available at:
http://www.calflora.org/; accessed 2 July 2022.

California Burrowing Owl Consortium. 1993. Burrowing Owl Survey Protocol and Mitigation Guidelines.

California Department of Fish and Game. 1995. Staff report on burrowing owl mitigation. Memo from C.F.

Raysbrook, Interim Director to Biologist, Environmental Services Division, Department of Fish and Game.

Sacramento, CA.

California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 2010. A Review of Stream Processes and Forms in Dryland Watersheds. Prepared by Kris Vyverberg, Senior Engineering Geologist, Conservation Engineering. December 2010.

California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 2012. Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation. State of California Natural Resources Agency. March 7, 2012.

California Native Plant Society, Rare Plant Program. 2021. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California [online edition, v8-03 0.45]. Available at: http://www.rareplants.cnps.org; accessed 2 July 2022.

California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). 2021. RareFind 5 [Internet]. California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Version 5.2.14. Available at: https://wildlife.ca.gov/Data/CNDDB/Maps-and-Data; accessed 2 July 2022.

County of Riverside, Environmental Programs Department. Revised August 17, 2006. Burrowing Owl Survey Instructions for Western Riverside Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Area, March 29, 2006.

County of Riverside, Land Information System. APNs 338-150-046 and 338-150-031 search for site-specific information and maps.

Dudek & Associates, Inc. June 17, 2003. Riverside County Integrated Project. Final Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan. Volume I, The Plan, and II.

Dudek & Associates, Inc. June 17, 2003. Riverside County Integrated Project. Final Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan. Volumes II-A through E, The Reference Document.

Environmental Laboratory. 1987. "Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual," Technical Report Y-87-1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Miss.

Griffith, G.E., Omernik, J.M., Smith, D.W., Cook, T.D., Tallyn, E., Moseley, K., and Johnson, C.B., 2016, Ecoregions of California (poster): U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2016–1021, with map, scale 1:1,100,000, http://dx.doi.org/10.3133/ofr20161021; accessed 2 July 2022.

Jepson Flora Project (eds.) 2021, Jepson eFlora, http://ucjeps.berkeley.edu/eflora/; accessed 2 July 2022.

Lichvar, R.W., D.L. Banks, W.N. Kirchner, and N.C. Melvin. 2016. The National Wetland Plant List: 2016 wetland ratings. Phytoneuron 2016-30: 1-17. Published 28 April 2016. ISSN 2153 733X. 2022 Tom Dodson & Associates

24.5 Acre Esplanade Avenue Project on APN#439-180-011-3 BRA/JD & MSHCP Consistency Analysis
August 22 19
National Wetlands Inventory (NWI). 2021. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Wetlands Mapper. Available online at:
https://www.fws.gov/wetlands/data/mapper.html; accessed 2 July 2022.

Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2021. Web Soil Survey. Map Unit Descriptions. Riverside County Area, California. Available at: http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/HomePage.htm; accessed 2 July 2022.

Sawyer, John O., Keeler-Wolf, Todd, and Evens, Julie M. 2009. A manual of California vegetation. Second Edition.

California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, California, USA. 1,300 pages.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2001. USACE Minimum Standards for Acceptance of Preliminary Wetlands Delineations, November 30, 2001 (Minimum Standards).

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2007. Jurisdictional Determination Form Instructional Guidebook (JD Form Guidebook). May 30.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2008. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region (Version 2.0), ed. J. S. Wakeley, R. W. Lichvar, and C. V. Noble.

ERDC/EL TR-08-28. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2014. A Field Guide to the Identification of the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) in the Arid West Region of the Western United States (A Delineation Manual). August 2008.

Western Regional Climate Center. Period of Record Monthly Climate Summary for Riverside Fire Sta. 3, California (047470). Available at: https://wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?ca7470; accessed 2 July 2022. 80 FR 37053. 2015. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Department of the Army’s “Clean Water Rule: Definition of ‘Waters of the United States’” June 29, 2015 (effective August 28, 2015). 85 FR 22250. 2020. The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the Department of the Army’s “Navigable Waters Protection Rule: Definition of ‘Waters of the United States,’” April 21, 2020 (effective June 22, 2020). 2022 Tom Dodson & Associates

24.5 Acre Esplanade Avenue Project on APN#439-180-011-3 BRA/JD & MSHCP Consistency Analysis
August 22 20
Appendix A. CNDDB Species and Habitats Documented Within the San Jacinto USGS 7.5-Minute Quadrangle
2022 Tom Dodson & Associates

24.5 Acre Esplanade Avenue Project on APN#439-180-011-3 BRA/JD & MSHCP Consistency Analysis
August 22 21
CNDDB Map of Project Area

24.5 Acre Esplanade Avenue Project
on APN#439-180-011-3
2022 Tom Dodson & Associates

24.5 Acre Esplanade Avenue Project on APN#439-180-011-3 BRA/JD & MSHCP Consistency Analysis
August 22 22
Special Status Species Occurrence Potential Analysis
Scientific Name Common Name
Listing Status Federal/
State Other Status Habitat Occurrence Potential
Abronia villosa var aurita
Chaparral sandverbena None/None 1B1Chaparral, coastal scrub, desert dunes. 60-1570 m.

The Subject Parcel
does not support any
suitable habitat for
this species.

Occurrence potential
is zero.

Agelaius tricolor tricolored blackbird None/ Threatened G1G2 Highly colonial species
requiring open water,
protected nesting substrate,
and foraging area with insect
prey within a few km of the
colony.

