The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutGen Biological Resources Assmt of Roripaugh Ranch off-siteThomas Leslie Corporation Biological & Cultural Investigations & Monitoring GENERAL BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES ASSESSMENT OF THE RORIPAUGH RANCH OFF-SITE ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROTECTS: NICOLAS AND BUTTERFIELD STAGE ROADS TEMECULA AND RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Prepared for Ashby USA, LLC 470 E. Harrison Street Corona, California 92879-1314 Contact Person: Kevin Everett (909)898-1692 Prepared by: THOMAS LESLIE CORPORATION P.O. Box 2229 Temecula, California 92593 (909)296-6232 Contact Person: Thomas A. Leslie, M.S. President/Biologist Date Report Prepared: January 10, 2003 P.O. Box 2229 Temecula, CA 92593-2229 Office (909) 296-6232 Fax(909)296-6233 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INFORMATION SUMMARY Figure 1: Vicinity Map of Road Improvement Projects.........................................................3 Figure 2: Approximate Boundaries of Road Improvement Projects Plotted on a USGS Map.4 Rmipaugh Ranch Oft -site 1 TLC Road Improvement Projects (No APNs available) AttachmentE-3....................................................................................................................5 H. PROJECT SITES AND PROPOSED PROJECT DESCRIPTION...........................................................7 A. DESCRIPTION OF ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT SITES......................................................7 A-1. Road Improvement Project Sites Sizes..................................................................................7 A-2. Topographic Characteristics.................................................................................................7 A-3. Water Resources...................................................................................................................7 A-4. Soil Types of Road Improvement Project Sites.....................................................................7 Figure 3: Soils Map for Roripaugh Ranch Off-site Road Improvement Projects..................8 Table l: Soils Mapped within the Project Sites..................................................................9 A-5. Weather Conditions in the Region of the Project Site............................................................9 A-6. Land Uses on and in the Vicinity of the Two Project Sites, up to a Radius of 1/4 Mile........ 10 B. MAP OF BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES OF THE PROJECT SITE..................................................10 C. PROPOSED PROJECT.................................................................................................................10 Figure 4a: Biological Resources Map (Nicolas Road).........................................................1 Figure 4b: Biological Resources Map (Butterfield Stage Road)...........................................12 Figure5: Segments Map...................................................................................................13 Table 2: CFD Breakdown Segment Descriptions..............................................................14 D. SITE PHOTOGRAPHS.................................................................................................................14 Figure 6a: Nicolas Road Project Site Photographs..............................................................15 Figure 6b: Butterfield Stage Road Project Site Photographs................................................16 III. SURVEYS METHODOLOGIES........................................................................................................17 PRE -FIELD SURVEYS INVESTIGATIONS.................................................................................................17 A. Literature Review..........................................................................................................................17 B. Contact with State and Federal Resources Agencies.......................................................................17 C. State Records Search and Velum Overlay Map Analysis...............................................................17 FIELD SURVEYS INVESTIGATIONS.........................................................................................................18 A. Field Notes...................................................................................................................................18 B. Photographs Documenting the Existing Conditions of Both Project Sites......................................18 C. Field Surveys Methodologies........................................................................................................18 D. Sample Points, Transects, and any Additional Areas Surveyed......................................................18 E. Species Inventories.......................................................................................................................18 F. Plant Communities Identified on Project Sites...............................................................................19 G. Focused Surveys...........................................................................................................................19 H. Purpose of the General Biological Assessment Field Surveys........................................................19 I. Jurisdictional Issues......................................................................................................................19 