0.5 km
1:17,465
PROJECT NO.:
4/19/2024
DATE:
MODELER:
COMPANY NAME:
COMMENTS:
Construction HRA
Wildomar 20 Acre Park Project
PROJECT TITLE:
17.0 ug/m^3
MAX:
Concentration
OUTPUT TYPE:
6332
RECEPTORS:
SOURCES: UTM North [m)
3717500 3718000 3718500 3719000
C
-I
:s:
m
ru
.i,.
--.J
.i,. 0,
0 0
.i,.
--.J
0,
0 0 0
.i,.
~--.J
3 0,
-- g
.i,.
--.J
m
0 0 0
.i,.
--.J
0 0
PLOT FILE OF PERIOD VALUES AVERAGED ACROSS O YEARS FOR SOURCE GROUP: ONSITE Max: 17.0 (ug/m"3] at (475359.42, 3718177.11)
6 i-v
6 w
6 (II
6 0) 0
c..:,
0 0
d,
0 ..>
0 0
3719500
ug/m" 3
..> ...,.
0 1820
WRPLOT View - Lakes Environmental Software
WIND ROSE PLOT:
Station #3171
COMMENTS: COMPANY NAME:
MODELER:
DATE:
4/19/2024
PROJECT NO.:
NORTH
SOUTH
WEST EAST
1.2%
2.4%
3.6%
4.8%
6%
WIND SPEED
(Knots)
>= 21.58
17.11 - 21.58
11.08 - 17.11
7.00 - 11.08
4.08 - 7.00
0.97 - 4.08
Calms: 21.15%
TOTAL COUNT:
43346 hrs.
CALM WINDS:
21.15%
DATA PERIOD:
Start Date: 1/1/2012 - 00:00
End Date: 12/31/2016 - 23:59
AVG. WIND SPEED:
2.49 Knots
DISPLAY:
Wind Speed
Direction (blowing from)
I
I
I
I I
I I I I ~-----~------r-----
1 - _ I_ - -
I
- ,-
\
\
\
\ I I I I
---~------~-----~------~-----~
I I I I I
-
-
-
-
-
D
1821
HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT FOR ONTARIO REGIONAL SPORTS COMPLEX
CITY OF ONTARIO
Attachments
January 2024
This page intentionally left blank.
1822
This page intentionally left blank.
1823
20-Acre Passive Park (CIP 099) IS/MND
PlaceWorks
Appendix 3 Biological Technical Report
1824
Biological Technical Report and Western
Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat
Conservation Plan Consistency Analysis
for the
Wildomar 20-acre Passive Park Project
Riverside County, California
Assessor’s Parcel Numbers: 380-050-025 and 380-050-027
Prepared For:
Mark Teague
PlaceWorks
3 MacArthur Place, Suite 1100
Santa Ana, California 92707
Prepared By:
2861 Pullman Street
Santa Ana, California 92705
April 2024
1825
Biological Technical Report and Western Riverside County MSHCP Consistency Analysis ECORP Consulting, Inc.
Wildomar 20-acre Passive Park Project
i April 2024
2022-252.07
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Project Location................................................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Project Description............................................................................................................................................. 1
1.3 Terms ....................................................................................................................................................................... 5
2.0 SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES REGULATIONS.................................................................................................................. 5
2.1 Federal Regulations............................................................................................................................................ 5
2.1.1 The Federal Endangered Species Act......................................................................................... 5
2.1.2 Migratory Bird Treaty Act................................................................................................................ 5
2.1.3 Federal Clean Water Act.................................................................................................................. 6
2.2 State and Local Regulations ........................................................................................................................... 7
2.2.1 California Endangered Species Act.............................................................................................. 7
2.2.2 Fully Protected Species .................................................................................................................... 8
2.2.3 California Fish and Game Code .................................................................................................... 8
2.2.4 Porter-Cologne Water Quality Act ........................................................................................... 10
2.2.5 Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan................... 10
2.2.6 Stephens’ Kangaroo Rat (Dipodomys stephensi) Habitat Conservation Plan........... 11
2.2.7 California Environmental Quality Act Significance Criteria............................................. 12
2.2.8 City of Wildomar.............................................................................................................................. 12
3.0 METHODS............................................................................................................................................................................ 13
3.1 Literature Review.............................................................................................................................................. 13
3.2 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service-Designated Critical Habitat.............................................................. 15
3.3 Aquatic Resources ........................................................................................................................................... 15
3.4 Western Riverside County MSHCP Consistency Analysis................................................................. 15
3.5 Field Survey ........................................................................................................................................................ 16
3.5.1 Biological Reconnaissance Survey............................................................................................ 16
3.5.2 Burrowing Owl Habitat Assessment......................................................................................... 16
4.0 RESULTS................................................................................................................................................................................ 18
4.1 Literature Review.............................................................................................................................................. 18
4.1.1 Special-Status Plants and Wildlife ............................................................................................ 18
4.1.2 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service-Designated Critical Habitat.............................................. 18
4.2 Biological Reconnaissance Survey............................................................................................................. 18
4.2.1 Site Characteristics and Land Use............................................................................................. 18
4.2.2 Vegetation Communities and Land Cover Types ............................................................... 19
4.2.3 Land Cover Types ............................................................................................................................ 23 1826
Biological Technical Report and Western Riverside County MSHCP Consistency Analysis ECORP Consulting, Inc.
Wildomar 20-acre Passive Park Project
ii April 2024
2022-252.07
4.2.4 Plants.................................................................................................................................................... 23
4.2.5 Wildlife................................................................................................................................................. 23
4.2.6 Potential for Special-Status Species to Occur within the Project Area ...................... 24
4.3 Burrowing Owl Habitat Assessment......................................................................................................... 28
4.4 Raptors and Migratory Birds ....................................................................................................................... 30
4.5 Aquatic Resources Delineation................................................................................................................... 30
4.6 Wildlife Movement Corridors, Linkages, and Significant Ecological Areas ............................... 30
5.0 IMPACT ANALYSIS............................................................................................................................................................ 32
5.1 Limitations of Analysis ................................................................................................................................... 32
5.2 Special-Status Species.................................................................................................................................... 32
5.3 Sensitive Natural Communities .................................................................................................................. 34
5.4 State or Federally Protected Wetlands and Waters of the U.S. ..................................................... 34
5.5 Wildlife Corridors and Nursery Sites ........................................................................................................ 34
5.6 Habitat Conservation Plans and Natural Community Conservation Plans................................ 35
5.7 City of Wildomar—Tree Preservation Policy and Protection Measures ..................................... 35
6.0 MSHCP CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS.............................................................................................................................. 35
6.1 Introduction........................................................................................................................................................ 35
6.1.1 Project Description and Area...................................................................................................... 35
6.1.2 Covered Roads ................................................................................................................................. 35
6.1.3 General Setting................................................................................................................................. 36
6.2 Reserve Assembly Analysis........................................................................................................................... 36
6.2.1 Public Quasi-Public Lands............................................................................................................ 36
6.3 Vegetation Mapping and Species Compendia .................................................................................... 36
6.4 Protection of Species Associated with Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools (Section
6.1.2) ...................................................................................................................................................................... 38
6.4.1 Riparian/Riverine ............................................................................................................................. 38
6.4.2 Vernal Pools and Fairy Shrimp................................................................................................... 40
6.4.3 Riparian Birds .................................................................................................................................... 44
6.4.4 Other Section 6.1.2 Species......................................................................................................... 47
6.5 Protection of Narrow Endemic Plant Species (Section 6.1.3) ......................................................... 47
6.6 Additional Survey Needs and Procedures (Section 6.3.2)................................................................ 47
6.6.1 Criteria Area Plant Species........................................................................................................... 47
6.6.2 Amphibians........................................................................................................................................ 47
6.6.3 Burrowing Owl.................................................................................................................................. 48
6.6.4 Mammals ............................................................................................................................................ 49 1827
Biological Technical Report and Western Riverside County MSHCP Consistency Analysis ECORP Consulting, Inc.
Wildomar 20-acre Passive Park Project
iii April 2024
2022-252.07
6.7 Information on Other Species..................................................................................................................... 49
6.7.1 Delhi Sands Flower Loving Fly.................................................................................................... 49
6.7.2 Species Not Adequately Conserved......................................................................................... 50
6.8 Guidelines Pertaining to the Urban/Wildlands Interface (Section 6.1.4).................................... 50
7.0 BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES............................................................................................................................... 50
8.0 AVOIDANCE MINIMIZATION, and MITIGATION MEASURES.......................................................................... 52
9.0 Additional Recommendations ..................................................................................................................................... 56
9.1 Lighting/Glare.................................................................................................................................................... 56
10.0 CERTIFICATION.................................................................................................................................................................. 57
11.0 LITERATURE CITED ........................................................................................................................................................... 58
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Project Vicinity .................................................................................................................................................................... 3 Figure 2. Project Location.................................................................................................................................................................. 4 Figure 3. Burrowing Owl Habitat Suitability............................................................................................................................ 17 Figure 4. Vegetation Communities and Land Cover Types............................................................................................... 20 Figure 5. Western Riverside County MSHCP Designation................................................................................................. 29 Figure 6. National Wetlands Inventory ..................................................................................................................................... 31 Figure 7. MSHCP Riparian/Riverine Resources ...................................................................................................................... 37
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Weather Conditions During the Survey................................................................................................................... 18 Table 2. Vegetation Communities and Land Cover Acreages ......................................................................................... 21 Table 3. CNPS Status Designations ............................................................................................................................................ 24
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A – Representative Site Photographs
Appendix B – Plant Species Compendium
Appendix C – Wildlife Species Compendium
Appendix D – Special Status Plant Species Potential to Occur Appendix E – Special Status Wildlife Species Potential to Occur 1828
Biological Technical Report and Western Riverside County MSHCP Consistency Analysis ECORP Consulting, Inc.
Wildomar 20-acre Passive Park Project
iv April 2024
2022-252.07
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
Term Definition
Act Endangered Species Act
amsl above mean sea level
BMPs Best Management Practices
BUOW Burrowing Owl
CCR California Code of Regulations
CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CNDDB California Natural Diversity Database
CNPS California Native Plant Society
CNPSEI California Native Plan Society’s Electronic Inventory CRPR California Rare Plant Rank
CWA Clean Water Act
DPS Distinct Population Segment
DSH Diameter at Standard Height
ESA Endangered Species Act
GPS Global Positioning System
HCP Habitat Conservation Plan
IA Implementing Agreement
IPaC Information for Planning and Consultation
LBVI Least Bell’s vireo
MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act
MCV Manual of California Vegetation
MSHCP Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
NEPSSA Narrow Endemic Plant Species Survey Area
NPPA Native Plant Protection Act
NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service
NWI National Wetlands Inventory
PQP Public Quasi-Public
Project Wildomar 20-acre Passive Park Project
RCA Riverside Conservation Authority
RCHCA Riverside County Habitat Conservation Agency
RCTLMA Riverside County Transportation and Land Management Agency RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
SAA Streambed Alteration Agreement
SKR Stephens’ kangaroo rat
SSC California Species of Special Concern
SWWF Southwestern Willow Flycatcher
USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers
USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service
USGS United States Geological Survey
WEAP Worker Environmental Awareness Program
YBCU Yellow-Billed Cuckoo
1829
Biological Technical Report and Western Riverside County MSHCP Consistency Analysis ECORP Consulting, Inc.
Wildomar 20-acre Passive Park Project
1 April 2024
2022-252.07
1.0 INTRODUCTION
ECORP Consulting, Inc. conducted a biological reconnaissance survey at an approximately 20-acre property for the proposed Wildomar Passive Park Project (Project) in the City of Wildomar in Riverside County. The Project also includes offsite improvement areas. The survey was conducted to identify any potential biological resources that could be affected by the Proposed Project, pursuant to the terms of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and for the purposes of identifying any biological constraints that would affect the proposed site plan for the Project. The surveys were conducted in accordance with the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP). The MSHCP provides information on plant and wildlife species of concern to the County of Riverside and outlines goals for their conservation. Information on the MSHCP can be found at www.rctlma.org (Riverside County Transportation and Land Management Agency [RCTLMA] 2024). The Project will be subject to county, state, and federal regulations regarding compliance with the federal Endangered Species Act (ESA), California ESA, Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA), and California Fish and Game Code.
1.1 Project Location
The Project is generally located south of Interstate 15 and east of Wildomar Trail. The Project Area is located west of Refa Street, north of Palomar Street, and east of South Pasadena Street, in the City of Wildomar, Riverside County, California (Figures 1 and 2). The Project Area measures approximately 20 acres and comprises Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs) 380-050-025 and 380-050-027.
The Project, as depicted on the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Wildomar, California 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle map, is located within an unsectioned La Laguna (Stearns) land grant of Township 6 South, Range 4 West. The Project Area is relatively flat with elevation ranging from approximately 1,250 to 1,280 feet (381 to 390 meters) above mean sea level (amsl). The Project Area is currently vacant land covered with non-native grasses and a mix of native and non-native tree species within the central portion, and Eucalyptus (Eucalyptus sp,) and Peruvian pepper (Schinus molle) trees lining much of the perimeter. Disturbances onsite include several dirt roads used by pedestrians and occasional vehicles.
1.2 Project Description
This Project proposes to construct a 20-acre passive park with approximately 65 parking spaces in two separate lots, one in the northern portion of the Project site via Gierson Avenue and the other at the southwestern corner of the site along Palomar Street. The Proposed Project would include amenities such as an interpretive panel, raptor perch, solar lighting, bike racks, butterfly/pollinator garden, information kiosks, drinking fountains, pet stations, a network of trails, picnic tables, exercise stations, a disk golf course, a bird observation area, bench seating, community garden, lawn playfield, shade structures, a bridge crossing, gates, restrooms, and natural drainage swales.
Offsite improvements would include street improvements such as lighting, curb, gutter, sidewalk, and inlet improvements along Gierson Avenue and Palomar Street. The Project would also include the extension of 1830
Biological Technical Report and Western Riverside County MSHCP Consistency Analysis ECORP Consulting, Inc.
Wildomar 20-acre Passive Park Project
2 April 2024
2022-252.07
Gierson Avenue and Palomar Streets to create access into the Project site. The areas of offsite roadway improvements are not addressed in this Biological Technical Report. 1831
Lak e
E ls inor e
Cany on
Lak e
Mission 7rl
74 15
LA.ELAND
VILLAGE
WILDOMAR
CANYON
LA.E LA.E
ELSINORE
Santa Rosa
Plateau
15 215
Menifee
Lakes
Country
Club
SUN CITY
MENIFEE
-efferson Ave
15 215
M URRIE TA
TE M E CULA
Project
/ocatioQ
Map Date: 4/19/2024
Sources: Ma[ar, Esri World Imagery
/ocatioQ: 1:?2022?2022-252.07 Wildomar Passive Park Project?M$PS?/ocatioQB9iciQity?WPP /Q9.aprx - WPP 9iciQity 20240401 lgalve] - 4/19/2024
Map Contents
Project Area
I
0 12,000
Feet
2022-252.07 Wildomar Passive Park Project
Figure 1. ProMect Vicinity
Nevada
Fresno
Los Angeles
San Francisco
Las Vegas
San Diego
Sacramento
0 0
0 □
0 -
•
~
::: __ _JI□ =I _ ECORPC E v1RoNME~ -~~ulting, co, Inc lLTA\T • 1832
Penrose
St
S Pasadena St
Refa Ct
Weatherly Ct
Gierson Ave
BlueEerry Ln
Ruth Ave
Refa Ct
Heliotrope Ln
Palomar St
Ruth Ave
215
15 San Clemente
Perris
Mission 9iejo
Murrieta
Map Date: 4/19/2024
Sources: ESRI, Ma[ar
/ocatioQ: 1:?2022?2022-252.07 Wildomar Passive Park Project?M$PS?/ocatioQB9iciQity?WPP /Q9.aprx - WPP /ocatioQ 2024011 lgalve] - 4/19/2024
I
0 00
US Feet
2022-252.07 Wildomar Passive Park Project
Figure . ProMect Location
Map Contents
Project Area
ECORP Consulting, Inc. _ _ .._.., E VIRONME~TAL co, lLTA\T 1833
Biological Technical Report and Western Riverside County MSHCP Consistency Analysis ECORP Consulting, Inc.
Wildomar 20-acre Passive Park Project
5 April 2024
2022-252.07
1.3 Terms
The following terms will be used throughout this document and are defined as follows:
Project Area: the approximately 20-acre property, comprising APNs 380-050-025 and 380-050- 027, assessed during the general biological reconnaissance survey that will be permanently impacted to construct the park and associated amenities. Survey Area: includes the Project Area and a 500-foot buffer.
2.0 SPECIAL-STATUS SPECIES REGULATIONS
ECORP conducted the biological reconnaissance survey to identify potential constraints to development and to ensure compliance with state and federal regulations regarding listed, protected, and sensitive species. The regulations are detailed below.
2.1 Federal Regulations
2.1.1 The Federal Endangered Species Act
The federal ESA protects plants and animals that are listed as endangered or threatened by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service. Section 9 of the federal ESA prohibits the taking of endangered wildlife, where taking is defined as “harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, collect, or attempt to engage in such conduct” (50 Code of Federal Regulations [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 U.S. Code 1538). Under Section 7 of the federal ESA, federal agencies are required to consult with the USFWS if their actions, including permit approvals or funding, could adversely affect a listed or proposed 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 activity will not jeopardize the continued existence of the species. Section 10 of the federal ESA provides for issuance of incidental take permits where no other federal actions are necessary provided a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) is developed.
2.1.2 Migratory Bird Treaty Act
The federal MBTA implements international treaties between the United States and other nations devised 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 propagation, scientific collecting, special purposes (i.e., 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 1834
Biological Technical Report and Western Riverside County MSHCP Consistency Analysis ECORP Consulting, Inc.
Wildomar 20-acre Passive Park Project
6 April 2024
2022-252.07
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.
2.1.3 Federal Clean Water Act
Under Section 404 of the federal Clean Water Act (CWA), potential Waters of the U.S., including wetlands, may be regulated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). The limit of USACE jurisdiction for nontidal watercourses (without adjacent wetlands) is defined in 33 CFR 328.4(c)(1) as the “ordinary high-water mark” (OHWM).
The OHWM is defined as the line on the shore established by the fluctuations of water and indicated by physical characteristics such as clear, natural line impressed on the bank, shelving, changes in the character of soil, destruction of terrestrial vegetation, the presence of litter and debris, or other appropriate means that consider the characteristics of the surrounding areas. The upstream limits of other waters are defined as the point where the OHWM is no longer perceptible.
Jurisdictional Waters of the U.S. are delineated in accordance with the “Revised Definition of ‘Waters of the United States’” rule, published in the Federal Register in 2022 and which became final on January 18, 2023. This rule, set forth by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and USACE, was consistent with the pre-2015 regulatory definition as all waters that are currently used, or were used in the past, or may be susceptible to use in interstate commerce, including all waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide. This definition also includes all interstate waters, including interstate wetlands, interstate lakes, rivers, streams (including all intermittent and ephemeral streams), mudflats, sand flats, sloughs, and prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, or natural ponds where the use, degradation, or destruction of which could affect interstate or foreign commerce. Under this rule, Waters of the U.S. do not include prior converted cropland.
The definition of Waters of the U.S.in accordance with this rule (40 CFR 230.3[s]), is summarized below.
1. All waters which are currently used, or were used in the past, or may be susceptible to use in interstate or foreign commerce, including all waters which are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide;
2. All interstate waters including interstate wetlands;
3. All other waters such as intrastate lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams), mudflats, sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, or natural ponds, the use, degradation or destruction of which could affect interstate or foreign commerce including any such waters: (i) Which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes; or (ii) From which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce; or (iii) Which are used or could be used for industrial purpose by industries in interstate commerce;
4. All impoundments of waters otherwise defined as Waters of the U.S. under the definition;
5. Tributaries of waters identified in paragraphs (s)(1)-(4) of this section; 1835
Biological Technical Report and Western Riverside County MSHCP Consistency Analysis ECORP Consulting, Inc.
Wildomar 20-acre Passive Park Project
7 April 2024
2022-252.07
6. The territorial sea; and
7. Wetlands adjacent to waters (other than waters that are themselves wetlands) identified in paragraphs (s)(1) through (6) of this section; waste treatment systems, including treatment ponds or lagoons designed to meet the requirements of CWA (other than cooling ponds as defined in 40 CFR 423.11(m) which also meet the criteria of this definition) are not Waters of the U.S.
On May 25, 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court adopted a narrower definition of Waters of the U.S. in the case Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency. Under the majority opinion, Waters of the U.S. refers to “geographical features that are described in ordinary parlance as ‘streams, oceans, rivers, and lakes’ and to adjacent wetlands that are ‘indistinguishable’ from those bodies of water due to a continuous surface connection.” On August 29, 2023, the agencies issued a final rule to amend the final “Revised Definition of ‘Waters of the United States’” rule to conform the definition of “waters of the United States” to the U.S.
Supreme Court’s May 25, 2023, decision in the case of Sackett v. Environmental Protection Agency.
Parts of the January 2023 Rule are invalid under the U.S. Supreme Court’s interpretation of the CWA in the Sackett decision. Therefore, the agencies have amended key aspects of the regulatory text to conform to the Court’s decision. Key changes under the amendment include:
Definition of “adjacent” is now “having a continuous surface connection;” Only tributaries that are relatively permanent, standing or continuously flowing bodies of water (or tributaries with a continuous surface connection to those) are considered jurisdictional; Interstate wetlands are no longer jurisdictional just by virtue of being interstate; and Significant nexus test is eliminated.
Where areas jurisdictional to the USACE are present, and will be impacted by a project, the project proponent must usually apply for permitting with the agency, which generally consists of submittal of a Pre-Construction Notification under Section 404 of the CWA. As of the writing of this report, ECORP does not know the details of how the individual USACE offices will implement the conforming rule for permitting purposes.
2.2 State and Local Regulations
2.2.1 California Endangered Species Act
The California ESA generally parallels the main provisions of the federal ESA; however, unlike its federal counterpart, the California ESA applies the take prohibitions to species proposed for listing (called candidates by the State). Section 2080 of the California Fish and Game Code prohibits the taking, possession, purchase, sale, and import or export of endangered, threatened, or candidate species, unless otherwise authorized by permit or in the regulations. Take is defined in Section 86 of the California Fish and Game Code as “hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill, or attempt to hunt, pursue, catch, capture, or kill.” The California ESA allows for take incidental to otherwise lawful development projects. State lead agencies are required to consult with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) to ensure that any 1836
Biological Technical Report and Western Riverside County MSHCP Consistency Analysis ECORP Consulting, Inc.
Wildomar 20-acre Passive Park Project
8 April 2024
2022-252.07
action they undertake is not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of any endangered or threatened species or result in destruction or adverse modification of essential habitat.
2.2.2 Fully Protected Species
The State of California first began to designate species as fully protected prior to the creation of the federal and California ESAs. Lists of fully protected species were initially developed to provide protection to those animals that were rare or faced possible extinction, and included fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, and mammals. Most fully protected species have since been listed as threatened or endangered under the federal and/or California ESA. Previously, the regulations that implement the Fully Protected Species Statute (California Fish and Game Code Section 4700) provide that fully protected species may not be taken or possessed at any time. However, as of July 10, 2023 Senate Bill 147 (SB147) was signed into law, authorizing CDFW to issue take permits under the California ESA for fully protected species for qualifying projects through 2033. As stated in section 2081.15 of SB147, qualifying projects include:
A maintenance, repair, or improvement project to the State Water Project, including existing infrastructure, undertaken by the Department of Water Resources; A maintenance, repair, or improvement project to critical regional or local water agency infrastructure;
A transportation project, including any associated habitat connectivity and wildlife crossing project, undertaken by a state, regional, or local agency, that does not increase highway or street capacity for automobile or truck travel;
A wind project and any appurtenant infrastructure improvement, and any associated electric transmission project carrying electric power from a facility that is located in the state to a point of junction with any California based balancing authority; and A solar photovoltaic project and any appurtenant infrastructure improvement, and any associated electric transmission project carrying electric power from a facility that is located in the state to a point of junction with any California-based balancing authority.
2.2.3 California Fish and Game Code
2.2.3.1 Native Plant Protection Act
The Native Plant Protection Act (NPPA) of 1977 (California Fish and Game Code 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 Wildlife Commission has the authority to designate native plants as endangered or rare and to protect endangered and rare plants from take. The California ESA of 1984 (California Fish and Game Code Section 2050-2116) provided further protection for rare and endangered plant species, but the NPPA remains part of the California Fish and Game Code. 1837
Biological Technical Report and Western Riverside County MSHCP Consistency Analysis ECORP Consulting, Inc.
Wildomar 20-acre Passive Park Project
9 April 2024
2022-252.07
2.2.3.2 Streambed Alteration Agreement
Pursuant to Section 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code, a Streambed Alteration Agreement (SAA) application must be submitted 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” (CDFW 2023a). In Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR), Section 1.72, the CDFW defines a stream (including creeks and rivers) as “a body of water that flows at least periodically or intermittently through a bed or channel having banks and supports fish or other aquatic life. This includes watercourses having a surface or subsurface flow that supports or has supported riparian vegetation.” In Chapter 9, Section 2785 of the Fish and Game Code, riparian habitat is defined as “lands which contain habitat which grows close to, and which depends upon, soil moisture from a nearby freshwater source.” The CDFW’s jurisdiction includes drainages with a definable bed, bank, or channel and areas associated with a drainage channel that support intermittent, perennial, or subsurface flows; supports fish or other aquatic life; or supports riparian or hydrophytic vegetation. It also includes areas that have a hydrologic source.
The CDFW will determine if the proposed actions will result in diversion, obstruction, or change of the natural flow, bed, channel, or bank of any river, stream, or lake that supports fish or wildlife. If warranted, the CDFW will issue an SAA that includes measures to protect affected fish and wildlife resources; this SAA is the final proposal agreed upon by the CDFW and the applicant.
2.2.3.3 Migratory Birds
The CDFW enforces the protection of nongame native birds in Sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3800 of the California Fish and Game Code. Section 3513 of the California Fish and Game Code prohibits the possession or take of birds listed under the MBTA. These sections mandate the protection of California nongame native birds’ nests and make it unlawful to take these birds. All raptor species are protected from take pursuant to California Fish and Game Code Section 3503.5 and are also protected at the federal level by the MBTA of 1918 (USFWS 1918).
2.2.3.4 Bats and Bat Roosts
Bats in California are currently protected directly and indirectly by the California Fish and Game Code, Sections 86, 1600, 2000, 2014, 3007, and 4150; California Public Resources Code, Division 14, Section 21000 et seq.; and CCR, Title 14 including, but not limited to Section 251.1, CEQA regulations (Section 15000 et seq.), and Section 15382 – Significant Effect on the Environment.
Regulations of particular relevance to the protection of bats and bat roosts include Title 14, Section 251.1 of the CCR, which prohibits harassment (defined in that section as an intentional act that disrupts an animal’s normal behavior patterns, including breeding, feeding, or sheltering) of nongame mammals (e.g., bats), and California Fish and Game Code Section 4150, which prohibits take or possession of all nongame mammals or parts thereof. Any activities resulting in bat mortality (e.g., the destruction of an occupied bat roost that results in the death of bats), disturbance that causes the loss of a maternity colony 1838
Biological Technical Report and Western Riverside County MSHCP Consistency Analysis ECORP Consulting, Inc.
Wildomar 20-acre Passive Park Project
10 April 2024
2022-252.07
of bats (resulting in the death of young), or various modes of nonlethal pursuit or capture may be considered take as defined in Section 86 of the California Fish and Game Code. In addition, impacts to bat maternity colonies, which are considered native wildlife nursery sites, could be considered significant under CEQA.
2.2.4 Porter-Cologne Water Quality Act
The Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act requires “any person discharging waste, or proposing to discharge waste, within any region that could affect the waters of the State to file a report of discharge” with the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) through State Wetland Definition and Procedures for Discharges of Dredged or Fill Material to Waters of the State (Procedures) (CCR, title 23, Section 3855; State Water Resources Control Board 2021). Waters of the State is defined as any surface water or groundwater, including saline waters, within the boundaries of the State (California Water Code Section 13050[e]). Pollution is defined as an alteration of the quality of the waters of the state by waste to a degree that unreasonably affects its beneficial uses (California Water Code Section 13050) and includes filling in waters of the State. Note that CCR, title 23, Section 3855 applies only to individual water quality certifications, but the new Procedures extend the application of Section 3855 to individual waste discharge requirements for discharges of dredged or fill material to Waters of the State and waivers thereof.
A permit for impacts to Waters of the State of California would likely be required under the CWA and/or Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act. To determine whether a project should be regulated pursuant to the Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act, the RWQCB considers whether project activities could impact the quality of Waters of the State.
On September 27, 2023, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency published its final 2023 Clean Water Act Section 401 Quarter Quality Certification Improvement Rule (88 FR 66558.) The final 2023 Rule revises and replaces the 2020 Rule’s regulatory requirements for water quality certification that were adopted by the prior federal administration. The updates realign the scope of the Section 401 certification process with established practices, while also restoring the roles of states, territories, and authorized Tribes as certifying agencies.
2.2.5 Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan The Western Riverside County MSHCP is a comprehensive, multijurisdictional HCP focusing on conservation of species and their associated habitats in western Riverside County. The MSHCP identified 146 species, referred to as Covered Species, for which the federal and California ESAs take authorization has been granted to signatories to the plan as long as they comply with its requirements. Of the 146 Covered Species within the MSHCP, 118 are considered to be adequately conserved. The remaining 28 Covered Species will be considered adequately conserved when certain landmark conservation requirements are met during the course of future development. The goal of the MSHCP is to maintain the biological and ecological diversity within a rapidly urbanizing region while also improving the future economic development in the county by providing an efficient, streamlined regulatory process through which development can proceed in an efficient way.
1839
Biological Technical Report and Western Riverside County MSHCP Consistency Analysis ECORP Consulting, Inc.
Wildomar 20-acre Passive Park Project
11 April 2024
2022-252.07
The approval of the MSHCP and execution of the Implementing Agreement (IA) by the wildlife agencies allows signatories of the IA to issue take authorizations for all species covered by the MSHCP, including state- and federally listed species, as well as other identified sensitive species and/or their habitats. Each city of local jurisdiction will impose a development mitigation fee for projects within their jurisdiction.
With payment of the mitigation fee to the County and compliance with the survey requirements of the MSHCP where required, full mitigation in compliance with CEQA, National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and the federal and California ESAs, will be granted. The development mitigation fee varies according to project size and description and is dependent on development density (Riverside County Ordinance No. 810.2). Payment of the mitigation fee and compliance with the requirements of Section 6.0 of the MSHCP are intended to provide full mitigation under CEQA, NEPA, and the California and federal ESAs for impacts to the species and habitats covered by the MSHCP, pursuant to agreements with USFWS, CDFW, and/or any other appropriate participating regulatory agencies as set forth in the IA for the MSHCP.
2.2.6 Stephens’ Kangaroo Rat (Dipodomys stephensi) Habitat Conservation Plan The Project Area is located within the Long-Term Stephens’ kangaroo rat HCP area. The plan is administered by the Riverside County Habitat Conservation Agency (RCHCA) and aims to conserve 15,000 acres of occupied Stephens’ kangaroo rat habitat. To date, more than 46,000 acres have been assembled in western Riverside County for this species. The RCHCA has a Section 10A permit granted by USFWS that allows for take of Stephens’ kangaroo rat as part of development activity. The federal ESA defines take as any attempt to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct as it relates to Stephens’ kangaroo rat. As individual projects are proposed and approved in the Stephens’ kangaroo rat HCP area, public and private land developers are required to pay a Stephens’ kangaroo rat mitigation fee for land that is developed and removes Stephens’ kangaroo rat habitat. This streamlined process benefits developers in the Stephens’ kangaroo rat HCP Area because projects within this area do not require individual review and approval by the wildlife agencies.
Developers benefit from the streamlined process in the Stephens’ kangaroo rat HCP area because projects within this area do not require individual review and approval by the wildlife agencies. The activities covered by the plan fall into three categories:
1. Actions by private landowners, local and regional public agencies, public and private utilities, and farmers that are otherwise lawful but constitute incidental take of Stephens’ kangaroo rat as defined by the federal and California ESA;
2. Establishment and management of permanent Stephens’ kangaroo rat reserves by the RCHCA in cooperation with other public agencies and individual landowners; and
3. Implementation by the RCHCA and its member agencies of the conservation, mitigation, and monitoring measures specified in this plan.
The Mitigation Fee is $500 per gross acre of the parcels proposed for development within the Stephens’ kangaroo rat HCP Area.
1840
Biological Technical Report and Western Riverside County MSHCP Consistency Analysis ECORP Consulting, Inc.
Wildomar 20-acre Passive Park Project
12 April 2024
2022-252.07
2.2.7 California Environmental Quality Act Significance Criteria Section 15064.7 of the CEQA Guidelines encourages local agencies to develop and publish the thresholds the agency uses in determining the significance of environmental effects caused by projects under its review. However, agencies may also rely upon the guidance provided by the expanded Initial Study checklist contained in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines. Appendix G provides examples of impacts that would normally be considered significant. Based on these examples, impacts to biological resources would normally be considered significant if the project would:
have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by CDFW or USFWS;
have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by CDFW or USFWS; have a substantial adverse effect on state or federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, and coastal) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means;
interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species, or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites;
conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance; and
conflict with the provisions of an adopted HCP, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state HCP.
An evaluation of whether an impact on biological resources would be substantial must consider both the resource itself and how that resource fits into a regional or local context. Substantial impacts would be those that would diminish, or result in the loss of, an important biological resource, or those that would obviously conflict with local, state, or federal resource conservation plans, goals, or regulations. Impacts are sometimes locally important but not significant according to CEQA because although the impacts would result in an adverse alteration of existing conditions, they would not substantially diminish or result in the permanent loss of an important resource on a population-wide or region-wide basis.
2.2.8 City of Wildomar
2.2.8.1 Tree Preservation Policy and Protection Measures As a part of the City of Wildomar’s Landscape Design Standards and Guidelines, Sections 7.1.4 outlines the protection of existing and protected trees.
1841
Biological Technical Report and Western Riverside County MSHCP Consistency Analysis ECORP Consulting, Inc.
Wildomar 20-acre Passive Park Project
13 April 2024
2022-252.07
The Existing and Protected Trees Measures are in place to ensure the protection, preservation, and maintenance of established and healthy existing and protected trees. A protected tree is defined by the following criteria:
“The Diameter at Standard Height (DSH) is to be used to include or exclude a protected tree from evaluation. DSH means the diameter of the main trunk measured at 4.5 feet above natural grade:
diameter = trunk circumference divided by 3.14.
Mature native oak tree with a DSH of 4.0 inches or more, including, but not limited to, California or Coast Live Oak (Quercus agrifolia), Coastal Sage Scrub Oak (Quercus dumosa), Engelmann Oak (Quercus engelmannii), Scrub Oak (Quercus berberidifolia), and the Valley Oak (Quercus lobata). Mature native tree with a DSH of 4.0 inches or more, including but not limited to, the California Sycamore (Platanus racemosa), Western Cottonwood (Populus fremontii), California Bay Laurel (Umbellularia california), and California Black Walnut (Juglans california). Mature tree, other than native oak or native tree, with a DSH of 9.5 inches or more. Historically significant tree as designated by resolution of the City council. Any tree required to be planted or preserved as environmental mitigation or condition of approval.
A protected tree shall not be cut down, removed, relocated, or otherwise destroyed without first obtaining the approval of the Planning Director. The director may require a tree report prepared by an arborist, horticulturist, or registered landscape architect. A tree report shall identify and locate each protected tree by a unique number and list common name, botanical name, DSH, tree canopy diameter, and rating for health and aesthetic quality. The report will also note those trees to be preserved in place and those proposed for removal listing supporting evidence. If a protected tree is approved for removal, the tree(s) shall be replaced at a 1:1 ratio with a container size to the satisfaction of the director. Replacements for native oak trees or native trees shall be of the same species as those removed or a species acceptable to the director. Mature tree replacements shall be limited to drought tolerant, fire resistive tree species.
Detailed tree protection specifications shall be included on the landscape plan. The engineering plans shall note protected tree locations and reference the protection specifications on the landscape plans (City of Wildomar 2022).