The Subject Parcel
does not support any
suitable habitat for
this species.

Occurrence potential
is zero.

Antrozous pallidus pallid bat
None/ None G4S3
Deserts, grasslands,
shrublands, woodlands and
forests. Most common in
open, dry habitats with rocky
areas for roosting. Roosts
must protect bats from high
temperatures. Very sensitive
to disturbance of roosting
sites.

The Subject Parcel
does not support any
suitable habitat for
this species.

Occurrence potential
is zero.

Allium marvinii Yucaipa onion None/ None G1, S1S2
Chaparral: In openings on
clay soils. 850-1070 m
The Subject Parcel
does not support any
suitable habitat for
this species.

Occurrence potential
is low.
2022 Tom Dodson & Associates

24.5 Acre Esplanade Avenue Project on APN#439-180-011-3 BRA/JD & MSHCP Consistency Analysis
August 22 23
Scientific Name Common Name
Listing Status Federal/
State Other Status Habitat Occurrence Potential
Ambrosia pumila
San Diego
Ambrosia Endangered/None
This species is adapted to
upper floodplain fringes,
floodplains, and open
grasslands in proximity to
wetland areas or adjoining
depressions containing vernal
pools or similar structures
Currently only known from 16
populations in the U.S.

Fourteen of them are in San
Diego County, two exist in
Riverside County
The Subject Parcel
does not support any
suitable habitat for
this species.

Occurrence potential
is zero.

Anaxyrus calilfornicus Arroyo Toad Endangered/
The arroyo toad is found
along medium-to-large
streams in coastal and desert
drainages in central and
southern California, and Baja
California
The Subject Parcel
does not support any
suitable habitat for
this species.

Occurrence potential
is zero.

Anniella stebbinsi
Southern California
legless lizard None/None G3 S3
Generally south of the
Transverse Range, extending
to northwestern Baja
California. Occurs in sandy or
loose loamy soils under
sparse vegetation. Disjunct
populations in the Tehachapi
and Piute Mountains in Kern
County. Variety of habitats;
generally in moist, loose soil.

They prefer soils with a high
moisture content.

The Subject Parcel
does not support any
suitable habitat for
this species.

Occurrence potential
is zero.
2022 Tom Dodson & Associates

24.5 Acre Esplanade Avenue Project on APN#439-180-011-3 BRA/JD & MSHCP Consistency Analysis
August 22 24
Scientific Name Common Name
Listing Status Federal/
State Other Status Habitat Occurrence Potential
Antrozous pallidus pallid bat
None/None G4, S3
Deserts, grasslands,
shrublands, woodlands and
forests. Most common in
open, dry habitats with rocky
areas for roosting.

The Subject Parcel
does not support any
suitable habitat for
this species.

Occurrence potential
is zero.

Aquila chrysaetos golden eagle
None/None G5, S3
Rolling foothills, mountain
areas, sage-juniper flats, and
desert. Cliff-walled canyons
provide nesting habitat in
most parts of range; also,
large trees in open areas.

The subject parcel has
low quality foraging
habitat, and the
probability of nesting
is zero. The
probability of casual
foraging is low due to
the relatively small
area and being
surrounded by
development.

Arizona elegans occidentalis
California glossy
snake None/ None
G5T2; S2;
CDFW: SSC
Patchily distributed from the
eastern portion of San
Francisco Bay, southern San
Joaquin Valley, and the Coast,
Transverse, and Peninsular
ranges, south to Baja
California. Generalist reported
from a range of scrub and
grassland habitats, often with
loose or sandy soils.

This species has not
been documented in
the Project vicinity
and the Subject Parcel
is completely
disturbed. Occurrence
potential is low.
2022 Tom Dodson & Associates

24.5 Acre Esplanade Avenue Project on APN#439-180-011-3 BRA/JD & MSHCP Consistency Analysis
August 22 25
Scientific Name Common Name
Listing Status Federal/
State Other Status Habitat Occurrence Potential
Athene cunicularia burrowing owl None/ None
G4; S3; CDFW:

SSC
Open, dry annual or perennial
grasslands, deserts, and
scrublands characterized by
low-growing vegetation.

Subterranean nester,
dependent upon burrowing
mammals, most notably, the
California ground squirrel.

There is some
marginally suitable
habitat for this species
in the Project Area but
no evidence of BUOW
was found in the
survey area and most
of the Subject Parcel is
not suitable to
support this species.

Occurrence potential
is low.

Aspidoscelis hyperythra orange-throated
whiptail
None/ None G5, S2S3
Inhabits low-elevation coastal
scrub, chaparral, and valleyfoothill hardwood habitats.

Prefers washes and other
sandy areas with patches of
brush and rocks. Perennial
plants necessary for its major
food: termites
The Subject Parcel
does not support any
suitable habitat for
this species.

Occurrence potential
is zero.

Astragalus pachypus var. jaegeri Jaeger's milk-vetch
None/ None G4T1. S1
Coastal scrub, chaparral,
valley and foothill grassland,
cismontane woodland. Dry
ridges and valleys and open
sandy slopes; often in
grassland and oak-chaparral.
365-1040 m.

The Subject Parcel
does not support any
suitable habitat for
this species.

Occurrence potential
is zero.

Atriplex coronata var. notatior
San Jacinto Valley
crownscale
Endangered/ None G4T1,S1,1B.1
Playas, valley and foothill
grassland, vernal pools.