IV. RESULTS.........................................................................................................................................20 PRE -FIELD SURVEYS INVESTIGATIONS.................................................................................................20 A. Literature Review Results..............................................................................................................20 B. Contact with State and Federal Resources Agencies.......................................................................21 C. State Record Search and Velum Overlay Map Analysis.................................................................21 FIELD SURVEYS INVESTIGATION...........................................................................................................21 A. Plant Communities and Vegetational Associations (Vegetational Types).......................................21 A-1. Vegetational Types Identified by Riverside County's Draft MSHCP Map ........................... 21 Figure 7: Vegetation Types Mapped by Riverside County Draft MSHCP ..........................22 Table 3: Sensitive Plant Species in the Vicinity of the Projects........................................23 Rmipaugh Ranch Oft -site 1 TLC Road Improvement Projects (No APNs available) ' Table 4: Sensitive Wildlife Species in the Vicinity of the Projects.....................................25 ' A-2. Plant Communities and Non -habitat Vegetational...............................................................28 A-2.1. Ruderal/Disturbed (CNDDB Element Code: N/A)...............................................28 A-2.2. Riversidean Sage Scrub (CNDDB Element Code: 32700) ..................................29 ' B. Biological Resources Map............................................................................................................30 C. Acreages of Plant Associations and Habitat Types Along Both Road Projects...............................30 Table 5: Acreages of Plant Associations and Habitat Types.............................................30 ' D. Quantitative and Transect Data.....................................................................................................30 E. Complete Listing of all Plants and Animals Species Observed or Detected....................................31 E-1. Listing of all Plants Species Observed within the Project Sites.............................................31 ' E-2. PLANT Species of Concern Observed within the Project Sites............................................31 E-3. Potential Impacts to Sensitive Plant Species Identified within the Project Sites.....................31 E-4. Listing of all Animal Species Observed within the Project Sites...........................................31 ' E-5. ANIMAL Species of Concern Observed within the Project Sites.........................................32 E-6. Results of QCB Habitat Assessment....................................................................................32 E-7. Potential Impacts to Animals Species Identified within the Project Sites..............................32 ' F. Plant Association Location and Native and Non-native Status.......................................................32 F-1. Plant Associations in Which Each Species Was Found.........................................................32 F-2. Native and Non-native Status..............................................................................................32 ' G. Plant Species of Concern Could be Expected to be Present, but Were not Observed ...................... 32 G-1. Plant Species of Concern Once Present Onsite....................................................................32 G-2. Plant Species of Concern Expected to Occur, but Were not Observed ................................. 32 ' G-3. Results of Focused Searches for Plant Species of Concern ..................................................33 G-4. Conclusion.......................................................................................... ...33 G-5. Recommendations..............................................................................................................33 ' H. Estimates of Population Sizes.......................................................................................................33 I. Indications of Wildlife Breeding Activity......................................................................................33 I-1. Impacts to Breeding Wildlife of the Project Site..................................................................33 ' J. Occurrence of Wildlife in Relation to Wildlife Habitat Types........................................................33 K. Site -Specific Lists of Plant and Wildlife Species............................................................................33 L. Site -Specific List and Discussion of Invertebrates.........................................................................33 ' L-1. Sensitive Invertebrates........................................................................................................34 Table 6: Invertebrate Faunal List for the Projects.............................................................34 M. CNPS and/or a Natural Community Field Surveys Forms....................................................35 ' N. Jurisdictional Issues......................................................................................................................35 N -l. Literature Review Results....................................................................................................35 N-2. Field Surveys Results..........................................................................................................35 N-3. Need to Perform a Jurisdictional Delineation......................................................................35 ' Table 7: Stream Course Characteristics & Presence/Absence of Jurisdictional Elements ... 