3.0 METHODS
3.1 Literature Review
Prior to conducting the biological reconnaissance survey, ECORP biologists performed a literature review using the CDFW’s California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB; CDFW 2024a) and the California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Electronic Inventory (CNPSEI; CNPS 2024) to determine the documented specialstatus plant and wildlife species in the vicinity of the Project Area. ECORP searched CNDDB records within 5 miles of the Project and searched CNPSEI records within the USGS Wildomar, California 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle map. The CNPSEI literature review also included an 8-quadrangle search that 1842
Biological Technical Report and Western Riverside County MSHCP Consistency Analysis ECORP Consulting, Inc.
Wildomar 20-acre Passive Park Project
14 April 2024
2022-252.07
included: Lake Elsinore, Romoland, Fallbrook, Temecula, Alberhill, Margarita Peak, Sitton Peak, and Murrieta quadrangles. The CNDDB and CNPSEI contain records of reported occurrences of federally or state-listed endangered, threatened, proposed endangered or threatened species, California Species of Special Concern (SSC), and/or other special-status species or habitat that may occur within or in the vicinity of the Project. Additional information was gathered from the following sources and includes, but is not limited to:
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) Web Soil Survey (NRCS 2024);
State and Federally Listed Endangered and Threatened Animals of California (CDFW 2024b); State and Federally Listed Endangered, Threatened, and Rare Plants of California (CDFW 2024c); Special Animals List (CDFW 2024d);
Special Vascular Plants, Bryophytes, and Lichens List (CDFW 2024e); Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC) (USFWS 2024a); The Jepson Manual: Vascular Plants of California (Baldwin et al. 2012); A Manual of California Vegetation, 2nd Edition (MCV; Sawyer et al. 2009); and Various online websites (e.g., CalFlora 2024).
Using this information and field observations, ECORP biologists generated a list of special-status plant and wildlife species that have potential to occur within the Project Area. For the purposes of this assessment, special-status species are defined as plants or animals that:
have been designated as either rare, threatened, or endangered by CDFW, CNPS, or the USFWS, and/or are protected under either the federal or California ESAs; are candidate species being considered or proposed for listing under these same acts; are fully protected by the California Fish and Game Code, Sections 3511, 4700, 5050, or 5515; are of expressed concern to resource and regulatory agencies or local jurisdictions; and/or are covered species under the MSHCP.
ECORP assessed special-status species reported for the region in the literature review or for which suitable habitat occurs within the Project Area for their potential to occur within the Project Area based on the following guidelines:
Present: The species was observed onsite during a site visit or focused survey. High: Habitat (including soils and elevation factors) for the species occurs within the Project Area and a known occurrence has recently been recorded (within the last 20 years) within 5 miles of the area.
1843
Biological Technical Report and Western Riverside County MSHCP Consistency Analysis ECORP Consulting, Inc.
Wildomar 20-acre Passive Park Project
15 April 2024
2022-252.07
Moderate: Habitat (including soils and elevation factors) for the species occurs within the Project Area and a documented observation occurs within the database search, but not within 5 miles of the area; a historic documented observation (more than 20 years old) was recorded within 5 miles of the Project Area; or a recently documented observation occurs within 5 miles of the area and marginal or limited amounts of habitat occurs within the Project Area. Low: Limited or marginal habitat for the species occurs within the Project Area and a recently documented observation occurs within the database search, but not within 5 miles of the area; a historic documented observation (more than 20 years old) was recorded within 5 miles of the Project Area; or suitable habitat strongly associated with the species occurs onsite, but no records or only historic records were found within the database search. Presumed Absent: Species was not observed during a site visit or focused surveys conducted in accordance with protocol guidelines at an appropriate time for identification; habitat (including soils and elevation factors) does not exist onsite; or the known geographic range of the species does not include the Project Area.
Note that location information on some special-status species may be of questionable accuracy or unavailable. Therefore, for survey purposes, the environmental factors associated with a species’ occurrence requirements may be considered sufficient reason to give a species a positive potential for occurrence. In addition, just because a record of a species does not exist in the databases does not mean it does not occur. In many cases, records may not be present in the databases because an area has not been surveyed for that particular species.
3.2 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service-Designated Critical Habitat Biologists reviewed the USFWS online service for information regarding Threatened and Endangered Species Final Critical Habitat designation within California to determine if the Project is within any species’ designated Critical Habitat (USFWS 2024b).
3.3 Aquatic Resources
ECORP biologists conducted a desktop review of the NRCS Web Soil Survey (NRCS 2024), USFWS National Wetlands Inventory (USFWS 2024c), and the corresponding USGS topographic maps to determine if there were any blue line streams or drainages that might potentially fall under the jurisdiction of either federal or state agencies within the Project Area.
3.4 Western Riverside County MSHCP Consistency Analysis ECORP reviewed Project data to determine consistency with the MSHCP. Biologists queried the Riverside Conservation Authority (RCA) MSHCP Information Map to determine requirements for habitat assessment(s), potential focused survey(s), or other issues related to biological resources that could exist within the Project Area (RCA 2024a).
Section 6.0 of the MSHCP also requires that an assessment of the Project be completed to identify any potential applicable Project-related effects on biological resources, including riparian/riverine areas, vernal 1844
Biological Technical Report and Western Riverside County MSHCP Consistency Analysis ECORP Consulting, Inc.
Wildomar 20-acre Passive Park Project
16 April 2024
2022-252.07
pools, and fairy shrimp. In addition, the MSHCP requires that an Urban/Wildlands Interface analysis be conducted to address the indirect effects associated with locating proposed development in the proximity of MSHCP Conservation Areas.
3.5 Field Survey
3.5.1 Biological Reconnaissance Survey
Biologists conducted a reconnaissance survey by walking the entire Project Area paying special attention to those areas that could host sensitive vegetation communities or had the potential to provide suitable habitat for special-status species. The biologists documented the plant and wildlife species present within the Project Area and assessed the location and condition of the Project for the potential to provide habitat for special-status plant and wildlife species. The data was recorded on a Global Positioning System (GPS) unit, field notebooks, and/or maps. Photographs were taken during the survey to provide visual representation of the various vegetation communities within the Project Area. The biologists examined the Project Area to assess its potential to facilitate wildlife movement or function as a movement corridor for wildlife moving throughout the region. In addition, the biologists mapped the vegetation communities and land cover types present within the Project Area and the 500-foot survey buffer surrounding the Project Area. The following minimum mapping units were used during vegetation mapping: 0.25 acre for sensitive vegetation communities and 1.0 acre for non-sensitive vegetation communities.
ECORP inspected the vegetation communities and habitat conditions to confirm presence and habitat quality of the vegetation found onsite. Where appropriate, biologists utilized descriptions of vegetation communities from the MCV second edition (Sawyer et al. 2009). Any deviations from standard vegetation classifications were made on best professional judgment when areas did not fit into a specific habitat description provided by the MCV. Biologists mapped vegetation communities using field observations and aerial imagery.
ECORP recorded plant and wildlife species including any special-status species that were observed during the survey. Plant nomenclature follows that of The Jepson Manual: Vascular Plants of California (Baldwin et al. 2012). Wildlife nomenclature follows Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles (2017), Checklist of North American Birds (Chesser et al. 2023), and the Revised Checklist of North American Mammals North of Mexico (Bradley et al. 2014). ECORP recorded GPS coordinates, the species, location, and habitat in instances where a special-status species was observed.
3.5.2 Burrowing Owl Habitat Assessment
The Project is located within the MSHCP Burrowing Owl (BUOW; Athene cunicularia) Survey Area and is subject to the MSHCP burrowing owl survey requirements (RCA 2024a). ECORP conducted a BUOW habitat assessment concurrently with the biological reconnaissance survey to determine the presence of suitable habitat. Biologists walked the Project Area and a 500-foot buffer (Figure 3) to identify the presence of owl habitat, scanning for suitable habitat using binoculars in areas that were inaccessible by foot. ECORP biologists determined that suitable burrowing owl habitat occurs onsite. Some suitable burrows were noted during the March 22, 2024 habitat assessment; however, a focused burrow survey was not completed.
1845
Wildom
Como St
Penrose St
Penrose
St
S Pasadena St
Cedar St
Indiana St
Palomar St
Wildomar
Elementary
School
Murrieta Creek
S Pasadena St
Front St
Carnation Ln
Dahlia Ln
Camellia Ln
Protea Ct
B
Prairie R
illie Ann
Marsh Ln
Refa Ct
Weatherly Ct
Gierson Ave
BlueEerry Ln
Ruth Ave
Refa Ct
Heliotrope Ln
Iris
Ln
Arnold Ln
Palomar St
Akipa Ct
Temet St
Wanki Ave
Woshka Ln
Pavla Ct
Charles St
Woshka
Ln
Supa Ct
Teil Glen Rd
Wanki Ave
Showut Ave
Ruth Ave
Charles St Frederick St
Arnold Ln
Weatherly Ct
Gierson Ave
BlueEerry Ln
Ruth A
ve
Refa
Ct
t
Ct
Heliotrope Ln
Palomar St
Ct
Refa
C
0 400 I Scale in Feet
Location: N:\2022\2022-252.07 Wildomar Passive Park Project\MAPS\Biological_Resources\Wildomar BIO.aprx - BurroZing OZl HaEitat SuitaEility 20240405 (lgalvez - 4/19/2024) Figure 3. Burrowing Owl HaEitat SuitaEility Map Date: 4/19/2024 Sources: Maxar, Esri World Imagery
2022-252.07 Wildomar Passive Park Project
Map Contents
Project Area
500-foot Buffer
BurroZing OZl HaEitat SuitaEility
SuitaEle
UnsuitaEle
Potential BurroZing OZl BurroZ (No Sign)
Consulting, Inc.
ENTAL CO S LTA TS 1846
Biological Technical Report and Western Riverside County MSHCP Consistency Analysis ECORP Consulting, Inc.
Wildomar 20-acre Passive Park Project
18 April 2024
2022-252.07
4.0 RESULTS
The results of the literature review and field survey, including site characteristics, vegetation communities, wildlife, special-status species, and special-status habitats (including any potential wildlife corridors) are summarized below.
4.1 Literature Review
4.1.1 Special-Status Plants and Wildlife
ECORP conducted the CNDDB, CNPSEI, and IPaC searches on March 7, 2024. The database searches identified 51 special-status plant species and 42 special-status wildlife species that could occur within or near the Project Area. Biologists generated a list from the results of the literature review and evaluated the Project Area for suitable habitat that could support any of the special-status plant or wildlife species on the list.
4.1.2 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service-Designated Critical Habitat The Project is not located within any USFWS-designated critical habitat. The closest designated critical habitat is for coastal California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica), approximately 1.8 miles northeast of the Project Area (USFWS 2024b).
4.2 Biological Reconnaissance Survey
ECORP biologists Greg Hampton and Verity Richardson conducted the biological reconnaissance survey of the Project Area on March 22, 2024. The results of the biological reconnaissance survey, including site characteristics, plants and plant communities, wildlife, special-status species, and special-status habitats (including any potential wildlife corridors) are summarized below. The biologists surveyed areas of unknown property ownership within the 500-foot buffer surrounding the Project Area from a distance by using binoculars. Table 1 provides summarized weather conditions during the survey.
Table 1. Weather Conditions During the Survey
Date
Time Temperature (˚F) Cloud Cover (%) Wind Speed (mph)
Start End Start End Start End Start End
3/22/2024 0720 1115 49.7 72.4 5 5 0-3 1-4
Notes: ˚F=degrees Fahrenheit; mph=miles per hour
4.2.1 Site Characteristics and Land Use
The Project Area is currently vacant, and the vegetation observed is primarily composed of non-native grasses and forbs with landscaped trees. Fencing lines the boundary of the Project Area and a concrete channel lies adjacent to the western boundary within the 500-foot. buffer. The remaining surrounding 1847
Biological Technical Report and Western Riverside County MSHCP Consistency Analysis ECORP Consulting, Inc.
Wildomar 20-acre Passive Park Project
19 April 2024
2022-252.07
land uses are residential and landscaped areas. Additionally, areas within the Project Area showed evidence of mechanical disturbance, likely associated with annual weed and fire abatement procedures.
The NRCS Web Soil Survey (2024) identified nine soil types within the Project Area:
Greenfield sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes
Greenfield sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes, eroded
Hanford coarse sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes
Hanford sandy loam, 2 to 15 percent slopes
Monserate sandy loam, 0 to 5 percent slopes
Monserate sandy loam, 5 to 8 percent slopes, eroded
Monserate sandy loam, shallow, 5 to 15 percent slopes, eroded Placentia fine sandy loam, 0 to 5 percent slopes
Placentia fine sandy loam, 5 to 15 percent slopes
The Project Area is bounded by a preschool and an assisted living facility to the west, residential development to the north and south, and low-density rural residences to the east. Representative site photographs are included in Appendix A.
4.2.2 Vegetation Communities and Land Cover Types
Vegetation within the Survey Area is composed of Fremont cottonwood forest and woodland, disturbed - California buckwheat scrub, tamarisk thickets, eucalyptus groves, and wild oats and annual brome grasslands. Three land cover types were also documented within the Survey Area: landscaped, developed, and disturbed. Vegetation communities and land cover types are further described below and shown in Figure 4. Acreages of these vegetation communities and land cover types within the Project Area and Survey Area are provided in Table 2. A comprehensive list of plant species observed in the Survey Area is included as Appendix B. Representative photographs of the habitats present on the Project Area and in the Survey Area are provided in Appendix A.
1848
Wildomar Trl
Como St
Murrieta Creek
Penrose St
S
Pasadena St
S Pasadena St
Cedar St
Starlight St
Carnation Ln
Dahlia Ln
Wildomar
Elementary
School
Montague
Brothers Coffee
Billie Ann Rd
Temet St
Wanki Ave
Prairie Rd
Glen Ln
Frederick St
Navut Ave
Marsh Ln
California
Lutheran High
School
Charles St
Frederick
St
Refa
Ct
Woshka
Ln
Billie Ann Rd
Gierson Ave
Catt Rd
Iris Ln
Teil Glen Rd
Arnold Ln
Wanki Ave
Showut Ave
Nan St
Ruth Ave
Palomar St
Billie
Ann Rd
Gierson
Ruth A
ve
a
Ct
Refa
Ct
0 500 I Scale in Feet
Location: N:\2022\2022-252.07 Wildomar Passive Park Project\MAPS\9egetation_and_LandCover\City of Wildomar 9egetation.aprx - City of Wildomar 9egetation (lgalvez - 4/19/2024) Figure 4. Vegetation Communities and Land Cover Types Map Date: 4/19/2024 Sources: Maxar, ES5I, 8S*S
2022-252.07 Wildomar Passive Park Project
Map Contents
Project Area
500-foot Buffer
9egetation Communities and Land Cover 7ypes
9egetation Types
Fremont CottonZood Forest and Woodland (Populus
fremontiiFra[inus velutinaSali[ gooddingii Forest
and Woodland Alliance)
DisturEed -California BuckZheat ScruE (Eriogonum
fasciculatum ShruEland Alliance)
7amarisk 7hickets (Tamari[ spp. ShruEland SemiNatural Alliance) Wild Oats and Annual Brome *rasslands (Avena
sppBromus spp. HerEaceous Semi-Natural Alliance)
Eucalyptus *roves (Eucalyptus spp. Semi-Natural
Woodland Stands)
Land Cover Types
Developed
DisturEed
Landscaped
Consulting, Inc.
ENTAL CO S LTA TS
1111
1111
1111
1111
1111
1111
1111
' ' ',
',,
'
/
Ana1 /
rain s
I
I
I
I
I
I
>
I
Te
1849
Biological Technical Report and Western Riverside County MSHCP Consistency Analysis ECORP Consulting, Inc.
Wildomar 20-acre Passive Park Project
21 April 2024
2022-252.07
Table 2. Vegetation Communities and Land Cover Acreages Vegetation Community and Land Cover Type
Survey Area
Acreages within
Project Area
Acreages within the
500-ft buffer
Fremont Cottonwood Forest and Woodland 0.33 0.33
Disturbed California Buckwheat Scrub 0.01 0.51
Tamarisk Thickets 0.00 0.42
Wild Oats and Annual Brome Grasslands 16.83 26.03
Eucalyptus Groves 1.01 1.73
Developed 0.62 43.44
Disturbed 0.16 3.91
Landscaped 4.13 18.92
Total: 23.09 95.29
Grand Total: 118.38
4.2.2.1 Fremont Cottonwood Forest and Woodland (Populus fremontii – Fraxinus velutina – Salix gooddingii Forest and Woodland Alliance) This vegetation community is dominated or co-dominated by Fremont cottonwood (Populus fremontii) in the tree canopy and occurs in riparian habitats with other species such as California sycamore (Platanus racemosa), narrowleaf willow (Salix exigua), Goodding’s black willow (Salix gooddingii), and arroyo willow (Salix lasiolepis). This community typically occurs on floodplains, along low-gradient rivers, perennial or seasonally intermittent streams, alluvial fans, and in valleys with dependable subsurface flow of water.
Vegetation layers within this community are described as a continuous to open tree layer, an intermittent to open shrub canopy, and a variable herbaceous layer, in elevations ranging from 0 to 2,400 meters amsl (CNPS 2024). Fremont cottonwood forest and woodland is considered sensitive by CDFW and has a state ranking of S3, indicating that this vegetation community is vulnerable in the state due to a restricted range, few populations, recent and widespread declines, or other factors making it vulnerable (VegCAMP, CDFW 2024f,g). This community was observed within a small section of the northeastern corner of the Project Area (Figure 4). Species observed in this community at the time of the survey included Fremont cottonwood, California sycamore, and mulefat (Baccharis salicifolia).
4.2.2.2 Disturbed - California Buckwheat Scrub (Eriogonum fasciculatum Shrubland Alliance)
This vegetation community is mostly dominated by California buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum) in the shrub canopy and can occur with other ruderal native and nonnative species such as telegraph weed (Heterotheca grandiflora), short-pod mustard (Hirschfeldia incana), and red-stemmed filaree (Erodium 1850
Biological Technical Report and Western Riverside County MSHCP Consistency Analysis ECORP Consulting, Inc.
Wildomar 20-acre Passive Park Project
22 April 2024
2022-252.07
cicutarium). This community typically occurs in areas adjacent to California buckwheat scrub where recent anthropogenic disturbance (e.g., mowing, tilling, soil compaction) has occurred or non-native species are co-dominant. Disturbed - California buckwheat scrub is not considered sensitive by CDFW and does not have a global or state rank. This community was observed in the northern opening of the concrete channel that runs adjacent to the Project Area on the western side, within the 500-foot buffer (Figure 4).
Species observed in this community at the time of the survey included California buckwheat, short-pod mustard, and fourwing saltbush (Atriplex canescens).
4.2.2.3 Tamarisk Thickets (Tamarix spp. Shrubland Semi-Natural Alliance) This vegetation community is dominated by either saltcedar (Tamarix ramosissima) or another Tamarix spp. in the shrub layer. Other species such as Fremont cottonwood or willow (Salix spp.) may be present at a lower cover. This community typically occurs in arroyo margins, lake margins, ditches, washes, rivers, and other watercourses with a continuous shrub layer, and a variable herbaceous layer. Tamarisk thickets typically occur in elevations ranging from 75-800 meters amsl (CNPS 2024). Tamarisk thickets are not considered sensitive by CDFW and does not have a global or state rank. This community was observed in a drainage channel present in the eastern portion of the 500-foot buffer that is connected to the Fremont cottonwood forest and woodland that is present in the Project Area (Figure 4). Species observed in this community at the time of the survey included tamarisk and willow (Salix spp.).
4.2.2.4 Wild Oats and Annual Brome Grasslands (Avena spp. - Bromus spp. Herbaceous Semi-Natural Alliance)
Wild oats and annual brome grasslands are dominated by one or more nonnative annual grass species with an open to continuous herb layer of herbage up to four feet in height (CNPS 2024). The following nonnative species may be dominant or co-dominant on the landscape and occur with other nonnatives in the herb layer: slender wild oat (Avena barbata), wild oat (Avena fatua), ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus), soft brome (Bromus hordeaceus), and farmer’s foxtail (Hordeum murinum). This vegetation community accounts for the largest acreage of nonnative grassland vegetation in cismontane California, and occurs in all topographic settings including foothills, disturbed areas, rangelands, and openings in woodlands. Wild oats and annual brome grasslands typically occur in elevations ranging from 0-2200 meters amsl (CNPS 2024). Wild oats and annual brome grasslands were observed within the Project Area as well as the 500- foot. buffer on the eastern side (Figure 4). Plant species observed in this community at the time of the survey included species of slender wild oat , stinknet (Oncosiphon pilulifer), farmer’s foxtail , foxtail brome (Bromus madritensis) and red-stemmed filaree.
4.2.2.5 Eucalyptus Groves (Eucalyptus spp. Semi-Natural Woodland Stands) Eucalyptus groves are characterized by blue gum (Eucalyptus globulus), red gum (E. camaldulensis), or other Eucalyptus spp. dominant in an open to intermittent tree canopy and a sparse to intermittent shrub and herbaceous layer. Planted as trees, groves, and windbreaks, eucalyptus groves can occur from sea level to 300 meters amsl (Sawyer et al. 2009). Within the Survey Area, eucalyptus groves included red iron bark (E. sideroxylon), western Australian floodedgum (E. rudis), and blue gum and were most likely planted 1851
Biological Technical Report and Western Riverside County MSHCP Consistency Analysis ECORP Consulting, Inc.
Wildomar 20-acre Passive Park Project
23 April 2024
2022-252.07
as windbreaks and privacy screens. This community was documented in the northern portion of the Project Area and eastern portion of the 500-foot buffer.
4.2.3 Land Cover Types
4.2.3.1 Developed
Developed lands are those that are heavily affected by human use, including residential homes, commercial or industrial buildings and associated infrastructure, and transportation corridors. Developed land is not a vegetation classification, but rather a land cover type and is not restricted by elevation.
Within developed areas, naturalized vegetation is often relatively sparse, and largely consists of ornamental, nonnative species. This land cover type was observed throughout the Survey Area (Figure 4).
4.2.3.2 Disturbed
Disturbed land includes areas where the native vegetation community has been heavily influenced by human actions, such as grading, trash dumping, equipment staging, and off-highway vehicle use, but lack development. Disturbed land is not a vegetation classification, but rather a land cover type and is not restricted by elevation. Disturbed areas may be actively maintained to be free of vegetation or have been compacted or disked to such a degree that native and nonnative vegetation is sparse. The areas mapped as disturbed are largely devoid of vegetation but contain sparse nonnative weedy and ruderal vegetation.
This land cover type was observed in adjacent land, southeast of the Project Area within the 500-foot buffer and may have been scarified for future crops (Figure 4).
4.2.3.3 Landscaped
The landscaped classification includes areas where the main vegetation is continuous to non-continuous landscaped vegetation such as ornamental trees, lawn shrubs, and grass. Landscaped areas have little to no vegetation aside from landscaped vegetation. Landscaped is not a vegetation classification, but rather a land cover type and is not restricted by elevation. This land cover type was observed in scattered patches throughout the Survey Area (Figure 4).
4.2.4 Plants
Plant species observed within the Project Area were composed of both native and non-native species.
Native plant species observed included California buckwheat, mulefat, black sage (Salvia mellifera), coast live oak, and bristly fiddleneck (Amsinckia tessellata). Non-native plant species observed included shortpod mustard , foxtail brome , stinknet, saltcedar, and Peruvian pepper tree . Appendix B provides a full list of plant species observed on or adjacent to the Project Area.
4.2.5 Wildlife
ECORP biologists observed wildlife species within the Project Area typical of the region. Bird species observed during the reconnaissance survey included Cooper’s hawk (Accipiter cooperii), song sparrow 1852
Biological Technical Report and Western Riverside County MSHCP Consistency Analysis ECORP Consulting, Inc.
Wildomar 20-acre Passive Park Project
24 April 2024
2022-252.07
(Melospiza melodia), black phoebe (Sayornis nigricans), and mourning dove (Zenaida macroura).
Appendix C provides a full list of wildlife species observed on or adjacent to the Project Area.
4.2.6 Potential for Special-Status Species to Occur within the Project Area
4.2.6.1 Special-Status Plants
There were 51 special-status plant species that appeared in the literature review and database searches for the Project Area (CDFW 2024a; CNPS 2024). ECORP generated a list from the results of the literature review and evaluated the Project for suitable habitat that could support any of the special-status plant species on the list.
Several species appeared in the literature review results that had no potential to occur on or near the Project Area due to elevational or habitat requirements. Additionally, biologists eliminated CNPS Rare Plant Rank 3 or 4 species from the analysis (unless they are characterized as MSHCP Covered Species) because these rankings are considered a review list and a watch list, respectively. No plant species were designated with a high potential to occur within the Project Area. Table 3 provides descriptions of the CNPS designations. Appendix D consists of a table outlining each plant species, designation, and potential for occurrence within the Project Area.
Table 3. CNPS Status Designations
List
Designation Meaning
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 we need more information; a review list 4 Plants of limited distribution; a watch list
List 1B, 2, and 4 extension meanings:
.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)
Note: According to California Native Plant Society (CNPS, Skinner and Pavlik 1994), plants on Lists 1B and 2 meet definitions for listing as threatened or endangered under Section 1901, Chapter 10 of the California Fish and Game Code (California Department of Fish and Game 1984). This interpretation is inconsistent with other definitions.
1853
Biological Technical Report and Western Riverside County MSHCP Consistency Analysis ECORP Consulting, Inc.
Wildomar 20-acre Passive Park Project
25 April 2024
2022-252.07
Plant Species Present within the Project Area
One special-status plant species, Engelmann oak (Quercus engelmannii), was observed within the Project Area during the biological reconnaissance survey. Engelmann oak is a California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR)
4.2 species (limited distribution in California) and is a covered species that is adequately conserved under the MSHCP.
Plant Species with a Moderate Potential to Occur
The following nine (9) plant species have a moderate potential to occur within the Project Area because there are recent occurrences within 5 miles and marginal/limited riparian and/or grassland habitat occur within the Project Area:
Munz’s onion (Allium munzii), CRPR 1B.1, MSHCP Covered Species thread-leaved brodiaea (Brodiaea filifolia) CRPR 1B.1, MSHCP Covered Species smooth tarplant (Centromadia pungens ssp. laevis), CRPR 1B.1, MSHCP Covered Plant Species Parry’s spineflower (Chorizanthe parryi var. parryi), CRPR 1B.1, MSHCP Covered Plant Species long-spined spineflower (Chorizanthe polygonoides var. longispina), CRPR 1B.2, MSHCP Covered Plant Species
San Miguel savory (Clinopodium chandleri), CRPR 1B.2, MSHCP Covered Plant Species San Diego button-celery (Eryngium aristulatum var. parishii), CRPR 1B.1 prostrate navarretia (Navarretia prostrata), CRPR 1B.2 California Orcutt grass (Orcuttia californica), CRPR 1B.1, MSHCP Covered Plant Species Plant Species with a Low Potential to Occur
The following nineteen (19) species have a low potential to occur within the Project Area because limited/marginal habitat for the species occurs onsite and a known occurrence has been reported in the database, but not within 5 miles of the Project Area or a historic documented occurrence (more than 20 years old) was recorded within 5 miles of the Project Area. San Diego ambrosia (Ambrosia pumila), CRPR 1B.1, MSHCP Covered Species rainbow manzanita (Arctostaphylos rainbowensis), CRPR 1B.1, MSHCP Covered Species Jaeger's milk-vetch (Astragalus pachypus var. jaegeri), CRPR 1B.1, MSHCP Covered Species San Jacinto Valley crownscale (Atriplex coronata var. notatior), CRPR 1B.1, MSHCP Covered Species Orcutt's brodiaea (Brodiaea orcuttii), CRPR 1B.1, MSHCP Covered Species intermediate mariposa-lily (Calochortus weedii var. intermedius), CRPR 1B.2, MSHCP Covered Species
1854
Biological Technical Report and Western Riverside County MSHCP Consistency Analysis ECORP Consulting, Inc.
Wildomar 20-acre Passive Park Project
26 April 2024
2022-252.07
many-stemmed dudleya (Dudleya multicaulis), CRPR 1B.2, MSHCP Covered Species Palmer's grapplinghook (Harpagonella palmeri), CRPR 4.2, MSHCP Covered Species vernal barley (Hordeum intercedens), CRPR 3.2, MSHCP Covered Species southern California black walnut (Juglans californica), CRPR 4.2, MSHCP Covered Species Coulter's goldfields (Lasthenia glabrata ssp. coulteri), CRPR 1B.1, MSHCP Covered Species ocellated Humboldt lily (Lilium humboldtii ssp. Ocellatum), CRPR 4.2, MSHCP Covered Species small-flowered microseris (Microseris douglasii ssp. Platycarpha), CRPR 4.2, MSHCP Covered Species
little mousetail (Myosurus minimus ssp. apus), CRPR 3.1, MSHCP Covered Species spreading navarretia (Navarretia fossalis), CRPR 1B.1 chaparral rein orchid (Piperia cooperi), CRPR 4.2
white rabbit-tobacco (Pseudognaphalium leucocephalum), CRPR 2B.2 San Bernardino aster (Symphyotrichum defoliatum), CRPR 1B.2 California screw moss (Tortula californica), CRPR 1B.2 Plant Species Presumed Absent
A total of 22 plant species were presumed absent from the Project Area due to lack of suitable habitat (including elevation and soils) or because the Project Area is located outside of the known range for the species. A table outlining each species, their designations, and potential for occurrence within the Project Area can be found in Appendix D.
4.2.6.2 Special-Status Wildlife
There were 42 special-status wildlife species that appeared in the literature review and database searches for Project Area. ECORP generated a list from the results of the literature review and evaluated the Project for suitable habitat that could support any of the special-status wildlife species on the list. No specialstatus wildlife species were designated with a high potential to occur within the Project Area. Appendix E provides a table outlining each species, their designations, and potential for occurrence within the Project Area or larger Survey Area.
Wildlife Species Present within the Survey Area
One special-status wildlife species, monarch butterfly (Danaus plexippus) was observed within the buffer of the Project Area during the biological reconnaissance survey.
Monarch Butterfly
1855
Biological Technical Report and Western Riverside County MSHCP Consistency Analysis ECORP Consulting, Inc.
Wildomar 20-acre Passive Park Project
27 April 2024
2022-252.07
Monarch butterfly , the California overwintering population, is a candidate species for listing under the federal ESA. This species inhabits a variety of habitats and has a reliance on milkweeds (Asclepias spp.) as its obligate larval host plant. No milkweed plants were observed within the Survey Area. The overwintering population is known to have a preference for and dependency on nonnative trees planted in the mild coastal zone. Overwintering habitat is present within the Project Area as this species roosts in windprotected tree groves (coastal California conifers and eucalyptus groves).
Wildlife Species with a Moderate Potential to Occur
Eight species were found to have a moderate potential to occur within the Project Area because of one of the following factors:
Although these species were not observed during the biological reconnaissance survey, somewhat suitable habitat for the species occurs onsite, and a known occurrence has been reported in the database, but not within 5 miles of the Project Area; or a historic documented observation (more than 20 years old) was recorded within 5 miles of the Project Area; or
a recently documented observation occurs within 5 miles of the Project Area and marginal or limited amounts of habitat occurs onsite.
The special-status wildlife species with a moderate potential are listed below and detailed in Appendix E. burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia), CDFW SSC, MSHCP Covered Species coast range newt (Taricha torosa), CDFW SSC, MSHCP Covered Species Crotch bumble bee (Bombus crotchii), CDFW Candidate for Listing southern California legless lizard (Anniella stebbinsi), CDFW SSC Swainson's hawk (Buteo swainsoni), CDFW Threatened, MSHCP Covered Species western yellow bat (Lasiurus xanthinus), CDFW SSC
western red bat (Lasiurus frantzii), CDFW SSC
western spadefoot (Spea hammondii), USFWS Candidate (Proposed Threatened), CDFW SSC, MSHCP Covered Species
Wildlife Species with a Low Potential to Occur
The following six species have a low potential to occur within the Project Area because of one of the following factors:
There is limited habitat for the species onsite and a known occurrence has been reported in the database, but not within 5 miles of the Project Area; or 1856
Biological Technical Report and Western Riverside County MSHCP Consistency Analysis ECORP Consulting, Inc.
Wildomar 20-acre Passive Park Project
28 April 2024
2022-252.07
a historic documented observation (more than 20 years old) was recorded within 5 miles of the Project Area; or
suitable habitat strongly associated with the species occurs onsite, but no records were found in the database search.
The special-status wildlife species with a low potential to occur are listed below and detailed in Appendix E.
California glossy snake (Arizona elegans occidentalis), CDFW SSC coastal whiptail (Aspidoscelis tigris stejnegeri), CDFW SSC, MSHCP Covered Species least bell’s vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus), USFWS Endangered, CDFW Endangered, MSHCP Covered Species
loggerhead shrike (Lanius ludovicianus), CDFW SSC, MSHCP Covered Species Stephens’ kangaroo rat (Dipodomys stephensi), USFWS Threatened and CDFW Threatened two-striped garter snake (Thamnophis hammondii), CDFW SSC Wildlife Species Presumed Absent
A total of 27 species were presumed absent. These species were not present at the Project Area during the biological reconnaissance survey and the habitat present within the Project Area was not suitable to support these species. For some species, there were historic or recent sightings near the Project Area; however, these species are presumed absent due to the lack of suitable habitat within the Project Area.
Appendix E outlines each species, their designations, and potential for occurrence within the Project Area.
4.3 Burrowing Owl Habitat Assessment
A BUOW habitat assessment was required because the Project is located within the MSHCP-designated BUOW Survey Area (Figure 5). ECORP biologists Verity Richardson and Greg Hampton conducted the BUOW habitat assessment concurrently with the biological reconnaissance survey on March 22, 2024 within the Project Survey Area. Weather conditions during the assessment are summarized in Table 1.
The assessment determined that the Project Area included suitable habitat for BUOW primarily within the central portion of the Project Area consisting of non-native forbs and grasses on level terrain, with California ground squirrel burrows, a few of which could be suitable for BUOW (Figure 5). One potential burrowing owl burrow with no sign observed was documented within the Project Area. A focused burrow survey and protocol-level burrowing owl surveys were not performed by ECORP following the habitat assessment.
1857
Gruwell St
Wildomar
Trl
C
Wildomar omo St
Cemetery
United States
Post Office -
Wildomar,
California
Murrieta Creek
Penrose
St
Penrose St
Wildomar Trl
S Pasadena
St
S Pasadena
St
Illinois St
Elm St
Cedar St
Starlight St
Carnation Ln
Dahlia Ln
Pecan St
DarEy St
Wildomar
Elementary
School
Montague
Brothers Coffee
Cutler St
Canyon
Crest St
Cervera Rd
Billie Ann Rd
Temet St
Wanki Ave
Atupa
Ave
Prairie Rd
Pashal P
Glen Ln
Frederick St
Navut Ave
Marsh Ln
California
Lutheran High
School
Charles St
Frederick
St
Refa Ct
Woshka
Ln
Balsam St
Bill
ie
Ann Rd
Gierson Ave
Catt Rd
Iris Ln
Teil Glen Rd
Arnold Ln
Wanki Ave
Showut Ave
Nan St
Ruth Ave
Palomar St
Madora Dr
Donald *raham
Elementary
School
9
Teil Glen Rd
Larkspur Dr
Cannery Rd n
i
Gruwell S
Wildomar
Trl
Como St
Wildomar
Cemetery
United States
Post Office -
Wildomar,
lifornia
S
Pasadena
St
Starlight S
ca
t
n St
t
St
Cervera Rd
Billie Ann Rd
Temet St
Wanki A
ve
Atupa
Av
Prairie Rd
P
Glen Ln
Frederick St
Navut Ave
Marsh Ln
California
Lutheran High
School
Charles St
Frederick
St
Refa
Ct
Woshka
Ln
Balsam
St
Billie
Ann Rd
Gierson Ave
Catt Rd
Teil Glen Rd
Arnold Ln
Wanki A
ve
Showut Ave
Nan St
Ruth A
ve
Donald *raham
Elementary
School
9
Tei
Larksp
Can
S
S
S
Na
S
C
e
n
R
e
a
L
M
D
t
e
c
P
a
C
St
il le R i
il m
te S e
r
e
W
me
Un
d
0 400 I Scale in Feet
Location: N:\2022\2022-252.07 Wildomar Passive Park Project\MAPS\Biological_Resources\Wildomar BIO.aprx - WRC-MSHCP 20240405 (lgalvez - 4/19/2024) Figure . Western Riverside County MSHCP Designation Map Date: 4/19/2024 Sources: Maxar, Esri World Imagery
2022-252.07 Wildomar Passive Park Project
Map Contents
Project Area
500-foot Buffer
BurroZing OZl Survey Area
S.R HCP Fee Area
MSHCP Roads Right-of-Way (Covered Road)
AR7ERIAL
SECONDAR<
HaEitat Management Unit
Menifee
Santa Ana Mountains
Consulting, Inc.