The Subject Parcel
does not support any
suitable habitat for
this species.

Occurrence potential
is zero.
2022 Tom Dodson & Associates

24.5 Acre Esplanade Avenue Project on APN#439-180-011-3 BRA/JD & MSHCP Consistency Analysis
August 22 26
Scientific Name Common Name
Listing Status Federal/
State Other Status Habitat Occurrence Potential
Bombus crotchii Crotch bumble bee None/ Candidate
Endangered
G3G4; S1S2 Coastal California east to the
Sierra-Cascade crest and
south into Mexico. Food plant
genera include Antirrhinum,
Phacelia, Clarkia,
Dendromecon, Eschscholzia,
and Eriogonum.

The food plant genera
required by this
species are not
present on the Subject
Parcel in sufficient
quantity to support
this species.

Occurrence potential
is low.

Brodiaea filifolia thread-leaved
brodiaea
Threatened/ Endangered G2; S2; CNPS:
1B.1
Chaparral (openings),
cismontane woodland, coastal
scrub, playas, valley and
foothill grassland, vernal
pools. Usually associated with
annual grassland and vernal
pools; often surrounded by
shrubland habitats. Occurs in
openings on clay soils. 15-
1030 m.

The entire site has
been subject to
previous disking
and/or material
dumping and is no
longer suitable to
support this species.

Occurrence potential
is low.

Buteo regalis ferruginous hawk
None/ None
Open grasslands, sagebrush
flats, desert scrub, low
foothills and fringes of pinyon
and juniper habitats. Eats
mostly lagomorphs, ground
squirrels, and mice.

Population trends may follow
lagomorph population cycles.

24.5 Acre Esplanade Avenue Project on APN#439-180-011-3 BRA/JD & MSHCP Consistency Analysis
August 22 27
Scientific Name Common Name
Listing Status Federal/
State Other Status Habitat Occurrence Potential
Branchinecta lynchi
Vernal pool fairy
shrimp Threatened/None
Inhabit temporary ponds,
vernal pools, and other
ponded features that are
absent from running water.

The Subject Parcel
does not support any
suitable habitat for
this species.

Occurrence potential
is zero.

Calochortus plummerae
Plummer's
mariposa-lily None/ None G4; S4; 4.2
Coastal scrub, chaparral,
valley and foothill grassland,
cismontane woodland, lower
montane coniferous forest.

Occurs on rocky and sandy
sites, usually of granitic or
alluvial material. Can be very
common after fire. 60-2500
m
The Subject Parcel
does not support any
suitable habitat for
this species.

Occurrence potential
is zero.

Centromadia pungens ssp. laevis smooth tarplant None/ None G3G4T2; S2;
CNPS: 1B.1
Valley and foothill grassland,
chenopod scrub, meadows
and seeps, playas, riparian
woodland. Alkali meadow,
alkali scrub; also, in disturbed
places. 5-1170 m.

The Subject Parcel
does not support any
suitable habitat for
this species.

Occurrence potential
is zero.

Chaetodipus fallax fallax
northwestern San
Diego pocket
mouse None/ None
G5T3T4;
S3S4; CDFW:

SSC
Coastal scrub, chaparral,
grasslands, sagebrush, etc. in
western San Diego County.

Sandy, herbaceous areas,
usually in association with
rocks or coarse gravel.

No suitable habitat for
this species exists in
the Project Area.

Occurrence potential
is low.

Chorizanthe parryi var. parryi
Perry’s spined
spineflower None/ None
G5T3; S3;
CNPS: 1B.2
Chaparral, coastal scrub,
meadows and seeps, valley
and foothill grassland, vernal
pools. Gabbroic clay. 30-
1630 m.

The Subject Parcel
does not support any
suitable habitat for
this species.

Occurrence potential
is zero.
2022 Tom Dodson & Associates

24.5 Acre Esplanade Avenue Project on APN#439-180-011-3 BRA/JD & MSHCP Consistency Analysis
August 22 28
Scientific Name Common Name
Listing Status Federal/
State Other Status Habitat Occurrence Potential
Coccyzus americanus occidentalis western yellowbilled cuckoo Threatened/Endangered G5T2T3, S1
Riparian forest nester, along
the broad, lower floodbottoms of larger river
systems. Nests in riparian
jungles of willow, often mixed
with cottonwoods, with lower
story of blackberry, nettles, or
wild grape
The Subject Parcel
does not support any
suitable habitat for
this species.

Occurrence potential
is zero.

Corynorhinus townsendii Townsend's bigeared bat
None/ None G4,S2
Throughout California in a
wide variety of habitats. Most
common in mesic sites.

Roosts in the open, hanging
from walls and ceilings.

Roosting sites limiting.

Extremely sensitive to human
disturbance.

Crotalus ruber
red-diamond
rattlesnake None/ None
G4; S3; CDFW:

SSC
Chaparral, woodland,
grassland, & desert areas
from coastal San Diego
County to the eastern slopes
of the mountains. Occurs in
rocky areas and dense
vegetation. Needs rodent
burrows, cracks in rocks or
surface cover objects.

No suitable habitat for
this species exists in
the Project Area.