36 V. RARE, ENDANGERED OR SENSITIVE SPECIES AND HABITATS...............................................37 A. LISTED AND UNLISTED BUT SENSITIVE PLANT SPECIES..................................................37 A-1. LISTED Plant Species........................................................................................................37 A-1.1 CNDDB Records for Listed Plant Species..........................................................37 A-1.2. Field Observations of Listed Plant Species.........................................................37 ' A-2. UNLISTED but Sensitive Plant Species..............................................................................37 A-2.1 CNDDB Records for Listed Plant Species..........................................................37 ' B. A-2.2. Field Observations of Listed Plant Species.........................................................38 LISTED AND UNLISTED BUT SENSITIVE WILDLIFE SPECIES.............................................38 B-1. LISTED Wildlife Species....................................................................................................38 B-1.1 CNDDB Records for Listed Wildlife Species......................................................38 Roripaugh Ranch Off-site 11 T TLC Road Improvement Projects ' (No APNs available) L F 1 1 B-1.2. Field Observations of Listed Wildlife Species.....................................................38 B-2. UNLISTED but Sensitive Wildlife Species..........................................................................39 B-1.1 CNDDB Records for Listed Wildlife Species......................................................39 B-1.2. Field Observations of Listed Wildlife Species.....................................................39 C. SENSITIVE HABITAT TYPES....................................................................................................39 VI. IMPACTS AND MITIGATION RECOMMENDATIONS..................................................................40 A. DIRECT, INDIRECT AND CUMULATIVE IMPACTS................................................................40 A-1. Thresholds for Determining Significance...........................................................................40 A-2. Direct Project Impacts........................................................................................................40 A-2.1. Impacts to Threatened, Rare, Endangered or Unique PLANT Species................40 A-2.2. Impacts to Threatened, Rare, Endangered or Unique WILDLIFE Species ........... 40 A-2.3. Impacts to Plant Communities (Habitat).............................................................41 A-2.4. Impacts to State and Federal Jurisdictional Elements..........................................41 A-2.5. Impacts to Wildlife Movement Corridors(WMC)...............................................41 A-3. Indirect Project Impacts.....................................................................................................42 A-4. Cumulative Project Impacts................................................................................................42 B. MITIGATION RECOMMENDATIONS.......................................................................................43 B-1. Loss of Habitat Types and Non -Habitat Vegetational Association.......................................43 B-2. Impacts to Federal and State Jurisdictional Elements..........................................................43 B-3. Impacts to Wildlife Movement Corridors............................................................................43 B-4. Impacts to Threatened, Rare, Endangered or Unique PLANT Species.................................43 B-5. Impacts to Threatened, Rare, Endangered or Unique WILDLIFE Species ...........................43 B-6. Indirect Impacts.................................................................................................................43 B-7. Cumulative Impacts............................................................................................................43 C. TABULATION OF RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES............................................43 D. ADDITIONAL INVESTIGATIONS.............................................................................................43 AttachmentE-4..................................................................................................................44 VIII. REFERENCES, VOUCHERS, ETC....................................................................................................46 A. BIBLIOGRAPHY.........................................................................................................................46 B. REFERENCES CITED.................................................................................................................46 C. PERSONS CONTACTED.............................................................................................................46 D. HERBARIA AND COLLECTIONS VISITED...............................................................................46 E. DISPOSITION