ENTAL CO S LTA TS
CJ
CJ
~
E7]
[SJ
keland
il lag e
1858
Biological Technical Report and Western Riverside County MSHCP Consistency Analysis ECORP Consulting, Inc.
Wildomar 20-acre Passive Park Project
30 April 2024
2022-252.07
4.4 Raptors and Migratory Birds
Potential nesting habitat for migratory birds and raptors protected by the MBTA and California Fish and Game Code was present on and adjacent to the Project Area in some of the larger trees and shrubs.
Raptors typically breed between February and August, and songbirds and other passerines generally nest between March and August. There is potential for nesting to occur within the Project Area due to the presence of suitable nesting habitat.
4.5 Aquatic Resources Delineation
ECORP conducted a desktop review to identify potential streams and hydric soils on the property. This entailed examination of the NRCS Web Soil Survey (2024), National Wetland Inventory (NWI) mapping, USGS topographic mapping, and historic and recent aerial imagery of the Project Area to aid in identifying potential biological constraints to the Project due to jurisdictional streams. The NWI identified two drainage features occurring within the Survey Area (Figure 6). One is a natural drainage and the other is a concrete channel adjacent to the western boundary of the Project Area. Based on the desktop review of topographic mapping and historic and recent aerial imagery, in combination with the biological reconnaissance survey, one additional natural drainage feature occurs within the Project Area. A formal Aquatic Resources Delineation was not performed by ECORP for the Project.
4.6 Wildlife Movement Corridors, Linkages, and Significant Ecological Areas
The concept of habitat corridors addresses the linkage between large blocks of habitat that allow the safe movement of mammals and other wildlife species from one habitat area to another. The definition of a corridor is varied, but corridors may include such areas as greenbelts, refuge systems, underpasses, and biogeographic land bridges. In general, a corridor is described as a linear habitat, embedded in a dissimilar matrix, which connects two or more large blocks of habitat. Wildlife movement corridors are critical for the survivorship of ecological systems for several reasons. Corridors can connect water, food, and cover sources, spatially linking these three resources with wildlife in different areas.
In addition, wildlife movement between habitat areas provides for the potential of genetic exchange between wildlife species populations, thereby maintaining genetic variability and adaptability to maximize the success of wildlife responses to changing environmental conditions. This is especially critical for small populations subject to loss of variability from genetic drift and effects of inbreeding. Naturally, the nature of corridor use and wildlife movement patterns varies greatly among species.
ECORP assessed the Project for its ability to function as a wildlife corridor. The Project likely provides some wildlife movement opportunities because it consists of open land; however, there is undeveloped parcels of land in proximity to the Project Area. The Project Area is unlikely to function as a wildlife corridor for this open space habitat as no large open space habitats occur directly south, east, or west of the Project.
1859
Wildomar Trl
Como St
Murrieta Creek
Penrose St
S
Pasadena St
S Pasadena St
Cedar St
Starlight St
Carnation Ln
Dahlia Ln
Wildomar
Elementary
School
Montague
Brothers Coffee
Billie Ann Rd
Temet St
Wanki A
ve
Prairie Rd
Glen Ln
Frederick St
Navut Ave
Marsh Ln
California
Lutheran High
School
Charles St
Frederick
St
Refa
Ct
Woshka
Ln
Bi
ll
ie Ann Rd
Gierson Ave
Catt
I
Rd
ris Ln
Teil Glen Rd
Arnold Ln
Wanki Ave
Showut Ave
Nan St
Ruth Ave
Palomar St
0 400 I Scale in Feet
Location: N:\2022\2022-252.07 Wildomar Passive Park Project\MAPS\Hydro\Wildomar ATuatics.aprx - Wildomar NWI (lgalvez - 4/19/2024) Figure 6. National Wetlands Inventory Map Date: 4/19/2024 Sources: Maxar, Esri World Imagery, 1atioQal WetlaQds IQveQtory 2022-252.07 Wildomar Passive Park Project
Map Contents
Project Area
500-foot Buffer
Wetland 7ype
Riverine
Consulting, Inc.
ENTAL CO S LTA TS
CJ
c::::J
1111
ake land
Vil lage
1860
Biological Technical Report and Western Riverside County MSHCP Consistency Analysis ECORP Consulting, Inc.
Wildomar 20-acre Passive Park Project
32 April 2024
2022-252.07
Suitable bat roosting habitat was identified within the Project Area in the form of mature trees. Should bats be found roosting in these features during the bat maternity season (April 1 through August 31), these roosts would be considered native wildlife nursery sites and are protected under CEQA.
The Project Area likely plays a minor role in local wildlife dispersal and foraging. Common wildlife species including coyotes (Canis latrans), skunks (Mephitis mephitis), opossums (Didelphis virginiana), and raccoons (Procyon lotor) likely travel through the Project Area and neighboring developed and undeveloped areas, but the Project Area does not provide connectivity between large areas of open space on a local or regional scale.
5.0 IMPACT ANALYSIS
Impacts to sensitive biological resources resulting from construction activities are presented below. The Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation Measures for the Proposed Project are discussed in Section 8.0.
5.1 Limitations of Analysis
This impact analysis is limited to the approximately 20-acre Project Area, comprising APNs 380-050-025 and 380-050-027, which will be permanently impacted to construct the proposed park and associated amenities. Offsite impacts are not addressed.
5.2 Special-Status Species
The literature review and database searches identified 51 special-status plant species. Of these, one species, Engelmann oak, was observed within the Project Area. A total of 3 Engelmann oaks were documented during the biological reconnaissance survey. Irrigation lines were present under the trees, which signifies that that were most likely planted and not naturally occurring. In addition, this species is a covered species that is adequately conserved under the MSHCP and has a CRPR rank of 4.2 (limited distribution in California). Species with a CRPR 4.2 do not have the same protections as plant species with a rank of 1B; therefore, impacts to this species are not considered significant. However, it is recommended, if possible, to avoid impacting the species. Avoidance and protection of the Engelmann oak would align with the City’s tree preservation and protected trees policy. Nine additional special-status plant species have a moderate potential to occur and the remaining 41 species were determined to have a low potential to occur onsite or were presumed absent. No additional sensitive plant species were observed during the biological surveys. No impacts to special-status plant or narrow endemic plant species, with exception to Engelmann oak, are expected to occur as a result of the Proposed Project within the Project Area. Impacts to special-status plant species would be less than significant with the implementation of biological monitoring during vegetation removal activities and tree avoidance and protection measures as described in Section 8.0 of this document.
Of the 42 special-status wildlife species identified in the literature search, one insect species was present during the biological reconnaissance survey near the Project Area and within the 500-foot survey buffer:
monarch butterfly, a candidate species for listing under the federal ESA. Suitable overwintering habitat for this sensitive insect species occurs within the eucalyptus groves within the Project Area. No larval host plants of the milkweed genus were observed within the Project Area. This species is not covered under the 1861
Biological Technical Report and Western Riverside County MSHCP Consistency Analysis ECORP Consulting, Inc.
Wildomar 20-acre Passive Park Project
33 April 2024
2022-252.07
MSHCP; impacts to monarch would be less than significant with the implementation of biological monitoring during vegetation removal activities and tree avoidance and protection measures as described in Section 8.0 of this document.
Eight special status wildlife species were determined to have moderate potential to occur within the Project Area. The Project is located within a designated survey area under the MSHCP for BUOW and the biological reconnaissance survey and habitat assessment determined that suitable BUOW habitat was present in the Survey Area. If BUOW are present within the Project Area, direct impacts in the form of ground disturbance, vegetation removal, habitat loss, and mortality and indirect impacts from construction noise and vibrations may occur. Protocol-level surveys for BUOW will need to occur within the Survey Area to determine presence/absence of the species within and adjacent to the Project Area, as described in Section 8.0 of this document.
Crotch bumble bee has a moderate potential to occur onsite and is listed as a Candidate species under the California ESA. Additional surveys for this species will be required in order to determine presence/absence of the species within the Project Area, as described in Section 8.0 of this document.
Three of the additional special-status wildlife species with a moderate potential to occur are covered by the MSHCP: coast range newt, Swainson’s hawk, and western spadefoot. These three species are considered adequately conserved under the MSHCP; no additional surveys or mitigation will be required.
Recently, western spadefoot was proposed as a candidate for listing under the federal ESA. Western spadefoot is also a CDFW SSC. There are five recent records in the CNDDB within five miles of the Project Area. One recent record from 2017 (Occurrence #319) is located two miles east of the Project Area.
Suitable habitat for this species exists in and around the natural drainages and adjacent upland areas within the Project Area. Impacts to western spadefoot would be less than significant with the implementation of biological monitoring during construction activities in and around the onsite drainages as described in Section 8.0 of this document.
Southern California legless lizard has a moderate potential to occur onsite and is a CDFW SSC. Direct impacts in the form of ground disturbance, vegetation removal, habitat loss, and mortality and indirect impacts from construction noise and vibrations may occur to the species. However, if this species were to be present within the Project Area; they would likely occur in low numbers due to anthropogenic disturbances and lack of connectivity on the Project and Project-related impacts would not contribute to the overall decline of populations of this species. Therefore, no impacts to southern California legless lizard are anticipated to result from this Project. Additionally, impacts to southern California legless lizard would be less than significant with the implementation of biological monitoring as described in Section
8.0 of this document.
Two special status bat species were determined to have a moderate potential to occur within the Project Area: western yellow bat and western red bat. They are both CDFW SSC and are not covered under the MSHCP. Suitable bat roosting habitat was identified within the Project Area in the form of mature trees for both of these special-status bat species. Direct impacts to occupied bat roosts could include removal or destruction that could result in direct mortality, indirect impacts from noise, dust, and vibration during Project construction could result in roost abandonment and mortality of flightless young. Impacts to 1862
Biological Technical Report and Western Riverside County MSHCP Consistency Analysis ECORP Consulting, Inc.
Wildomar 20-acre Passive Park Project
34 April 2024
2022-252.07
special-status bat species would be less than significant with the implementation of a tree avoidance and removal process as described in Section 8.0 of this document.
The large eucalyptus trees, pepper trees, pine trees, Fremont cottonwoods and other trees located within or near the Project Area could provide nesting habitat for nesting birds and raptors protected by the MBTA and California Fish and Game Code. Ground-disturbing construction activities could directly affect nesting birds and other birds protected by the MBTA and their nests through habitat removal within the Project Area, and indirectly through increased noise, vibrations, and increased human activity if any tree or vegetation removal needs to occur during the bird breeding season (typically January 15 through August 31). Impacts to sensitive bird species and/or nesting birds would be less than significant with the implementation of preconstruction surveys for nesting birds as described in Section 8.0 of this document.
The remaining 33 special status wildlife species analyzed were determined to have a low potential to occur or are presumed absent due to the lack of suitable habitat occurring within the Project Area; thus, these species are not expected to occur within the Project Area and impacts to these species are not anticipated as a result of the Proposed Project.
5.3 Sensitive Natural Communities
One sensitive natural community was observed within the Project Area, Fremont cottonwood forest and woodland. Approximately 0.33 acre of Fremont cottonwood forest and woodland occur within the Project area, which is considered sensitive by CDFW and has a state ranking of S3, indicating that this vegetation community is vulnerable in the state due to a restricted range, few populations, recent and widespread declines, or other factors making it vulnerable (CDFW 2024f). No impacts to other sensitive natural communities are anticipated to result from the Proposed Project. Impacts to special-status sensitive natural communities would be less than significant with the implementation of the tree preservation and protection policy as described in Section 8.0 of this document.
5.4 State or Federally Protected Wetlands and Waters of the U.S.
As discussed in Section 4.5 of this document, the NWI identified one drainage within the Project Area and a desktop review of aerial imagery by ECORP and biological reconnaissance survey identified another drainage feature within the Project Area and an additional concrete channel within the 500-foot buffer. A formal Aquatic Resources Delineation was not conducted by ECORP as part of this Biological Technical Report. A formal delineation is recommended as further detailed in Section 8.0 of this document.
5.5 Wildlife Corridors and Nursery Sites
The Project does not likely provide local wildlife movement opportunities because of the developed parcels of land surrounding the Project Area. A large open space area occurs within the Project Area; however, it is unlikely to function as a wildlife corridor because no large open space habitats occur directly north, south, east, or west of the Project Area. No migratory wildlife corridors or native wildlife nursery sites were identified within the Project Area. No impacts to these resources are expected to occur within the Project Area.
1863
Biological Technical Report and Western Riverside County MSHCP Consistency Analysis ECORP Consulting, Inc.
Wildomar 20-acre Passive Park Project
35 April 2024
2022-252.07
Suitable bat roosting habitat was identified within the Project Area in the form of mature trees. Should bats be found roosting in these features during the bat maternity season (April 1 through August 31), these roosts would be considered native wildlife nursery sites and are protected under CEQA. Direct impacts to occupied bat roosts could include removal or destruction that could result in direct mortality, indirect impacts from noise, dust, and vibration during Project construction could result in roost abandonment and mortality of flightless young. Impacts to maternity bat roosts would be less than significant with the implementation of the bat protection - tree avoidance and removal process measure as described in Section 8.0 and additional recommendations of Section 9.0 of this document.
5.6 Habitat Conservation Plans and Natural Community Conservation Plans
The Project is located within the planning area for the Western Riverside MSHCP. The Project is not located within any Conservation Areas. An MSHCP Consistency Analysis is included in Section 6.0, below.
5.7 City of Wildomar—Tree Preservation Policy and Protection Measures Several native and protected trees, according to the definitions provided in Sections 7.1.4 of the City of Wildomar’s Landscape Design Standards and Guidelines, were observed within the Project Area. The Project aims to preserve as much of the native vegetation and trees onsite as possible. No impacts to these resources are anticipated to occur as a result of the Project. Impacts to existing native and protected trees would be less than significant with the implementation of the tree preservation and protection policy as described in Section 8.0 of this document.
6.0 MSHCP CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS
6.1 Introduction
The purpose of this Consistency Analysis is to summarize the biological data for the Proposed Project and to document the Proposed Project’s consistency with the goals and objectives of the MSHCP.
6.1.1 Project Description and Area
The Project is located in the City of Wildomar, Riverside County, California (Figure 1), within APNs 380- 050-025 and 380-050-027.
Please refer to Section 1.2 of this document for a Project description. This Consistency Analysis is limited to the approximately 20-acre Project Area composed of the two parcels identified above.
6.1.2 Covered Roads
The Project proposes to extend the two existing streets that surround the parcels onsite to create access into the Project site: Gierson Avenue and Palomar Street. The RCA MSHCP Information Map identifies Palomar Street as a Covered Road (Arterial) [RCA 2024a]. These offsite roadway improvements were not assessed as part of this Consistency Analysis.
1864
Biological Technical Report and Western Riverside County MSHCP Consistency Analysis ECORP Consulting, Inc.
Wildomar 20-acre Passive Park Project
36 April 2024
2022-252.07
6.1.3 General Setting
The Project is surrounded by a mix of developed and undeveloped land, with residential development to the north and south, an assisted living facility and a preschool to the west, and low-density rural residences to the east.
6.2 Reserve Assembly Analysis
The Project is located in the Elsinore Area Plan but not within any Area Plan Subunits with specific target conservation acreages and goals, planning species, biological issues and considerations, or criteria (Figure 7). The Project is not located within any Criteria Cells. The nearest Criteria Cell is 5350 located approximately 1.5 miles northeast of the northeastern boundary of the Project. The Project is not located within any Linkage that connects Core Areas nor does it function as a Core Area itself.
The entire Project Area lies within the MSHCP Burrowing Owl Survey Area (RCA 2024a). The Project is within the Santa Ana Mountains Habitat Management Unit. The Project Area is not within a Criteria Area Species Survey Area or a Cell Group.
The Proposed Project will be able to contribute to the overall MSHCP Reserve Assembly goals. The Proposed Project would not result in impeding the functionality of the Reserve features that are the focus of the Menifee Habitat Management Unit or the Elsinore Area Plan.
6.2.1 Public Quasi-Public Lands
The Proposed Project is not located within Public/Quasi-Public (PQP) Conserved Lands (RCA 2024a). The nearest PQP Conserved Lands occur approximately 1.5 miles northeast of the northeastern boundary of the Project Area. Furthermore, the Project is not located in an area designated as Rural/Mountainous in the MSHCP Area, American Indian Lands, Lake, Pre-existing Conservation Agreements, or San Jacinto Wildlife Area Additional Acquisitions. Therefore, the Proposed Project would not have impacts on PQPdesignated lands.
6.3 Vegetation Mapping and Species Compendia
Vegetation communities within the Project Area were mapped as part of the biological reconnaissance survey conducted by ECORP, as depicted in Figure 4. Please refer to Section 4.2.2 of this report for descriptions of vegetation communities onsite. Plants and wildlife observed within and adjacent to the Project Area during the biological reconnaissance survey are provided as Appendices B and C, respectively.
1865
Wildomar Trl
Como St
Wildomar
Cemetery
United States
Post Office -
Wildomar,
California
Murrieta Creek
Penrose St
S
Pasadena St
S Pasadena St
Cedar St
Starlight St
Carnation Ln
Dahlia Ln
Wildomar
Elementary
School
Montague
Brothers Coffee
Billie Ann Rd
Temet St
Wanki Ave
Prairie Rd
Glen Ln
Frederick St
Navut Ave
Marsh Ln
California
Lutheran High
School
Charles St
Frederick
St
Refa Ct
Woshka
Ln
B
illie Ann Rd
Gierson Ave
Catt Rd
Iris Ln
Teil Glen Rd
Arnold Ln
Wanki A
ve
Showut Ave
Nan St
Ruth Ave
Palomar St
Feat.2
Feat.1
0 400 I Scale in Feet
Location: N:\2022\2022-252.07 Wildomar Passive Park Project\MAPS\Biological_Resources\Wildomar BIO.aprx - MSHCP 202404051 (lgalvez - 4/19/2024) Figure 7. MSHCP Riparian/Riverine Resources Map Date: 4/19/2024 Sources: Maxar, Esri World Imagery
2022-252.07 Wildomar Passive Park Project
Map Contents
Project Area
500-foot Buffer
MSHCP Riparian
Drainage Feature
Consulting, Inc.
ENTAL CO S LTA TS
CJ
c::::J
1111
keland
il lag e
1866
Biological Technical Report and Western Riverside County MSHCP Consistency Analysis ECORP Consulting, Inc.
Wildomar 20-acre Passive Park Project
38 April 2024
2022-252.07
6.4 Protection of Species Associated with Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools (Section 6.1.2)
6.4.1 Riparian/Riverine
In accordance with Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP, ECORP performed a habitat assessment for riparian and riverine communities. The MSHCP defines Riparian and Riverine resources as “…areas dominated by trees, shrubs, persistent emergent plants, or emergent mosses and lichens which occur close to or are dependent upon nearby freshwater, or areas with freshwater flowing during all or a portion of the year” (RCTLMA 2024).
According to the RCA MSHCP Consistency Analysis Report Template, a riverine feature includes:
“any feature that is natural in origin as well as past natural features that have been heavily modified and/or redirected and can include features indirectly created through man-made manipulation of the landscape, including channelization of a historic riverine feature. If these features connect to nearby downstream resources that are either existing or described conservation lands, they would be considered riverine” (RCA 2024b).
Both vegetated (riparian) and unvegetated (riverine) drainages may be considered MSHCP resources.
6.4.1.1 Methods
Literature Review
Hydrology, soil, and USFWS NWI data were reviewed prior to the habitat assessment. In addition, Google Earth™ aerial imagery was reviewed to locate potential additional riparian/riverine areas within the Project Area.
Habitat Assessment
ECORP biologists visually surveyed the potential riparian/riverine areas of the Project Area. Where riparian/riverine habitat was present, the extent was verified if it had been previously mapped and new areas were mapped using a post-processing-capable GPS device. The extent of riparian habitat was based on the canopy of the riparian community, to the limits of the dripline, within or directly adjacent to the streambed that is likely deriving benefit from the hydrology of the streambed.
6.4.1.2 Existing Conditions and Results
The riparian/riverine habitat assessment was conducted for the Project Area by ECORP biologists Verity Richardson and Greg Hampton on March 22, 2024.
The NWI identified two drainage features occurring within the Project Area [(Figure 6) USFWS 2024c]. One feature exists along the western perimeter of the Project Area and flows into the Project Area from the north and exits near the southwestern corner. It is classified as riverine intermittent streambed temporary flooded (R4SBA). The habitat assessment confirmed that this drainage feature is a manmade concrete 1867
Biological Technical Report and Western Riverside County MSHCP Consistency Analysis ECORP Consulting, Inc.
Wildomar 20-acre Passive Park Project
39 April 2024
2022-252.07
lined channel that directs flow outside of but adjacent to the Project Area. This feature has been altered to direct flow and no longer matches the entirety of the NWI mapped riverine feature. The concrete lined channel supports two pedestrian bridges over the channel. This concrete lined channel connects downstream to Murrieta Creek but the channel itself does not support MSHCP riverine wildlife or plants.
This feature does not contain MSHCP riparian resources due to the lack of riparian vegetation. The second NWI feature occurs along the eastern perimeter of the Project Area. It is classified as riverine intermittent streambed seasonally flooded (R4SBC). The habitat assessment confirmed that this drainage feature, labeled Feature 2, includes a culvert with a natural drainage that directs flow south from the residential homes to the north into the Project Area and continues flowing southwest exiting the Project Area eventually flowing into Murrieta Creek. Feature 2 contains MSHCP riverine resources and riparian habitat due to the presence of a bed and bank, its connection to downstream drainage features, and the presence of riparian vegetation located within or directly adjacent to the drainage feature (Figure 7).
Based on the desktop review of topographic mapping and historic and recent aerial imagery coupled with the on-site habitat assessment, one additional MSHCP riverine feature occurs within the Project Area. This additional drainage feature, labeled Feature 1, is located in the northern portion of the Project Area and includes a culvert with a natural drainage that directs flow south from the residential homes outside of the Project Area into the Project Area. This feature contains MSHCP riverine resources based on the presence of a bed and bank. This feature does not contain MSHCP riparian resources due to the lack of riparian vegetation.
The NRCS Web Soil Survey (2024) identified nine soil types within the Project Area, as described in Section 4.2.1 of this document. All of the identified soils are well-drained sandy loam soils. None are characterized as hydric, alkaline, or saline. The MSHCP riparian/riverine resources onsite may provide certain physical or chemical functions; however, their functionality is limited by their ephemeral nature, the presence of well-draining soils that prevent onsite retention or ponding, and by the routine habitat disturbance that occurs in some areas for weed/fire abatement and landscape maintenance. Functions may include nutrient and toxicant trapping, pollutant filtration, and flood flow attenuation.
The two MSHCP riverine features, Features 1 and 2, that flow within the Project Area occur within both landscaped and Fremont cottonwood forest and woodland vegetation communities. The areas containing landscaped vegetation contain low-quality habitat because they are disturbed in nature due to annual vegetation management consistent with weed/fire abatement activities. The areas of MSHCP riverine resources within Fremont cottonwood forest and woodland are characterized as moderate to high quality habitat due to the relative lack of disturbance and presence of riparian species.
The MSHCP riparian/riverine resources within the Project Area provide some biological functions due to the presence of native habitat in some areas; however, low-quality, disturbed and landscaped habitat dominated by non-native vegetation is also present on-site. The MSHCP riparian/riverine resources overall do not support or provide good quality habitat for MSHCP Section 6.1.2 species, including amphibians, riparian birds, fairy shrimp, fish, or sensitive plants, as detailed in the following sections of this document.
However, there is some potential habitat to support amphibian species such as western spadefoot toad discussed in Section 4.0 and 5.0 of this document.
1868
Biological Technical Report and Western Riverside County MSHCP Consistency Analysis ECORP Consulting, Inc.
Wildomar 20-acre Passive Park Project
40 April 2024
2022-252.07
6.4.1.3 Impacts and Mitigation
The Project proposes to impact MSHCP riparian/riverine resources located within the Project Area through enhancement and preservation. An additional pedestrian bridge is planned to be built over the concrete lined channel at the western perimeter of the Project Area. Additionally, native riparian woodland is proposed to be planted along the drainage corridor at the western portion of the site. The two natural drainages are proposed to be enhanced with plantings to remove pollutants and to maintain the natural aesthetic of the site. The Project proposes to strategically place boulders and cobbles along the drainage features to minimize erosion and stabilize flow lines. Implementation of measure Bio-8 is recommended to assess impacts to MSHCP riparian/riverine resources.
A Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation will be required to address proposed impacts to these resources as reflected in measure BIO-9. Mitigation may include on-site habitat restoration, off-site habitat restoration, the purchase of mitigation credits from an approved mitigation bank, or a combination thereof.
6.4.2 Vernal Pools and Fairy Shrimp
In accordance with Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP, ECORP conducted a habitat assessment for vernal pools and fairy shrimp species on May 22, 2024 for the Proposed Project.
6.4.2.1 Vernal Pools
The MSHCP defines vernal pools as:
“…seasonal wetlands that occur in depression areas that have wetlands indicators of all three parameters (soils, vegetation and hydrology) during the wetter portion of the growing season but normally lack wetlands indicators of hydrology and/or vegetation during the drier portion of the growing season. Obligate hydrophytes and facultative wetlands plant species are normally dominant during the wetter portion of the growing season, while upland species (annuals) may be dominant during the drier portion of the growing season. The determination that an area exhibits vernal pool characteristics, and the definition of the watershed supporting vernal pool hydrology, must be made on a case-by-case basis. Such determinations should consider the length of the time the area exhibits upland and wetland characteristics and 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 (RCTLMA 2024).” Vernal pools are seasonal wetlands that alternate between periods of inundation and desiccation on an annual basis, corresponding to California’s Mediterranean climate of cool, wet winters and warm, dry summers. Distinct phases in this annual cycle include a wetting phase, an aquatic or inundation phase, a waterlogged-terrestrial phase, and a drought phase (Keeley and Zedler 1998). Keeley and Zedler (1998) define vernal pools as “precipitation-filled seasonal wetlands inundated during periods when temperature is sufficient for plant growth, followed by a brief waterlogged-terrestrial stage and culminating in extreme desiccating soil conditions of extended duration.”
1869
Biological Technical Report and Western Riverside County MSHCP Consistency Analysis ECORP Consulting, Inc.
Wildomar 20-acre Passive Park Project
41 April 2024
2022-252.07
California vernal pools host unique communities of plants and animals that have adapted to vernal pool conditions over a long geological timeframe. Vernal pools provide fishless breeding habitat for numerous invertebrates, aquatic insects, and amphibians during the aquatic phase (Zedler 1987). Western spadefoot toads utilize vernal pools for reproductive purposes and as a food source. As stated in Zedler’s report:
“…because of the brief periods of high productivity of the aquatic and amphibious plants and animals, the vernal pools probably also are a significant source of forage and prey” (Zedler 1987). Snakes may be attracted by the abundance of amphibians to prey upon, and mammals may utilize inundated pools as a source of water. Wading birds and waterfowl are attracted to the pools for food and as migratory stopovers and are probably a major means by which plant propagules too large for wind dispersal are carried long distances (Zedler 1987). The desiccating soil conditions present during the summer months prevent the establishment of plant species typical of more perennial wetland ecosystems. The growth period of vernal pool plant species typically begins during the wetting or inundation phases. As pools begin to draw down, flowering is initiated for the majority of vernal pool plants. The drawdown process often creates ring-shaped stratification of plant species adapted to drier or wetter conditions around the perimeter of the shrinking inundation zone. Invasive plants such as Italian rye grass (Festuca perennis) and wild oat (Avena barbata and A. fatua) also follow the receding water, often crowding out the native vernal pool plant species.
6.4.2.2 Fairy Shrimp
Riverside Fairy Shrimp (Streptocephalus woottoni)
According to the USFWS 5-Year Review, Riverside fairy shrimp was first described in 1985 using specimens collected in Murrieta, California (USFWS 2008). This small crustacean is in the Order Anostraca and is distinguished from other fairy shrimp species due to the shape of their second antennae (males). Riverside fairy shrimp typically occur in vernal pools and other basins that hold water for sufficient periods (i.e., 7 to 8 weeks) to allow for completion of its lifecycle. Riverside fairy shrimp typically occur in vernal pools with depths greater than 12 inches (30 centimeters) and consume algae, bacteria, protozoa, rotifers, and particulate organic matter. Riverside fairy shrimp would not be able to persist in perennial bodies of water because they have evolved to require habitat that dries completely during the summer months, as well as having temperature constraints that cue hatching of cysts during the wet season. Once rainfall fills a vernal pool, cyst hatching, maturity, and reproduction occur within 7 to 8 weeks, and during some years hatch later in the season if late rains occur; typically, Riverside fairy shrimp are observed from January through March. Cysts (eggs) are typically deposited in the water column by females and sink to the bottom of the vernal pool, or if still within the brood sac of the female, will later fall to the floor of the basin when the female dies. Cysts can withstand temperature extremes and prolonged dry periods and not all cysts hatch during each inundation of a vernal pool, thereby producing a cyst bank. This cyst bank is one of the factors contributing to the long-term survival of Riverside fairy shrimp (USFWS 2008).
Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp (Branchinecta lynchi)
The vernal pool fairy shrimp are endemic to California and southern Oregon and have the widest geographic range of the federally listed vernal pool crustaceans. They are genetically distinct from other Branchinecta species, distinguished by the morphology of the male’s second antenna and the female’s 1870
Biological Technical Report and Western Riverside County MSHCP Consistency Analysis ECORP Consulting, Inc.
Wildomar 20-acre Passive Park Project
42 April 2024
2022-252.07
third thoracic segment (Belk and Fugate 2000). As with Riverside fairy shrimp, the vernal pool fairy shrimp has an ephemeral life cycle that relies on winter rains to fill pools for sufficient periods of time. Vernal pool fairy shrimp mostly occur in vernal pools and require cool water with temperatures below 50°F for cysts to hatch (Eriksen and Belk 1999; Helm 1998). Vernal pool fairy shrimp are typically associated with smaller, shallow pools (6 inches deep) with relatively short inundation periods (Helm 1998). Their time to reach maturity and reproduction is temperature dependent, ranging from 18 to 147 days, with a mean of 40 days (Helm 1998).
Santa Rosa Plateau Fairy Shrimp (Linderiella santarosae) The Santa Rosa Plateau fairy shrimp is endemic to southern California and has an extremely restricted range. It is only known to occur in a few vernal pools on the Santa Rosa Plateau, which are characterized as southern basalt flow vernal pools that contain cool clear to milky waters (Eriksen and Belk 1999; Thiéry and Fugate 1994). The specific microhabitat used by Santa Rosa Plateau fairy shrimp is only known to occur on the Santa Rosa Plateau, and as such, it is unlikely Santa Rosa Plateau fairy shrimp occur outside this range (Keeler-Wolf et al. 1998).
San Diego Fairy Shrimp (Branchinecta sandiegonensis)
The San Diego fairy shrimp is endemic to Orange and San Diego counties. It inhabits vernal pools and shallow ephemeral basins that are between 2 and 12 inches in depth of San Diego mesa hardpan and claypan basins, typical of those found on coastal mesas of San Diego County (Eriksen and Belk 1999).
Habitats commonly associated with San Diego fairy shrimp include chamise chaparral and occasionally coastal sage scrub and annual grasslands.
6.4.2.3 Methods
Literature Review
ECORP performed a literature search prior to the habitat assessments to determine if any fairy shrimp species observations were documented in the Project vicinity. ECORP conducted a review of the (CDFW 2024a), NRCS Web Soil Survey (2024), NWI (USFWS 2024c), and RCA MSHCP Information Map (RCA 2024a) to determine if listed fairy shrimp species are known to occur within the Project Area or vicinity (within 5 miles) prior to the habitat assessment. ECORP performed a review of the USFWS IPaC (USFWS 2024a) to determine if USFWS-designated Critical Habitat is present within the Project Area. Google Earth™ historic aerial imagery was reviewed to locate any wetted depressions that may have the potential to support listed fairy shrimp or could qualify as a vernal pool within the Project Area.
Habitat Assessment
Following completion of the literature review, ECORP biologists Verity Richardson and Greg Hampton conducted a habitat assessment survey to evaluate potential vernal pool and branchiopod habitat within the Project Area. The biologists walked the Project Area and areas of the 500-foot surrounding buffer where accessible in search of features that could provide listed branchiopod habitat and/or qualify as vernal pools. Potential habitat for federally listed large branchiopods, per USFWS Guidelines, is defined as 1871
Biological Technical Report and Western Riverside County MSHCP Consistency Analysis ECORP Consulting, Inc.
Wildomar 20-acre Passive Park Project
43 April 2024
2022-252.07
any seasonal inundated depression that ponds water at a sufficient depth and duration for a listed large branchiopod to complete its life cycle (USFWS 2017). The presence of water marks, algae mats, drift lines, hydrophytic vegetation (i.e., water-loving plants), slope, contributing watershed, maximum potential ponding depth, and aquatic arthropod (i.e., crustacean and insect) exoskeletons are helpful indicators for evidence of ponding depth and duration. Habitats with swiftly flowing water (e.g., creeks, streams, ephemeral drainages) or semi-permanently to permanently inundated areas that support population of predators (e.g., bullfrogs, fish, crayfish) are generally not considered suitable habitat for listed large branchiopods.
6.4.2.4 Existing Conditions and Results
Literature Review
The review of the CNDDB documented four regional listed fairy shrimp species occurrences within 5 miles of the Project Area. The IPaC review identified no USFWS-designated Critical Habitat within or adjacent to the Project Area.
Riverside Fairy Shrimp
Riverside fairy shrimp is federally listed as Endangered and is an MSHCP Covered Species. There are three recent and one historic CNDDB occurrences within 5 miles of the Project Area. The nearest occurrence from 2009 (Occurrence #39) is located approximately 1.79 mile southeast of the Project Area; this occurrence documents thousands of the species onsite. Occurrence #19 is located approximately 1.4 miles southeast of the Project Area, at the Clayton Ranch Mitigation Site; the site was developed in 2003 and the species is confirmed extirpated by USFWS as of 2010 at this location. Occurrence #11 is located within the Australia Pool Mitigation Site within the Lake Elsinore Back Basin, approximately 4.8 miles northwest of the Project Area.
Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp
Vernal pool fairy shrimp is federally listed as Threatened and is an MSHCP Covered Species. There is one CNDDB occurrence within 5 miles of the Project Area, located within the Santa Rosa Plateau Ecological Reserve, approximately 4.8 miles south of the Project Area (Occurrence #641).
Santa Rosa Plateau Fairy Shrimp
Santa Rosa Plateau fairy shrimp is an MSHCP Covered Species. There is one recent CNDDB occurrence within 5 miles of the Project Area located within the Santa Rosa Plateau Ecological Reserve, approximately
4.8 miles south of the Project Area (Occurrence #2).
San Diego Fairy Shrimp
San Diego fairy shrimp is an MSHCP Covered Species. There is one recent CNDDB occurrence within 5 miles of the Project Area located at Clayton Ranch Mitigation Site approximately 2.2 miles southeast of the Project Area. (Occurrence #117).
1872
Biological Technical Report and Western Riverside County MSHCP Consistency Analysis ECORP Consulting, Inc.
Wildomar 20-acre Passive Park Project
44 April 2024
2022-252.07
Habitat Assessment
The vernal pool and fairy shrimp habitat assessment was conducted on March 22, 2024 by ECORP biologists Verity Richardson and Greg Hampton. The biologists observed no features that could provide listed branchiopod habitat and/or qualify as vernal pools within the Project Area.
6.4.2.5 Impacts and Mitigation
The Project Area lacks suitable fairy shrimp and/or vernal pool habitat; therefore, impacts to these resources are not expected to occur due to implementation of the Proposed Project. Mitigation is not required for fairy shrimp or vernal pool habitat.
6.4.3 Riparian Birds
In accordance with Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP, Protection of Species Associated with Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools, ECORP assessed areas potentially supporting riparian bird populations during a habitat assessment for special-status riparian bird species conducted on March 22, 2024.
6.4.3.1 Methods
Literature Review
ECORP performed a literature search prior to the habitat assessment to determine if any special-status bird species observations were documented in the Project vicinity. Biologists performed a review of the CNDDB (CDFW 2024a) to determine the special-status bird species that have been documented within 5 miles of the Project Area. ECORP performed a review of the USFWS IPaC (USFWS 2024a) to determine if USFWS-designated Critical Habitat is present on or within the Project vicinity. The literature search results were reviewed prior to the habitat assessment in order to identify the locations of previously documented special-status species. The CNDDB results were then mapped on aerial background for surveyor reference in the field and to aid in data analysis.