Occurrence potential
is low.
2022 Tom Dodson & Associates

24.5 Acre Esplanade Avenue Project on APN#439-180-011-3 BRA/JD & MSHCP Consistency Analysis
August 22 29
Scientific Name Common Name
Listing Status Federal/
State Other Status Habitat Occurrence Potential
Danaus plexippus Monarch Butterfly Candidate/None
During their development,
both larvae and their
milkweed hosts are
vulnerable to weather
extremes, predators,
parasites, and diseases;
commonly fewer than 10% of
monarch eggs and caterpillars
survive. Their wintering
habitat typically provides
access to streams, plenty of
sunlight (enabling body
temperatures that allow
flight), and appropriate
roosting vegetation, and is
relatively free of predators.

Overwintering, roosting
butterflies have been seen on
basswoods, elms, sumacs,
locusts, oaks, oranges,
mulberries, pecans, willows,
cottonwoods, and
mesquites.[75] While
breeding, monarch habitats
can be found in agricultural
fields, pasture land, prairie
remnants, urban and
suburban residential areas,
gardens, trees, and roadsides
– anywhere where there is
access to larval host plants
The Subject Parcel
does not support any
suitable habitat for
this species.

Occurrence potential
is low.
2022 Tom Dodson & Associates

24.5 Acre Esplanade Avenue Project on APN#439-180-011-3 BRA/JD & MSHCP Consistency Analysis
August 22 30
Scientific Name Common Name
Listing Status Federal/
State Other Status Habitat Occurrence Potential
Dipodomys merriami parvus
San Bernardino'
kangaroo rat
Endangered/ Candidate
Threatened G2; S2
Alluvial scrub vegetation on
sandy loam substrates
characteristic of alluvial fans
and flood plains. Needs early
to intermediate seral stages.

The Subject Parcel
does not support any
suitable habitat for
this species.

Occurrence potential
is zero.

Dipodomys stephensi
Stephens'
kangaroo rat Threatened/ Threatened G2; S2
Primarily annual & perennial
grasslands, but also occurs in
coastal scrub & sagebrush
with sparse canopy cover.

Prefers buckwheat, chamise,
brome grass and filaree. Will
burrow into firm soil.

The Subject Parcel
does not support any
suitable habitat for
this species.

Occurrence potential
is zero.

Emys marmorata Emys marmorata None/None G3G4,S3
A thoroughly aquatic turtle of
ponds, marshes, rivers,
streams and irrigation ditches,
usually with aquatic
vegetation, below 6000 ft
elevation.

The Subject Parcel
does not support any
suitable habitat for
this species.

Occurrence potential
is zero.

Empidonax traillii extimus
Southwestern
Willow Flycatcher Endangered/Endangered
G5T4Q; S4;
CDFW: WL
Summer resident of Southern
California in low riparian in
vicinity of water or in dry river
bottoms; below 2000 ft. Nests
placed along margins of
bushes or on twigs projecting
into pathways, usually willow,
Baccharis, mesquite.

The Subject Parcel
does not support any
suitable habitat for
this species.

Occurrence potential
is zero.

Imperata brevifolia California satintail
None/ None G3,S3
Coastal scrub, chaparral,
riparian scrub, mojavean
desert scrub, meadows and
seeps (alkali), riparian scrub.

Mesic sites, alkali seeps,
riparian areas. 3-1495 m
The Subject Parcel
does not support any
suitable habitat for
this species.

Occurrence potential
is zero.
2022 Tom Dodson & Associates

24.5 Acre Esplanade Avenue Project on APN#439-180-011-3 BRA/JD & MSHCP Consistency Analysis
August 22 31
Scientific Name Common Name
Listing Status Federal/
State Other Status Habitat Occurrence Potential
Lasiurus xanthinus western yellow bat None/ None
G4G5; S3;
CDFW: SSC
Found in valley foothill
riparian, desert riparian,
desert wash, and palm oasis
habitats. Roosts in trees,
particularly palms. Forages
over water and among trees.

The Subject Parcel
does not support any
suitable habitat for
this species.

Occurrence potential
is zero.

Neotoma lepida intermedia San Diego desert
woodrat
None/ None G5T3T4, S3S4
Coastal scrub of Southern
California from San Diego
County to San Luis Obispo
County. Moderate to dense
canopies preferred. They are
particularly abundant in rock
outcrops, rocky cliffs, and
slopes
The Subject Parcel
does not support any
suitable habitat for
this species.

Occurrence potential
is zero.

Navarretia fossalis
spreading
navarretia Threatened/ None
G2; S2; CNPS:
1B.1
Vernal pools, chenopod scrub,
marshes and swamps, playas.

San Diego hardpan and San
Diego claypan vernal pools; in
swales & vernal pools, often
surrounded by other habitat
types. 15-850 m.

The entire site has
been subject to
previous disking
and/or material
dumping and is no
longer suitable to
support this species.

Additionally, there are
no swales or vernal
pools on site.

Occurrence potential
is zero.
2022 Tom Dodson & Associates

24.5 Acre Esplanade Avenue Project on APN#439-180-011-3 BRA/JD & MSHCP Consistency Analysis
August 22 32
Scientific Name Common Name
Listing Status Federal/
State Other Status Habitat Occurrence Potential
Neolarra alba white cuckoo bee
None/None GH, SH
Known only from localities in
Southern California.

Cleptoparasitic in the nests of
perdita bees. Most Perdita
species are extreme
specialists (oligoleges) with
respect to pollen and will
only collect pollen from a
few closely related species
or genera of plants. The
most common species of
Perdita in southern
California (Perdita acacia)
utilizes the following hosts
; Agavaceae/Asteraceae
(Ericameria nauseosa)
(Gutierrezia microcephala),
Fabaceae (Acacia greggii)
The entire site has
been subject to
previous disking
and/or material
dumping and is no
longer suitable to
support this species.