OF VOUCHER SPECIMENS................................................................................46 F. CURRENTPHOTOS....................................................................................................................46 IX. CERTIFICATION.............................................................................................................................46 X. REFERENCES AND PERSONAL CONTACTS.................................................................................47 APPENDICES: APPENDIX A: PHOTO PLATE NOS. 1-9 FOR RORIPAUGH RANCH ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS APPENDIX B: FLORAL COMPENDIUM FOR RORIPAUGH RANCH ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS APPENDIX C: WILDLIFE COMPENDIUM FOR RORIPAUGH RANCH ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS APPENDIX D: CALIFORNIA NATURAL COMMUNITY FIELD SURVEY FORM Roripaugh Ranch 0!! -site Road Improvement Projects (No APN, available) iii TLC Attachment E-1 TITLE PAGE L INFORMATION SUMMARY A. Report Date: Prepared January 10, 2003. B. Case and APN #: The two project sites, portions of Nicolas Road (NR) and Butterfield Stage Road (BSR), are related to Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan EIR — State Clearinghouse # 97121030. The two project sites are considered public right-of-way and lack APNs. C. Project Location: Partially in the City of Temecula and partially in unincorporated area of Riverside County, California, in the portions of Sections 19, 20, 21, 28, 29 and 33, Township 7 South, Range 2 West, of the Bachelor Mtn., California USGS quadrangle (Figures 1 and 2). D. Owner/Applicant: Ashby USA, LLC 470 E. Harrison Street Corona, California 92879-1314 Telephone: (909) 898-1692; Fax: (909) 898-1260 E. MOU Principal: Thomas A. Leslie, M.S. Thomas Leslie Corporation P.O. Box 2229 Temecula, CA 92593-2229 Telephone: (909) 296-6232; Fax: (909) 296-6233 F. Preparers: Thomas A. Leslie, M.S.: USFWS permit TE -781384-4, expires 5-09-05 Nadya Leslie, M.S.: Authorized individual on permit TE -781384-4 Shelley Sugino, B.S.: Zoologist; environmental analyst. G. Dates of Surveys: May 6, 16, 23 and 31, June 7, 10, 14 and 21 and December 15 and 27, 2002 H. Summary: • Field assessments of the two 53.5± acre project sites determined that 92.3% (49.4± acres) of the project sites is vegetated with non-native non - habitat Ruderal/Disturbed vegetational associations. • The project sites are inside the Stephens' Kangaroo Rat fee area, but outside proposed critical QCB habitat and outside designated CAGN critical habitat. • A review of Map 3-31, of the November 15, 2001, draft County MSHCP, shows the project sites are outside any criteria area or proposed MSHCP preserve area. • Two foraging CAGN pairs were observed along BSR (La Serena Way and Vista Del Monte Road), during five of the six protocol surveys conducted between 16 May and 21 June 2002. In addition, three unlisted but sensitive wildlife species (California Rufous -crowned Sparrow, Coastal Cactus Wren and Golden Eagle) were also observed along BSR. Roripaugh Ranch Off-site 1 `LC Road Improvement Projects (No APNs available) ' • All impacts to listed and unlisted but sensitive species and Riversidean Sage Scrub habitat along BSR are "covered" (mitigated) by The Assessment District 161 Final Multiple Species Subarea Habitat Conservation Plan ' (SHCP) executed on December 4, 2000 by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (Helix, 2001; Implementation Agreement, 2000). • The implementation of the proposed road improvement projects will not ' interfere substantially with the movement of any resident or migratory fish or wildlife species. ' • Ajurisdictional delineation must be performed along the NR improvement project alignment to qualitatively and quantitatively document the jurisdictional elements (waters and riparian habitat) within the boundaries ' of the road improvement project alignment. The results of the delineation will be used to determine which, if any, regulatory approvals will be required to authorize construction of the road improvement being proposed. ' It is our understanding that Glen Lukos Associates (GLA) has been contracted to perform a jurisdictional delineation for the BSR improvement project. ' • Under the CEQA, no significant indirect or cumulative impacts are anticipated. L I C 1 1 Rmipaugh Ranch Off-site Road Improvement Projects (No APNs available) TLC Thomas Leslie Corporation BIOLOGICAL & CULTURAL INVESTIGATIONS & MONITORING Figure 1 Vicinity Map Illustrating Approximate Boundaries of Roriapugh Ranch Off-site Road Improvement Projects i AD fill LIEF 1— _f4`� -ev 1 I g I11a1N1 !n i ddl$C1fiNTLIN p moi' Zn 1 �aeE is "" 20 rOs � Boundaries �I i g � � 2 �V ilia CALLE C11 05 I R`" 10 ` d IN I V[STA 30 ORD ` 29 U saaM r, • i � g LA 28 LY ! wit AL 9 5 G VfA p1tG \ ru 9 Sy s� q s 3� c 4 Y and 959 2002 Thomas Gldde for San Bernardino and Riverside Counties, Pages 929 Thomas Leslie Corporation BIOLOGICAL & CULTURAL INVESTIGATIONS & MONITORING Figure 1 Vicinity Map Illustrating Approximate Boundaries of Roriapugh Ranch Off-site Road Improvement Projects 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 20 Wmpmill 19 q'homas LesCrce Corporation Figure 2 BIOLOGICAL &CULTURAL Approximate Boundaries of Roripaugh Ranch Off-site INVESTIGATIONS & MONITORING Road Improvement Projects Plotted on a USGS Quadrangle Mop C CALLN /O ' PGA - i% -- r1f it . - NrG 30 Projects Boundaries . wb - 11 w � � c V1STd pEL AIOM7E.,�q� \\ • rr . 