Habitat Assessment
Following completion of the literature review, ECORP biologists experienced with special-status riparian bird species habitat, identification, behavior, sign, and vocalizations conducted a habitat assessment. The biologists conducted the assessment by walking throughout the entire Project Area and 500-foot buffer where accessible to characterize and map the suitability of habitat for special-status riparian bird species.
The biologists determined habitat suitability based on the natural history, habitat requirements, and the currently documented range boundaries of special-status bird species. Photographs were taken during the assessment to provide visual representation of the various vegetation communities within the Project Area.
1873
Biological Technical Report and Western Riverside County MSHCP Consistency Analysis ECORP Consulting, Inc.
Wildomar 20-acre Passive Park Project
45 April 2024
2022-252.07
6.4.3.2 Existing Conditions and Results
Literature Review
The review of the CNDDB yielded four recent records (within the last 20 years) of special-status riparian bird species occurrences within 5 miles of the Project Area. The IPaC identified no USFWS-designated Critical Habitat within or adjacent to the Project Area. Documented occurrences for special-status riparian bird species are discussed in greater detail below.
Western Yellow-Billed Cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus)
The western Distinct Population Segment (DPS) of the yellow-billed cuckoo (YBCU) is migratory and arrives from its wintering grounds in South America during June and departs from California during September (Small 1994). Breeding activity for the western DPS peaks in July (Halterman et al. 2016). The YBCU is federally listed as threatened, state listed as endangered, a USFWS Bird of Conservation Concern, and a MSHCP Covered Species. Federal Critical Habitat for YBCU was proposed in 2014 (USFWS 2014), revised in 2020 (USFWS 2020), and finalized in 2021 (USFWS 2021). The Project Area is not located within or adjacent to Critical Habitat for the YBCU (USFWS 2024b). No CNDDB records occur within 5 miles of the Project Area for this species.
Least Bell’s Vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus)
The least Bell’s vireo (LBVI) is endemic to California and Baja California, Mexico. Least Bell’s vireos are migratory species in which the males arrive in California between late March to April and establish breeding territories, and the females arrive shortly thereafter (USFWS 1998). The least Bell's vireo usually returns to the wintering grounds between August to September. The LBVI is federally listed as endangered, state listed as endangered, and a MSHCP Covered Species. Critical Habitat for LBVI was designated on March 4, 1994 (USFWS 1994). The Project Area is not located within or adjacent to Critical Habitat for the LBVI (USFWS 2024b). Five recent (within the last 20 years) CNDDB occurrences were recorded within 5 miles of the Project Area (CDFW 2024a).
Southwestern Willow Flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus) The southwestern willow flycatcher (SWWF) is a neotropical migratory bird that winters in Central America and migrates to the U.S. and Canada to breed during summer. Their breeding habitat currently ranges from southern California, through Arizona, New Mexico, southern Nevada, southern Utah, and southwestern Colorado. Overall, individuals only spend 3 to 4 months paired with a mate during the breeding season. Individuals then begin their southward migration in early August through September.
During their migration, individuals will stop at food-rich stopover locations in order to replenish their energy reserves (USFWS 2013). The SWWF is federally listed as endangered, state listed as endangered, and an MSHCP Covered Species. Critical Habitat for this species was originally designated in 1997, revised in 2005, and revised again in 2013 (USFWS 2013). The Project Area is not located within or adjacent to designated Critical Habitat for the SWWF (USFWS 2024b). No CNDDB occurrences were recorded within 5 miles of the Project Area for this species.
1874
Biological Technical Report and Western Riverside County MSHCP Consistency Analysis ECORP Consulting, Inc.
Wildomar 20-acre Passive Park Project
46 April 2024
2022-252.07
Habitat Assessment
ECORP biologists Verity Richardson and Greg Hampton conducted the habitat assessment on March 22, 2024. Habitat suitability for sensitive riparian bird species within the Project Area is discussed in further detail below.
Western Yellow-Billed Cuckoo
Habitat requirements for the YBCU includes fairly large trees and dense vegetation, and the species is typically associated with riparian woodlands along perennial rivers and streams at elevations below 6,600 feet amsl. The most commonly inhabited communities include species such as Fremont cottonwood and willow (Salix spp.); however, saltcedar, mesquite (Prosopsis sp.), and other riparian tree communities may also be used. Approximately 2 to 3 weeks prior to breeding, YBCU may occupy upland vegetation including pinyon (Pinus spp.), oak (Quercus spp.), juniper (Juniperus spp.), and manzanita (Arctostaphylos spp.) (Hughes 2020). Nesting habitat typically includes large contiguous patches of multilayered riparian habitat with dense understory foliage. YBCU feed primarily on large insects such as caterpillars, katydids, cicadas, grasshoppers, and crickets. Cuckoo populations fluctuate greatly with food availability and increase dramatically in years of highest insect abundance (Heath and Wilkin 1970).
ECORP determined that suitable breeding and foraging habitat for YBCU was not present within the Project Area. Based on the habitat requirements of YBCU, no potential nesting YBCU habitat was found within the Project Area. While small patches of willows, mulefat, and cottonwoods are present, the Project Area lacks the complex old growth structure that the YBCU need for foraging and breeding. Consequently, YBCU individuals are not expected to occur on or near the Project Area.
Least Bell’s Vireo
The LBVI is dependent upon riparian habitat during the breeding season and prefers willow-dominated woodland or scrub that typically exists along streams and rivers (Franzreb 1989). Other habitat types used by this species include mulefat scrub, mixed oak/willow woodland, mesquite woodland, and elderberry (Sambucus spp.) scrub. In southern California, least Bell’s vireos typically occur below 2,000 feet amsl (Zeiner et al. 1990). The species has been documented at extreme elevations in Death Valley (i.e., -175 feet) and in the City of Bishop in Inyo County (i.e., 4,100 feet), although it is uncommon above 4,000 feet amsl in coastal southern California (Brown 1993; Grinnell and Miller 1944). Habitat characteristics that appear to be essential for least Bell’s vireo occupation include dense cover from three to six feet in height for nesting and foraging, and a stratified canopy providing both foraging habitat and song perches for territorial advertisement.
ECORP determined that suitable breeding and foraging habitat for LBVI was not present within the Project Area. Based on the habitat requirements of LBVI, no potential nesting habitat was found within the Project Area. While small patches of tamarisk and cottonwoods are present, they are not abundant or continuous enough to provide suitable foraging and breeding habitat for the species. Consequently, LBVI individuals are not expected to occur on or near the Project Area.
Southwestern Willow Flycatcher
1875
Biological Technical Report and Western Riverside County MSHCP Consistency Analysis ECORP Consulting, Inc.
Wildomar 20-acre Passive Park Project
47 April 2024
2022-252.07
Habitat requirements for the SWWF includes dense riparian vegetation near permanent or semipermanent sources of water or saturated soil, such as cottonwood, willow, and salt cedar vegetation communities along rivers and streams below 8,500 feet amsl. SWWF typically breed within dense tree or shrubby riparian vegetation that is equal to or greater than 10 feet tall (Allison et al. 2003). Additional migration habitat occurs along major drainages in the southwest, and may include riparian habitats without an understory, non-riparian areas with high food concentrations, or within linear patches that may typically be considered too small or short (USFWS 2013).
ECORP determined that suitable nesting and foraging habitat for the SWWF was not present within the Project Area. While small patches of willows, mulefat, and cottonwoods are present, they are not abundant or continuous enough to provide suitable foraging and breeding habitat for the species.
Consequently, SWWF individuals are not expected to occur on or near the Project Area.
6.4.3.3 Impacts and Mitigation
Impacts are not expected to occur to YBCU, LBVI, or SWWF due to implementation of the Proposed Project. Therefore, mitigation is not required for YBCU, LBVI, or SWWF.
6.4.4 Other Section 6.1.2 Species
ECORP assessed other Section 6.1.2 plant and wildlife species for their potential to occur which are included in Appendices D and E of this document. Please refer to Section 4.2.5 for a discussion of sensitive species with potential to occur onsite.
No impacts are expected to Section 6.1.2 plant and wildlife species provided in Appendices D and E.
Comprehensive plant and wildlife species compendia documenting plant and wildlife species observed within the proposed Project Area are included as Appendices B and C, respectively.
6.5 Protection of Narrow Endemic Plant Species (Section 6.1.3) The RCA MSHCP Information Map was reviewed to determine whether the Proposed Project is located within a Narrow Endemic Plant Species Survey Area (NEPSSA; RCA 2024a) in accordance with Section 6.1.3 of the MSHCP. The Proposed Project is not located within an NEPSSA, and no further discussion is provided in this document.
6.6 Additional Survey Needs and Procedures (Section 6.3.2)
6.6.1 Criteria Area Plant Species
The Proposed Project Area is not located within a mapped survey area for MSHCP Criteria Area plant species (RCA 2024a); therefore, no further discussion is provided in this document.
6.6.2 Amphibians
The proposed Project Area is not located within a mapped survey area for MSHCP amphibian species (RCA 2024a); therefore, no further discussion is provided in this document. 1876
Biological Technical Report and Western Riverside County MSHCP Consistency Analysis ECORP Consulting, Inc.
Wildomar 20-acre Passive Park Project
48 April 2024
2022-252.07
6.6.3 Burrowing Owl
The Proposed Project is located within the MSHCP Survey Area for BUOW (RCA 2024a; Figure 3). A BUOW habitat assessment was conducted within the Survey Area on March 22, 2024.
6.6.3.1 Methods
Literature Review
ECORP performed a literature search prior to the habitat assessment to determine if any burrowing owl observations were documented in the Project vicinity. Biologists performed a review of the CNDDB (CDFW 2024a) to determine the burrowing owl occurrences that have been documented within 5 miles of the Project Area. The literature search results were reviewed prior to the habitat assessment in order to identify the locations of previously documented species occurrences. The CNDDB results were then mapped on aerial background for surveyor reference in the field and to aid in data analysis.
Habitat Assessment
Following completion of the literature review, ECORP conducted a BUOW habitat assessment concurrently with the biological reconnaissance survey to determine the presence of suitable habitat. Biologists walked the Project Area and a 500-foot buffer (Survey Area) (Figure 3) to identify the presence of owl habitat, scanning for suitable habitat using binoculars in areas that were inaccessible by foot. All encountered burrows were marked during the habitat assessment.
Photographs were taken during the assessment to provide visual representation of the various vegetation communities within the Survey Area.
6.6.3.2 Existing Conditions and Results
Literature Review
The review of the CNDDB yielded one burrowing owl occurrence within 5 miles and 56 burrowing owl occurrences within 10 miles of the Project Area (CDFW 2024a). The nearest occurrence to the Project Area was documented in 2007 and was located 2.13 miles northwest of the Project (Occurrence #974). Two adult burrowing owl were observed using a broken concrete pipe structure as a burrow within nonnative grassland.
Habitat Assessment
ECORP biologist Verity Richardson conducted the BUOW habitat assessment concurrently with the biological reconnaissance survey on March 22, 2024 within the Survey Area. Weather conditions during the assessment are summarized in Table 1.
The assessment determined that the Project Area included suitable habitat for BUOW, primarily within the central portion of the Project Area consisting of non-native forbs and grasses on level to gently rolling terrain, with an abundance of active California ground squirrel burrows, a few of which could be suitable 1877
Biological Technical Report and Western Riverside County MSHCP Consistency Analysis ECORP Consulting, Inc.
Wildomar 20-acre Passive Park Project
49 April 2024
2022-252.07
for BUOW. ECORP recorded a potential burrow within the Project Area (Figure 3). Protocol-level burrowing owl surveys were not performed by ECORP following the habitat assessment.
6.6.3.3 Impacts and Mitigation
Direct impacts to habitats that support foraging and nesting habitat for breeding and/or overwintering BUOW may occur as a result of the Project. Other direct impacts that may occur include injury or mortality during construction activities, injury by vehicles and equipment using the roadway, and/or loss of nest or nest occupants if habitat is cleared during the breeding season. Indirect impacts to BUOW foraging, nesting, migratory, or overwintering activities may also occur as a result of Project construction in the form of increased human and vehicular activity, noise, dust, ground vibrations, nighttime lighting, and habitat degradation. These temporary changes in the existing environment during construction of the Project may result in altered adult bird behavior that could lead to lower fitness due to decreased foraging activities, loss of shelter or protective cover, or abandonment of young or a nest with eggs in it.
Potential direct and indirect impacts can be avoided or reduced with the implementation of appropriate avoidance and minimization measures as described in Section 8.0 of this document.
Suitable burrowing owl habitat exists within the Project Area. Therefore, protocol-level burrowing owl surveys will be required to be performed during the breeding season (March 1 through August 31) as required under Part 2B of the MSHCP Burrowing Owl Survey Instructions, consisting of four separate surveys conducted throughout the Project Area, and within the 500-foot buffer (Burrowing Owl Survey Area; RCTLMA 2006), where accessible, to determine if, when, and how the Survey Area is being used by BUOW. Additionally, a preconstruction survey will be required within 30 days prior to site disturbance. It is typically recommended by CDFW that two preconstruction surveys take place: one within 14 to 30 days and the second within 24 hours of the start of ground-disturbing activities (including vegetation removal, clearing and grubbing, and grading).
6.6.4 Mammals
The Proposed Project is not located within a mapped survey area for MSHCP mammal species (RCA 2024a); however, it is located within the long-term Stephens’ kangaroo rat (SKR) Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) area. As individual projects are proposed and approved in the SKR HCP area, public and private land developers are required to pay a SKR mitigation fee for land that is developed and removes habitat of SKR. No recent and 10 historic records of SKR occur within five miles of the Project Area (CDFW 2024a). This species was determined to have a low potential for occurrence; however, some habitat within the Project Area is suitable for this species. Impacts to SKR would be less than significant with the implementation of paying the Stephens’ Kangaroo Rat Habitat Conservation Plan Area mitigation fee as described in Section 8.0 of this document.
6.7 Information on Other Species
6.7.1 Delhi Sands Flower Loving Fly
The Proposed Project is not located within an area with Delhi soils mapped within the MSHCP baseline data (RCA 2024a); no further discussion is provided in this document. 1878
Biological Technical Report and Western Riverside County MSHCP Consistency Analysis ECORP Consulting, Inc.
Wildomar 20-acre Passive Park Project
50 April 2024
2022-252.07
6.7.2 Species Not Adequately Conserved
No MSHCP Table 9-3 species were observed within or adjacent to the Project Area during the March 2024 biological reconnaissance survey. All species listed in MSHCP Table 9-3 were determined to have a low potential or are presumed absent from the Project Area, based on a lack of suitable habitat/soils and/or the Project Area is located outside of the known elevational range or distribution for the species.
6.8 Guidelines Pertaining to the Urban/Wildlands Interface (Section 6.1.4) The Proposed Project Area is not located adjacent to and does not have onsite connection to either existing conservation or land described for conservation. As defined in the MSHCP, Conservation Areas are approximately 500,000 acres composed of roughly 347,000 acres of PQP Lands and 153,000 acres of Additional Reserves Lands within western Riverside County. The Urban/Wildland Interface is defined as a zone (less than 100 feet) between a project site and the MSHCP Conservation Area. Avoidance measures must be implemented if a project is located adjacent to a Conservation Area. The nearest Conservation Area is located approximately 1.5 miles northeast of the northeastern boundary of the Project Area, known as Borchard, TR (RCA 2024a). Thus, no further discussion of the guidelines pertaining to the Urban/Wildlands Interface is provided.
7.0 BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES
The Project shall comply with the Standard Best Management Practices (BMPs) of the MSHCP (Volume I, Appendix C), as follows:
1. A condition shall be placed on grading permits requiring a qualified biologist to conduct a training session for project personnel prior to grading. The training shall include a description of the species of concern and its habitats, the general provisions of the Endangered Species Act (Act) and the MSHCP, the need to adhere to the provisions of the Act and the MSHCP, the penalties associated with violating the provisions of the Act, the general measures that are being implemented to conserve the species of concern as they relate to the project, and the access routes to and project site boundaries within which the project activities must be accomplished.
2. Water pollution and erosion control plans shall be developed and implemented in accordance with RWQCB requirements.
3. The footprint of disturbance shall be minimized to the maximum extent feasible. Access to sites shall be via pre-existing access routes to the greatest extent possible.
4. The upstream and downstream limits of projects disturbance plus lateral limits of disturbance on either side of the stream shall be clearly defined and marked in the field and reviewed by the biologist prior to initiation of work.
5. Projects should be designed to avoid the placement of equipment and personnel within the stream channel or on sand and gravel bars, banks, and adjacent upland habitats used by target species of concern.
1879
Biological Technical Report and Western Riverside County MSHCP Consistency Analysis ECORP Consulting, Inc.
Wildomar 20-acre Passive Park Project
51 April 2024
2022-252.07
6. Projects that cannot be conducted without placing equipment or personnel in sensitive habitats should be timed to avoid the breeding season of riparian identified in MSHCP Global Species Objective No. 7.
7. When stream flows must be diverted, the diversions shall be conducted using sandbags or other methods requiring minimal instream impacts. Silt fencing of other sediment trapping materials shall be installed at the downstream end of construction activity to minimize the transport of sediments offsite. Settling ponds where sediment is collected shall be cleaned out in a manner that prevents the sediment from reentering the stream.
Care shall be exercised when removing silt fences, as feasible, to prevent debris or sediment from returning to the stream.
8. Equipment storage, fueling, and staging areas shall be located on upland sites with minimal risks of direct drainage into riparian areas or other sensitive habitats. These designated areas shall be located in such a manner as to prevent any runoff from entering sensitive habitat. Necessary precautions shall be taken to prevent the release of cement or other toxic substances into surface waters. Project related spills of hazardous materials shall be reported to appropriate entities including but not limited to applicable jurisdictional city, [USFWS], and [California Department of Fish and Game], RWQCB and shall be cleaned up immediately and contaminated soils removed to approved disposal areas.
9. Erodible fill material shall not be deposited into water courses. Brush, loose soils, or other similar debris material shall not be stockpiled within the stream channel or on its banks.
10. The qualified project biologist shall monitor construction activities for the duration of the project to ensure that practicable measures are being employed to avoid incidental disturbance of habitat and species of concern outside the project footprint.
11. The removal of native vegetation shall be avoided and minimized to the maximum extent practicable. Temporary impacts shall be returned to pre-existing contours and revegetated with appropriate native species.
12. Exotic species that prey upon or displace target species of concern should be permanently removed from the site to the extent feasible.
13. To avoid attracting predators of the species of concern, the project site shall be kept as clean of debris as possible. All food related trash items shall be enclosed in sealed containers and regularly removed from the site(s).
14. Construction employees shall strictly limit their activities, vehicles, equipment, and construction materials to the proposed project footprint and designated staging areas and routes of travel. The construction area(s) shall be the minimal area necessary to complete the project and shall be specified in the construction plans. Construction limits will be fenced with orange snow screen. Exclusion fencing should be maintained until the 1880
Biological Technical Report and Western Riverside County MSHCP Consistency Analysis ECORP Consulting, Inc.
Wildomar 20-acre Passive Park Project
52 April 2024
2022-252.07
completion of all construction activities. Employees shall be instructed that their activities are restricted to the construction areas.
15. The Permittee shall have the right to access and inspect any sites of approved projects including any restoration/enhancement area for compliance with project approval conditions including these BMPs.
8.0 AVOIDANCE MINIMIZATION, AND MITIGATION MEASURES
Avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures for the Project are included below in order to satisfy federal, state, and local regulations, prior to Project implementation:
BIO-1 Worker Environmental Awareness Program and Biological Monitor: Prior to the start of construction, a Worker Environmental Awareness Program (WEAP) will be developed by the City or the City’s consultant. A qualified biologist with experience with the sensitive biological resources in the region will present the WEAP to all personnel working in the Project Area (either temporarily or permanently) prior to the start of Project activities. The WEAP may be videotaped and used to train newly hired workers or those not present for the initial WEAP. The WEAP could include but will not be limited to discussions of the sensitive biological resources associated with the Project, Project-specific measures to avoid or eliminate impacts to these resources, consequences for not complying with Project permits and agreements, and contact information for the lead biologist. Logs of personnel who have taken the training will be kept on the site at the construction or Project office.
In addition to a WEAP, a qualified biologist (biological monitor) with experience monitoring for and identifying sensitive biological resources known to occur in the area will be present during initial ground-disturbing activities related to the Project (including fence installation and vegetation removal activities) as well as during ground-disturbing work in and around the natural drainages within the site. As required by Project permits, the qualifications of a biological monitor may need to be submitted to appropriate wildlife agencies for approval based on the resources the biologist will be monitoring. Biological monitoring duties will include, but are not limited to, conducting worker education training, verifying compliance with Project permits, and ensuring Project activities stay within designated work areas.
The biological monitor will have the right to halt all activities in an affected area if a specialstatus species is identified in a work area and is in danger of injury or mortality. If work is halted by the biological monitor, work will proceed only after the hazards to the individual is removed and there is no longer a risk to the individual, or the individual has been moved from harm’s way in accordance with the Project’s permits and/or management/translocation plans. The biological monitor will take representative photographs of the daily activities and will also maintain a daily log that documents general Project activities and compliance with the Project’s permit conditions. Non-compliances will also be documented in the daily log, including any measures that were implemented to rectify the issue. 1881
Biological Technical Report and Western Riverside County MSHCP Consistency Analysis ECORP Consulting, Inc.
Wildomar 20-acre Passive Park Project
53 April 2024
2022-252.07
BIO-2 Tree Preservation and Protection Policy: The Project should adhere to the criteria and guidelines described within the City of Wildomar’s Landscape Design Standards and Guidelines, Sections 7.1.4 in order to ensure the protection, preservation, and maintenance of established and healthy existing and protected trees. Tree protections specifications shall be included on the grading plans which include monitoring by a qualified arborist when working in proximity to protected trees. The qualified arborist shall implement measures to protect the root zone of oak trees and city-protected trees that may be impacted immediately adjacent to the Project impact areas, staging areas, and along ingress/egress roads.
BIO-3 Preconstruction Survey for Nesting Birds: To the greatest extent practicable, grounddisturbing activities, including vegetation removal, shall be conducted outside of the nesting bird season (approximately September 1 through January 14) to avoid direct and indirect impacts to nesting birds. This will avoid violations of the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and California Fish and Game Code Sections 3503, 3503.5, and 3513. If seasonal avoidance cannot be implemented, it is recommended that ground-disturbing activities, including vegetation removal, be conducted outside of suitable habitat during the breeding season to the greatest extent possible. If Project-related activities cannot avoid the nesting bird season then preconstruction surveys, non-disturbance limit buffers, and biological monitoring during Project activities will be necessary to avoid impacts to nesting birds. A preconstruction survey for nesting birds is recommended prior to the commencement of ground-disturbing activities within the identified nesting bird season to avoid take of nesting birds. If activities with the potential to disrupt nesting birds are scheduled to occur during the bird breeding season (January 15 through August 31), a preconstruction survey for nesting birds shall be conducted by a qualified biologist who is experienced in the identification of avian species and conducting nesting bird surveys. The nesting survey shall include the Project Area and adjacent areas where Project activities have the potential to cause nest failure. The preconstruction survey shall be conducted no more than 3 days prior to the start of ground-disturbing activities within the bird breeding season. If no nesting birds are observed during the survey, site preparation and construction activities may begin.
If nesting birds (including nesting raptors) are found to be present, avoidance or minimization measures shall be implemented to avoid potential Project-related impacts.
Measures may include establishment of an avoidance buffer until nesting has been completed and periodic nest monitoring by the Project biologist until the juveniles have fledged and there has been no evidence of a second attempt at nesting. The width of the avoidance buffer will be determined by the Project biologist. The monitoring biologist will monitor the nest(s) during construction and document any findings. Once nesting is deemed complete by the Project biologist, work may resume within the avoidance buffer area.
BIO-4 Focused Survey for BUOW: Protocol-level surveys for burrowing owl are recommended in order to demonstrate consistency with the requirements of the MSHCP. Surveys are required to be performed during the breeding season (March 1 through August 31) as required under Part 2B of the MSHCP Burrowing Owl Survey Instructions, consisting of four separate surveys 1882
Biological Technical Report and Western Riverside County MSHCP Consistency Analysis ECORP Consulting, Inc.
Wildomar 20-acre Passive Park Project
54 April 2024
2022-252.07
conducted throughout the Project Area, and within a 500-foot buffer surrounding the Project Area (RCTLMA 2006), where accessible, to determine if, when, and how the Survey Area is being used by burrowing owl. Additionally, a preconstruction survey will be required within 30 days prior to site disturbance. Recommended mitigation measure language for the preconstruction survey is included below:
Preconstruction Survey for BUOW: A preconstruction survey for BUOW shall be conducted within the Project Area and adjacent areas within 30 days prior to the start of ground-disturbing activities. The surveys shall follow the methods described in the Western Riverside MSHCP Burrowing Owl Survey Instructions (RCTLMA 2006).
If BUOW and/or suitable BUOW burrows with sign (e.g., whitewash, pellets, feathers, prey remains) are identified within the Project Area during the survey and impacts to those features are unavoidable, consultation with the RCA and CDFW will be required.
BIO-5 Bat Protection - Tree Avoidance and Removal Process: Prior to the trimming or removal of any trees, a focused bat habitat assessment of the trees shall be conducted by a qualified bat biologist. If trees are scheduled to be removed (e.g., relocating)/modified (i.e., trimming) that were determined to be suitable for bat roosting, these activities shall be scheduled during one of the seasonal periods of bat activity, listed below, and when evening temperatures are not below 45ºF and rain is not over 0.5 inch in 24 hours:
September 1 to October 31 (preferred): This is after the maternity season but prior to winter torpor.
February 15 to March 31: After winter torpor but prior to the start of the maternity season.
1. If trees with suitable bat roosting habitat are scheduled for removal or relocation outside of the maternity season, tree removal during the time periods and weather parameters described above using the two-step method shall be conducted:
a. Prior to the two-step method, as much as feasible, vegetation and trees within the area that are not suitable for roosting bats will be removed first to provide a disturbance that might reduce the likelihood of bats using the habitat. b. Two-step tree removal will occur over two consecutive days under the supervision of a qualified bat biologist. On Day 1, small branches and small limbs containing no cavity, crevice or exfoliating bark habitat on habitat trees (or outer fronds in the case of palm trees), as identified by a qualified bat biologist are removed first, using chainsaws only (i.e., no dozers, backhoes). The following day (Day 2), the remainder of the tree is to be felled/removed. (The intention of this method is to disturb the tree with noise and vibration and branch removal on Day 1. This should cause any potentially present day-roosting bats to abandon the roost tree after they emerge for nighttime foraging. Removing the tree quickly the next consecutive day should avoid reoccupation of the tree by bats).
1883
Biological Technical Report and Western Riverside County MSHCP Consistency Analysis ECORP Consulting, Inc.
Wildomar 20-acre Passive Park Project
55 April 2024
2022-252.07
2. If tree removal/modification must occur during the maternity season (April 1 to August 31), a qualified bat biologist shall conduct a focused emergence survey(s) of the tree(s) within 48 hours of scheduled work. If a maternity roost is located, whether solitary or colonial, that roost will remain undisturbed until after the maternity season or until a qualified biological monitor has determined the roost is no longer active.
BIO-6 Stephens’ Kangaroo Rat Habitat Conservation Plan Area Mitigation Fee: As individual projects are proposed and approved in the Stephens’ Kangaroo Rat HCP Plan Area, public and private land developers are required to pay a Stephens’ kangaroo rat mitigation fee for land that is developed and removes Stephens’ kangaroo rat habitat. This streamlined process benefits developers in the Stephens’ kangaroo rat Plan Area because projects within this area do not require individual review and approval by the wildlife agencies. Impacts to Stephens’ kangaroo rat are covered by the MSHCP and the Stephens’ kangaroo rat HCP. However, impacts to Stephens’ kangaroo rat habitat within the Stephens’ kangaroo rat HCP area will require Mitigation Fee payment of $500 per gross acre of the parcels proposed for development within the Stephens’ kangaroo rat HCP Fee Area. Impacts to Stephens’ kangaroo rat outside of the Stephens’ kangaroo rat HCP Fee Area are covered by the MSHCP. The Mitigation Fee shall be paid upon issuance of a grading permit, a certificate of occupancy, or upon final inspection, whichever occurs first. Due to the Project’s location within the Stephens’ kangaroo rat HCP, no other compensatory mitigation or permits will be required for “take” of Stephens’ kangaroo rat or suitable Stephens’ kangaroo rat habitat.
BIO-7 Preconstruction Surveys for Crotch Bumble Bee: If the Crotch bumble bee is no longer a Candidate or formally listed species under the California ESA at the time ground-disturbing activities occur, then no additional protection measures are proposed for the species.
If the Crotch bumble bee is legally protected under the California ESA as a Candidate or Listed species at the time ground-disturbing activities are scheduled to begin, preconstruction surveys shall be conducted in accordance with CDFW’s Survey Considerations for California ESA Candidate Bumble Bee Species (CDFW 2023) the season immediately prior to Project-related ground disturbing activities (including but not limited to vegetation clearing, fence installation, and grading). If the species is observed within the Project Area, coordination with CDFW will be required to develop appropriate avoidance and minimization measures and determine if an Incidental Take Permit would be necessary.
BIO-8 Aquatic Resources Delineation: A formal Aquatic Resource Delineation is recommended in order to determine if the drainage features within the Project Area contain aquatic resources jurisdictional to the USACE, RWQCB, or CDFW, and to determine the acreage of MSHCP Riparian/Riverine resources present onsite. Impacts to jurisdictional waters require mitigation through habitat creation, restoration, or enhancement as determined by consultation with the regulatory agencies during the permitting process. Any impacts to CDFW jurisdiction would require a Section 1602 SAA from CDFW. Any impacts to Waters of the U.S. would require a Section 404 permit from the USACE. Impacts to Waters of the U.S. or State would 1884
Biological Technical Report and Western Riverside County MSHCP Consistency Analysis ECORP Consulting, Inc.
Wildomar 20-acre Passive Park Project
56 April 2024
2022-252.07
also require a 401 Certification or Waste Discharge Requirements from the San Diego RWQCB.
BIO-9 Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation: A Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation is recommended to be prepared, in conjunction with the Aquatic Resource Delineation, to address proposed impacts to MSHCP Riparian/Riverine resources located within the Project Area. Impacts to MSHCP Riparian/Riverine resources will require mitigation to be approved by the Wildlife Agencies (CDFW and USFWS).
9.0 ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATIONS
9.1 Lighting/Glare
The Project is located within an urban environment with pre-existing light pollution from adjacent development (e.g., residential development and paved roadways). However, the Project will result in an increase in lighting/glare due to planned parking lot and park lighting. Although light pollution is not a novel addition to the Project’s vicinity, it is recommended that to reduce the potential indirect impacts of increased lighting/glare from the Project to sensitive biological resources such as nesting birds and roosting bats, the following guidance be implemented:
Eliminate all non-essential lighting;
Avoid or limit use of lighting during dawn and dusk hours; Install shields on lights to reduce overpour into adjacent areas; Direct light downward;
Incorporate light with warmer color temperatures; and Reduce light intensity where feasible.
1885
Biological Technical Report and Western Riverside County MSHCP Consistency Analysis ECORP Consulting, Inc.
Wildomar 20-acre Passive Park Project
57 April 2024
2022-252.07
10.0 CERTIFICATION
I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information required for this biological evaluation, and that the facts, statements, and information presented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Field work conducted for this assessment was performed by me or under my direct supervision. I certify that I have not signed a non-disclosure or consultant confidentiality agreement with the Project applicant or the applicant’s representative and that I have no financial interest in the Project.
SIGNED: DATE:
Stacie Tennant
Senior Biologist and Project Manager
ECORP Consulting, Inc.
SIGNED: DATE:
Caroline Garcia
Staff Biologist
ECORP Consulting, Inc.
1886
Biological Technical Report and Western Riverside County MSHCP Consistency Analysis ECORP Consulting, Inc.
Wildomar 20-acre Passive Park Project
58 April 2024
2022-252.07
11.0 LITERATURE CITED
Allison, L.J., Paradzick, C.E., Rourke, J.W., and McCarthey, T.C. 2003. A characterization of vegetation in nesting and non-nesting plots for southwestern willow flycatchers in central Arizona. Studies in Avian Biology 26:81–90.
Baldwin, B. G., D. H. Goldman, D. J. Keil, R. Patterson, T. J. Rosatti, and D. H. Wilken, editors. 2012. The Jepson Manual: Vascular Plants of California, Second Edition. University of California Press, Berkeley, California.
Belk, D., and M. L. Fugate. 2000. Two new Branchinecta (Crustacea: Anostraca) from the southwestern United States. The Southwestern Naturalist 45(2):111–117.
Bradley, R.D., L. K. Ammerman, R. J. Baker, L. C. Bradley, J. A Cook, R. C. Dowler, C. Jones, D. J. Schmidly, F.
B. Stangl, Jr., R.A. Van Den Bussche, B. Wursig. 2014. Revised Checklist of North American Mammals North of Mexico. Museum of Texas Tech University.
Brown, B.T. 1993. Bell’s Vireo (Vireo bellii). In The Birds of North America, no. 35 (A. Poole, P. Stettenheim, and F. Gill, Eds.). The Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: The American Ornithologists’ Union, Washington, D.C.
CalFlora: Information on California Plants for Education, Research and Conservation. [Web application]. 2024. Berkeley, California: The CalFlora Database [a non-profit organization]. http://www.calflora.org. Accessed March 2024.
California Department of Fish and Game. 1984. California Endangered Species Act. Fish and Game Code Section 2050-2085.
California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2024a. RareFind California Department of Fish and Game Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). California. Sacramento, CA, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Biogeographic Data Branch.
_____. 2024b. State and Federally Listed Endangered and Threatened Animals of California. Sacramento (CA): State of California, the Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Wildlife. March 2024. _____. 2024c. State and Federally Listed Endangered, Threatened, and Rare Plants of California. Sacramento (CA): State of California, the Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Wildlife. March 2024. _____. 2024d. Special Animals List. Sacramento (CA): State of California, the Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Game. March 2024.
_____. 2024e. Special Vascular Plants, Bryophytes, and Lichens List. Sacramento (CA): State of California, the Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Game. March 2024. _____. 2024f. California Sensitive Natural Communities. Updated June 1, 2023. Available online:
https://nrm.dfg.ca.gov/FileHandler.ashx?DocumentID=153609&inline. 1887
Biological Technical Report and Western Riverside County MSHCP Consistency Analysis ECORP Consulting, Inc.
Wildomar 20-acre Passive Park Project
59 April 2024
2022-252.07
_____. 2024g. Vegetation Classification and Mapping Program (VegCAMP), website. California Department of Fish and Wildlife, Biogeographic Data Branch. Available online:
https://www.wildlife.ca.gov/Data/VegCAMP.
_____. 2023. Survey and Considerations for California Endangered Species Act (California ESA) Candidate Bumble Bee Species. State of California, Natural Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Wildlife. Published June 2023.
California Native Plant Society (CNPS). 2024. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (online edition, v7- 08c). Rare Plant Scientific Advisory Committee. California Native Plant Society. Sacramento, CA. http://www.cnps.org/inventory. Accessed March 2024.
Chesser, R. T., K. J. Burns, C. Cicero, J. L. Dunn, A. W. Kratter, I. J. Lovette, P. C. Rasmussen, J. V. Remsen, Jr., D. F. Stotz, and K. Winker. 2023. Check-list of North American Birds (online), 7th edition with 59th Supplement. American Ornithological Society. http://checklist.aou.org/taxa.
City of Wildomar. 2022. Landscape Design Standards and Guidelines. Available online:
https://www.cityofwildomar.org/DocumentCenter/View/390/Wildomar-Landscape-DesignStandards-PDF.
Eriksen, C. and D. Belk. 1999. Fairy shrimps of California’s puddles, pools, and playas. Mad River Press, Inc.; Eureka, California. 196 pp.
Franzreb, K. 1989. Ecology and conservation of the endangered Least Bell's Vireo (Vol. 89). U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service.
Grinnell, J., and A. H. Miller. 1944. The Distribution of the Birds of California. Pacific Coast Avifauna 27.
Halterman, M., Johnson, M.J., Holmes, J.A. and Laymon, S.A. 2016. A Natural History Summary and Survey Protocol for the Western Distinct Population Segment of the Yellow-billed Cuckoo, dated: May 2016. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Techniques and Methods.