Additionally, it is
unlikely the site
supports sufficient
host species for the
presence of Perdita,
and therefore the
liklyhood of this
species occurring on
site is low.

Onychomys torridus ramona
southern
grasshopper mouse None/ None
G5T3; S3;
CDFW: SSC
Desert areas, especially scrub
habitats with friable soils for
digging. Prefers low to
moderate shrub cover. Feeds
almost exclusively on
arthropods, especially
scorpions and orthopteran
insects.

No suitable habitat for
this species exists in
the Project Area.

Occurrence potential
is low.

Perognathus longimembris
brevinasus
Los Angeles pocket
mouse None/ None
G5T2; S1S2;
CDFW: SSC
Lower elevation grasslands
and coastal sage communities
in and around the Los
Angeles Basin. Open ground
with fine, sandy soils. May not
dig extensive burrows, hiding
under weeds and dead leaves
instead.

No suitable habitat for
this species exists in
the Project Area.

Occurrence potential
is low.
2022 Tom Dodson & Associates

24.5 Acre Esplanade Avenue Project on APN#439-180-011-3 BRA/JD & MSHCP Consistency Analysis
August 22 33
Scientific Name Common Name
Listing Status Federal/
State Other Status Habitat Occurrence Potential
Phrynosoma blainvillii coast horned lizard None/ None
G3G4; S3S4;
CDFW: SSC
Frequents a wide variety of
habitats, most common in
lowlands along sandy washes
with scattered low bushes.

Open areas for sunning,
bushes for cover, patches of
loose soil for burial, and
abundant supply of ants and
other insects.

No suitable habitat for
this species exists in
the Project Area.

Occurrence potential
is low.

Polioptila californica californica
coastal California
gnatcatcher Threatened/ None
G4G5T3Q; S2;
CDFW: SSC
Obligate, permanent resident
of coastal sage scrub below
2,500 ft in Southern
California. Low, coastal sage
scrub in arid washes, on
mesas and slopes. Not all
areas classified as coastal
sage scrub are occupied.

The Subject Parcel
does not support any
suitable habitat for
this species.

Occurrence potential
is zero.

Pseudognaphalium leucocephalum white rabbittobacco
None/ None G4,S2
Riparian woodland,
cismontane woodland, coastal
scrub, chaparral. Sandy,
gravelly sites. 35-515 m
Spea hammondii western spadefoot None/ None
G2G3; S3;
CDFW: SSC
Occurs primarily in grassland
habitats but can be found in
valley-foothill hardwood
woodlands. Vernal pools are
essential for breeding and
egg-laying.

The aquatic habitats
required by this
species are absent
from the Project Area.

Therefore, this species
is considered absent
from the Project Area.

Streptocephalus woottoni
Riverside fairy
shrimp Endangered/None
Inhabit temporary ponds,
vernal pools, and other
ponded features that are
absent from running water.

The Subject Parcel
does not support any
suitable habitat for
this species.

Occurrence potential
is zero.
2022 Tom Dodson & Associates

24.5 Acre Esplanade Avenue Project on APN#439-180-011-3 BRA/JD & MSHCP Consistency Analysis
August 22 34
Scientific Name Common Name
Listing Status Federal/
State Other Status Habitat Occurrence Potential
Taxidea taxus American badger None/None G5, S3
Most abundant in drier open
stages of most shrub, forest,
and herbaceous habitats, with
friable soils. Needs sufficient
food, friable soils and open,
uncultivated ground. Preys on
burrowing rodents. Digs
burrows.

The aquatic habitats
required by this
species are absent
from the Subject
Parcel. Therefore, this
species is considered
absent from the
Subject Parcel.

Trichocoronis wrightii var. wrightii
Wright's
trichocoronis None/None G4T3,S1,2B.1
Marshes and swamps, riparian
forest, meadows and seeps,
vernal pools.

The aquatic habitats
required by this
species are absent
from the Subject
Parcel. Therefore, this
species is considered
absent from the
Subject Parcel.

Vireo bellii pusillus least Bell's vireo
Endangered/
Endangered G5T2, S2
Summer resident of Southern
California in low riparian in
vicinity of water or in dry river
bottoms; below 2000 ft. Nests
placed along margins of
bushes or on twigs projecting
into pathways, usually willow,
Baccharis, mesquite.

The aquatic habitats
required by this
species are absent
from the Subject
Parcel. Therefore, this
species is considered
absent from the
Subject Parcel.
2022 Tom Dodson & Associates

24.5 Acre Esplanade Avenue Project on APN#439-180-011-3 BRA/JD & MSHCP Consistency Analysis
August 22 35
Coding and Terms
E = Endangered T = Threatened C = Candidate FP = Fully Protected SSC = Species of Special Concern R = Rare State Species of Special Concern: An administrative designation given to vertebrate species that appear to be vulnerable to extinction because of declining populations, limited acreages, and/or continuing threats. Raptor and owls are protected under section 3502.5 of the California Fish and Game code: “It is unlawful to take, possess or destroy any birds in the orders Falconiformes or Strigiformes or to take, possess or destroy the nest or eggs of any such bird.” State Fully Protected: The classification of Fully Protected was the State's initial effort in the 1960's to identify and provide additional protection to those animals that were rare or faced possible extinction. Lists were created for fish, mammals, amphibians and reptiles. Fully Protected species may not be taken or possessed at any time and no licenses or permits may be issued for their take except for collecting these species for necessary scientific research and relocation of the bird species for the protection of livestock.