1 29 { _ �it e SERAwAY ^.. r I 3 r I I . e Long � b Trader - _ rl 1�./1 • n I • � r O/� tSG �`_ ��, I r An ��R`" R�yq Park Wimilli j py ,M r/ I nes ?%e s I r � FaRN .. on f— JL fZs "Pr S19, 20, 21, 28, 29 and 33, WS, R2W, of the Bachelor Mtn., California, USGS Quadrangle q'homas LesCrce Corporation Figure 2 BIOLOGICAL &CULTURAL Approximate Boundaries of Roripaugh Ranch Off-site INVESTIGATIONS & MONITORING Road Improvement Projects Plotted on a USGS Quadrangle Mop I 1 1 Attachment E-3 BIOLOGICAL REPORT SUMMARY SHEET (Must be attached to biological report) Check ITEM(S) Habitat Assessment Check ITEM(S) * Focused Survey SPECIES or HABITAT OF CONCERN (Circle whether a potential for s or resoucant impact to species or resource exists**) 'J 1 Burrowing Owl Yes No 1 California Gnatcatcher Yes** No V� California Orcutt Grass Yes No Coastal Cactus Wren Yes No y� California Horned Lark Yes No y Coastal Sage Scrub Yes No Drainages/Waters of U.S. Yes No 1 Ferruginous Hawk Yes No y Long-spined Spineflower Yes No Los Angeles Pocket Mouse Yes No 1 Munz's Onion Yes N y Northern Harrier Yes No Orange -throated Whiptail Yes No 1 Quino Checkerspot Butterfly Yes No " y� Riparian Habitat Yes N 1 Riverside Fairy Shrimp Yes No San Diego Ambrosia Yes No y San Diego Black -tailed Jack -rabbit Yes o Spreading Navarretia Yes N V Southern California Rufous -crowned Sparrow Yes No Stephen's Kangaroo Rat Yes No E -3.l I I 1 * Focused Survey: a) Survey on a listed species performed per USFWS or CDFG protocol by licensed individual (i.e., CaGn, SKR, QCB), OR b) For non -listed spp., survey performed per protocol recognized by USFWS or CDFG, or other applicable agency (i.e., Burrowing Owl), OR c) For jurisdictional waters, wetlands & riparian areas, following protocol of U.S. Army Corp of Engineers. ** Species of concern are any unique, rare, endangered, or threatened species; species used to delineate wetlands and riparian corridors; and any hosts, perching, or food plants used by any animals listed as rare, endangered, threatened or candidate species by either State or Federal regulations, or those tracked by the California Department of Fish and Game Natural Diversity Data Base (NDDB). ***All impacts to listed species and Riversidean Sage Scrub habitat along BSR are "covered" (mitigated) by ' The Assessment District 161 Final Multiple Species Subarea Habitat Conservation Plan (SHCP) executed on December 4, 2000 by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (Helix, 2001; Implementation Agreement, 2000). I declare under penalty of perjury that the information provided on this summary sheet is in accordance with the information provided in the biological report. 1 J' President 01-10-03 ' Thomas A. Leslie, M.S. Signature and Title Date Report Prepared I TE -781384-4 10(a) Permit Number (if applicable) 05-09-05 10(a)Permit Expiration Date ' E-3.2 Check Check (Circle whether a potential ITEM(S) ITEM(S) SPECIES or HABITAT OF CONCERN for significant impact to g p Habitat * Focused ** species or resource exists ) Assessment Surve JVernal Pool Fairy Shrimp Yes No JVernal Pools Yes No 1I Wetlands Yes No y White-tailed Kite Yes No * Focused Survey: a) Survey on a listed species performed per USFWS or CDFG protocol by licensed individual (i.e., CaGn, SKR, QCB), OR b) For non -listed spp., survey performed per protocol recognized by USFWS or CDFG, or other applicable agency (i.e., Burrowing Owl), OR c) For jurisdictional waters, wetlands & riparian areas, following protocol of U.S. Army Corp of Engineers. ** Species of concern are any unique, rare, endangered, or threatened species; species used to delineate wetlands and riparian corridors; and any hosts, perching, or food plants used by any animals listed as rare, endangered, threatened or candidate species by either State or Federal regulations, or those tracked by the California Department of Fish and Game Natural Diversity Data Base (NDDB). ***All impacts to listed species and Riversidean Sage Scrub habitat along BSR are "covered" (mitigated) by ' The Assessment District 161 Final Multiple Species Subarea Habitat Conservation Plan (SHCP) executed on December 4, 2000 by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (Helix, 2001; Implementation Agreement, 2000). I declare under penalty of perjury that the information provided on this summary sheet is in accordance with the information provided in the biological report. 1 J' President 01-10-03 ' Thomas A. Leslie, M.S. Signature and Title Date Report Prepared I TE -781384-4 10(a) Permit Number (if applicable) 05-09-05 10(a)Permit Expiration Date ' E-3.2 ' IL PROJECT SITES AND PROPOSED PROJECT DESCRIPTION A. DESCRIPTION OF ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECT SITES The project sites description includes size, topographic characteristics, water resources, soil types, the weather conditions of the region, and the land uses on, and in the vicinity of project sites, up to a radius of ' 1/4 mile. A-1. Road Improvement Project Sites Sizes ' The project sites encompasses 53.5 acres: 38.6 acres along Butterfield Stage Road (from Calle Chapos to Rancho California Road) and 14.9 acres along Nicolas Road (from MWD easement to Joseph Road). A-2. Topographic Characteristics Topographically, the Nicolas Road project site is relatively flat. As illustrated on the 1953 (Photorevised 1973; Photoinspected 1978) Bachelor Mtn., California USGS quadrangle (Figure 2), onsite elevations are as follows: ' • Nicolas Road: from 1,140± feet above mean sea level (msl) (southwestern end of project site) to 