Heath, J.E. and P.J. Wilkin. 1970. Temperature Responses of the Desert Cicada, Diceroprocta apache (Homoptera, Cicadidae). Physiological Zoology 43:145-154.
Helm, B. 1998. Biogeography of eight large branchiopods endemic to California. Pages 124-139. In Ecology, conservation, and management of vernal pool ecosystems – proceedings from a 1996 conference, C. W. Witham, E.T. Bauder, D. Belk, W.R. Ferren, Jr., and R. Ornduff, eds. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, California. 285 pp.
Hughes, J. M. 2020. Yellow-billed Cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus), version 1.0. In Birds of the World (P. G.
Rodewald, Editor). Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Ithaca, NY, USA. https://doi.org/10.2173/bow.yebcuc.01.
Keeler-Wolf, T., D.R. Elam, K. Lewis, and S.A. Flint. 1998. California vernal pool assessment. Preliminary report. California Department of Fish and Game. Wetlands Inventory and Conservation Unit, Sacramento, California.
1888
Biological Technical Report and Western Riverside County MSHCP Consistency Analysis ECORP Consulting, Inc.
Wildomar 20-acre Passive Park Project
60 April 2024
2022-252.07
Keeley, J.E. and Zedler, P.H. 1998. Characterization and Global Distribution of Vernal Pools. Pp. 1-14 In Ecology, conservation, and management of vernal pool ecosystems – proceedings from a 1996 conference. C.W. Witham, E.T. Baulder, D. Belk, W.R. Ferren Jr., and R. Ornduff (editors). California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, CA.
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2024. Online Web Soil Survey. U.S. Department of Agriculture. http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov. Accessed March 2024.
Regional Conservation Authority (RCA). 2024a. RCA MSHCP Information Map. https://wrcrca.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=2b9d4520bd5f4d35add35fb5 8808c1b7. Accessed March 2024.
_____. 2024b. Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Consistency Analysis Template. https://www.wrc-rca.org/document-library/. Accessed March 2024.
Riverside County Transportation and Land Management Agency (RCTLMA). 2024. Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan.
http://rctlma.org/Portals/0/mshcp/volume1/index.html. Accessed March 2024. _____. 2006. Burrowing Owl Survey Instructions.
https://planning.rctlma.org/sites/g/files/aldnop416/files/2023- 06/burrowing_owl_survey_instructions.pdf. Accessed March 2024.
Sawyer, J. O., T. Keeler-Wolf, and J. M. Evens. 2009. A Manual of California Vegetation, 2nd ed. California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, CA.
Skinner, M.W., and B.M. Pavlik, eds. 1994. California Native Plant Society's inventory of rare and endangered vascular plants of California. Fifth edition. Spec. Publ. No. 1, California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, CA, 338 pp.
Small, A. 1994. California Birds: Their Status and Distribution. Ibis Publishing Company. Vista, California. 342 pp.
Society for the Study of Amphibians and Reptiles. 2017. Scientific and Standard English Names of Amphibians and Reptiles of North American North of Mexico, With Comments Regarding Confidence in our Understanding. Eighth Edition. Committee on Standard English and Scientific Names.
Thiéry, A. & M. L. Fugate. 1994. A new American fairy shrimp, Linderiella santarosae (Crustacea: Anostraca:
Linderiellidae), from vernal pools of California, USA. Proc. Biol. Soc. Wash. 107: 641–656.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2024a. Information for Planning and Consultation (IPaC). https://ipac.ecosphere.fws.gov/. Accessed March 2024.
_____. 2024b. Threatened & Endangered Species Active Critical Habitat Report. Environmental Conservation Online System. https://ecos.fws.gov/ecp/report/critical-habitat. Accessed March 2024.
1889
Biological Technical Report and Western Riverside County MSHCP Consistency Analysis ECORP Consulting, Inc.
Wildomar 20-acre Passive Park Project
61 April 2024
2022-252.07
_____. 2024c. National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) Wetlands Mapper. https://www.fws.gov/program/national-wetlands-inventory/wetlands-mapper. Accessed March 2024.
_____. 2021. Endangered and Threatened Species: Designation of Critical Habitat for the Western Distinct Population Segment of the Yellow-billed Cuckoo; Final Rule. Federal Register 85(39): 11458- 11594.
_____. 2020. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Revised Designation of Critical Habitat for the Western Distinct Population Segment of the Yellow-Billed Cuckoo; Proposed Rule. Federal Register 85(39): 11458-11594.
_____. 2017. Survey guidelines for the listed large branchiopods. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Pacific Southwest Region. Sacramento, California. p. 24. Revised November 7, 2017. _____. 2014. Southwestern Willow Flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus). "5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation".
_____. 2013. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for Southwestern Willow Flycatcher; Final Rule. Federal Register 78 (2): 344-534. _____. 2008. Riverside Fairy Shrimp (Streptocephalus woottoni), 5-Year Review: Summary and Evaluation.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Carlsbad, California. 86 pp. https://ecos.fws.gov/docs/five_year_review/doc1997.pdf. Accessed March 2024. _____. 1998. Draft Recovery Plan for the least Bell's vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus). U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Region 1, Portland, OR. 139 pp.
_____. 1994. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Designation of Critical Habitat for the Least Bell’s Vireo. Federal Register Volume 59(22): 4845-4867. _____. 1918. Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918. Section 16 of the U.S. Code (703-712), as amended 1989.
Zedler, P.H. 1987. The Ecology of Southern California Vernal Pools: A Community Profile. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 85 (7.11). 136pp.
Zeiner, D.C., W.F. Laudenslayer, Jr., K.E. Mayer, and M. White, eds. 1990. California's Wildlife. Vol. 2 Birds.
Calif. Dept. of Fish and Game, Sacramento, California. 732 pp. 1890
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A – Representative Site Photographs
Appendix B – Plant Species Compendium
Appendix C – Wildlife Species Compendium
Appendix D – Special Status Plant Species Potential to Occur Appendix E – Special Status Wildlife Species Potential to Occur
1891
APPENDIX A
Representative Site Photographs
1892
Appendix A – Representative Site Photographs
ECORP Consulting, Inc.
Wildomar Passive Park Project
A-1 April 2024
2022-252.07
Photo 1: View of the Southeastern Portion of the Project Area with Mature Native and Non-Native Trees; facing southwest.
Photo 2: View of the Southeastern Portion of the Project Area with Non-Native Forbs and Grasses Recently Mowed; facing northeast.
.601989 LON: -1
1893
Appendix A – Representative Site Photographs
ECORP Consulting, Inc.
Wildomar Passive Park Project
A-2 April 2024
2022-252.07
Photo 3: View from the Eastern Corner of the Project Area with Mature Pine Trees; facing west.
Photo 4: View of a Culvert Drainage with Standing Water located in the Eastern Corner of the Project Area. The Drainage Runs South through the Buffer; facing east. 1894
Appendix A – Representative Site Photographs
ECORP Consulting, Inc.
Wildomar Passive Park Project
A-3 April 2024
2022-252.07
Photo 5: Trash in Drainage Feature Located in the Eastern Corner of the Project Area; facing south.
Photo 6: View of Brush Piles and Leaf Litter in the Eastern Corner of the Project Area; facing east. 1895
Appendix A – Representative Site Photographs
ECORP Consulting, Inc.
Wildomar Passive Park Project
A-4 April 2024
2022-252.07
Photo 7: View of a Eucalyptus Grove Located in the Buffer west of the Project Area; facing southwest.
Photo 8: View of an Engelmann Oak Observed in the Southwest Portion of the Project Area; facing southwest.
1896
APPENDIX B
Plant Species Compendium
1897
Appendix B – Plant Species Compendium
ECORP Consulting, Inc.
Wildomar Passive Park Project
B-1 April 2024
2022-252.07
SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME
GYMNOSPERMS
CUPRESSACEAE CYPRESS FAMILY
Calocedrus decurrens Incense cedar
PINACEAE PINE FAMILY
Pinus sp.* Pine
ANGIOSPERMS (DICOTYLEDONS)
AIZOACEAE FIG-MARIGOLD FAMILY
Aptenia cordifolia* Baby sun rose
AMARANTHACEAE PIGWEED FAMILY
Atriplex canescens Fourwing saltbush
ANACARDIACEAE SUMAC OR CASHEW FAMILY
Schinus molle* Peruvian pepper tree
APOCYNACEAE DOGBANE FAMILY
Nerium oleander* Oleander
ASTERACEAE SUNFLOWER FAMILY
Ambrosia psilostachya Western ragweed
Baccharis salicifolia Mulefat
Centaurea melitensis* Maltese star thistle
Cirsium vulgare* Bull thistle
Corethrogyne filaginifolia Common sandaster
Cotula Australia* Australian brass buttons
Erigeron canadensis Canada horseweed
Helianthus annuus Common sunflower
Hypochaeris glabra* Smooth cat's ear
Lactuca serriola* Prickly lettuce
Oncosiphon pilulifer* Stinknet
Pseudognaphalium californicum Ladies’ tobacco
Sonchus asper* Prickly sow-thistle
Taraxacum officinale* Red seeded dandelion
BIGNONIACEAE BIGNONIA FAMILY
Jacaranda mimosifolia* Jacaranda
BORAGINACEAE BORAGE FAMILY
Amsinckia tessellata Bristly fiddleneck
Plagiobothrys sp. Popcorn flower
BRASSICACEAE MUSTARD FAMILY
Capsella bursa-pastoris* Shepherd’s purse
Hirshfeldia incana* Short-pod mustard
Raphanus sativus* Wild radish
Sisymbrium irio* London rocket
1898
Appendix B – Plant Species Compendium
ECORP Consulting, Inc.
Wildomar Passive Park Project
B-2 April 2024
2022-252.07
SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME
CACTACEAE CACTUS FAMILY
Opuntia ficus-indica* Tuna cactus
CARYOPHYLACEAE PINK FAMILY
Spergularia sp.* Sandspurry
Stellaria media Chickweed
CRASSULACEAE STONECROP FAMILY
Crassula connata Pigmy weed
FABACEAE LEGUME FAMILY
Acacia sp.* Wattle
Acmispon sp. Lotus
Albizia julibrissin Silktree
Lupinus bicolor Annual lupine
Medicago polymorpha* Bur clover
FAGACEAE OAK FAMILY
Quercus agrifolia Coast live oak
Quercus engelmannCRPR 4.2 Engelmann oak
Quercus lobata Valley oak
GERANIACEAE GERANIUM FAMILY
Erodium cicutarium* Red-stemmed filaree
HAMAMELIDACEAE WITCH-HAZEL FAMILY
Liquidambar styraciflua* Sweetgum
LAMIACEAE MINT FAMILY
Lamium sp.* Dead nettle
Lavandula sp.* Lavender
Salvia mellifera Black sage
MYRSINACEAE MYRSINE FAMILY
Lysimachia arvensis* Scarlet pimpernel
MYRTACEAE MYRTLE FAMILY
Eucalyptus globulus* Blue gum
Eucalyptus rudis Western Australian floodedgum
Eucalyptus sideroxylon* Red iron bark
OLEACEAE OLIVE FAMILY
Fraxinus Ash
Olea europaea* Olive
PLATANACEAE PLANE TREE FAMILY
Platanus racemosa Western sycamore
POLYGONACEAE BUCKWHEAT FAMILY
Eriogonum fasciculatum California buckwheat
Rumex crispus* Curly dock
ROSACEAE ROSE FAMILY
Pyracantha coccinea* Scarlet firethorn
1899
Appendix B – Plant Species Compendium
ECORP Consulting, Inc.
Wildomar Passive Park Project
B-3 April 2024
2022-252.07
SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME
RUBIACEAE MADDER FAMILY
Galium aparine Common bedstraw
SALICACEAE WILLOW FAMILY
Salix gooddingii Black willow
TAMARICACEAE TAMARISK FAMILY
Tamarix ramosissima* Saltcedar
ULMACEAE ELM FAMILY
Ulmus parvifolia* Chinese elm
URTICACEAE NETTLE FAMILY
Urtica urens* Dwarf nettle
ANGIOSPERMS (MONOCOTYLEDONS)
AGAVACEAE AGAVE FAMILY
Yucca sp.* Yucca
ARECACEAE PALM FAMILY
Washingtonia robusta* Mexican fan palm
CYPERACEAE SPIDERWORT FAMILY
Cyperus eragrostis Tall cyperus
POACEAE GRASS FAMILY
Avena barbata* Slender wild oat
Bromus madritensis* Foxtail brome
Festuca myuros* Rattail sixweeks grass
Hordeum murinum* Farmer's foxtail
Schismus barbatus* Mediterranean grass
Stipa miliacea* Smilo grass
*Non-native species
1900
APPENDIX C
Wildlife Species Compendium
1901
Appendix C – Wildlife Species Compendium
ECORP Consulting, Inc.
Wildomar Passive Park Project
C-1 April 2024
2022-252.07
Scientific Name Common Name
INSECTS
Apidae Bees
Apis mellifera western honey bee
Pieridae Orange-Tips, Whites and Sulfurs
Pieris rapae small white butterfly
Lycaenidae Blues, Hairstreaks, & Gossamer Wings
Lycaenidae sp. blue sp.
Nymphalidae Brush-footed Butterflies
Danaus plexippus*** monarch butterfly
AMPHIBIANS
Plethodontidae Lungless Salamanders
Batrachoseps major major garden slender salamander
REPTILES
Anguidae Alligator Lizards
Elgaria multicarinata southern alligator lizard
Iguanidae Iguanids
Uta stansburiana common side-blotched lizard
Phrynosomatidae Spiny Lizards
Sceloporus occidentalis western fence lizard
BIRDS
Accipitridae Hawks, Kites, & Eagles
Accipiter cooperii Cooper’s hawk
Buteo jamaicensis red-tailed hawk
Aegithalidae Bushtits
Psaltriparus minimus bushtit
Columbidae Pigeons and Doves
Zenaida macroura mourning dove
Corvidae Jays and Crows
Corvus brachyrhynchos American crow
Aphelocoma californica California scrub-jay
Fringillidae Finches
Carpodacus mexicanus house finch
Spinus psaltria lesser goldfinch
Parulidae Wood Warblers
Setophaga coronata yellow-rumped warbler
Passerellidae Sparrows and Towhees
Melospiza melodia song sparrow
Melozone crissalis California towhee
1902
Appendix C – Wildlife Species Compendium
ECORP Consulting, Inc.
Wildomar Passive Park Project
C-2 April 2024
2022-252.07
Scientific Name Common Name
Picidae Woodpeckers & Allies
Melanerpes formicovorus acorn woodpecker
Picoides nuttallii Nuttall’s woodpecker
Sturnidae Starlings
Sturnus vulgaris * European starling
Trochilidae Hummingbirds
Archilochus anna Anna’s hummingbird
Troglodytidae Wrens
Troglodytes aedon house wren
Tyrannidae Tyrant Flycatchers
Sayornis nigricans black phoebe
Sayornis saya Say’s phoebe
Tyrannus vociferans Cassin’s kingbird
MAMMALS
Sciuridae Squirrels
Sciurus niger* fox squirrel
*nonnative species
***Federally or state-listed threatened or endangered, or Candidate for federal or state listing threatened or endangered
1903
APPENDIX D
Special Status Plant Species Potential to Occur
1904
Appendix D – Special-Status Plant Species with Potential to Occur on the Proposed Project ECORP Consulting, Inc.
Wildomar 20-acre Passive Park Project
D–1
April 2024
2022-252.07
Scientific Name
Common Name Status
Flowering
Period/
Elevation
Range
(meters)
Habitat Potential to Occur on the
Proposed Project
Abronia villosa var.
aurita
Chaparral sandverbena
USFWS: None
CDFW: None
CRPR: 1B.1
MSHCP: Not Covered
Jan-Sep
(75-1600)
Chaparral
Coastal scrub
Desert dunes in
sandy soils.
Presumed Absent: No
CNDDB records within 5 miles
of the site; no habitat for this
species exists within the
Project Area.
Aldama purisimae
La Purisima viguiera
USFWS: None
CDFW: None
CRPR: 2B.3
MSHCP: Not Covered
Apr-Sep
(365-425)
Coastal bluff
scrub
Chaparral
Presumed Absent: No
CNDDB records within 5 miles
of the site; no habitat for this
species exists within the
Project Area.
Allium munzii
Munz's onion
USFWS: END
CDFW: THR
CRPR: 1B.1
MSHCP: Covered
Mar-May
(297-1070)
Chaparral,
Cismontane
woodland, Coastal
scrub, Pinyon and
juniper woodland,
Valley and foothill
grassland
Moderate: One recent
CNDDB record from 2017
(Occ # 13) less than 4 miles
from the site; marginal
grassland habitat exists within
the Project Area.
Almutaster
pauciflorus
Alkali marsh aster
USFWS: None
CDFW: None
CRPR: 2B.2
MSHCP: Not Covered
Jun- Oct
(240-800)
Meadows and
seeps within
alkaline areas.
Presumed Absent: No
CNDDB records within 5 miles
of the site; no habitat for this
species exists within the
Project Area.
Ambrosia pumila
San Diego ambrosia
USFWS: END
CDFW: None
CRPR: 1B.1
MSHCP: Covered
Apr-Oct
(20-415)
Chaparral
Coastal scrub
valley and foothill
grassland
Vernal pools.
Found in sandy
loam or clay soils,
often in disturbed
areas and
sometimes in
alkaline areas.
Low: No CNDDB records
within 5 miles of the site;
marginal grassland habitat for
this species occurs within the
Project Area.
Arctostaphylos
rainbowensis
Rainbow manzanita
USFWS: None
CDFW: None
Dec-Mar
(205-670)
Chaparral Low: One historic and two
recent CNDDB records within
5 miles of the site; no habitat
1905
Appendix D – Special-Status Plant Species with Potential to Occur on the Proposed Project ECORP Consulting, Inc.
Wildomar 20-acre Passive Park Project
D–2
April 2024
2022-252.07
Scientific Name
Common Name Status
Flowering
Period/
Elevation
Range
(meters)
Habitat Potential to Occur on the
Proposed Project
CRPR: 1B.1
MSHCP: Covered
for this species occurs within
the Project Area.
Astragalus pachypus
var. jaegeri
Jaeger's milk-vetch
USFWS: None
CDFW: None
CRPR: 1B.1
MSHCP: Covered
Dec-Jun
(365-975)
Chaparral,
cismontane
woodland,
coastal scrub
valley and foothill
grassland habitats
in sandy or rocky
soils.
Low: No CNDDB records
within 5 miles of the site;
marginal grassland habitat
occurs within the Project
Area.
Atriplex coronata
var. notatior
San Jacinto Valley
crownscale
USFWS: END
CDFW: None
CRPR: 1B.1
MSHCP: Covered
Apr-Aug
(139-500)
playas, valley and
foothill grassland
in mesic soils, and
vernal pools.
Found in alkaline
habitats.
Low: No CNDDB records
within 5 miles of the site;
marginal grassland habitat
occurs within the Project
Area.
Atriplex parishii
Parish's brittlescale
USFWS: None
CDFW: None
CRPR: 1B.1
MSHCP: Covered
Jun-Oct
(25-1900)
Chenopod scrub
Playas
Vernal pools in
alkaline soils.
Presumed Absent: No
CNDDB records within 5 miles
of the site; no habitat for this
species exists within the
Project Area.
Ayenia compacta
California ayenia
USFWS: None
CDFW: None
CRPR: 2B.3
MSHCP: Not Covered
Mar-Apr
(150-1095)
Mojavean desert
scrub
Sonoran desert
scrub in rocky
soils
Presumed Absent: One
historic CNDDB record within
5 miles of the site; no habitat
for this species occurs within
the Project Area.
Baccharis vanessae
Encinitas baccharis
USFWS: THR
CDFW: END
CRPR: 1B.1
MSHCP: Not Covered
Aug-Nov
(60-720)
Chaparral in
maritime habitats
Cismontane
woodland
Sandstone soils.
Presumed Absent: No
CNDDB records within 5 miles
of the site; no habitat for this
species exists within the
Project Area.
1906
Appendix D – Special-Status Plant Species with Potential to Occur on the Proposed Project ECORP Consulting, Inc.
Wildomar 20-acre Passive Park Project
D–3
April 2024
2022-252.07
Scientific Name
Common Name Status
Flowering
Period/
Elevation
Range
(meters)
Habitat Potential to Occur on the
Proposed Project
Brodiaea filifolia
thread-leaved
brodiaea
USFWS: THR
CDFW: END
CRPR: 1B.1
MSHCP: Covered
Mar-Jun
(25-1120)
Chaparral
Cismontane
woodland
Coastal scrub,
Playas
Valley and foothill
grassland
Vernal pools.
Often found in
clay soils.
Moderate: Three recent
CNDDB records within 5 miles
of the site; marginal grassland
habitat occurs within the
Project Area.
Brodiaea orcuttii
Orcutt's brodiaea
USFWS: None
CDFW: None
CRPR: 1B.1
MSHCP: Covered
May-Jul
(30-1692)
Closed-cone
coniferous forest
Chaparral
Cismontane
woodland
Meadows and
seeps
Valley and foothill
grassland
Vernal pools in
mesic, clay, and
sometimes
serpentinite soils.
Low: No CNDDB records
within 5 miles of the site;
marginal grassland habitat
occurs within the Project
Area.
Calochortus weedii
var. intermedius
intermediate
mariposa-lily
USFWS: None
CDFW: None
CRPR: 1B.2
MSHCP: Not covered
May-Jul
(105 - 855)
Chaparral, Coastal
scrub, and Valley
and foothill
grassland in rocky
soils.
Low: One historic CNDDB
record within 5 miles of the
site; marginal grassland
habitat occurs within the
Project Area.
Caulanthus simulans
Payson's jewelflower
USFWS: None
CDFW: None
CRPR: 4.2
MSHCP: Covered
(Feb)MarMay(Jun)
(90-2200)
Chaparral, Coastal
scrub in granitic
and sandy soils
Presumed Absent: No
CNDDB records within 5 miles
of the site; no habitat for this
species occurs within the
Project Area.
1907
Appendix D – Special-Status Plant Species with Potential to Occur on the Proposed Project ECORP Consulting, Inc.
Wildomar 20-acre Passive Park Project
D–4
April 2024
2022-252.07
Scientific Name
Common Name Status
Flowering
Period/
Elevation
Range
(meters)
Habitat Potential to Occur on the
Proposed Project
Ceanothus
pendletonensis
Pendleton ceanothus
USFWS: none
CDFW: none
CRPR: 1B.2
MSHCP: Not covered
Mar-Jun
(110-870)
Chaparral
Cismontane
woodland
Presumed Absent: No
CNDDB records within 5 miles
of the site; no habitat for this
species.
Centromadia
pungens ssp. laevis
smooth tarplant
USFWS: None
CDFW: None
CRPR: 1B.1
MSHCP: Covered
Apr-Sep
(0-640)
Alkaline soils in
chenopod scrub
meadows and
seeps
Playas
Riparian
woodlands
Valley and foothill
grassland.
Moderate: Six historic and six
recent CNDDB records within
5 miles of the site; limited
riparian woodland and
marginal grassland habitat
exists within the Project Area.
Chorizanthe
leptotheca
Peninsular spineflower
USFWS: None
CDFW: None
CRPR: 4.2
MSHCP: Covered
May-Aug
(300-1900)
Chaparral
Coastal scrub
Lower montane
coniferous forests
in alluvial fan
habitats in
granitic soils.
Presumed Absent: No
CNDDB records within 5 miles
of the site; no habitat for this
species exists within the
Project Area.
Chorizanthe parryi
var. parryi
Parry's spineflower
USFWS: None
CDFW: None
CRPR: 1B.1
MSHCP: Covered
Apr-Jun
(275-1220)
Chaparral
Cismontane
woodland
Coastal scrub
Valley and foothill
grassland habitats
in openings in
sandy or rocky
soils.
Moderate: Ten recent
CNDDB records within 5 miles
of the site; marginal grassland
habitat exists within the
Project Area.
Chorizanthe
polygonoides var.
longispina
long-spined
spineflower
USFWS: None
CDFW: None
CRPR: 1B.2
MSHCP: Covered
Apr-Jul
(30-1530)
Chaparral
Coastal scrub
Meadows and
seeps
Moderate: One historic and
eleven recent CNDDB records
within 5 miles of the site;
marginal grassland habitat
exists within the Project Area.
1908
Appendix D – Special-Status Plant Species with Potential to Occur on the Proposed Project ECORP Consulting, Inc.
Wildomar 20-acre Passive Park Project
D–5
April 2024
2022-252.07
Scientific Name
Common Name Status
Flowering
Period/
Elevation
Range
(meters)
Habitat Potential to Occur on the
Proposed Project
Valley and foothill
grassland
Vernal pool
habitats, often
found in clay soils.
Clinopodium
chandleri
San Miguel savory
USFWS: None
CDFW: None
CRPR: 1B.2
MSHCP: Covered
Mar-Jul
(120-1075)
Chaparral
Cismontane
woodland
Coastal scrub
Riparian
woodland
Valley and foothill
grassland
Rocky, gabbroic,
or metavolcanic
soils.
Moderate: One historic and
two recent CNDDB records
within 5 miles of the site;
limited riparian woodland
and marginal grassland
habitat exists within the
Project Area.
Comarostaphylis
diversifolia ssp.
diversifolia
summer holly
USFWS: none
CDFW: none
CRPR: 1B.2
MSHCP: Not Covered
Apr-Jun
(30-790)
Chaparral
Cismontane
woodland
Presumed Absent: No
CNDDB records within 5 miles
of the site; no habitat for this
species exists within the
Project Area.
Dodecahema
leptoceras
Slender-horned
spineflower
USFWS: END
CDFW: END
CRPR: 1B.1
MSHCP: Not Covered
Apr-Jun
(200-760)
Chaparral
Cismontane
woodland
Alluvial fan
coastal scrub in
sandy soils.
Presumed Absent: One
historic CNDDB record within
5 miles of the site; no habitat
for this species occurs within
the Project Area.
Dudleya multicaulis
many-stemmed
dudleya
USFWS: None
CDFW: None
CRPR: 1B.2
MSHCP: Covered
Apr-Jul
(15-790)
Chaparral
Coastal scrub
Valley and foothill
grassland
habitats. Often
found in clay soils.
Low: No CNDDB records
within 5 miles of the site;
marginal grassland habitat
occurs within the Project
Area.
1909
Appendix D – Special-Status Plant Species with Potential to Occur on the Proposed Project ECORP Consulting, Inc.
Wildomar 20-acre Passive Park Project
D–6
April 2024
2022-252.07
Scientific Name
Common Name Status
Flowering
Period/
Elevation
Range
(meters)
Habitat Potential to Occur on the
Proposed Project
Dudleya viscida
sticky dudleya
USFWS: None
CDFW: None
CRPR: 1B.2
MSHCP: Not Covered
May-June
(10-550)
Coastal bluff
scrub
Chaparral
Cismontane
woodland
Coastal sage
scrub
Rocky soils
Presumed Absent: No
CNDDB records within 5 miles
of the site; no habitat for this
species exists within the
Project Area.
Eryngium
aristulatum var.
parishii
San Diego buttoncelery
USFWS: END
CDFW: END
CRPR: 1B.1
MSHCP: Not Covered
Apr-Jun
(20-620)
Coastal sage
scrub
Valley and foothill
grassland
Vernal pools
Mesic soils
Moderate: One recent
CNDDB record within 5 miles
of the site; marginal grassland
habitat occurs within the
Project Area.
Geothallus tuberosus
Campbells's liverwort
USFWS: None
CDFW: None
CRPR: 1B.1
MSHCP: Not Covered
N/A
(10-600)
soils of mesic
coastal scrub and
vernal pools.
Presumed Absent: No
CNDDB records within 5 miles
of the site; no habitat for this
species exists within the
Project Area.
Harpagonella
palmeri
Palmer's
grapplinghook
USFWS: None
CDFW: None
CRPR: 4.2
MSHCP: Covered
Mar-May
(20-955)
Chaparral
Coastal scrub
Valley and foothill
grassland in clay
soils. Found in
open grassy areas
within shrubland
Low: No CNDDB records
within 5 miles of the site;
marginal grassland habitat
occurs within the Project
Area.
Hesperocyparis
forbesii
Tecate cypress
USFWS: None
CDFW: None
CRPR: 1B.1
MSHCP: Not Covered
N/A
(80-1500)
Closed-cone
coniferous forests
Chaparral in clay,
gabbroic, or
metavolcanic
soils.
Presumed Absent: One
historic CNDDB record within
5 miles of the site; no habitat
for this species exists within
the Project Area.
1910
Appendix D – Special-Status Plant Species with Potential to Occur on the Proposed Project ECORP Consulting, Inc.
Wildomar 20-acre Passive Park Project
D–7
April 2024
2022-252.07
Scientific Name
Common Name Status
Flowering
Period/
Elevation
Range
(meters)
Habitat Potential to Occur on the
Proposed Project
Holocarpha virgata
ssp. elongata
graceful tarplant
USFWS: None
CDFW: None
CRPR: 4.2
MSHCP: Covered
May-Nov
(60-1100)
Chaparral and
lower montane
coniferous forest
in rocky soils.
Presumed Absent: No
CNDDB records within 5 miles
of the site; no habitat for this
species exists within the
Project Area.
Hordeum
intercedens
vernal barley
USFWS: None
CDFW: None
CRPR: 3.2
MSHCP: Covered
Mar-Jun
(5-1000)
Coastal dunes
Coastal sage
scrub
Valley and foothill
grassland
(depressions,
saline flats)
Vernal pools
Low: No CNDDB records
within 5 miles of the site;
marginal grassland habitat
occurs within the Project
Area.
Horkelia cuneata
var. puberula
mesa horkelia
USFWS: None
CDFW: None
CRPR: 1B.1
MSHCP: Not Covered
Feb-Jul
(70-810)
Chaparral
Cismontane
woodland
Coastal scrub
Presumed Absent: No
CNDDB records within 5 miles
of the site; no habitat for this
species exists within the
Project Area.
Juglans californica
Southern California
black walnut
USFWS: None
CDFW: None
CRPR: 4.2
MSHCP: Covered
Mar-Aug
(50-900)
Chaparral
Cismontane
woodland
Coastal scrub
Riparian
woodland, often
in alluvial soils
Low: One historic CNDDB
record within 5 miles of the
site; limited riparian
woodland exists within the
Project Area.
Juncus luciensis
Santa Lucia dwarf rush
USFWS: None
CDFW: None
CRPR: 1B.2
MSHCP: Not Covered
Apr-Jul
(300-2040)
Chaparral
Great Basin scrub
Lower montane
coniferous forest,
meadows and
seeps
vernal pools.
Presumed Absent: No
CNDDB records within 5 miles
of the site; no habitat for this
species exists within the
Project Area.
1911
Appendix D – Special-Status Plant Species with Potential to Occur on the Proposed Project ECORP Consulting, Inc.
Wildomar 20-acre Passive Park Project
D–8
April 2024
2022-252.07
Scientific Name
Common Name Status
Flowering
Period/
Elevation
Range
(meters)
Habitat Potential to Occur on the
Proposed Project
Lasthenia glabrata
ssp. coulteri
Coulter's goldfields
USFWS: None
CDFW: None
CRPR: 1B.1
MSHCP: Covered
Feb-Jun
(1-1220)
Coastal salt
marshes and
swamps
Playas,
Vernal pools.
Low: Two historic CNDDB
records within 5 miles of the
site; no habitat for this
species exists within the
Project Area.
Lilium humboldtii
ssp. ocellatum
ocellated Humboldt
lily
USFWS: None
CDFW: None
CRPR: 4.2
MSHCP: Covered
Mar-Jul(Aug)
(30-1800)
Chaparral
Cismontane
woodland
Coastal scrub
Lower montane
coniferous forest
Riparian
woodland.
Low: No CNDDB records
within 5 miles of the site;
limited riparian woodland
habitat occurs within the
Project Area.
Microseris douglasii
ssp. platycarpha
small-flowered
microseris
USFWS: None
CDFW: None
CRPR: 4.2
MSHCP: Covered
Mar-May
(15-1070)
clay soils within
chaparral, coastal
sage scrub,
riparian forest,
riparian scrub,
riparian
woodland, and
alluvial terraces
and washes.
Low: No CNDDB records
within 5 miles of the site;
marginal habitat for this
species exists within the
Project Area.
Myosurus minimus
ssp. apus
little mousetail
USFWS: None
CDFW: None
CRPR: 3.1
MSHCP: Covered
Mar-Jun
(20-640)
Valley and foothill
grassland
Vernal pools
(alkaline)
Low: One historic CNDDB
record within 5 miles of the
site; marginal habitat for this
species exists within the
Project Area.
Navarretia fossalis
spreading navarretia
USFWS: THR
CDFW: None
CRPR: 1B.1
MSHCP: Not Covered
Apr-Jun
(30-655)
Chenopod scrub
Marshes and
swamps
Playas
Vernal pools
Low: One historic and four
recent CNDDB records within
5 miles of the site; no habitat
for this species exists within
the Project Area.
1912
Appendix D – Special-Status Plant Species with Potential to Occur on the Proposed Project ECORP Consulting, Inc.
Wildomar 20-acre Passive Park Project
D–9
April 2024
2022-252.07
Scientific Name
Common Name Status
Flowering
Period/
Elevation
Range
(meters)
Habitat Potential to Occur on the
Proposed Project
Navarretia prostrata
prostrate navarretia
USFWS: None
CDFW: None
CRPR: 1B.2
MSHCP: Not Covered
Apr-Jul
(3-1210)
Coastal sage
scrub
Wetland-riparian
Meadows and
seeps
Valley and foothill
grassland
Vernal pools.
Moderate: One recent
CNDDB record within 5 miles
of the site; marginal grassland
habitat occurs within the
Project Area.
Nolina cismontana
chaparral nolina
USFWS: None
CDFW: None
CRPR: 1B.2
MSHCP: Not Covered
May-Jul
(140-1275)
Chaparral, Coastal
sage scrub
Presumed Absent: No
CNDDB records within 5 miles
of the site; no habitat for this
species exists within the
Project Area.
Orcuttia californica
California Orcutt grass
USFWS: END
CDFW: END
CRPR: 1B.1
MSHCP: Covered
Apr-Aug
(15-660)
Vernal pools
Valley grassland
wetland-riparian
Moderate: One historic and
one recent CNDDB record
within 5 miles of the site;
limited grassland and riparian
habitat exists within the
Project Area.
Piperia cooperi
chaparral rein orchid
USFWS: None
CDFW: None
CRPR: 4.2
MSHCP: Not Covered
Mar-Jun
(15-1585)
Chaparral
Cismontane
woodland
Valley and foothill
grassland
Low: No CNDDB records
within 5 miles of the site;
limited grassland habitat
exists within the Project Area.
Pseudognaphalium
leucocephalum
white rabbit-tobacco
USFWS: None
CDFW: None
CRPR: 2B.2
MSHCP: Not Covered
Aug-Nov
(0-2100)
Sandy or gravelly
soils within
chaparral,
cismontane
woodland, coastal
sage scrub, and
riparian
woodland.
Low: One historic CNDDB
record within 5 miles of the
site; limited riparian
woodland habitat exists
within the Project Area.
1913
Appendix D – Special-Status Plant Species with Potential to Occur on the Proposed Project ECORP Consulting, Inc.
Wildomar 20-acre Passive Park Project
D–10 April 2024
2022-252.07
Scientific Name
Common Name Status
Flowering
Period/
Elevation
Range
(meters)
Habitat Potential to Occur on the
Proposed Project
Quercus dumosa
Nuttall's scrub oak
USFWS: None
CDFW: None
CRPR: 1B.1
MSHCP: Not Covered
Feb-Apr
(15-400)
Sandy, clay loam
soils within closed
cone coniferous
forest, chaparral,
coastal sage scrub
Presumed Absent: No
CNDDB records within 5 miles
of the site; no habitat for this
species exists within the
Project Area.
Quercus
engelmannii
Engelmann oak
USFWS: None
CDFW: None
CRPR: 4.2
MSHCP: Covered
Mar-Jun
(50-1300)
Chaparral,
cismontane
woodland
riparian
woodland, valley
and foothill
grassland.
Present: Four individuals
were mapped during the Bio
Recon survey. No CNDDB
records within 5 miles of the
site.
Romneya coulteri
Coulter's matilija
poppy
USFWS: None
CDFW: None
CRPR: 4.2
MSHCP: Covered
Mar-Jul(Aug)
(20-1200)
chaparral and
coastal sage
scrub; often found
in burn areas
Presumed Absent: No
CNDDB records within 5 miles
of the site; no habitat for this
species exists within the
Project Area.