Global Rankings (Species or Natural Community Level):

G1 = Critically Imperiled – At very high risk of extinction due to extreme rarity (often 5 or fewer populations), very steep declines, or other factors.

G2 = Imperiled – At high risk of extinction due to very restricted range, very few populations (often 20 or fewer), steep declines, or other factors.

G3 = Vulnerable – At moderate risk of extinction due to a restricted range, relatively few populations (often 80 or fewer), recent and widespread declines, or other factors.

G4 = Apparently Secure – Uncommon but not rare; some cause for long-term concern due to declines or other factors.

G5 = Secure – Common; widespread and abundant.

Subspecies Level: Taxa which are subspecies or varieties receive a taxon rank (T-rank) attached to their G-rank. Where the G-rank reflects the condition of the entire species, the T-rank reflects the global situation of just the subspecies. For example: the Point Reyes mountain beaver, Aplodontia rufa ssp. phaea is ranked G5T2. The G-rank refers to the whole species range i.e., Aplodontia rufa. The T-rank refers only to the global condition of ssp. phaea.

State Ranking:

S1 = Critically Imperiled – Critically imperiled in the State because of extreme rarity (often 5 or fewer populations) or because of factor(s) such as very steep declines making it especially vulnerable to extirpation from the State.

S2 = Imperiled – Imperiled in the State because of rarity due to very restricted range, very few populations (often 20 or fewer), steep declines, or other factors making it very vulnerable to extirpation from the State.

S3 = Vulnerable – Vulnerable in the State due to a restricted range, relatively few populations (often 80 or fewer), recent and widespread declines, or other factors making it vulnerable to extirpation from the State.

S4 = Apparently Secure – Uncommon but not rare in the State; some cause for long-term concern due to declines or other factors.

S5 = Secure – Common, widespread, and abundant in the State.

California Rare Plant Rankings (CNPS List):
1A = Plants presumed extirpated in California and either rare or extinct elsewhere. 1B = Plants 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 about which more information is needed; a review list. 4 = Plants of limited distribution; a watch list.

Threat Ranks:
.1 = Seriously threatened in California (over 80% of occurrences threatened / high degree and immediacy of threat) .2 = Moderately threatened in California (20-80% occurrences threatened / moderate degree and immediacy of threat) .3 = Not very threatened in California (less than 20% of occurrences threatened / low degree and immediacy of threat or no current threats known) 2022 Tom Dodson & Associates

24.5 Acre Esplanade Avenue Project on APN#439-180-011-3 BRA/JD & MSHCP Consistency Analysis
August 22 36
Appendix B. Site Photos:

Photograph #1 Typical Site View looking west
Photograph #2 Typical Site View looking north-east
2022 Tom Dodson & Associates

24.5 Acre Esplanade Avenue Project on APN#439-180-011-3 BRA/JD & MSHCP Consistency Analysis
August 22 37
Appendix C. Soil Map
2022 Tom Dodson & Associates

24.5 Acre Esplanade Avenue Project on APN#439-180-011-3 BRA/JD & MSHCP Consistency Analysis
August 22 38
2022 Tom Dodson & Associates

24.5 Acre Esplanade Avenue Project on APN#439-180-011-3 BRA/JD & MSHCP Consistency Analysis
August 22 39
2022 Tom Dodson & Associates

24.5 Acre Esplanade Avenue Project on APN#439-180-011-3 BRA/JD & MSHCP Consistency Analysis
August 22 40
Appendix D. Species List
2022 Tom Dodson & Associates

24.5 Acre Esplanade Avenue Project on APN#439-180-011-3 BRA/JD & MSHCP Consistency Analysis
August 22 41
List of Plant Species Observed within the Subject Parcel Scientific Name Common Name Life Form
Boraginaceae Borage family
Amsinckia intermedia common fiddleneck annual herb
Chenopodiaceae Goosefoot Family
Salsola tragus** Russian thistle** annual herb
Poaceae Grass Family
Bromus spp.** brome grasses** annual grasses
Zygophyllaceae Caltrop Family
Tribulus terrestris** puncture vine** annual herb
*non-native, **invasive species
List of Animal Species Observed within the Subject Parcel Scientific Name Common Name Life Form
Columbidae Pigeons and Doves Avian
Columba livia Rock Pigeon
Passeridae Old World Sparrows Avian
Passer domesticus House sparrow
Tyrannidae Tyrant Flycatchers Avian
Tyrannus verticalis Western Kingbird
Canidae Canines Mammal
Canis lupus familiaris Domestic Dog
Sciuridae Squirrels, chipmunks,
Prairie dogs Mammals
Otospermophilus
beecheyi Beechey ground squirrel
2022 Tom Dodson & Associates

24.5 Acre Esplanade Avenue Project on APN#439-180-011-3 BRA/JD & MSHCP Consistency Analysis
August 22 42
Appendix E. Regulatory Framework
2022 Tom Dodson & Associates

24.5 Acre Esplanade Avenue Project on APN#439-180-011-3 BRA/JD & MSHCP Consistency Analysis
August 22 43
Federal Regulations
Clean Water Act
The purpose of the Clean Water Act (CWA) of 1977 is to “restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation’s waters.” Section 404 of the CWA prohibits the discharge of dredged or fill material into “waters of the United States” (WOTUS) without a permit from the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). The definition of waters of the United States includes rivers, streams, estuaries, territorial seas, ponds, lakes, and wetlands.