1,200± feet above msl (northeastern end of the project site). • Butterfield Stage Road: from 1,180± feet above msl (northwestern end of the project site) to 1,240± feet ' above msl (southeastern end of the project site). A-3. Water Resources ' As illustrated on the 1953 (Photorevised 1973; Photoinspected 1978) Bachelor Mtn., California, USGS quadrangle, a blue -line stream course, Santa Gertrudis Creek crosses Nicolas Road. ' Four blue -line stream courses (Long Canyon and three unnamed tributaries to Santa Gertrudis Creek) perpendicularly traverse Butterfield Stage Road (Figure 2). Each stream course was "field checked" during the 2002 field surveys to determine if they exhibited jurisdictional elements (waters, wetlands or riparian ' habitat) or are non -jurisdictional topographic swales. A-4. Soil Types of Road Improvement Project Sites As shown on the Soil Surveys Of Western Riverside Area, California (Knecht, 1971) onsite soils are ' located within the well -drained to excessively drained Hanford-Greenfield-Tujunga association. Six Soils Series, common to the local vicinity, are mapped within the boundaries of the project sites including the Arlington, Greenfield, Hanford, Ramona, Buren and Tujunga. ' The eighteen soils mapped within the project sites are listed on Table 1. Column 1 lists the Soil Map Unit Name; Column 2 lists the Map Symbol of each Soil Map Unit. NOTE: Because wetlands have hydric soils, an assessment of the onsite soils was made to determine of the presence or absence of hydric soils within the project site. ' The approximate boundary of each Soil Map Unit is illustrated on Figure 3. Potential Impacts The project sites are not in an agricultural soils preserve, are not in active production of any agricultural crop and are not a known significant source of mineral or other natural resources. Therefore, no significant soil impacts are anticipated. ' Mitigation Measures No mitigation measures are proposed regarding the relatively few (53.5±) acres of soils that will be lost by implementation of the two proposed road improvement projects. I Roripaugh Ranch Off-site 7 TLC Road Improvement Projects (No AM available) FFjj\\ _ AtD2 ac i . fuc Twe A 2;� o �,�::J Vit' ,,s �i'�`�,� t--�. .., ✓-`"` .� ,ea2 � jai � rmt .a2 \ 81 No - r-11 coni , of _ iyf• p`C _ �< - -' —' �,i P ua2 WC . AtC2AAlnatanala GrwnllwaMcwlEybm,2.8%0*p *rotlM QHpl1 Hufordlimundylaem.o•?ArapS Aff#Arargl.n rM Orfa/bblM fray laanf, 0.16Xfbp.., .(oAM �RfA Rano(u Randy bfm,02xfbpRa GyA Gn.IMl.la Pandy bfm,tL2%abpRa O RaC2 R..zznd,Iw .6b%flna.+...v.MYfro GyC2 Gn. Od am Mylofm, 2a%tlopf, *m d _ F . Raman ray A. Randy ban, OA%abpf, aoa.a 4,02 Gn w .,M, ban, e-t6%tlapf, ao0.J R M Ramo."Bra.n xRM, I.., 16-26% zip , Ray.r.ly.m d GZ G Ikd Iola "El Ramo.a Bp bamf, 6.26%W� f.va.ly.ma.a HOC Ha1ad <oaRa sandy bam, 2b%.bp.. QRIC Rh sh Hc02Hr/ara cwrRa faMyloan,B�6Xtlopa, .roWa _R Roud,a enlad HID Hafortl coon. tagYloam, 2-t6XfbpRa ® TYC Tutuga bam as ,NanN.a,aA%tlopRa Thomas Les Cie Cor• porarion Figure 3 BIOLOGICAL & CULTURAL Soils Map INVESTIGATIONS & MONITORING for Roripaugh Ranch Off-site Road Improvement Projects I ' Table 1: Soils Mapped within the Roripaugh Ranch Off-site Road Improvement Projects by the Soils Survey of Western Riverside Area, California SOIL MAP UNIT NAME Soil Map Symbol Soil Is Hydric n 1. Arlington and Greenfield fine sandy loams, 2 to 8 percent slopes, eroded AtC2 No 2. Arlington and Greenfield fine sandy loams, 8 to 15 percent slopes, eroded AtD2 No 3. Greenfield sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes GyA No 4. Greenfield sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes, eroded GyC2 No 5. Greenfield sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, eroded GyD2 No 6. Gullied land GzG No 7. Hanford coarse sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes HcC No 8. Hanford coarse sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes, eroded HcD2 No 9. Hanford coarse sandy loam, 2 to 15 percent slopes HfD No 10. Hanford fine sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes HgA No 11. Ramona sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes RaA No 12. Ramona sandy loam, 5 to 8 percent slopes, severely eroded RaC2 No 13. Ramona very fine sandy loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes, eroded ReC2 No 14. Ramona and Buren sandy loams, 15 to 25 percent slopes, severely eroded RmE3 No 15. Ramona and Buren loams, 5 to 25 percent slopes, severely eroded RnE3 No 16. Riverwash RsC No 17. Rough broken land RuF No 18. Tujunga loamy sand, channeled, 0 to 8 percent slopes TvC No (1) = Because wetlands exhibit hydric soils, an assessment of the onsite soils was made to assist in the determination of the presence or absence of hydric soils. A-5. Weather Conditions in the Region of the Project Site Regional Conditions: The prevailing climate, in the region of the project site, is the Mediterranean type. Mediterranean climate is typified by hot, dry summers and cool, moist winters. The average annual temperature is 59 to 65 degrees Fahrenheit, and the frost -free season is about 200 to 300 days. Wind Patterns over this region are mainly influenced by topography. Occasionally during fall and winter, the development of a high-pressure zone to the east of Southern California causes the appearance of a strong, very dry wind, known as a "Santa Ana." Santa Ana winds generally blow from a northeasterly direction and has their greatest development along the course of the Santa Ana River far to the north of the project