Sphaerocarpos
drewiae
bottle liverwort
USFWS: None
CDFW: None
CRPR: 1B.1
MSHCP: Not Covered
N/A
(90-600)
Openings and
soils within
chaparral and
coastal sage scrub
Presumed Absent: Three
historic CNDDB records
within 5 miles of the site; no
habitat for this species exists
within the Project Area.
Symphyotrichum
defoliatum
San Bernardino aster
USFWS: None
CDFW: None
CRPR: 1B.2
MSHCP: Not covered
Jul-Nov
(2-2040)
Near ditches,
streams, and
springs in
cismontane
woodland, coastal
sage scrub, lower
montane
coniferous forest,
meadows and
seeps, marshes
and swamps, and
Low: One historic CNDDB
record within 5 miles of the
site; limited grassland habitat
occurs within the Project
Area.
1914
Appendix D – Special-Status Plant Species with Potential to Occur on the Proposed Project ECORP Consulting, Inc.
Wildomar 20-acre Passive Park Project
D–11 April 2024
2022-252.07
Scientific Name
Common Name Status
Flowering
Period/
Elevation
Range
(meters)
Habitat Potential to Occur on the
Proposed Project
valley and foothill
grassland
Tetracoccus dioicus
Parry's tetracoccus
USFWS: None
CDFW: None
CRPR: 1B.2
MSHCP: Not Covered
Apr-May
(165-1000)
Chaparral
Coastal sage
scrub
Presumed Absent: No
CNDDB records within 5 miles
of the site; no habitat for this
species exists within the
Project Area.
Tortula californica
California screw moss
USFWS: None
CDFW: None
CRPR: 1B.2
MSHCP: Not Covered
N/A
(10-1460)
Sandy soils within
chenopod scrub
and valley and
foothill grassland
Low: No CNDDB records
within 5 miles of the site;
marginal grassland habitat
occurs within the Project
Area.
Federal Designations
(FESA, USFWS)
END: Federally listed, endangered
THR: Federally listed, threatened
State Designations
(CESA, CDFW)
END: State-listed, endangered
THR: State-listed, threatened
California Native Plant Society (CNPS) California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR) Designations:
1A: Plants presumed extinct in California.
1B: Plants rare and endangered in CA and throughout their range. 2: Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in CA but more common elsewhere in their range. 3: Plants about which need more information; a review list. 4: Plants of limited distribution; a watch list.
Plants 1B, 2, 3, and 4 extension meanings:
.1 Seriously endangered in CA (over 80% of occurrences threatened / high degree and immediacy of threat) .2 Fairly endangered in California (20-80% occurrences threatened) .3 Not very endangered in CA (<20% of occurrences threatened or no current threats known) Local Designations
[Multiple Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP)]
Covered: Species adequately conserved through the conservation and management actions implemented through adoption of the MSHCP Plan and by each Subarea Plan once finalized.
Sources:California Natural Diversity Data Base (CDFW 2022a), California Native Plant Society Electronic Inventory (CNPS 2022), Final MSHCP Plan (SANDAG 2003)
1915
APPENDIX E
Special Status Wildlife Species Potential to Occur
1916
Appendix E – Special-Status Wildlife Species with Potential to Occur on the Proposed Project ECORP Consulting, Inc.
Wildomar 20-acre Passive Park Project
E–1 April 2024
2022-252.07
Scientific Name
Common Name Status Habitat Preferences Potential for Occurrence
INSECTS
Bombus crotchii
Crotch bumble bee
USFWS: None
CDFW: CAN
MSHCP: Not
Covered
Occurs in grasslands and
shrublands. Nests and
overwinters underground, often
in abandoned rodent dens, but
also rock piles, thatch, fallen
logs, and brush piles. Generalist
forager but reported food plants
include Asclepias, Chaenactis,
Lupinus, Medicago, Phacelia, and
Salvia.
Moderate: Suitable foraging
habitat and nectaring plants
present within the Project Area
and buffer. Suitable nesting
habitat is present within the
Project Area and buffer. One
historic CNDDB record is within
five miles of the Project Area.
Danaus plexippus
monarch - California
overwintering population
USFWS: CAN
CDFW: None
MSHCP: Not
Covered
Roosts in wind-protected tree
groves (Coastal California
conifer, eucalyptus) from
Northern Mendocino to Baja
California. Milkweed is essential
for the larvae of this species.
Present: Suitable nectaring and
overwintering habitat is present
throughout the Project Area and
this species was observed during
the biological reconnaissance
survey within the buffer.
Euphydryas editha quino
Quino checkerspot
butterfly
USFWS: END
CDFW: None
MSHCP: Covered
Occurs in sunny openings within
chaparral and coastal sage scrub
in parts of Riverside and San
Diego counties. Occurs on hills
and mesas along the coast.
Requires high densities of food
plants Plantago erecta, P.
insularis, and Orthocarpus
purpurescens.
Presumed Absent: No suitable
habitat is present within the
Project Area or buffer. Three
historic CNDDB records are
within five miles of the Project
Area.
CRUSTACEANS
Branchinecta lynchi
vernal pool fairy shrimp
USFWS: THR
CDFW: None
MSHCP: Covered
Vernal pools and ephemeral
wetlands. Typically in small and
shallow pools with mud or
grassy bottoms.
Presumed Absent: No suitable
habitat is present within the
Project Area due to lack of
vernal pools and ephemeral
wetlands. One recent CNDDB
record is within five miles of the
Project Area.
Branchinecta
sandiegonensis
San Diego fairy shrimp
USFWS: END
CDFW: None
MSHCP: Not
Covered
Restricted to vernal pools and
shallow ephemeral basins in
Orange and San Diego Counties.
Presumed Absent: No suitable
habitat is present within the
Project Area due to lack of
vernal pools and ephemeral
basins and the Project is outside
of the known range of this
species. One recent CNDDB
record is within five miles of the
Project Area.
1917
Appendix E – Special-Status Wildlife Species with Potential to Occur on the Proposed Project ECORP Consulting, Inc.
Wildomar 20-acre Passive Park Project
E–2 April 2024
2022-252.07
Scientific Name
Common Name Status Habitat Preferences Potential for Occurrence Linderiella santarosae
Santa Rosa Plateau fairy
shrimp
USFWS: None
CDFW: None
MSHCP: Covered
Occurs in cool-water vernal
pools that are formed from
southern basalt flows. This
species and its microhabitat are
only known to occur on the
Santa Rosa Plateau.
Presumed Absent: No suitable
habitat is present within the
Project Area due to lack of
vernal pools and the Project is
outside of the known range of
this species. One recent CNDDB
record is within five miles of the
Project Area at the Santa Rosa
Plateau Ecological Reserve.
Streptocephalus woottoni
Riverside fairy shrimp
USFWS: END
CDFW: None
MSHCP: Covered
Restricted to deep, long lasting
vernal pools.
Presumed Absent: No suitable
habitat is present within the
Project Area due to lack of
vernal pools. Four recent
CNDDB records are within five
miles of the Project Area.
FISH
Gila orcutti
arroyo chub
USFWS: None
CDFW: SSC
MSHCP: Covered
Creeks, streams, and rivers with
areas of slow moving water with
sand or mud bottoms. Ranges
from San Diego to San Luis
Obispo county.
Presumed Absent: No suitable
habitat is present within the
Project Area. No recent CNDDB
records within five miles of the
Project Area.
Oncorhynchus mykiss
irideus pop. 10
steelhead - southern
California DPS
USFWS: END
CDFW: CAN
MSHCP: Not
Covered
Freshwater lagoons, river
mouths/tidal rivers,
bays/sounds, rivers, and creeks
for breeding. Spawning streams
are relatively warm. Migrate
between freshwater breeding
and marine non-breeding
habitats. Marine habitat is
pelagic and near shore.
Presumed Absent: No suitable
habitat is present within the
Project Area. No recent CNDDB
records within five miles of the
Project Area.
AMPHIBIANS
Anaxyrus californicus
arroyo toad
USFWS: END
CDFW: SSC
MSHCP: Covered
Sandy banks of rivers, arroyos,
and streams with shallow sandy
pools. Also found in riparian
woodlands or uplands adjacent
to arroyos.
Presumed Absent: Suitable
habitat is not present within the
Project Area or buffer. No
CNDDB records occur within five
miles of the Project Area.
Rana draytonii
California red-legged frog
USFWS: THR
CDFW: SSC
MSHCP: Covered
Found near water features such
as ponds or streams in humid
forests, grasslands, coastal
scrub, and woodlands.
Presumed Absent: No suitable
habitat is present within the
Project Area or buffer. One
historic CNDDB record from
Cole Creek, four miles from
Project Area.
1918
Appendix E – Special-Status Wildlife Species with Potential to Occur on the Proposed Project ECORP Consulting, Inc.
Wildomar 20-acre Passive Park Project
E–3 April 2024
2022-252.07
Scientific Name
Common Name Status Habitat Preferences Potential for Occurrence Spea hammondii
western spadefoot
USFWS: CAN
CDFW: SSC
MSHCP: Covered
Prefers open areas with sandy or
gravelly soils in a wide range of
habitats including lowlands to
foothills, coastal sage scrub,
chaparral, mixed woodlands,
alluvial fans, and grasslands.
Requires rain pools free of
bullfrogs and crayfish for
breeding.
Moderate: Marginal suitable
habitat is present within the
Project Area and buffer. Five
historic and five recent records
in CNDDB within five miles of
the Project Area. One recent
record from 2017 (occ # 319)
within two miles east of Project
Area.
Taricha torosa
coast range newt
USFWS: None
CDFW: SSC
MSHCP: Covered
Upland areas including
grasslands, forests, and
woodlands. Burrows in soil or
wood debris.
Moderate: Marginal suitable
habitat is present within the
Project Area and buffer. One
historic and one recent record in
CNDDB within five miles of the
Project Area. One recent record
from 2012 (occ # 24) occurred 4
miles south of Project Area near
Cole Creek.
REPTILES
Anniella stebbinsi
southern California legless
lizard
USFWS: None
CDFW: SSC
MSHCP: Not
Covered
Moist, loose soil is essential.
Occurs in sparsely vegetated
areas of beach dunes, chaparral,
pine-oak woodlands, desert
scrub, sandy washes, and stream
terraces with sycamores,
cottonwoods, or oaks.
Moderate: Marginal suitable
habitat is present within the
Project Area and buffer. Three
recent CNDDB records within
two miles of the Project Area.
Arizona elegans
occidentalis
California glossy snake
USFWS: None
CDFW: SSC
MSHCP: Not
Covered
Loose soils preferred. Arid scrub,
rocky washes, grasslands, and
chaparral habitats.
Low: Limited suitable habitat is
present within the Project Area
and buffer. Five historic CNDDB
records occur within five miles
of the Project Area.
Aspidoscelis tigris
stejnegeri
coastal whiptail
USFWS: None
CDFW: SSC
MSHCP: Covered
Inhabits hot and dry open areas
with sparse foliage, including
chaparral, and riparian areas.
Low: Limited suitable habitat is
present within the Project Area
and buffer. One historic CNDDB
record from 2001 (occ # 32)
occurred less than five miles
from Project Area.
Crotalus ruber
red-diamond rattlesnake
USFWS: None
CDFW: SSC
MSHCP: Covered
Found in coastal chaparral, arid
scrub, rocky grassland, oak and
pine woodlands, desert
mountain slopes and rocky
desert flats.
Presumed Absent: No suitable
habitat is present within the
Project Area or buffer. One
historic record in CNDDB from
2001 (occ # 30) occurred less
than three miles northeast of the
Project Area.
1919
Appendix E – Special-Status Wildlife Species with Potential to Occur on the Proposed Project ECORP Consulting, Inc.
Wildomar 20-acre Passive Park Project
E–4 April 2024
2022-252.07
Scientific Name
Common Name Status Habitat Preferences Potential for Occurrence Emys marmorata
western pond turtle
USFWS: CAN
CDFW: SSC
MSHCP: Not
Covered
Ponds, lakes, rivers, streams,
marshes, and other water
sources with rocky or muddy
substrate. Basks on logs, rocks,
and exposed banks.
Presumed Absent: No suitable
habitat is present within the
Project Area or buffer. Two
historic CNDDB records from
1970 (occ # 827, 828) occurred
less than four miles from Project
Area. This population is now
considered extirpated.
Phrynosoma blainvillii
coast horned lizard
USFWS: None
CDFW: SSC
MSHCP: Covered
Inhabits open areas of valleys,
foothills, and semiarid
mountains with sandy soil and
low vegetation including
chaparral, woodlands, and
grasslands.
Presumed Absent: No suitable
habitat is present within the
Project Area and buffer. Ten
historic CNDDB records occur
within five miles of the Project
Area.
Salvadora hexalepis
virgultea
coast patch-nosed snake
USFWS: None
CDFW: SSC
MHCP: Not
Covered
Inhabits semi-arid brushy areas
and chaparral in canyons, rocky
hillsides and plains.
Presumed Absent: No suitable
habitat is present within the
Project Area and buffer. No
CNDDB records occur within five
miles of the Project Area.
Thamnophis hammondii
two-striped gartersnake
USFWS: None
CDFW: SSC
MSHCP: Not
Covered
Found near water sources, such
as pools, creeks, and riparian
areas. Associated with oak
woodland, willow, coastal sage
scrub, scrub oak, sparse pine,
chaparral, and brushland.
Low: Limited suitable habitat is
present within the Project Area
and buffer. One historic CNDDB
record occurs within five miles
of the Project Area.
BIRDS
Athene cunicularia
burrowing owl
USFWS: None
CDFW: SSC
MSHCP: Covered
Open grasslands including
prairies, plains, and savannah, or
vacant lots and airports. Nests in
abandoned dirt burrows.
Moderate: Marginally suitable
habitat is present within the
Project Area and buffer. One
recent CNDDB record from 2007
(occ # 974) occurred within two
miles of the Project Area.
Aquila chrysaetos
golden eagle
USFWS: P
CDFW: FP
MSHCP: Covered
Open country including prairies,
sagebrush, savannah or sparse
woodlands, and barren hills or
mountainous areas. Nests on
rocky cliff edges or in large trees
such as eucalytus or oak.
Presumed Absent: No suitable
habitat is present within the
Project Area or buffer. No
CNDDB records occur within five
miles of the Project Area.
1920
Appendix E – Special-Status Wildlife Species with Potential to Occur on the Proposed Project ECORP Consulting, Inc.
Wildomar 20-acre Passive Park Project
E–5 April 2024
2022-252.07
Scientific Name
Common Name Status Habitat Preferences Potential for Occurrence Buteo swainsoni
Swainson's hawk
USFWS: None
CDFW: THR
MHCP: Covered
Open pine-oak woodland,
savannah, and agricultural fields
with scattered trees. Nests in
solitary bush or tree, or in small
groves. Nesting trees can
include willow, black locust, oak,
aspen, cottonwood, and
conifers.
Moderate: Marginal suitable
nesting and foraging habitat is
present within the Project Area
and buffer, with better habitat
located in nearby open space
areas. No CNDDB records occur
within five miles of the Project
Area.
Campylorhynchus
brunneicapillus
sandiegensis
coastal cactus wren
USFWS: BCC
CDFW: SSC
MHCP: Covered
Inhabits coastal sage scrub and
scrubby desert habitats. In
coastal California, patches of
prickly pear and cholla cacti
within coastal sage scrub
provides habitat.
Presumed Absent: No suitable
habitat is present within the
Project Area and buffer. No
CNDDB records occur within five
miles of the Project Area.
Charadrius nivosus
nivosus
western snowy plover
USFWS: THR
CDFW: SSC
MSHCP: Not
Covered
Beaches, coastal dunes, coastal
strand.
Presumed Absent: No suitable
habitat is present within the
Project Area or buffer. One
historic CNDDB record occurs
within five miles of the Project
Area.
Coccyzus americanus
occidentalis
western yellow-billed
cuckoo (nesting)
USFWS: THR
CDFW: END
MSHCP: Covered
Occurs in wooded habitats with
dense cover and nearby water.
These can be woodlands with
low, scrubby vegetation;
overgrown orchards; or dense
thickets along streams and
marshes. They are rare breeders
in riparian woodlands of willows,
cottonwoods, and mesquite that
occur in dense stands. Nests are
often placed in willows located
along streams with cottonwoods
nearby for foraging.
Presumed Absent: No suitable
habitat is present within the
Project Area or buffer. No
CNDDB records occur within five
miles of the Project Area.
Elanus leucurus
white-tailed kite
USFWS: None
CDFW: FP
MSHCP: Covered
Open habitat in lowlands
including savanna, open
woodlands, marshes, and
agricultural fields. Nests in trees
near a marsh.
Presumed Absent: No suitable
habitat is present within the
Project Area or buffer. No
CNDDB records occur within five
miles of the Project Area.
Empidonax traillii
extimus
southwestern willow
flycatcher
USFWS: END
CDFW: END
MSHCP: Covered
Dense thickets of willow and
other deciduous trees and
shrubs, often near water.
Presumed Absent: No suitable
habitat is present within the
Project Area or buffer. No
CNDDB records occur within five
miles of the Project Area.
1921
Appendix E – Special-Status Wildlife Species with Potential to Occur on the Proposed Project ECORP Consulting, Inc.
Wildomar 20-acre Passive Park Project
E–6 April 2024
2022-252.07
Scientific Name
Common Name Status Habitat Preferences Potential for Occurrence Icteria virens
yellow-breasted chat
USFWS: None
CDFW: SSC
MSHCP: Covered
Riparian and upland thickets,
and dry overgrown pastures.
Prefers to nest in dense scrub
along streams or at the edges of
ponds or swamps.
Presumed Absent: No suitable
habitat is present within the
Project Area or buffer. No
CNDDB records occur within five
miles of the Project Area.
Lanius ludovicianus
loggerhead shrike
USFWS: None
CDFW: SSC
MSHCP: Covered
Open country, with scattered
shrubs and trees or other
perches for hunting; includes
agricultural fields, deserts,
grasslands, savanna, and
chaparral.
Low: Limited suitable habitat is
present within the Project Area
and buffer. One historic CNDDB
record occurs within five miles
of the Project Area.
Polioptila californica
californica
coastal California
gnatcatcher
USFWS: THR
CDFW: SSC
MSHCP: Covered
Inhabits coastal sage scrub
habitat less than 3000’ in
elevation along the coast.
Presumed Absent: No suitable
coastal sage scrub habitat is
present within the Project Area
or buffer. Two recent records
and 23 historic records in
CNDDB occur within five miles
of the Project Area with the
closest recent record occurring
0.9 miles east of the Project
Area, where six adults and nine
juveniles were observed in 2016.
Vireo bellii pusillus
least Bell’s vireo
USFWS: END
CDFW: END
MSHCP: Covered
Inhabits dense, low shrubby
vegetation, generally early
successional stages in riparian
areas, often near water in arid
regions.
Low: Limited suitable riparian
habitat is present within the
Project Area and buffer. Five
recent CNDDB records occur
within five miles of the Project
Area, with the closest
occurrence being three miles
northwest of the Project Area
from 2010.
MAMMALS
Antrozous pallidus
pallid bat
USFWS: None
CDFW: SSC
MHCP: Not
Covered
Roosts in rock crevices, caves,
mines, buildings, bridges, and in
trees. Generally in mountainous
areas, lowland desert scrub, arid
grasslands near water and rocky
outcrops, and open woodlands.
Presumed Absent: No suitable
habitat is present within the
Project Area or buffer. No
CNDDB records occur within five
miles of the Project Area.
Dipodomys merriami
parvus
San Bernardino kangaroo
rat
USFWS: END
CDFW: END, SSC
MSHCP: Covered
Alluvial sage scrub, flood plains,
washes, and upland areas
adjacent to desert habitat.
Presumed Absent: No suitable
habitat is present within the
Project Area or buffer. One
historic CNDDB record occurs
within five miles of the Project
Area.
1922
Appendix E – Special-Status Wildlife Species with Potential to Occur on the Proposed Project ECORP Consulting, Inc.
Wildomar 20-acre Passive Park Project
E–7 April 2024
2022-252.07
Scientific Name
Common Name Status Habitat Preferences Potential for Occurrence Dipodomys stephensi
Stephen’s kangaroo rat
USFWS: THR
CDFW: THR
MSHCP: Covered
Annual grasslands and coastal
sage scrub with sparsely spaced
vegetation and loose friable
soils, and flat or slightly rolling
terrain.
Low: Limited suitable habitat is
present within the Project Area
or buffer. Ten historic CNDDB
record occurs within five miles
of the Project Area.
Eumops perotis
californicus
western mastiff bat
USFWS: None
CDFW: SSC
MSHCP: Not
Covered
Roosts high above ground in
rock and cliff crevices, shallow
caves, and rarely in buildings.
Occurs in arid and semiarid
regions including rocky canyon
habitats.
Presumed Absent: No suitable
habitat is present within the
Project Area or buffer. One
historic CNDDB record occurs
within five miles of the Project
Area.
Lasiurus frantzii
western red bat
USFWS: None
CDFW: SSC
MSHCP: Not
Covered
Tree-roosting bat that roosts in
foliage. Solitary bat that roosts
in foliage of trees or large leafy
shrubs. Occurs in lowlands to
mountains, in woodlands and
forests and, especially along
riparian habitats.
Moderate: Suitable habitat is
present within the Project Area
and buffer within the trees,
especially those near the natural
drainage. No CNDDB records
occur within five miles of the
Project Area.
Lasiurus xanthinus
western yellow bat
USFWS: None
CDFW: SSC
MSHCP: Not
Covered
Roosts in trees, especially in fan
palms with intact dead frond
skirts. Has also been found
roosting in cottonwood trees.
Found in riparian woodlands in
arid regions, oak or pinyonjuniper woodlands, and human developed areas.
Moderate: Suitable habitat is
present within the Project Area
and buffer within the
cottonwood trees. No CNDDB
records occur within five miles
of the Project Area.
Nyctinomops
femorosaccus
pocketed free-tailed bat
USFWS: None
CDFW: SSC
MHCP: Not
Covered
During dry season, utilizes water
sources with large available
surfaces. Roosts in caves, rock
crevices and cliff faces.
Presumed Absent: No suitable
habitat is present within the
Project Area or buffer. No
CNDDB records occur within five
miles of the Project Area.
Onychomys torridus
ramona
southern grasshopper
mouse
USFWS: None
CDFW: SSC
MHCP: Not
Covered
Low, semi-open, and open scrub
habitats with flat, sandy valley
floors. Habitats include coastal
and mixed chaparral, coastal
sage scrub, riparian scrub, low
sagebrush, and grasslands with
interspaced shrubs.
Presumed Absent: No suitable
habitat is present within the
Project Area or buffer. No
CNDDB records occur within five
miles of the Project Area.
Perognathus
longimembris brevinasus
Los Angeles pocket mouse
USFWS: None
CDFW: SSC
MHCP: Covered
Habitats with sandy and fine
soils, including grasslands,
coastal sage scrub, and alluvial
sage scrub.
Presumed Absent: No suitable
habitat is present within the
Project Area or buffer. No
CNDDB records occur within five
miles of the Project Area.
1923
Appendix E – Special-Status Wildlife Species with Potential to Occur on the Proposed Project ECORP Consulting, Inc.
Wildomar 20-acre Passive Park Project
E–8 April 2024
2022-252.07
Scientific Name
Common Name Status Habitat Preferences Potential for Occurrence Federal Designations
(FESA, USFWS)
END: Federally listed, endangered
THR: Federally listed, threatened
CAN: Federal candidate for listing
P: Protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act State Designations
(CESA, CDFW)
END: State-listed, endangered
THR: State-listed, threatened
SSC: California Species of Special Concern
CAN: State candidate for listing
FP: Fully Protected
Local Designations
[Western Riverside Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP)] Covered:Species adequately conserved through the conservation and management actions implemented through adoption of the MSHCP Plan.
Sources: California Natural Diversity Data Base (CDFW 2024a), State and Federally Listed Endangered and Threatened Animals of California (CDFW 2024b), Special Animals List (CDFW 2024d), MSHCP (RCTLMA 2024), IPAC Trust Resources List (USFWS 2024a)
1924
This page intentionally left blank.
1925
20-Acre Passive Park (CIP 099) IS/MND
PlaceWorks
Appendix 4 Archeological Resources Inventory Report
1926
Archaeological Resources Inventory Report
for the
20-Acre Passive Park Project
City of Wildomar, Riverside County, California
Prepared For:
PlaceWorks, Inc.
750 B Street, Suite 1620
San Diego, California 92101
Prepared By:
2861 Pullman Street
Santa Ana, California 92705
May 2024
ECORP Consulting, Inc.
ENVIRONMENTAL CONSULTANTS
1927
Archaeological Resources Inventory Report
ECORP Consulting, Inc.
20-Acre Park Project
i May 2024
2022-252.07
MANAGEMENT SUMMARY
PlaceWorks, Inc. retained ECORP Consulting, Inc. in 2022 to conduct an archaeological resources inventory for the 20-Acre Passive Park Project in the City of Wildomar, Riverside County, California. The Project proposes to construct water, sewer, and irrigation systems; parking lots; a pedestrian bridge and walking trail; drinking fountains, dog drinking fountains, and waste stations; a frisbee golf course; benches; and shade structures.
The inventory included a records search, literature review, and field survey. The records search results indicated that three previous cultural resources studies have been conducted within the Project Area. As a result of those studies, two sites have previously been recorded within the Project Area: P-33-4725 and P33-4726, both of which are pre-contact lithic scatters. However, a review of site records, aerial images, and the results of the survey suggest that these two resources were incorrectly mapped within the Project Area and are both located outside of the Project Area, on an adjacent property to the southeast. Based on this review, the property that contains those resources has undergone development since their recording, including the addition of buildings, driveways, and landscaping.
The field survey yielded no cultural resources; therefore, ECORP does not recommend any further mitigation measures. Recommendations for the management of unanticipated discoveries are provided. 1928
Archaeological Resources Inventory Report
ECORP Consulting, Inc.
20-Acre Park Project
ii May 2024
2022-252.07
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Project Location ................................................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Project Description ............................................................................................................................................. 1
1.3 Area of Potential Effects ................................................................................................................................... 1
1.4 Regulatory Context ............................................................................................................................................. 3
1.4.1 National Environmental Policy Act .............................................................................................. 3
1.4.2 National Historic Preservation Act ............................................................................................... 3
1.4.3 California Environmental Quality Act.......................................................................................... 5
1.5 Report Organization........................................................................................................................................... 6
2.0 SETTING ................................................................................................................................................................................... 7
2.1 Environmental Setting ....................................................................................................................................... 7
2.2 Geology and Soils ............................................................................................................................................... 7
2.3 Vegetation and Wildlife .................................................................................................................................... 7
3.0 CULTURAL CONTEXT .......................................................................................................................................................... 8
3.1 Regional Pre-Contact History ......................................................................................................................... 8
3.1.1 Paleo-Indian Period/Terminal Pleistocene (12,000 to 10,000 BP) .................................... 8
3.1.2 Early Archaic Period/Early Holocene (10,000 to 8,500 BP) ................................................. 8
3.1.3 Encinitas Tradition or Milling Stone Period/Middle Holocene (8,500 to 1,250 BP) .. 8
3.1.4 Palomar Tradition (1,250 to 150 BP) ............................................................................................ 9
3.2 Local Pre-Contact History ............................................................................................................................. 10
3.2.1 Peninsular I (950 to 750 BP) ........................................................................................................ 10
3.2.2 Peninsular II (750 to 350 BP) ....................................................................................................... 11
3.2.3 Peninsular III (300 BP to AD 1769) ............................................................................................ 11
3.3 Ethnohistory ....................................................................................................................................................... 11
3.4 Regional History ............................................................................................................................................... 13
3.5 City of Wildomar History ............................................................................................................................... 14
4.0 METHODS ............................................................................................................................................................................ 15
4.1 Personnel Qualifications ................................................................................................................................ 15
4.2 Records Search Methods .............................................................................................................................. 16
4.3 Sacred Lands File Coordination Methods .............................................................................................. 17
4.4 Tribal Outreach Coordination Methods .................................................................................................. 17
4.5 Other Interested Party Consultation Methods ..................................................................................... 18
4.6 Field Methods .................................................................................................................................................... 18
5.0 RESULTS ................................................................................................................................................................................ 18 1929
Archaeological Resources Inventory Report
ECORP Consulting, Inc.
20-Acre Park Project
iii May 2024
2022-252.07
5.1 Records Search .................................................................................................................................................. 18
5.1.1 Previous Research............................................................................................................................ 18
5.1.2 Records ................................................................................................................................................ 23
5.1.3 Map Review and Aerial Photographs ...................................................................................... 25
5.2 Sacred Lands File Results .............................................................................................................................. 26
5.3 Tribal Outreach Coordination Results ...................................................................................................... 26
5.4 Other Interested Party Consultation Results ......................................................................................... 26
5.5 Field Survey Results ......................................................................................................................................... 26
5.5.1 Cultural Resources........................................................................................................................... 28
6.0 MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS ........................................................................................................................... 28
6.1 Conclusions ........................................................................................................................................................ 28
6.2 Likelihood for Subsurface Cultural Resources ...................................................................................... 28
6.3 Recommendations ........................................................................................................................................... 28
6.3.1 Contractor Awareness Training .................................................................................................. 28
6.3.2 Archaeological Monitoring .......................................................................................................... 29
7.0 REFERENCES CITED .......................................................................................................................................................... 30
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Project Location and Vicinity ........................................................................................................................................ 2 Figure 2. Study Boundary Overview, Aerial ............................................................................................................................. 21 Figure 3. Study Boundary Overview, Topographic ............................................................................................................... 22 Figure 4. Project Area Overview (view southeast; April 17, 2024). ................................................................................. 27 Figure 5. Project Area Overview (view southwest; April 17, 2024). ................................................................................ 27
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Previous Cultural Studies within the Project Area ................................................................................................ 19 Table 2. Previously Recorded Cultural Resources within 1 mile of the Project Area ............................................... 19 Table 3. Riverside County Built Environment Resources within 1 mile of the Project Area ................................. 23
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A – Records Search Confirmation and Historical Society Coordination Appendix B – Sacred Lands File Coordination and Tribal Outreach Appendix C – Project Area Photographs
1930
Archaeological Resources Inventory Report
ECORP Consulting, Inc.
20-Acre Park Project
iv May 2024
2022-252.07
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
Term Definition
AB Assembly Bill
ACHP Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
APE Area of Potential Effects
APN Assessor Parcel Number
BLM Bureau of Land Management
BERD Built Environment Resource Directory
BP Before present
Caltrans California Department of Transportation
CCR California Code of Regulations
CEQA California Environmental Quality Act
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CHL California Historical Landmarks
CHRIS California Historical Resources Information System CRHR California Register of Historical Resources
CSRR California Southern Railroad Company
DPR Department of Parks and Recreation
EIC Eastern Information Center
GLO General Land Office
NAHC Native American Heritage Commission
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
NHPA National Historic Preservation Act
NPS National Park Service
NRHP National Register of Historic Places
OHP Office of Historic Preservation
PRC Public Resources Code
Project 20-Acre Park Project
RPA Registered Professional Archaeologist
SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer
SRS Scientific Resource Surveys, Inc.
TCRs Tribal Cultural Resources
USGS U.S. Geological Survey
1931
Archaeological Resources Inventory Report
ECORP Consulting, Inc.
20-Acre Passive Park Project
1 May 2024
2022-252.07
1.0 INTRODUCTION
PlaceWorks, Inc. retained ECORP Consulting, Inc. in 2022 to conduct an archaeological resources inventory for the 20-Acre Passive Park Project in Riverside County, California. A survey of the Proposed Project Area was required to identify potentially eligible cultural resources (i.e., archaeological sites and historic buildings, structures, and objects) that could be affected by the Project.
1.1 Project Location
The Project Area consists of 23.096 acres of property located in an unsectioned portion of the Rancho La Laguna Land Grant in Township 6 South, Range 4 West, San Bernardino Base and Meridian, as depicted on the 1997 U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Wildomar, California 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle map (Figure 1). The Project Area consists of Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 380-050-025 and a portion of APN 380-050-027. It is located to the northeast of Palomar Street, northwest of Refa Street, and east of Ann Sullivan Preschool and Transitional Kindergarten.
1.2 Project Description
The Proposed Project entails the construction of water, sewer, irrigation system, and electrical services; construction of a parking lot off of Palomar Street and possibly a parking lot off of Gierson Avenue; design of a pedestrian bridge; construction of a walking course/trail through the park; and installation of drinking fountains, dog drinking fountains and dog waste stations, a frisbee golf course, benches, shade structures, drainage improvements, and foot bridges.
1.3 Area of Potential Effects
The Area of Potential Effects (APE) consists of the horizontal and vertical limits of a project and includes the area within which significant impacts or adverse effects to Historical Resources or Historic Properties could occur as a result of the project. The APE is defined for projects subject to regulations implementing Section 106 (federal law and regulations). For projects subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review, the term Project Area is used rather than APE. The terms Project Area and APE are interchangeable for the purpose of this document.
The horizontal APE consists of all areas where activities associated with a project are proposed and, in the case of this Project, equals the Project Area subject to environmental review under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and CEQA. This includes areas proposed for construction, vegetation removal, grading, trenching, stockpiling, staging, paving, and other elements in the official Project description. The horizontal APE is illustrated in Figure 1 and represents the survey coverage area.
The vertical APE is described as the maximum depth below the surface to which excavations for project foundations and facilities will extend. Therefore, the vertical APE for this Project includes all subsurface areas where archaeological deposits could be affected. The subsurface vertical APE varies across the Project Area, however, this study assumes that ground disturbance will not extend more than 6 feet below the current surface; therefore, a review of geologic and soils maps was necessary to determine the potential for buried archaeological sites that cannot be seen on the surface. 1932
i
C:
~ ~ ---"-IJl...il"'--......_cl.L__.__,,.........,'.LL..L_L.-21a.,,....,_----'----_,/L-'----'---___:;~ j' CJ
f
j
~
II!.
Riverside County, California
Unsectioned La Laguna (Stearns) Land
Grant
Latitude (NAD83): 33.602727°
·~ Longitude (NAD83): -117.26591°
~ Watershed: Santa Mar arita 18070302
i
~
~
:;j
~ !:!,
[;J
!:!,
z
8 Scale in Feet
0 1,000 2,000
Wildomar (1997 p.r. 2000, NAO 27)
CA 7.5-minute Topographic Quadrangle
US Geological Survey.
Map Date: 4/30/2024 Sources: ESR/, USGS
ECORP Consulting, Inc. ENVIRONMENTAL CO 5ULTANT5
• Lijkelanl:::I Villagle
Figure 1. Project Location and Vicinity
2022-252.07 20-Acre Passive Park Project
1933
Archaeological Resources Inventory Report
ECORP Consulting, Inc.
20-Acre Passive Park Project 3 May 2024
2022-252.07
The vertical APE also is described as the maximum height of structures that could impact the physical integrity and integrity of setting of cultural resources, including districts and traditional cultural properties.
For this Project, the above-surface vertical APE is as high as 15 feet above the surface, which is the maximum height of the proposed shade structures.
1.4 Regulatory Context
The CEQA lead agency for this Project is the City of Wildomar. A review of the regulatory context is provided below; however, the inclusion of any of these laws and regulations in this report does not make a law or regulation apply when it otherwise would not. Similarly, the omission of any other laws and regulations from this section does not mean that they do not apply. Rather, the purpose of this section is to provide context in explaining why the study was carried out in the manner documented herein.
1.4.1 National Environmental Policy Act
NEPA establishes national policy for the protection and enhancement of the environment. Part of the function of the federal government in protecting the environment is to “preserve important historic, cultural, and natural aspects of our national heritage.” Cultural resources need not be determined eligible for the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) through the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966 (as amended) to receive consideration under NEPA. NEPA is implemented by regulations of the Council on Environmental Quality (40 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] 1500-1508).
The definition of effects in the NEPA regulations includes adverse and beneficial effects on historic and cultural resources (40 CFR 1508.8). Therefore, the Environmental Consequences section of an Environmental Impact Statement [see 40 CFR 1502.16(f)] must analyze potential effects to historic or cultural resources that could result from the proposed action and each alternative. In considering whether an alternative may “significantly affect the quality of the human environment,” a federal agency must consider, among other things:
Unique characteristics of the geographic area, such as proximity to historic or cultural resources (40 CFR 1508.27(b)(3)), and
The degree to which the action may adversely affect districts, sites, highways, structures, or objects listed in or eligible for listing in the NRHP (40 CFR 1508.27(b)(8)).