Wetlands are defined as those areas “that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions” (33 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 328.3 7b). The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) also has authority over wetlands and may override a USACE permit. Substantial impacts to wetlands may require an individual permit. Projects that only minimally affect wetlands may meet the conditions of one of the existing Nationwide Permits. A Water Quality Certification or waiver pursuant to Section 401 of the CWA is required for Section 404 permit actions; in California this certification or waiver is issued by the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB).

Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA)
The federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 protects plants and wildlife that are listed by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) as endangered or threatened. Section 9 of the ESA (USA) prohibits the taking of endangered wildlife, where taking is defined as any effort to “harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, collect, or attempt to engage in such conduct” (50 CFR 17.3).

For plants, this statute governs removing, possessing, maliciously damaging, or destroying any endangered plant on federal land and removing, cutting, digging up, damaging, or destroying any endangered plant on non-federal land in knowing violation of state law (16 United States Code [USC] 1538). Under Section 7 of the ESA, federal agencies are required to consult with the USFWS if their actions, including permit approvals or funding, could adversely affect an endangered species (including plants) or its Critical Habitat. Through consultation and the issuance of a biological opinion, the USFWS may issue an incidental take statement allowing take of the species that is incidental to an otherwise authorized activity, provided the action will not jeopardize the continued existence of the species. The ESA specifies that the USFWS designate habitat for a species at the time of its listing in which are found the physical or biological features “essential to the conservation of the species,” or which may require “special Management consideration or protection...” (16 USC § 1533[a][3].2; 16 USC § 1532[a]). This designated Critical Habitat is then afforded the same protection under the ESA as individuals of the species itself, requiring issuance of an Incidental Take Permit prior to any activity that results in “the destruction or adverse modification of habitat determined to be critical” (16 USC § 1536[a][2]).
2022 Tom Dodson & Associates

24.5 Acre Esplanade Avenue Project on APN#439-180-011-3 BRA/JD & MSHCP Consistency Analysis
August 22 44
Interagency Consultation and Biological Assessments
Section 7 of ESA provides a means for authorizing the “take” of threatened or endangered species by federal agencies, and applies to actions that are conducted, permitted, or funded by a federal agency. The statute requires federal agencies to consult with the USFWS or National Marine Fisheries Service (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.

If a Proposed Project “may affect” a listed species or destroy or modify Critical Habitat, the lead agency is required to prepare a biological assessment evaluating the nature and severity of the potential effect.

Habitat Conservation Plans
Section 10 of the federal ESA requires the acquisition of an Incidental Take Permit (ITP) from the USFWS by non-federal landowners for activities that might incidentally harm (or “take”) endangered or threatened wildlife on their land. To obtain a permit, an applicant must develop a Habitat Conservation Plan that is designed to offset any harmful impacts the proposed activity might have on the species.

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act
The Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. Sections 661 to 667e et seq.) applies to any federal Project where any body of water is impounded, diverted, deepened, or otherwise modified. Project proponents are required to consult with the USFWS and the appropriate state wildlife agency.

Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act
The Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (The Eagle Act) (1940), amended in 1962, was originally implemented for the protection of bald eagles (Haliaeetus leucocephalus). In 1962, Congress amended the Eagle Act to cover golden eagles (Aquila chrysaetos), a move that was partially an attempt to strengthen protection of bald eagles, since the latter were often killed by people mistaking them for golden eagles. This act makes it illegal to import, export, take (molest or disturb), sell, purchase, or barter any bald eagle or golden eagle or part thereof. The golden eagle, however, is accorded somewhat lighter protection under the Eagle Act than that of the bald eagle.

Migratory Bird Treaty Act
The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) of 1918 implements international treaties between the United States and other nations created to protect migratory birds, any of their parts, eggs, and nests from activities, such as hunting, pursuing, capturing, killing, selling, and shipping, unless expressly authorized in the regulations or by permit. As authorized by the MBTA, the USFWS issues permits to qualified applicants for the following types of activities: falconry, raptor 2022 Tom Dodson & Associates

24.5 Acre Esplanade Avenue Project on APN#439-180-011-3 BRA/JD & MSHCP Consistency Analysis
August 22 45
propagation, scientific collecting, special purposes (rehabilitation, education, migratory game bird propagation, and salvage), take of depredating birds, taxidermy, and waterfowl sale and disposal. The regulations governing migratory bird permits can be found in 50 CFR Part 13 General Permit Procedures and 50 CFR part 21 Migratory Bird Permits. The State of California has incorporated the protection of birds of prey in Sections 3800, 3513, and 3503.5 of the California Fish and Game Code (CFGC).

Executive Orders (EO)
Invasive Species – EO 13112 (1999): Issued on February 3, 1999, promotes the prevention and introduction of invasive species and provides for their control and minimizes the economic, ecological, and human health impacts that invasive species cause through the creation of the Invasive Species Council and Invasive Species Management Plan.

Migratory Bird – EO 13186 (2001): Issued on January 10, 2001, promotes the conservation of migratory birds and their habitats and directs federal agencies to implement the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Protection and Enhancement of Environmental Quality – EO 11514 (1970a), issued on March 5, 1970, supports the purpose and policies of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and directs federal agencies to take measures to meet national environmental goals.