sites in San Bernardino County. Precipitation in the region of the project sites primarily occurs during the winter months. The average total precipitation, for the region including the project site, ranges from 9 to 16 inches. Cloudiness is a relatively infrequent phenomenon in this region, and when they occur, they are generally directly related to the moist airflow from the Pacific Ocean. Characteristically, low clouds from the sea occur primarily during the spring and early summer months and hug the crest of the coastal range. "Tule fog," a general winter condition, occurs in the low-lying valleys during the late night and early morning hours. Clearing, in both cases, usually takes place by midday. Roripaugh Ranch Off-site 9 TLC Road Improvement Projects (No APN, available) ' Weather Conditions During 2002 Biological Field Surveys: The weather during the ten 2002, ' biological field surveys was typical of the local region at the time of the year when they were performed. No weather conditions existed to 2002, which would have prevented TLC biologists from locating, and identifying sensitive biological elements (plant or wildlife species or habitat), if any had been present and identifiable onsite. ' A-6. Land Uses on and in the Vicinity of the Two Project Sites, up to a Radius of 1/4 Mile The existing land uses on, and in the vicinity of the project site, are briefly described below. In general, the tland uses are shown on Photo Plate Nos. la and b, 2a and b, 5a and b and 9a and b, and Figures 1 and 2. The existing land uses along the Nicolas Road improvement project site are described below. ' Existing The portion of Nicolas Road from Joseph Street to Calle Girasol is paved. From Calle Land Uses: Girasol to MWD easement it is unpaved rough graded dirt road. ' North: Plowed fields, Santa Gertrudis Creek, Liefer Road, Water Well #129, single-family residences, horse stables, Jessie Circle. ' East: Metropolitan Water District easement. South: Single-family residences, flood control berm, Calle Girasol, plowed fields, Calle ' Medusa, Grace Presbyterian Church, single-family rural residences. West: Continuation of Nicolas Road and single-family homes. ' The land uses along the Butterfield Stage Road (BSR) project site are described below. Existing The westerly side of BSR is partially graded north of La Serena Way almost to Klarer ' Land Uses: Lane and south of Chemin Clinet to Rancho California Road. North: Future extension of Calle Chapos and Roripaugh Ranch. ' East: Commercial grape vineyards, vacant acreages vegetated with disturbed RSS, single- family rural residences. South: Rancho California Road. West: Andrea Circle, La Serena Way, Chemin Clinet, Cercle Latour, Walcott Lane roughly ' parallels the street alignment, new residential development. B. MAP OF BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES OF THE PROJECT SITE Figures 4a and 4b, the Biological Resources Map for the project site, indicate the location and acreages of the onsite vegetational types identified within the project site: 49.4± acres of Ruderal/Disturbed non -habitat vegetational association (including paved Nicolas Road) and 4.1t acres of disturbed Riversidean Sage Scrub. C. PROPOSED PROJECT The project sites are related to Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan, which proposes 2,058 residential units with a gross density of 2.56 units per acre. The project also proposes the completion of several major regional roadway links, including Nicolas and Butterfield Stage Roads. The project sites are the right-of-way for the two roadways, Nicolas Road from the MWD easement to Joseph Road, and Butterfield Stage Road from ' Calle Chapos to Rancho California Road. Figure 5 illustrates the division of the project sites into. segments. The list of the segment description is provided in Table 2 on page 13. ' TLC Roripaugh Ranch Off-site 10 ! Ll. Road Improvement Projects (No APNs available) 1 F7 � i NR -1' • 0' �• e_ CALLE MEDUSA • LIEFER ROAD j Seen Inego Aqueduct JOSEPH ` "^ Report Authw: Thomas A. Leslle, M.S. Date Performed: December 15, 2002 O RuderallDlsturbed (Including paved road and landscaping( 14.91 AC Phomas Les Cie Cor. poration Figure 4a Biological Resources Map BIOLOGICAL &CULTURAL (Attachment E-5) INVESTIGATIONS & MONITORING for Roripaugh Ranch Off-site Road Improvement Project Site: Nicolas Road W-1=eW.4MO se G. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I .J 29 \t l244\ BSR-1 -..�BSR-2 ` VISTADLAidiyTER6 p B R-3 -- LA SERENA WAY BSR-4 �BSR4 R/ BSR-6 Report Author: Thomas A. Leslie, M.S. Dale Performed: December 15, 2002 raPao Po G Riversldean Sage Scrub 4.13 AC O Ruderal/Disturbed (Including paved road and landscaping) 34.53 AC 'T"homas Leslie Corporation Figure 4b Biological Resources Map BIOLOGICAL & CULTURAL (Attachment E-6) INVESTIGATIONS & MONITORING for Roripaugh Ranch Offsite Road Improvement Project Site: Butterfield Stage Road 9SR-1, 3, 4. 6- IISGS Biu -fine Stream Co .. BSR4, 6 - N IISGS BW.4, Table 2: CFD Breakdown Segment Descriptions Segment Segment Description Number Nicolas Road from the Westerly Boundary line of the MWD Right -of -Way to the Westerly Right -of -Way of Butterfield Stage Road. 1-5 Improvement include grading full right of way with 2:1 slopes, paving, curb and gutter, sidewalk, street lights, landscaping, storm drain, sewer, water and one signalized intersection. Nicolas Road from the Westerly Boundary line of the MWD Right -of -Way to 450' East of Calle Girasol. 