Therefore, because historic properties are a subset of cultural resources, they are one aspect of the human environment defined by NEPA regulations.
1.4.2 National Historic Preservation Act
The federal law that covers cultural resources that could be affected by federal undertakings is the NHPA of 1966, as amended. Section 106 of the NHPA requires that federal agencies take into account the effects of a federal undertaking on properties listed in or eligible for the NRHP. The agencies must afford the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) a reasonable opportunity to comment on the undertaking. A federal undertaking is defined in 36 CFR 800.16(y):
■
■
1934
Archaeological Resources Inventory Report
ECORP Consulting, Inc.
20-Acre Passive Park Project
4 May 2024
2022-252.07
A federal undertaking means a project, activity, or program funded in whole or in part under the direct or indirect jurisdiction of a federal agency, including those carried out by or on behalf of a federal agency; those carried out with Federal financial assistance; and those requiring a Federal permit, license, or approval.
The regulations that stipulate the procedures for complying with Section 106 are in 36 CFR 800. The Section 106 regulations require:
definition of the APE;
identification of cultural resources within the APE;
evaluation of the identified resources in the APE using NRHP eligibility criteria; determination of whether the effects of the undertaking or project on eligible resources will be adverse; and
agreement on and implementation of efforts to resolve adverse effects, if necessary.
The federal agency must seek comment from the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) and, in some cases, the ACHP, for its determinations of eligibility, effects, and proposed mitigation measures. Section 106 procedures for a specific project can be modified by negotiation of a Memorandum of Agreement or Programmatic Agreement between the federal agency, the SHPO, and, in some cases, the project proponent.
Effects to a cultural resource are potentially adverse if the lead federal agency, with the SHPO’s concurrence, determines the resource eligible for the NRHP, making it a Historic Property, and if application of the Criteria of Adverse Effects (36 CFR 800.5[a][2] et seq.) results in the conclusion that the effects will be adverse. The NRHP eligibility criteria, contained in 36 CFR 60.4, are as follows:
The quality of significance in American history, architecture, archaeology, and culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects of state and local importance that possess aspects of integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, association, and
A. that are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or
B. that are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or C. that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or
D. that have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory.
In addition, the resource must be at least 50 years old, barring exceptional circumstances (36 CFR 60.4).
Resources that are eligible for, or listed on, the NRHP are historic properties. ■
■
■
■
■
1935
Archaeological Resources Inventory Report
ECORP Consulting, Inc.
20-Acre Passive Park Project 5 May 2024
2022-252.07
Regulations implementing Section 106 of the NHPA (36 CFR 800.5) require that the federal agency, in consultation with the SHPO, apply the Criteria of Adverse Effect to historic properties within the APE.
According to 36 CFR 800.5(a)(1):
An adverse effect is found when an undertaking may alter, directly or indirectly, any of the characteristics of a historic property that qualify the property for inclusion in the National Register in a manner that would diminish the integrity of the property’s location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling or association.
1.4.3 California Environmental Quality Act
CEQA is the state law that applies to a project’s impacts on cultural resources. A project is an activity that may cause a direct or indirect physical change in the environment and that is undertaken or funded by a state or local agency, or requires a permit, license, or lease from a state or local agency. CEQA requires that impacts to Historical Resources be identified and, if the impacts will be significant, then apply mitigation measures to reduce the impacts.
A Historical Resource is a resource that 1) is listed in or has been determined eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) by the State Historical Resources Commission, or has been determined historically significant by the CEQA lead agency because it meets the eligibility criteria for the CRHR, 2) is included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in Public Resources Code (PRC) 5020.1(k), or 3), and has been identified as significant in a historical resources survey, as defined in PRC 5024.1(g) (California Code of Regulations [CCR] Title 14, Section 15064.5(a)).
The eligibility criteria for the CRHR are as follows (CCR Title 14, Section 4852(b)):
(1) It is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history, or the cultural heritage of California or the United States; (2) It is associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or national history; (3) It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of a master or possesses high artistic values; or (4) It has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California, or the nation.
In addition, the resource must retain integrity, which is evaluated with regard to the retention of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association (CCR Title 14, Section 4852(c)). Resources that have been determined eligible for the NRHP are automatically eligible for the CRHR.
Impacts to a Historical Resource, as defined by CEQA (listed in an official historic inventory or survey or eligible for the CRHR), are significant if the resource is demolished or destroyed or if the characteristics that made the resource eligible are materially impaired (CCR Title 14, Section 15064.5(b)). Demolition or alteration of eligible buildings, structures, and features that they would no longer be eligible would result in a significant impact. Whole or partial destruction of eligible archaeological sites would result in a 1936
Archaeological Resources Inventory Report
ECORP Consulting, Inc.
20-Acre Passive Park Project 6 May 2024
2022-252.07
significant impact. In addition to impacts from construction resulting in destruction or physical alteration of an eligible resource, impacts to the integrity of setting (sometimes termed visual impacts) of physical features in the Project Area could also result in significant impacts.
Tribal cultural resources (TCRs) are defined in Section 21074 of the California PRC as sites, features, places, cultural landscapes (geographically defined in terms of the size and scope), sacred places, and objects with cultural value to a California Native American tribe that are either included in or determined to be eligible for inclusion in the CRHR, or are included in a local register of historical resources as defined in subdivision (k) of Section 5020.1, or are a resource determined by the lead agency, in its discretion and supported by substantial evidence, to be significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (c) of Section 5024.1. Section 1(b)(4) of Assembly Bill (AB) 52 established that only California Native American tribes, as defined in Section 21073 of the California PRC, are experts in the identification of TCRs and impacts thereto. Because ECORP does not meet the definition of a California Native American tribe, it only addresses information in this report for which it is qualified to identify and evaluate, and that which is needed to inform the cultural resources section of CEQA documents. This report, therefore, does not identify or evaluate TCRs. Should California Native American tribes ascribe additional importance to or interpretation of archaeological resources described herein, or provide information about nonarcheological TCRs, that information is documented separately in the AB 52 tribal consultation record between the tribe(s) and lead agency and summarized in the TCRs section of the CEQA document, if applicable.
1.5 Report Organization
The following report documents the study and its findings and was prepared in conformance with the California Office of Historic Preservation’s (OHP) Archaeological Resource Management Reports:
Recommended Contents and Format. Appendix A includes a confirmation of the records search with the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS) and historical society coordination. Appendix B contains documentation of a search of the Sacred Lands File. Appendix C presents photographs of the Project Area, and Appendix D contains confidential cultural resource site locations and site records.
Sections 6253, 6254, and 6254.10 of the California Code authorize state agencies to exclude archaeological site information from public disclosure under the Public Records Act. In addition, the California Public Records Act (Government Code § 6250 et seq.) and California’s open meeting laws (The Brown Act, Government Code § 54950 et seq.) protect the confidentiality of Native American cultural place information. Because the disclosure of information about the location of cultural resources is prohibited by the Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979 (16 U.S. Code 552 470hh) and Section 307103 of the NHPA, it is exempted from disclosure under Exemption 3 of the federal Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S. Code 552) Likewise, the Information Centers of the CHRIS maintained by the OHP prohibit public dissemination of records search information. In compliance with these requirements, the results of this cultural resource investigation were prepared as a confidential document, which is not intended for public distribution.
1937
Archaeological Resources Inventory Report
ECORP Consulting, Inc.
20-Acre Passive Park Project
7 May 2024
2022-252.07
2.0 SETTING
2.1 Environmental Setting
Elevations within the Project Area range from 1,245 to 1,276 feet above mean sea level. The Project Area is located northwest of the Elsinore Mountains and 2 miles east of Elsinore Peak. It is also 4 miles southeast of Lake Elsinore. Murrieta Creek passes approximately 0.3 mile south-southwest of the Project Area.
2.2 Geology and Soils
The U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey website (2024) indicates that the Project Area contains a total of nine soil types:
Greenfield sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes
Greenfield sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes
Hanford coarse sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes
Hanford sandy loam, 2 to 15 percent slopes
Monserate sandy loam, 0 to 5 percent slopes
Monserate sandy loam, 5 to 8 percent slopes, eroded
Monserate sandy loam, shallow, 5 to 15 percent slopes, eroded Placentia fine sandy loam, 0 to 5 percent slopes
Placentia fine sandy loam, 5 to 15 percent slopes
A review of geologic area maps for the Project Area indicates that the soil is composed of Holocene and late-Pleistocene young alluvial fan axial channel deposits, which are contemporaneous with human occupation in the region and have the potential to contain cultural deposits (Engel et al. 1959). These consist of predominantly gravel, sand, and silt. The Project Area also contains Pauba Formation Pleistocene sandstone deposits, which are cross-bedded sandstone that contain sparse cobble- to boulder-conglomerate beds.
The Project Area has a moderate potential for buried pre-contact archaeological sites due to the presence of alluvium along Murrietta Creek and the likelihood of pre-contact archaeological sites to located along perennial waterways.
2.3 Vegetation and Wildlife
The dominant plant community within the Project Area includes California buckwheat, black sage, bristly fiddleneck, and mulefat (ECORP 2024). Wildlife species that may occur in the Project Area include Cooper’s hawk, song sparrow, black phoebe, and mourning dove (ECORP 2024). ■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
1938
Archaeological Resources Inventory Report
ECORP Consulting, Inc.
20-Acre Passive Park Project 8 May 2024
2022-252.07
3.0 CULTURAL CONTEXT
3.1 Regional Pre-Contact History
3.1.1 Paleo-Indian Period/Terminal Pleistocene (12,000 to 10,000 BP) The first inhabitants of southern California were big game hunters and gatherers exploiting extinct species of Pleistocene megafauna (e.g., mammoth, and other Rancholabrean fauna). Local "fluted point" assemblages comprised of large spear points or knives are stylistically and technologically similar to the Clovis Paleo-Indian cultural tradition dated to this period elsewhere in North America (Moratto 1984).
Archaeological evidence for this period in southern California is limited to a few small temporary camps with fluted points found around late Pleistocene lake margins in the Mojave Desert and around Tulare Lake in the southern San Joaquin Valley. Single points are reported from Ocotillo Wells and Cuyamaca Pass in eastern San Diego County and from the Yuha Desert in Imperial County (Rondeau et al. 2007).
3.1.2 Early Archaic Period/Early Holocene (10,000 to 8,500 BP) Approximately 10,000 years ago, at the beginning of the Holocene, warming temperatures, and the extinction of the megafauna resulted in changing subsistence strategies with an emphasis hunting smaller game and increasing reliance on plant gathering. Previously, Early Holocene sites were represented by only a few sites and isolates from the Lake Mojave and San Dieguito complexes found along former lakebeds and grasslands of the Mojave Desert and in inland San Diego County. More recently, southern California Early Holocene sites have been found along the Santa Barbara Channel (Erlandson 1994), in western Riverside County (Goldberg 2001; Grenda 1997), and along the San Diego County coast (Gallegos 1991; Koerper et al. 1991; Warren 1967).
The San Dieguito Complex was defined based on material found at the Harris site (CA-SDI-149) on the San Dieguito River near Lake Hodges in San Diego County. San Dieguito artifacts include large leafshaped points; leaf-shaped knives; large ovoid, domed, and rectangular end and side scrapers; engraving tools; and crescentics (Koerper et al. 1991). The San Dieguito Complex at the Harris site dates to 9,000 to 7,500 years before present (BP) (Gallegos 1991). However, sites from this time period in coastal San Diego County have yielded artifacts and subsistence remains characteristic of the succeeding Encinitas Tradition, including manos, metates, core-cobble tools, and marine shell (Gallegos 1991; Koerper et al. 1991).
3.1.3 Encinitas Tradition or Milling Stone Period/Middle Holocene (8,500 to 1,250 BP) The Encinitas Tradition (Warren 1968) and the Milling Stone Period (Wallace 1955) refer to a long period of time during which small mobile bands of people who spoke an early Hokan language foraged for a wide variety of resources including hard seeds, berries, and roots/tubers (yucca in inland areas), rabbits and other small animals, and shellfish and fish in coastal areas. Sites from the Encinitas Tradition consist of residential bases and resource acquisition locations with no evidence for overnight stays. Residential bases have hearths and fire-affected rock indicating overnight stays and food preparation. Residential bases along the coast have large amounts of shell and are often termed shell middens. 1939
Archaeological Resources Inventory Report
ECORP Consulting, Inc.
20-Acre Passive Park Project 9 May 2024
2022-252.07
The Encinitas Tradition as originally defined (Warren 1968) applied to all of the non-desert areas of southern California. Recently, four patterns within the Encinitas Tradition have been proposed which apply to different regions of southern California (Sutton and Gardner 2010). The Topanga Pattern includes archaeological material from the Los Angeles Basin and Orange County. The Greven Knoll Pattern pertains to southwestern San Bernardino County and western Riverside County (Sutton and Gardner 2010). Each of the patterns is divided into temporal phases. The Topanga Pattern included the Los Angeles Basin and Orange County. The Topanga I phase extends from 8,500 to 5,000 BP and Topanga II runs from 5,000 to 3,500 BP. The Topanga Pattern ended about 3,500 BP with the arrival of Takic speakers, except in the Santa Monica Mountains where the Topanga III phase lasted until about 2,000 BP.
The Encinitas Tradition in inland areas east of the Topanga Pattern (southwestern San Bernardino County and western Riverside County) is the Greven Knoll Pattern (Sutton and Gardner 2010). Greven Knoll I (9,400 to 4,000 BP) has abundant manos and metates. Projectile points are few and are mostly Pinto points. Greven Knoll II (4,000 to 3,000 BP) has abundant manos and metates and core tools. Projectile points are mostly Elko points. The Elsinore site on the east shore of Lake Elsinore was occupied during Greven Knoll I and Greven Knoll II. During Greven Knoll I faunal processing (butchering) took place at the lakeshore and floral processing (seed grinding), cooking, and eating took place farther from the shore.
The primary foods were rabbit meat and seeds from grasses, sage, and ragweed. A few deer, waterfowl, and reptiles were consumed. The recovered archaeological material suggests that a highly mobile population visited the site at a specific time each year. It is possible that their seasonal round included the ocean coast at other times of the year. These people had an unspecialized technology as exemplified by the numerous crescents, a multi-purpose tool. The few projectile points suggest that most of the small game was trapped using nets and snares (Grenda 1997). During Greven Knoll II, which included a warmer drier climatic episode known as the Altithermal, it is thought that populations in interior southern California concentrated at oases and that Lake Elsinore was one of them. The Elsinore site (CA-RIV-2798) is one of five known Middle Holocene residential sites around Lake Elsinore. Tools were mostly manos, metates, and hammerstones. Scraper planes were absent. Flaked-stone tools consisted mostly of utilized flakes used as scrapers. The Elsinore site during the Middle Holocene was a “recurrent extended encampment” which could have been occupied during much of the year.
The Encinitas Tradition lasted longer in inland areas because Takic speakers did not move east into these areas until circa 1,000 BP. Greven Knoll III (3,000 to 1,000 BP) is present at the Liberty Grove site in Cucamonga (Salls 1983) and at sites in Cajon Pass that were defined as part of the Sayles Complex (Kowta 1969). Greven Knoll III sites have a large proportion of manos and metates and core tools as well as scraper planes. Kowta (1969) suggested the scraper planes may have been used to process yucca and agave. The faunal assemblage consists of large quantities of lagomorphs (rabbits and hares) and lesser quantities of deer, rodents, birds, carnivores, and reptiles.
3.1.4 Palomar Tradition (1,250 to 150 BP)
The native people of southern California (north of a line from Agua Hedionda to Lake Henshaw in San Diego County) spoke Takic languages which form a branch or subfamily of the Uto-Aztecan language family. The Takic languages are divided into the Gabrielino-Fernandeño language, the Serrano-Kitanemuk group (the Serrano [includes the Vanyume dialect] and Kitanemuk languages), the Tataviam language, and 1940
Archaeological Resources Inventory Report
ECORP Consulting, Inc.
20-Acre Passive Park Project 10 May 2024
2022-252.07
the Cupan group (the Luiseño-Juaneño language, the Cahuilla Language, and the Cupeño language) (Golla 2011). According to Sutton (2009), Takic speakers occupied the southern San Joaquin Valley before 3,500 BP. Perhaps as a result of the arrival of Yokutsan speakers (a language in the Penutian language family) from the north, Takic speakers moved southeast. The ancestors of the Kitanemuk moved into the Tehachapi Mountains and the ancestors of the Tataviam moved into the upper Santa Clara River drainage.
The ancestors of the Gabrielino (Tongva) moved into the Los Angeles Basin about 3,500 BP, replacing the native Hokan speakers. Speakers of proto-Gabrielino reached the southern Channel Islands by 3,200 BP (Sutton 2009) and moved as far south as Aliso Creek in Orange County by 3,000 BP.
Takic people moved south into southern Orange County after 1,250 BP and became the ancestors of the Juaneño. Takic people moved inland from southern Orange County about 1,000 BP, becoming the ancestors of the Luiseño, Cupeño, and Cahuilla. Takic people from the Kitanemuk area moved east along the northern slopes of the San Gabriel Mountains and spread into the San Bernardino Mountains and along the Mojave River becoming the ancestors of the Serrano and the Vanyume.
The material culture of the inland areas where Takic languages were spoken at the time of Spanish contact is part of the Palomar Tradition (Sutton 2011). San Luis Rey I Phase (1,000 to 500 BP) and San Luis Rey II Phase (500 to 150 BP) pertain to the area occupied by the Luiseño at the time of Spanish contact. The Peninsular I (1,000 to 750 BP), II (750 to 300 BP), and III (300 to 150 BP) Phases are used in the areas occupied by the Cahuilla and Serrano (Sutton 2011).
San Luis Rey I is characterized by Cottonwood Triangular arrow points, use of bedrock mortars, stone pendants, shell beads, quartz crystals, and bone tools. San Luis Rey II sees the addition of ceramics, including ceramic cremation urns, red pictographs on boulders in village sites, and steatite arrow straighteners. San Luis Rey II represents the archaeological manifestation of the antecedents of the historically known Luiseño (Goldberg 2001). During San Luis Rey I there were a series of small permanent residential bases at water sources, each occupied by a kin group (probably a lineage). During San Luis Rey II people from several related residential bases moved into a large village located at the most reliable water source (Waugh 1986). Each village had a territory that included acorn harvesting camps at higher elevations. Villages have numerous bedrock mortars, large dense midden areas with a full range of flaked and ground stone tools, rock art, and a cemetery.
3.2 Local Pre-Contact History
The Peninsular Complex is the further inland counterpart to the San Luis Rey Complex of the Palomar Tradition which dominated the areas south and east of the Los Angeles Basin during the Late Period. The Peninsular complex developed in and around the San Jacinto Mountains and the northern portion of Lake Cahuilla. It is divided into three temporal phases characterized by shifts in subsistence, material culture, settlement patterns, and mortuary practices, among other traits (Sutton 2011).
3.2.1 Peninsular I (950 to 750 BP)
This first phase of the Peninsular Complex began approximately 950 BP as populations relocated to the area around Lake Cahuilla as it filled with water. Lasting for about 200 years, the Peninsular I phase is characterized by the appearance of Cottonwood points and bow shaft straighteners as an augmentation 1941
Archaeological Resources Inventory Report
ECORP Consulting, Inc.
20-Acre Passive Park Project
11 May 2024
2022-252.07
of already existing bow and arrow technology. Obsidian sources utilized consisted of Coso Volcanic Field, Obsidian Butte, Bagdad, and others. Ceramic vessels from this phase are comprised of Tumco buff and Salton buff, exhibiting a continuation of use of these materials. The presence of Lake Cahuilla allowed for a shift to lacustrine subsistence and settlement patterns were primarily long-term lakeshore villages with special use sites elsewhere. Rock art was present, but less ubiquitous than in cultural groups to the west.
There was also a continued practice of primary pit cremation in mortuary contexts. Linguistically, this phase was characterized by a Proto-Cahuilla language splitting from Proto-Cupan and moving east (Sutton 2011).
3.2.2 Peninsular II (750 to 350 BP)
The shift to the Peninsular II phase began 750 BP, lasting approximately 450 years. Material culture from this time included the continued use of Tumco buff and Salton buff pottery with the addition of Tizon brownware, ceramic pipes, and ceramic figurines. Obsidian continued to be sourced from Coso Volcanic Field and Obsidian Butte along with other sources. Rock art of the San Luis Rey style replaced the previous Rancho Bernardo style, and cremation practices shifted to secondary container cremations and included mourning ceremonies. Subsistence continued to rely heavily on Lake Cahuilla, with the addition of stone fish trap technology. However, village sites along the lakeshore shifted to short-term occupation, with additional villages for special purposes remaining in use elsewhere. Proto-Cahuilla language characterized this phase, with a possible split of Desert Cahuilla to move east to the northern Coachella Valley (Sutton 2011).
3.2.3 Peninsular III (300 BP to AD 1769)
The third phase in the Peninsular Complex occurred from 300 BP to the time of European contact. During this time, the recession of Lake Cahuilla forced subsistence patterns to become reliant on exclusively terrestrial sources. There was a continuation in the use of Cottonwood and Desert Side-notched points, with Obsidian Butte being the primary source of material. Tizon brown pottery also saw continued use during this phase, however, Tumco buff and Salton buff pottery fell out of use, and Colorado buff was introduced. Rock art from this time demonstrated a loss of the San Luis Rey style, which was replaced with “Cahuilla B” style. Permanent settlements were situated around springs, with movement west into more mountainous areas as Lake Cahuilla dried up. Mortuary practices reverted to primary pit cremations but integrated the mourning ceremonies of Peninsular II culture. The Cahuilla language developed three distinct dialects during this phase (Sutton 2011).
3.3 Ethnohistory
The Luiseño are a Takic-speaking people who occupied what is now western Riverside County and northern San Diego County (the San Luis Rey River drainage) in prehistoric and historic times. The term Luiseño was given by the Spanish to the native groups who were living in this area and who were forcibly removed to Mission San Luis Rey. The Luiseño believe the world was created in the area now known as Temecula and that they have been here since the beginning of time (Temecula Valley Historical Society 2014).
1942
Archaeological Resources Inventory Report
ECORP Consulting, Inc.
20-Acre Passive Park Project
12 May 2024
2022-252.07
The Luiseño lived in sedentary and autonomous village groups, each with specific subsistence territories encompassing hunting, collecting, and fishing areas. Villages were typically located in valley bottoms, along streams, or along coastal strands near mountain ranges where water was available and village defense was possible. Inland populations had access to fishing and gathering sites on the coast, which they used during the winter months (Bean and Shipek 1978).
Luiseño subsistence was centered around the gathering of acorns, seeds, greens, bulbs, roots, berries, and other vegetal foods. This was supplemented with hunting mammals such as deer, antelope, rabbit, woodrat, ground squirrels, and mice, as well as quail, doves, ducks, and other birds. Bands along the coast also exploited marine resources, such as sea mammals, fish, crustaceans, and mollusks. Inland, trout and other fish were taken from mountain streams (Bean and Shipek 1978).
Hunting was carried out both individually and by organized groups. Tool technology for food acquisition, storage, and preparation reflects the size and quantity of items procured. Small game was hunted with the use of curved throwing sticks, nets, slings, or traps. Bows and arrows were used for hunting larger game.
Dugout canoes, basketry fish traps, and shell hooks were used for near-shore ocean fishing. Coiled and twined baskets were made for food gathering, preparation, storing, and serving. Other items used for food processing included large shallow trays for winnowing chaff from grain, ceramic and basketry storage containers, manos and metates for grinding seeds, and ceramic jars for cooking (Bean and Shipek 1978).
Villages had hereditary chiefs who controlled religious, economic, and territorial activities (Bean and Shipek 1978; Boscana 1933). An advisory council of ritual specialists and shamans was consulted for environmental and other knowledge. large villages located along the coast or in inland valleys may have had more complex social and political structures than settlements controlling smaller territories (Bean and Shipek 1978; Strong 1929).
Most Luiseño villages contained a ceremonial structure, enclosed by circular fencing and located near the center of the village. Houses were semisubterranean and thatched with locally available brush, bark, or reeds. Earth-covered semisubterranean sweathouses were also common and were used for purification and curing rituals (Bean and Shipek 1978).
The Luiseño first came into contact with Europeans in 1769 when the expedition led by Gaspar de Portolá arrived in their territory. That same year, the San Diego Mission was established just to the south, followed by the San Juan Capistrano Mission in 1776 and the San Luis Rey Mission in 1798. Poor living conditions at the missions and introduced European diseases led to a rapid decline of the Luiseño population.
Following the Mission Period (1769-1834), Luiseño Indians scattered throughout southern California.
Some became serfs on the Mexican ranchos, others moved to newly founded pueblos established for them, some sought refuge among inland groups, and a few managed to acquire land grants. Later, many moved to or were forced onto reservations. Although many of their cultural traditions had been suppressed during the Mission Period, the Luiseño were successful at retaining their language and certain rituals and ceremonies. Starting in the 1970s, there was a revival of interest in the Luiseño language and classes were organized. Since then, traditional games, songs, and dances have been performed, traditional 1943
Archaeological Resources Inventory Report
ECORP Consulting, Inc.
20-Acre Passive Park Project 13 May 2024
2022-252.07
foods have been gathered and prepared, and traditional medicines and curing procedures have been practiced (Bean and Shipek 1978).
3.4 Regional History
The first European to visit California was Spanish maritime explorer Juan Rodriguez Cabrillo in 1542.
Cabrillo was sent north by the Viceroy of New Spain (now Mexico) to look for the Northwest Passage.
Cabrillo visited San Diego Bay, Catalina Island, San Pedro Bay, and the northern Channel Islands. The English adventurer Francis Drake visited the Miwok Native American group at Drake’s Bay or Bodega Bay in 1579. Sebastian Vizcaíno explored the coast as far north as Monterey in 1602. He reported that Monterey was an excellent location for a port (Castillo 1978). Vizcaíno also named San Diego Bay to commemorate Saint Didacus. The name began to appear on European maps of the New World by 1624 (Gudde 1998).
Colonization of California began with the Spanish Portolá land expedition. The expedition, led by Captain Gaspar de Portolá of the Spanish army and Father Junipero Serra, a Franciscan missionary, explored the California coast from San Diego to the Monterey Bay Area in 1769. As a result of this expedition, Spanish missions to convert the native population, presidios (forts), and towns were established. The Franciscan missionary friars established 21 missions in Alta California (the area north of Baja California) beginning with Mission San Diego in 1769 and ending with the mission in Sonoma established in 1823. The purpose of the missions and presidios was to establish Spanish economic, military, political, and religious control over the Alta California territory. Mission San Diego was established to convert the Native Americans that lived in the area, known as the Kumeyaay or Diegueño. Mission San Gabriel Archangel was founded in 1771 east of what is now Los Angeles to convert the Tongva or Gabrielino. Mission San Fernando, also in Tongva/Gabrielino territory, was established in 1797. Mission San Juan Capistrano was established in 1776 on San Juan Creek (in what is now southern Orange County) to convert the Agjachemem or Juaneño.
Mission San Luis Rey was established in 1798 on the San Luis Rey River (in what is now northern San Diego County) to convert the Luiseño. Missions San Buenaventura and Santa Barbara were founded in Chumash territory in 1782 and 1786, respectively (Castillo 1978).
Some missions later established outposts in inland areas. An asistencia (mission outpost) of Mission San Luis Rey, known as San Antonio de Pala, was built in Luiseño territory along the upper San Luis Rey River near Mount Palomar in 1810 (Pourade 1961). A chapel administered by Mission San Gabriel Archangel was established in the San Bernardino area in 1819 (Bean and Smith 1978). The present asistencia within the western outskirts of present-day Redlands was built circa 1830 (Haenszel and Reynolds 1975). The missions sustained themselves through cattle ranching and traded hides and tallow for supplies brought by ship. Large cattle ranches were established by Mission San Luis Rey at Temecula and San Jacinto (Gunther 1984). The Spanish also constructed presidios, or forts, at San Diego and Santa Barbara, and a pueblo, or town, was established at Los Angeles. The Spanish period in California began in 1769 with the Portola expedition and ended in 1821 with Mexican independence.
After Mexico became independent from Spain in 1821, what is now California became the Mexican province of Alta California. The Mexican government closed the missions in the 1830s and former mission lands were granted to retired soldiers and other Mexican citizens for use as cattle ranches. Much of the 1944
Archaeological Resources Inventory Report
ECORP Consulting, Inc.
20-Acre Passive Park Project
14 May 2024
2022-252.07
land along the coast and in the interior valleys became part of Mexican land grants or “ranchos” (Robinson 1948). During the Mexican period there were small towns at San Diego (near the presidio), San Juan Capistrano (around the mission), and Los Angeles. The rancho owners lived in one of the towns or in an adobe house on the rancho. The Mexican Period includes the years 1821 to 1848.
The American period began when the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo was signed between Mexico and the United States in 1848. As a result of the treaty, Alta California became part of the United States as the territory of California. Rapid population increase occasioned by the Gold Rush of 1849 allowed California to become a state in 1850. Most Mexican land grants were confirmed to the grantees by U.S. courts, but usually with more restricted boundaries which were surveyed by the U.S. Surveyor General’s office. Land that was not part of a land grant was owned by the U.S. government until it was acquired by individuals through purchase or homesteading. Floods and drought in the 1860s greatly reduced the cattle herds on the ranchos, making it difficult to pay the new American taxes on the thousands of acres they owned.
Many Mexican-American cattle ranchers borrowed money at usurious rates from newly arrived AngloAmericans. The resulting foreclosures and land sales transferred most of the land grants into the hands of Anglo-Americans (Cleland 1941).
3.5 City of Wildomar History
Rancho La Laguna was a grant of three-square leagues made by Mexican governor Manuel Micheltorena to Julian Manriquez in 1844 (Gunther 1984). Rancho La Laguna included Lake Elsinore and what is now Wildomar. The land grant was confined to the valley floor and did not include the surrounding hills.
After Julian Manriquez died, Rancho La Laguna was sold by his widow to Abel Stearns in 1852. Stearns, who lived in Los Angeles, sold the rancho to Agustín Machado in 1858. Machado and his family lived in an adobe house northwest of the lake. When confirmed by the United States in 1872, the grant had an area of 13,339 acres (Gunther 1984). Machado’s widow and 11 of the 12 children sold most of the rancho to an Englishman, Charles A. Sumner, in 1873. Machado’s oldest son, Juan Machado, retained the house and 513 acres. Sumner mortgaged his property in 1875 and lost the property through foreclosure and a sheriff’s sale in 1877. The new owner, Milton Latham, sold the property to Frederick M. Sumner, brother of the previous owner, Charles A. Sumner. In 1881, ownership was transferred to a San Francisco bank and in 1883 it was purchased by Franklin Heald, William Collier, and Donald Graham (Gunther 1984). The partners subdivided part of the property and began selling lots in what would become the town of Elsinore. The Elsinore post office was established in November 1883 (Gunther 1984). These partners divided the La Laguna Ranch property in 1885 with Heald taking the area north of Corydon Road, which included Lake Elsinore and the town of Elsinore, and Collier and Graham taking the area southeast of Corydon Road, which became Wildomar (Gunther 1984).
Wildomar began as the Car B station, established in 1884 on the California Southern Railroad Company (CSRR), 6 miles south of the Elsinore Junction station (Gunther 1984). The station began as a railroad car on a siding. The name was changed to Wildon and lots were surveyed and platted in 1885. The name Wildon was based on the first names of William Collier and Donald Graham, owners of this part of the former Rancho La Laguna. A new plat was recorded in 1886 with the name changed to Wildomar. The 1945
Archaeological Resources Inventory Report
ECORP Consulting, Inc.
20-Acre Passive Park Project 15 May 2024
2022-252.07
name Wildomar was formed using Wildon plus part of the first name of Margaret Collier, wife of William Collier and sister of Donald Graham.
The original town was between Palomar Street and Grand Avenue and between Gruwell Street and Pasadena Avenue, according to the 1901 edition of the USGS Elsinore Quadrangle. These streets are shown on this map. Buildings were mostly along Central Avenue between Palomar Street and Grand Avenue. The Wildomar post office and the elementary school were established in 1886. With the arrival of many Quaker families from West Branch, Iowa, Wildomar became known as a Quaker colony. Wildomar became one of the original election precincts and school districts when Riverside County was formed in 1893 (Gunther 1984). The development of Wildomar slowed when the CSRR’s tracks in Temecula Canyon were washed out for the final time and not rebuilt in 1892 (Robertson 1998). This severed the connection with San Diego. In 1927 the track in Railroad Canyon washed out and the Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe track from Perris to Temecula was abandoned (Gunther 1984), after which Wildomar no longer had rail service. Wildomar remained a rural farming and horse ranching community for most of the twentieth century. Completion of Interstate 15 through the area in the early 1980s led to urban growth. Wildomar was incorporated as a city on July 1, 2008 with a population of 28,000 (Wildomar 2018).
4.0 METHODS
4.1 Personnel Qualifications
Registered Professional Archaeologist (RPA) Sonia Sifuentes, who meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for prehistoric and historical archaeology, was responsible for this cultural resource investigation. Staff Archaeologist Rob Cunningham conducted the CHRIS records search.
Staff Archaeologist Casey LeJeune, RPA conducted the fieldwork and prepared the technical report. Lisa Westwood, RPA provided technical report review and quality assurance.
Sonia Sifuentes, RPA is a Senior Archaeologist and the Southern California Cultural Resources Manager at ECORP and has more than 17 years of experience in cultural resources management, primarily in southern California. Ms. Sifuentes holds a M.S. in Archaeology of the North. She has participated in and supervised numerous surveys, test programs, and data recovery excavations for both prehistoric and historical sites; and has cataloged, identified, and curated thousands of artifacts. She has conducted evaluations of cultural resources for eligibility for the NRHP and CRHR. Ms. Sifuentes is experienced in the organization and execution of field projects in compliance with Section 106 of the NHPA and CEQA. She has contributed to and authored numerous cultural resources technical reports, research designs, and cultural resources management plans.
Rob Cunningham has 17 years of experience in cultural resources management, with an emphasis on the recordation, analysis, and evaluation of historic-period resources. He has participated in all aspects of archaeological fieldwork, including survey, test excavation, and construction monitoring. He has served as Field Director for archaeological inventories and site evaluation projects and has worked on San Diego County projects under ECORP’s blanket purchase order since 2010. He has recorded and mapped numerous prehistoric and historic-period archaeological sites and has identified and documented 1946
Archaeological Resources Inventory Report
ECORP Consulting, Inc.
20-Acre Passive Park Project 16 May 2024
2022-252.07
hundreds of prehistoric and historic artifacts. Mr. Cunningham has prepared numerous archaeological site records and has authored and contributed to a variety of cultural resources technical reports.
Casey LeJeune, RPA is a Staff Archaeologist who has worked in cultural resource management since 2020, with experience in the Southeast and southern California. She holds an M.A. in anthropology with a focus in forensic anthropology and bioarchaeology. She meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for prehistoric and historic archaeology. Ms. LeJeune has served as a field crew supervisor and participated in fieldwork on forensic and historic burials, survey, large-scale data recovery, testing, and construction monitoring. She also has extensive laboratory experience in human osteology and analysis of historic and prehistoric artifacts. Additionally, she has contributed to numerous cultural resource technical reports.
Lisa Westwood, RPA has 29 years of experience and meets the Secretary of the Interior’s Professional Qualifications Standards for prehistoric and historical archaeology. She holds a B.A. in Anthropology and an M.A. in Anthropology (Archaeology). She is the Director of Cultural Resources for ECORP.
4.2 Records Search Methods
ECORP conducted a records search for the Project Area at the Eastern Information Center (EIC) of the CHRIS at the University of California, Riverside on January 25, 2024 (Appendix A). The purpose of the records search was to determine the extent of previous surveys within a one-mile (1,600-meter) radius of the Proposed Project Area and whether previously documented pre-contact or historic archaeological sites, architectural resources, or traditional cultural properties exist within this area.
In addition to the official records and maps for archaeological sites and surveys in Riverside County, the following historic references were also reviewed: Built Environment Resource Directory (OHP 2020); Historic Property Data File for Riverside County (OHP 2012); the National Register Information System (National Park Service [NPS] 2024); Office of Historic Preservation, California Historical Landmarks (CHL; OHP 2024); CHL (OHP 1996 and updates); California Points of Historical Interest (OHP 1992 and updates); Directory of Properties in the Historical Resources Inventory (1999); Caltrans Local Bridge Survey (California Department of Transportation [Caltrans] 2019); Caltrans State Bridge Survey (Caltrans 2018); and Historic Spots in California (Kyle 2002).