Migratory Bird Treaty Reform Act
The Migratory Bird Treaty Reform Act (Division E, Title I, Section 143 of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2005, PL 108–447) amends the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C.

Sections 703 to 712) such that nonnative birds or birds that have been introduced by humans to the United States or its territories are excluded from protection under the Act. It defines a native migratory bird as a species present in the United States and its territories as a result of natural biological or ecological processes. This list excluded two additional species commonly observed in the United States, the rock pigeon (Columba livia) and domestic goose (Anser domesticus).

Birds of Conservation Concern
Birds of Conservation Concern (BCC) is a USFWS list of bird species identified to have the highest conservation priority, and with the potential for becoming candidates for listing as federally threatened or endangered. The chief legal authority for BCC is the Fish and Wildlife Conservation Act of 1980 (FWCA). Other authorities include the FESA, the Fish and Wildlife Act of 1956, and the Department of the Interior U.S Code (16 U.S.C. § 701). The 1988 amendment to the FWCA (Public Law 100-653, Title VIII) requires the Secretary of the Interior, through the USFWS, to “identify species, subspecies, and populations of all migratory nongame birds that, without additional conservation actions, are likely to become candidates for listing under the Endangered Species Act of 1973” (USFWS, 2008a).

State Regulations
2022 Tom Dodson & Associates

24.5 Acre Esplanade Avenue Project on APN#439-180-011-3 BRA/JD & MSHCP Consistency Analysis
August 22 46
California Fish and Game Code Sections 1600 through 1606 of the CFGC This section requires that a Streambed Alteration Application be submitted to the CDFW for “any activity that may substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow or substantially change the bed, channel, or bank of any river, stream, or lake.” The CDFW reviews the proposed actions and, if necessary, submits to the applicant a proposal for measures to protect affected fish and wildlife resources. The final proposal that is mutually agreed upon by the Department and the applicant is the Streambed Alteration Agreement. Often, Projects that require a Streambed Alteration Agreement also require a permit from the USACE under Section 404 of the CWA. In these instances, the conditions of the Section 404 permit and the Streambed Alteration Agreement may overlap.

California Endangered Species Act
The California Endangered Species Act (CESA) (Sections 2050 to 2085) establishes the policy of the state to conserve, protect, restore, and enhance threatened or endangered species and their habitats by protecting “all native species of fishes, amphibians, reptiles, birds, mammals, invertebrates, and plants, and their habitats, threatened with extinction and those experiencing a significant decline which, if not halted, would lead to a threatened or endangered designation.” Animal species are listed by the CDFW as threatened or endangered, and plants are listed as rare, threatened, or endangered. However, only those plant species listed as threatened or endangered receive protection under the California ESA.

CESA mandates that state agencies do not approve a Project that would jeopardize the continued existence of these species if reasonable and prudent alternatives are available that would avoid a jeopardy finding. There are no state agency consultation procedures under the California ESA. For Projects that would affect a species that is federally and state listed, compliance with ESA satisfies the California ESA if the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) determines that the federal incidental take authorization is consistent with the California ESA under Section 2080.1. For Projects that would result in take of a species that is state listed only, the Project sponsor must apply for a take permit, in accordance with Section 2081(b).

Fully Protected Species
Four sections of the California Fish and Game Code (CFGC) list 37 fully protected species (CFGC Sections 3511, 4700, 5050, and 5515). These sections prohibit take or possession "at any time" of the species listed, with few exceptions, and state that "no provision of this code or any other law will be construed to authorize the issuance of permits or licenses to ‘take’ the species,” and that no previously issued permits or licenses for take of the species "shall have any force or effect" for authorizing take or possession.
2022 Tom Dodson & Associates

24.5 Acre Esplanade Avenue Project on APN#439-180-011-3 BRA/JD & MSHCP Consistency Analysis
August 22 47
Bird Nesting Protections
Bird nesting protections (Sections 3503, 3503.5, 3511, 3513 and 3800) in the CFGC include the following:

Section 3503 prohibits the take, possession, or needless destruction of the nest or eggs of any bird.

Section 3503.5 prohibits the take, possession, or needless destruction of any nests, eggs, or birds in the orders Falconiformes (new world vultures, hawks, eagles, ospreys, and falcons, among others), and Strigiformes (owls).

Section 3511 prohibits the take or possession of Fully protected birds.

Section 3513 prohibits the take or possession of any migratory nongame bird or part thereof, as designated in the MBTA. To avoid violation of the take provisions, it is generally required that Project-related disturbance at active nesting territories be reduced or eliminated during the nesting cycle.

Section 3800 prohibits the take of any non-game bird (i.e., bird that is naturally occurring in California that is not a gamebird, migratory game bird, or fully protected bird).

Native Plant Protection Act
The Native Plant Protect Act (NPPA) (1977) (CFGC Sections 1900-1913) was created with the intent to “preserve, protect, and enhance rare and endangered plants in this State.” The NPPA is administered by CDFW. The Fish and Game Commission has the authority to designate native plants as endangered or rare and to protect endangered and rare plants from take. CESA (CFGC 2050-2116) provided further protection for rare and endangered plant species, but the NPPA remains part of the Fish and Game Code.

San Jacinto City CouncilNovember 19, 2024

San Jacinto City Council
November 19, 2024