Other references examined include a RealQuest Property Search and historic General Land Office (GLO) land patent records (Bureau of Land Management 2022). Historic maps reviewed include the:
1901 USGS Elsinore, California topographic quadrangle map (1:125,000 scale); 1942 USGS Lake Elsinore, California topographic quadrangle map (1:62,500 scale); 1949 USGS Santa Ana, California topographic quadrangle map (1:250,000 scale); 1953 USGS Wildomar, California topographic quadrangle map (1:24,000 scale); and 1997 USGS Wildomar, California topographic quadrangle map (1:24,000 scale). ■
■
■
■
■
1947
Archaeological Resources Inventory Report
ECORP Consulting, Inc.
20-Acre Passive Park Project
17 May 2024
2022-252.07
ECORP reviewed historic aerial photographs taken in 1938, 1967, 1978, 1982, 1985, 1994, and from 1997 to the present year for any indications of property usage and built environment.
ECORP conducted a search for a local historical registry. The search revealed that the Wildomar Historical Society is the nearest entity that potentially maintains such a registry. The search also revealed that the Riverside Historical Commission, which is located in the City of Riverside approximately 10 miles north of Wildomar, maintains a historical registry for Riverside County.
4.3 Sacred Lands File Coordination Methods
In addition to the records search, ECORP contacted the California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) on January 30, 2024 to request a search of the Sacred Lands File for the Project Area (Appendix B).
This search will determine whether the California Native American tribes within the Project Area have recorded Sacred Lands because the Sacred Lands File is populated by members of the Native American community with knowledge about the locations of tribal resources. In requesting a search of the Sacred Lands File, ECORP solicited information from the Native American community regarding TCRs, but the responsibility to formally consult with the Native American community lies exclusively with the federal and local agencies under applicable state and federal laws. The lead agencies do not delegate government-togovernment authority to any private entity to conduct tribal consultation.
4.4 Tribal Outreach Coordination Methods
At the request of the client, ECORP conducted tribal outreach for the Project. ECORP prepared outreach letters for all NAHC-listed contacts to seek feedback on the Proposed Project. ECORP sent letters on February 27, 2024 to all addresses obtained from the NAHC based on the Sacred Lands File search results (Appendix B), which consisted of representatives of the following tribes:
Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians
Juaneño Band of Mission Indians Acjachemen Nation- Belardes Juaneño Band of Mission Indians Acjachemen Nation 84A
La Jolla Band of Luiseno Indians
Pala Band of Mission Indians
Pauma Band of Luiseno Indians
Pechanga Band of Indians
Quechan Tribe of the Fort Yuma Reservation
Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians
Santa Rosa Band of Cahuilla Indians
Soboba Band of Luiseno Indians
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
1948
Archaeological Resources Inventory Report
ECORP Consulting, Inc.
20-Acre Passive Park Project 18 May 2024
2022-252.07
4.5 Other Interested Party Consultation Methods
ECORP sent letters to the Wildomar Historical Society and the Riverside Historical Commission on January 30, 2024 to solicit comments or obtain historical information that the repositories might have regarding events, people, or resources of historical significance in the area. ECORP also submitted an online inquiry to the Riverside County Heritage Association on January 30, 2024 (Appendix A).
4.6 Field Methods
ECORP subjected the Project Area to an intensive pedestrian survey on April 17, 2024 under the guidance of the Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Identification of Historic Properties (NPS 1983) using 15- meter-spaced transects. At the time, ECORP examined the ground surface for indications of surface or subsurface cultural resources and inspected the general morphological characteristics of the ground surface for indications of subsurface deposits that may be manifested on the surface, such as circular depressions or ditches. Whenever possible, ECORP examined the locations of subsurface exposures caused by such factors as rodent activity, water or soil erosion, or vegetation disturbances for artifacts or for indications of buried deposits. ECORP did not conduct subsurface investigations or artifact collections during the pedestrian survey.
Standard professional practice requires that all cultural resources encountered during the survey be recorded using Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) 523-series forms approved by the California OHP. The resources are usually photographed, mapped using a handheld Global Positioning System receiver, and sketched as necessary to document their presence using appropriate DPR forms.
5.0 RESULTS
5.1 Records Search
The records search consisted of a review of previous research and literature, records on file with the EIC for previously recorded resources, and historical aerial photographs and maps of the vicinity.
5.1.1 Previous Research
A total of 51 previous cultural resource investigations have been conducted within 1 mile of the Project Area, covering approximately 40 percent of the total area surrounding the property within the records search radius. Of the 51 studies conducted within 1 mile of the Project Area, three included the Project Area (Table 1). Appendix A lists all of the reports located within 1 mile of the Project Area. These studies revealed the presence of pre-contact sites, including habitation sites, and historical sites, including singlefamily homes, a trash scatter, and an electrical pump. The previous studies were conducted between 1978 and 2021 and vary in size from less than 1 acre to 145 acres. 1949
Archaeological Resources Inventory Report
ECORP Consulting, Inc.
20-Acre Passive Park Project 19 May 2024
2022-252.07
Table 1. Previous Cultural Studies within the Project Area Report
Number Author(s) Report Title Year
RI-02888 Scientific Resource
Surveys
Surface Collection and Test Excavation at the Tunstall East and West Sites, Wildomar, Riverside County 1989
RI-03458 Love, Bruce Cultural Resources Assessment: Wildomar Channel Lateral C; Wildomar Area of Riverside County, California 1992
RI-10530 Laura S. White and
Robert S. White
Phase I Cultural Resources Assessment of the Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District Wildomar Recycled Water System Phase 1- Off-Site Facilities Project, Riverside County
2009
The results of the records search indicate that approximately 40 percent of the Project Area has been previously surveyed for cultural resources; however, these studies were conducted in smaller segments, at different times, by different consultants, and as many as 35 years ago under obsolete standards.
Therefore, ECORP conducted a pedestrian survey of the Project Area for the Project under current protocols.
The records search also determined that 16 previously recorded pre-contact and historic-era cultural resources are located within 1 mile of the Project Area (Table 2). Of these, three are believed to be associated with Native American occupation of the vicinity, and 13 are historic-era sites that are associated with early European-American ranching activities or 20th-century residential development. Two of these previously recorded cultural resources are mapped within the Project Area (Table 2); the locations of these resources are discussed further below.
Table 2. Previously Recorded Cultural Resources within 1 mile of the Project Area Site
Number
CA-RIVPrimary
Number
P-33-
Recorder and Year Age/
Period Site Description
Within
Project
Area?
4722 4722 B. Love 1992 Historic Water system feature No 4725 4725 Robert S. White 1989 Pre-contact Lithic scatter Yes* 4726 4726 Robert S. White 1989 Pre-contact Dense lithic scatter Yes* – 7182 Pat Meredith 1982 Historic Single family home No – 7783 M. O’Brien 1982 Historic Single family home No
– 7784 M. O’Brien 1982 Historic Gas station No
– 7786 M. O’Brien 1982 Historic Single family home No
– 7805 Marna O’Brien 1982 Historic Single family home No – 7807 M. O’Brien 1982 Historic Ranch house No
1950
Archaeological Resources Inventory Report
ECORP Consulting, Inc.
20-Acre Passive Park Project 20 May 2024
2022-252.07
Table 2. Previously Recorded Cultural Resources within 1 mile of the Project Area Site
Number
CA-RIVPrimary
Number
P-33-
Recorder and Year Age/
Period Site Description
Within
Project
Area? – 7808
O’Brien, Marna 1982;
Ostashay, Jan and Peter
2004
Historic Barn house and associated
refuse No
– 7809 M. O’Brien 1982 Historic Ranch house No
– 7811 M. O’Brien 1982 Historic Wildomar School Bell No 6070H 8173 Bruce Love 1998; Daniel
Ballester 2013 Historic Cluster of olive trees from abandoned orchard No – 12289 Richard S. Shepard
2002 Historic Single family home and ancillary
structures No
11760 23939 Michael Hogan 2014 Historic Electrical pump and valves No – 28131 Riordan Goodwin 2018 Pre-contact Isolated flake tool No Note: * As reported in EIC results. Site was not properly mapped and is not located within the Project Area.
5.1.1.1 P-33-4725
Resource P-33-4725 was initially recorded in 1989 and is described as a lithic and groundstone scatter on a low rise along the bank of a drainage. Associated artifacts include five flakes (two quartzite, two metavolcanic, and one retouched quartzite), three metavolcanic cores, three scrapers (one quartzite and two metavolcanic), one quartzite chopper, one granitic mano, 10 granitic metate fragments, and three hammerstones (1 granitic and 2 metavolcanic). Other constituents of the site include 10 fire-affected rocks. These artifacts were recovered through an investigation that involved surface collection and test excavation (Scientific Resource Surveys, Inc. [SRS] 1989). This resource has not been evaluated for eligibility for inclusion in the NRHP or CRHR.
A review of the site records, topographic maps, and aerial images of the Project Area indicates that P-33- 4725 is located on an adjacent property that is not a part of the Project Area (Figures 2 and 3). The site records include a topographic map that depicts the resource within the Project Area; however, the resource location as depicted by the topographic map is inaccurate. This inaccuracy is most apparent in the sketch map that accompanies the site record: the sketch map indicates that the property that contains the resource is bounded to the south by Palomar Street, to the west by Refa Street, and to the east by Arnold Lane. The current Project Area is located to the northwest of the property that is bounded by those streets, approximately 410 feet northwest of the intersection of Palomar and Refa Streets. Additionally, the sketch map depicts several features that match aerial photographs of the property to the southeast of the Project Area. These include a small pond to the north of Palomar Street, a northeast–southwest-oriented drainage that runs through the property, trees and buildings, and the depicted inclines. Additionally, ECORP examined the approximate mapped location of the resource during the field survey. 1951
I
Feet
iiiiiiii■■ 0
Map Date: 5/13/2024 Sources: ESRI, Vivid (2022)
350
Map Contents
c:::J Project Area
1989 Study Area
~ Actual
~ As Mapped
Figure 2. Study Boundary Overview
Aerial
2022-252.07 20-Acre Passive Park Project
1952
.,
·~
~
:.
E
0 "
~
" 0
ri
Ill
;;:
N
0 !:!,
N
N
0 !:!,
z
0 Feet
Map Contents
c::::J Project Area
1989 Study Area
c=J Actual
c=J As Mapped
Figure 3. Study Boundary Overview
Topographic
2022-252.07 20-Acre Passive Park Project
1953
Archaeological Resources Inventory Report
ECORP Consulting, Inc.
20-Acre Passive Park Project 23 May 2024
2022-252.07
ECORP did not observe any indication of P-33-4725 within the Project Area, nor did the landscape features match what was depicted on the site sketch map. Given this information, the resource was apparently plotted incorrectly on the topographic map in the site record. This accounts for why the CHRIS records search identified this resource as being within the Project Area. When this resource was originally recorded in 1989, mapping technology was less precise, which may account for the location discrepancy.
5.1.1.2 P-33-4726
Resource P-33-4726 was originally recorded in 1989 and was investigated through surface collection and test excavation (SRS 1989). It is described as a dense lithic scatter situated on a small, low knoll. Artifacts identified in the 1989 investigation include 60 flakes (43 metavolcanic, 12 quartz, four quartzite, and one felsite), eight cores (three metavolcanic, three quartz, and two quartzite), four scrapers (three metavolcanic and one quartzite), five granitic manos, several metate fragments, and seven metavolcanic hammerstones.
Additional constituents included five fire-affected rocks. This resource has not been evaluated for eligibility for inclusion in the NRHP or CRHR.
Similar to P-33-4725, resource P-33-4726 appears to have been incorrectly mapped as within the Project Area. The site records for both resources contain the same topographic overview and sketch maps with both sites indicated. Additionally, ECORP examined the approximate mapped location of this resource during the field survey and did not observe any indication of the site or its surrounding features within the Project Area. Therefore, the field conditions within the Project Area and the same data that was used to determine the actual location of P-33-4725 indicate that P-33-4726 is also located on the property to the southeast of the Project Area.
5.1.2 Records
The OHP’s Built Environment Resource Directory (BERD) for Riverside County (dated March 3, 2020) included 11 resources within one mile of the Project Area (OHP 2020; Table 3). The BERD did not include any properties within or adjacent to the Project Area.
Table 3. Riverside County Built Environment Resources within one mile of the Project Area OHP ID Resource
Name/Address Description OHP Eligibility Status Code*
464996 25025 Catt Road – 5S2
465001 2525 Catt Road Schwartz House 5S2
465000 32785 Central Street Judge William Collier Home, Louis Cook House 5S2 464997 21343 Dunn Street Ben Taylor House 3S
465002 35880 Frederick Street Heal Ranch, Robinson 5S2
465004 21999 Grand Avenue R.J. Brown House 3S
465005 22060 Grand Avenue Easterbrook 3S
1954
Archaeological Resources Inventory Report
ECORP Consulting, Inc.
20-Acre Passive Park Project
24 May 2024
2022-252.07
Table 3. Riverside County Built Environment Resources within one mile of the Project Area OHP ID Resource
Name/Address Description OHP Eligibility Status Code*
465006 22180 Grand Avenue – 5S2
465008 Corner of Palomar Street
and Wildomar Trail Wildomar Bell 5S2
464998 21564 Palomar Street – 7N
464999 21457 Pecan Street Dr. O.S. Brown House 3S
Notes: OHP = Office of Historic Preservation
Eligibility Status Codes:
3S = appears eligible for NRHP individually through survey evaluation 5S2 = individually eligible for local listing or designation 7N = needs to be reevaluated- formerly coded as may become NRHP eligible with specific conditions The National Register Information System (NPS 2024) failed to reveal any eligible or listed properties within the Project Area. The nearest National Register properties are located in Lake Elsinore, approximately 6 miles northwest of the Project Area.
ECORP reviewed resources listed as California Historical Landmarks (OHP 1996 and updates) by the OHP (2024) on January 12, 2024: the City of Wildomar does not contain any CHLs. The nearest landmark is CHL No. 1005, the Santa Rosa Rancho, which is located approximately 7 miles south of the Project Area.
Historic Spots in California (Kyle 2002) mentions the Butterfield Overland Stage Route in Elsinore Valley and one of the old Machado adobes that may have served as a stage station on Grand Avenue on the southwestern side of Lake Elsinore, approximately 7.7 miles northwest of the Project Area. Kyle (2002) also discusses several historic rancho properties, stagecoach trails, and Native American rock art sites in western Riverside County.
A search of GLO patent records revealed that the 13,337.84-acre Rancho La Laguna was granted to Abel Stearns on March 3, 1851 under the 1851 Act to Settle Private Land Claims in California. No other patent information for the Rancho La Laguna property was available through the GLO.
A RealQuest online property search for APN 380-050-025 revealed that the property consists of 20.05 acres of vacant commercial land. No other property history information was on record with RealQuest. A RealQuest online property search for APN 380-050-027, which contains the southern segment of the Project Area, revealed that the property consists of 6.15 acres of retail/trade property and contains a structure that was built in 1971. This structure is located outside of the Project Area, which only includes a portion of APN 380-050-027. The property is owned by the City of Wildomar. No other property history information was on record with RealQuest.
The Caltrans Bridge Local and State Inventories (Caltrans 2024, 2022) did not list any historic bridges in or within one mile of the Project Area.
1955
Archaeological Resources Inventory Report
ECORP Consulting, Inc.
20-Acre Passive Park Project 25 May 2024
2022-252.07
The Handbook of North American Indians (Bean and Shipek 1978) indicates that the nearest Luiseño settlement is the Temecula Land Grant, which is approximately 11 miles southeast of the Project Area.
5.1.3 Map Review and Aerial Photographs
The review of historical aerial photographs and maps of the Project Area provides information on the past land uses of the Project Area and potential for buried archaeological sites. This information indicates that the Project Area has not been developed. Following is a summary of the review of historical maps and photographs.
The 1901 USGS Elsinore, California (1:125,000) map depicts unlabeled roads immediately surrounding the Project Area and a northwest–southeast-oriented railroad passing to the southwest.
Aerial photographs from 1938 show the Project Area as undeveloped, in addition to Palomar Street immediately southwest of the Project Area, and South Pasadena Street to the west.
The 1942 USGS Lake Elsinore, California (1:62,500) map depicts Palomar Street, which is immediately southwest of the Project Area, as State Route 71. It also shows several ephemeral drainages within the Project Area and the immediate vicinity.
The 1949 USGS Santa Ana, California (1:250,000) map depicts State Route 71/Interstate 395 to the immediate southwest of the Project Area.
The 1953 USGS Wildomar, California (1:24,000) map depicts Palomar Street, a drainage within the Project Area, and a windmill to the immediate northeast of the Project Area.
Aerial photographs from 1967 and 1978 show the Project Area as undeveloped land that appears to have been cleared or mowed.
Aerial photographs from 1982 and 1985 show the Project Area as undeveloped land with several unpaved road alignments throughout the Project Area.
Aerial photographs from 1994 show that a north–south-oriented concrete-lined channel has been constructed between the northern and southern portions of the Project Area. The Project Area contains small clusters of trees (likely for landscaping) and several trails.
The 1997 USGS Wildomar, California (1:24,000) map shows Palomar Street, a drainage within the Project Area, and two structures to the immediate southeast of the Project Area.
All other aerial photographs from 1997 to the present year show the Project Area in its presentday state.
In sum, the Project Area has been undeveloped, with the exception of a concrete-lined channel and some landscaping, since at least 1901.
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
■
1956
Archaeological Resources Inventory Report
ECORP Consulting, Inc.
20-Acre Passive Park Project 26 May 2024
2022-252.07
5.2 Sacred Lands File Results
A search of the Sacred Lands File by the NAHC failed to indicate the presence of Native American cultural resources within the Project Area. A record of all correspondence is provided in Appendix B.
5.3 Tribal Outreach Coordination Results
ECORP conducted tribal outreach by preparing and mailing letters via First Class Mail on February 27, 2024 to the 21 tribal addresses that were provided by the NAHC. ECORP also called or sent email inquiries to 20 tribal contacts on February 26, 2024. To date, ECORP has received three responses to the letters, phone calls, and email inquiries. Summaries of the responses are provided below:
Agua Caliente Band of Cahuilla Indians responded via email on March 4, 2024. They stated that the Project Area is not within the Tribe’s Traditional Use Area and concluded consultation.
Pechanga Band of Indians indicated during AB 52 consultation that the Tribe wanted to participate in the survey/fieldwork. On March 20, 2024, ECORP began coordinating availability for fieldwork with the Tribe directly via email. On April 17, 2024, Pechanga monitor Robert Cordova participated in the survey with ECORP.
Rincon Band of Luiseno Indians responded on March 25, 2024 via email. They stated that the Project Area is in an area that is culturally affiliated with Rincon; however, they deferred to Pechanga Band for this Project and requested a copy of the study upon completion.
As of the date of this report, ECORP has not received any further responses from the other tribal contacts.
A record of all correspondence is provided in Appendix B.
5.4 Other Interested Party Consultation Results
As of the date of this report, ECORP has not received any responses to the letters sent to the Wildomar Historical Society, the Riverside Historical Commission, and the Riverside County Heritage Association.
5.5 Field Survey Results
ECORP archaeologist Casey LeJeune and Pechanga tribal monitor Robert Cordova surveyed the Project Area for archaeological resources on April 17, 2024. ECORP surveyed the entire Project Area using 15- meter-spaced transects and examined the ground surface for indications of archaeological resources. The ground surface visibility throughout the Project Area ranged from excellent to poor (Figures 4 and 5).
Areas with excellent visibility (i.e., 90 to 100 percent) contained sparse to no vegetation and included the informal walking trails and a previously disced area. The majority of the Project Area, however, had poor visibility (i.e., 0 to 20 percent) due to dense vegetation cover.
ECORP did not observe any archaeological resources during the field survey. Prior to the survey, ECORP thoroughly examined the approximate mapped locations of the two resources plotted within the Project Area via desktop review. During the survey, ECORP examined these locations for any surface evidence of the two resources but did not observe any indication of either resource. Furthermore, ECORP observed ■
■
■
1957
Archaeological Resources Inventory Report
ECORP Consulting, Inc.
20-Acre Passive Park Project
27 May 2024
2022-252.07
that the field conditions within the Project Area did not match the conditions depicted on the sketch map that accompanied the site records.
Figure 4. Project Area Overview (view southeast; April 17, 2024).
Figure 5. Project Area Overview (view southwest; April 17, 2024). 1958
Archaeological Resources Inventory Report
ECORP Consulting, Inc.
20-Acre Passive Park Project 28 May 2024
2022-252.07
5.5.1 Cultural Resources
As a result of previous investigations by other firms, two pre-contact lithic-scatter sites were mapped within the Project Area. However, the locations of these sites on file with the EIC appear to match up with a property that is adjacent to and outside of the Project Area; therefore, it is outside of the study area for this Project. ECORP did not observe any evidence of these previously recorded sites during the 2024 field survey. ECORP did not identify any new archaeological resources within the Project Area.
6.0 MANAGEMENT CONSIDERATIONS
6.1 Conclusions
The records search revealed two resources mapped within the Project Area; however, this study has determined that the resources were incorrectly mapped and are located outside the Project Area. The 2024 field survey did not yield any historic-period or pre-contact archaeological resources within the Project Area. Therefore, no Historic Properties under Section 106 of the NHPA or Historical Resources under CEQA will be affected by the Proposed Project.
6.2 Likelihood for Subsurface Cultural Resources
Due to the presence of alluvium along Murrieta Creek and given the likelihood of pre-contact archaeological sites located along perennial waterways, the Project Area has a moderate potential for buried pre-contact archaeological sites. This potential is due to the fact that Holocene young fan alluvial deposits like those within the Project Area were deposited contemporaneously with human occupation of the region, which creates conditions that allow for pre-contact archaeological resources to become buried in subsurface soil. Additionally, the presence of nearby Murrieta Creek increases the likelihood of human occupation in the vicinity. The presence of two pre-contact archaeological sites on the adjacent property also contributes to the Project Area’s likelihood for containing buried pre-contact resources.
6.3 Recommendations
6.3.1 Contractor Awareness Training
The lead agency shall ensure that a Contractor Awareness Training Program is delivered to train equipment operators about cultural resources. The program shall be designed to inform construction personnel about: federal and state regulations pertaining to cultural resources and tribal cultural resources; the subsurface indicators of resources that shall require a work stoppage; procedures for notifying the lead agency of any occurrences; project-specific requirements and mitigation measures; and enforcement of penalties and repercussions for non-compliance with the program.
The training shall be prepared by a qualified professional archaeologist and may be provided either through a brochure, video, or in-person tailgate meeting, as determined appropriate by the archaeologist.
The training shall be provided to all construction supervisors, forepersons, and operators of grounddisturbing equipment. All personnel shall be required to sign a training roster. The construction manager 1959
Archaeological Resources Inventory Report
ECORP Consulting, Inc.
20-Acre Passive Park Project 29 May 2024
2022-252.07
is responsible for ensuring that all required personnel receive the training. The Construction Manager shall provide a copy of the signed training roster to the lead agency as proof of compliance.
6.3.2 Archaeological and Tribal Monitoring
Prior to the start of construction, the Project Proponent shall retain a qualified professional archaeologist and Tribal Monitor to observe all ground-disturbing activities associated with Project construction.
Monitoring is not required for placement of equipment or fill inside excavations that were monitored, above-ground construction activities, or redistribution of soils that were previously monitored (such as the return of stockpiles to use in backfilling).
The Monitoring Archaeologist shall meet or work under the direct supervision of someone meeting the Secretary of the Interior’s professional qualifications standards for prehistoric and historic archaeology.
The monitors shall have the authority to temporarily halt ground-disturbing or construction-related work within 100 feet of any discovery of potential historical or archaeological resources in order to address unanticipated discoveries.
1960
Archaeological Resources Inventory Report
ECORP Consulting, Inc.
20-Acre Passive Park Project 30 May 2024
2022-252.07
7.0 REFERENCES CITED
Bean, L. J. and F. C. Shipek. 1978. Luiseño. In Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 8, California, edited by Robert F. Heizer, pp. 550-563. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
Boscana, G. 1933. Chinigchinich: A Revised and Annotated Version of Alfred Robinson’s Translation of Father Geronimo Boscana’s Historical Account of the Belief, Usages, Customs and Extravagancies of the Indians of San Juan Capistrano Called the Acagchemem Tribe. Fine Arts Press, Santa Ana.
Bureau of Land Management. 2024. Bureau of Land Management, General Land Office Records, Records Automation website, http://www.glorecords.blm.gov/. Accessed April 11, 2024.
California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2024. Structure and Maintenance & Investigations, Historical Significance–Local Agency Bridges Database April 2024, https://dot.ca.gov/-/media/dotmedia/programs/maintenance/documents/f0009165-hs-local-a11y.pdf Accessed April 11, 2024. _____. 2022. Structure and Maintenance & Investigations, Historical Significance–State Agency Bridges Database December 2022, https://gis-calema.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/ca-statebridges/explore?location=33.602037%2C-117.259972%2C14.00. Accessed April 11, 2024.
Castillo, Edward D. 1978. The Impact of Euro-American Exploration and Settlement. In Handbook of North American Indians, Volume 8, California, edited by Robert F. Heizer, pp. 99-127. Smithsonian Institution, Washington, D.C.
Cleland, Robert G. 1941. The Cattle on a Thousand Hills: Southern California, 1850-1870. Huntington Library, San Marino, California
ECORP Consulting, Inc. 2024. Biological Technical Report and Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Consistency Analysis for the Wildomar 20-acre Park Project. Redlands, California. Prepared for Placeworks, Inc.
Engel, R., Gay, T.E., and Rogers, B.L. 1959. Geology of the Lake Elsinore quadrangle, California, and Mineral deposits of Lake Elsinore quadrangle, California. 1:62,500 scale.
Erlandson, J. M. 1994. Early Hunter-Gatherers of the California Coast. Plenum Press, New York.
Gallegos, D. 1991. Antiquity and Adaptation at Agua Hedionda, Carlsbad, California. In Hunter-Gatherers of Early Holocene Coastal California, edited by J. M. Erlandson and R. H. Colten, pp. 19-41.
Perspectives in California Archaeology, Volume 1. Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles.
Goldberg, S. 2001. Eastside Reservoir Project: Final Report of Archaeological Investigations (Five volumes).
Applied Earthworks, Inc., Hemet, California.
Golla, V. 2011. California Indian Languages. University of California Press, Berkeley. 1961
Archaeological Resources Inventory Report
ECORP Consulting, Inc.
20-Acre Passive Park Project 31 May 2024
2022-252.07
Grenda, D. R. 1997. Continuity and Change: 8,500 Years of Lacustrine Adaptation on the Shores of Lake Elsinore: Archaeological Investigations at a Stratified Site in Southern California. Statistical Research Technical Series No 59. Statistical Research, Inc., Tucson, Arizona.
Gudde, Erwin G. 1998. California Place Names: The Origin and Etymology of Current Geographical Names.
Revised from first edition, 1949. University of California Press, Berkeley.
Gunther, Jane D. 1984. Riverside County, California, Place Names: Their Origins and Their Stories. Rubidoux Printing Company, Riverside, California.
Haenszel, Arda M. and Jennifer Reynolds. 1975. The Historic San Bernardino Mission District. San Bernardino County Museum Association, Redlands, California.
Koerper, H. C., P. Langenwalter II, and A. Schroth. 1991. Early Holocene Adaptations and the Transition Problem: Evidence from the Allan O. Kelly Site, Agua Hedionda Lagoon. In Hunter-Gatherers of Early Holocene Coastal California, edited by J. M. Erlandson and R. H. Colten, pp. 81-88.
Perspectives in California Archaeology, Volume 1. Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angeles.
Kowta, M. 1969. The Sayles Complex: A Late Milling Stone Assemblage from Cajon Pass and the Ecological Implications of Its Scraper Planes. University of California Publications in Anthropology 6. Berkeley.
Kyle, Douglas. 2002. Historic Spots in California. Stanford University Press, Stanford, California.
Moratto, M. J. 1984. California Archaeology. Academic Press, Orlando.
National Park Service (NPS). 2024. National Register of Historic Places, Digital Archive on NPGallery, https://npgallery.nps.gov/NRHP/. Accessed April 11, 2024. _____. 1983. Archaeology and Historic Preservation: Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines. 48 FR (Federal Register) 44716-68.
Natural Resources Conservation Service. 2024. Natural Resources Conservation Service Web Soil Survey, http://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/HomePage.htm. Accessed April 11, 2024.
Office of Historic Preservation (OHP). 2024. Office of Historic Preservation California Historical Landmarks Website, http://ohp.parks.ca.gov/?page_id=21387. Accessed April 11, 2024. _____. 2020. Office of Historic Preservation’s Built Environment Resource Directory, dated March 3, 2020 for Riverside County.
_____. 1999. Directory of Properties in the Historical Resources Inventory. _____. 1996. California Historical Landmarks. California Department of Parks and Recreation, Riverside, California.
_____. 1992. California Points of Historical Interest. California Department of Parks and Recreation, Riverside, California.
1962
Archaeological Resources Inventory Report
ECORP Consulting, Inc.
20-Acre Passive Park Project 32 May 2024
2022-252.07
Pourade, Richard. 1961. The History of San Diego: Time of the Bells. San Diego Historical Society, https://sandiegohistory.org/archives/books/bells/ch1/ . Accessed May 15, 2023.
Robertson, Donald B. 1998. Encyclopedia of Western Railroad History, Volume IV, California. The Caxton Printers, Caldwell, Idaho.
Robinson, W. W. 1948. Land in California: The Story of Mission Lands, Ranchos, Squatters, Mining Claims, Railroad Grants, Land Scrip, Homesteads. University of California Press, Berkeley.
Rondeau, M. F., J. Cassidy, and T. L. Jones. 2007. Colonization Technologies: Fluted Projectile Points and the San Clemente Island Woodworking/Microblade Complex. In California Prehistory:
Colonization, Culture, and Complexity, edited by T. L. Jones and K. A. Klar, pp. 299-315. Altamira Press, Lanham, Maryland.
Salls, R. A. 1983. “The Liberty Grove Site: Archaeological Interpretation of a Late Milling Stone Horizon Site on the Cucamonga Plain.” M.A. thesis, University of California, Los Angeles.
Scientific Resource Surveys, Inc. (SRS). 1989. Surface Collection and Test Excavation at the Tunstall East and West Sties, Wildomar, Riverside County. Prepared for Courton & Associates. On file at Eastern Information Center, University of California, Riverside.
Strong, W. D. 1929. Aboriginal Society in Southern California. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.
Sutton, M. Q. 2011. The Palomar Tradition and Its Place in the Prehistory of Southern California. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 44(4):1-74.
_____. 2009. People and Language: Defining the Takic Expansion into Southern California. Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 41(2 and 3):31-93.
Sutton, M. Q. and J. K. Gardner. 2010. Reconceptualizing the Encinitas Tradition of Southern California.
Pacific Coast Archaeological Society Quarterly 42(4):1-64.
Temecula Valley Historical Society. 2014. Luiseno Creation Story. Temecula Valley Historical Society Newsletter 14(11):1-2.
Wallace, W. J. 1955. A Suggested Chronology for Southern California Coastal Archaeology. Southwestern Journal of Anthropology 11:214-230.
Warren, C. N. 1968. Cultural Tradition and Ecological Adaptation on the Southern California Coast. In Archaic Prehistory in the Western United States, edited by Cynthia Irwin-Williams, pp. 1-14.
Eastern New Mexico University Contributions in Anthropology 1. Portales, New Mexico. _____. 1967. The San Dieguito Complex: a Review and Hypothesis. American Antiquity 32:168-185.
Waugh, M. G. 1986. “Intensification and Land-Use: Archaeological Indication of Transition and Transformation in a Late Prehistoric Complex in Southern California.” Ph.D. diss., University of California, Davis.
1963
Archaeological Resources Inventory Report
ECORP Consulting, Inc.
20-Acre Passive Park Project 33 May 2024
2022-252.07
Wildomar. 2018. Celebrating 10 Years of Cityhood. https://cityofwildomar.org/DocumentCenter/View/598/10-Years-of-CityhoodPDF?bidId=#:~:text=Wildomar%20Incorporation%20Now%2C%20commonly%20known,Elsinore% 20High%20School%20in%20Wildomar. Accessed May 13, 2024. 1964
LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix A – Records Search Confirmation and Historical Society Coordination Appendix B – Sacred Lands File Coordination and Tribal Outreach Appendix C – Project Area Photographs
1965
APPENDIX A
Records Search Confirmation and Historical Society Coordination 1966
Riverside County, California
Unsectioned La Laguna (Stearns)
Land Grant
Latitude (NAD83): 33.602727°
Longitude (NAD83): -117 .26591 °
Watershed: Santa Margarita (18070302)
0 1,000 2,000
Wildomar (1997 p.r. 2000, NAO 27),
Murrieta (1953 p.r. 1986, NAO 27)
CA 7.5-minute Topographic Quadrangle
US Geological Survey
Map Date: 1/15/2024 Sources: ESR/, USGS
ECORP Consulting, Inc.
..,_,_..."'-!..,. ENVIRONMENTAL CO SULTANTS
Records Search
2022-252.07 Wildomar Passive Park Project
1967
Report List
Report No. Other IDs Year Author(s) Title Affiliation Resources RI-00351 1989 Letter Report: Archaeological Monitoring of Grading-Tracts 21370, 21371, and 24342
Archaeological Reseach
Unit, U.C. Riverside
NADB-R - 1083207; Brooke S. Arkush 33-001273
Voided - MF-0314
RI-00508 1978 Environmental Impact Evaluation:
Archaeological Assessment of Tentative
Tract Map 11495, Near Wildomar, Riverside
County, California
Archaeological Research
Unit, U.C. Riverside
NADB-R - 1080547; Stan Wilmoth
Voided - MF-0440
RI-02297 1987 AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL SURVEY -
VICTORY HILL
CHACE, PAUL G. and CHACE AND ASSOCIATES
DONNA COLLINS
NADB-R - 1082735;
Voided - MF-2491
RI-02325 1988 AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT OF
AN 18.27 ACRE TRACT OF LAND SHOWN
ON TTM # 23361, IN WILDOMAR,
RIVERSIDE COUNTY
ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND
ETHNOGRAPHIC FIELD
ASSOCIATES
NADB-R - 1082782; DE MUNCK, VICTOR
Voided - MF-2526
RI-02438 1988 AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT OF
8.12 ACRES OF LAND LOCATED IN THE
WILDOMAR AREA OF RIVERSIDE
COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
ARCHAEOLOGICAL
RESEARCH UNIT, U.C.
RIVERSIDE
NADB-R - 1082929; SWOPE, KAREN K. 33-013515
Submitter - 974;
Voided - MF-2670
RI-02888 1989 SURFACE COLLECTION AND TEST
EXCAVATION AT THE TUNSTALL EAST
AND WEST SITES, WILDOMAR,
RIVERSIDE COUNTY.
SCIENTIFIC SRS
RESOURCE SURVEYS
NADB-R - 1083242; 33-004725, 33-004726
Voided - MF-3087
RI-03240 1990 LETTER REPORT: AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL
SURVEY OF THE TENTATIVE MAP NO.
25247, WILDOMAR PROPERTY
NADB-R - 1084094; WADE, SUSAN A. RECON
Submitter - 2129A;
Voided - MF-3472
RI-03340 1988 AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL ASSESSMENT OF
CHANGE OF ZONE 5231, RIVERSIDE
COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
NADB-R - 1083958; KELLER, JEAN SALPAS AUTHOR
Voided - MF-3580
RI-03341 1998 CULTURAL RESOURCES REPORT:
SENIOR LIFESTYLE PERSPECTIVES
PROJECT, APNS 369-050-040, -041, AND -
042, NEAR THE COMMUNITY OF
WILDOMAR, COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE,
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
LOVE, BRUCE and Bai CRM TECH
"Tom" Tang
NADB-R - 1085264; 33-008173
Submitter - 311;
Voided - MF-3580
RI-03353 1989 LETTER REPORT: AN ARCHAEOLOGICAL
SURVEY OF THE TENTATIVE MAP NO.
25094, WILDOMAR PROPERTY
NADB-R - 1083981; WADE, SUE A. RECON
Submitter - 2129A;
Voided - MF-3592
RI-03458 1992 CULTURAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT:
WILDOMAR CHANNEL LATERAL C;
WILDOMAR AREA OF RIVERSIDE
COUNTY, CALIFORNIA
ARCHAEOLOGICAL
RESEARCH UNIT, U.C.
RIVERSIDE
NADB-R - 1084137; LOVE, BRUCE 33-004722
Submitter - 1175;
Voided - MF-3719