1-9 Improvement include grading partial right of way with 2:1 slopes, paving, asphalt berm, landscaping, storm drain and sewer. Nicolas Road from 450' East of Calle Girasol to the Easterly Right -of -Way of Liefer Road. 1-10 Improvements are limited to transitioning from Segment 1-9 to existing Nicolas Road. Installation of a main line sewer for the entire length of the segment. Nicolas Road from 190' East of Liefer Road to Joseph Road. 1-11 Improvements are limited to installing a main line sewer. The depth of the sewer line will require a wide trench, which means the street will need to be repaved. 1-16 Fire Station/ Fire Truck. Fire Station Grading and Storm Drain. Improvements are limited to grading Fire Station Site with 2:1 slopes. Storm Drain shall 1-17 extend off-site to the easterly property line of the southerly parcel, 1200' east of Butterfield Stage Road. Butterfield Stage Road from Southerly Boundary Line of Tract No. 29353 to 1230' North of La Serena Way. 1-18 Improvements are limited to grading full right-of-way with 2:1 slopes. There are potential right-of-way issues. Butterfield Stage Road from 1230' North of La Serena Way to 700' South of La Serena Way. 1-19 Improvements are limited to grading the east half width with 2:1 slopes. Butterfield Stage Road from 700' South of La Serena Way to Chemin Clinet. 1-20 Improvements are limited to grading full right of way with 2:1 slopes. Butterfield Stage Road from Chemin Clinet to Rancho California Road. 1-21 Improvements are limited to grading full right of way with 2:1 slopes. There are potential right-of-way issues. D. SITE PHOTOGRAPHS Photo Plate Nos. 1-9, located in Appendix A (Attachment E-6), provide representative views of the project site. Figures 6a and 6b show the location and direction from which each site photograph was taken. Roripaugh Ranch Off-site 14 TLC Road Improvement Projects (No APNs available) �j of • f NOJ• • \\�`• L �_ • ( CALJ E MEDUSA LIEFER ROAD 1 t � _ _ � ,►OSE D . - . , I z--4 r`� • r. Thomas LesCie Corporation Figure 6a Nicolas Road BIOLOGICAL & CULTURAL Project Site Photographs: INVESTIGATIONS & MONITORING Location and Direction of Photos 29 r jl CALLE.-- 3b —� CHAPOS ! 44\ b Ba ii i r -u b i�cW NSP a Thomas Leslie Corporation BIOLOGICAL & CULTURAL INVESTIGATIONS & MONITORING - Windmill- �. 1363 Figure 6b Butterfield Stage Road Project Site Photographs: Location and Direction of Photos i b \, , ; VISTA DELMONTE ROAD,' \\ 5b 5a SI —_-- 28LA'SERENA WAY 1 _ b Ba ii i r -u b i�cW NSP a Thomas Leslie Corporation BIOLOGICAL & CULTURAL INVESTIGATIONS & MONITORING - Windmill- �. 1363 Figure 6b Butterfield Stage Road Project Site Photographs: Location and Direction of Photos III. SURVEYS METHODOLOGIES The approach and methods used in preparing the 2002 biological assessment of the Roripaugh Ranch Off- site Road Improvement Projects is described in detail in this section. The scope and purposes of the biological assessment and field surveys and preliminary jurisdictional evaluation are briefly summarized into Pre -Field Surveys and Field Surveys investigations. Although, a "formal" jurisdictional delineation was not performed, the presence or absence of state and federal jurisdictional elements (wetlands, waters of California and the US and/or jurisdictional riparian habitat) was assessed in a general way. Field data, used to prepare this report, was collected during the ten 2002 diurnal field surveys, performed by TLC biologists Thomas A. Leslie, Nadya Leslie and Shelley Sugino. PRE -FIELD SURVEYS INVESTIGATIONS Prior to performing the biological field surveys within the boundaries of the project sites the following Pre - Field Surveys investigations were conducted. A. Literature Review Available, environmental literature, maps and references, including reports documenting previous general and focused biological resources surveys and assessments conducted in the vicinity of the project site, were reviewed to accomplish the following work tasks: • Search for and obtain available, previously compiled inventories (lists) of plant and wildlife species and natural plant communities of properties in the vicinity immediately surrounding the project site. • Identify biologically sensitive elements (species and habitat types) known or expected to occur on, or in the immediate vicinity, of the project site. • Ascertain the need to conduct focused biological surveys to determine the presence or absence of biologically sensitive elements potentially occurring on or in the immediate vicinity of the project site. B. Contact with State and Federal Resources Agencies In accordance with the County's Biological Impact Report Outline requirements (Attachment E), TLC sent letters to CDFG and FWS requesting letters detailing their concerns regarding the Roripaugh Ranch Off- site Road Improvement Projects (TLC, 2001c, d). C. State Records Search and Velum Overlay Map Analysis A current California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB) record search report for the 1953 (Photorevised 1973; Photoinspected 1979) Bachelor Mtn., California, and adjacent 1953 (Photorevised 1979) Murrieta, California, 1968(Photorevised 1988), Pechanga California and 1968 (Photorevised 1975) Temecula, USGS 7.5 Minute Topographic Quadrangles (CDFG, 2002d, e, f, g) were analyzed. In addition, a CNDDB velum overlay maps, for the 1953 (Photorevised 1973; Photoinspected 1979) Bachelor Mtn., California, and adjacent 1953 (Photorevised 1979) Murrieta, California, 1968(Photorevised 1988), Pechanga California and 1968 (Photorevised 1975) Temecula, USGS 7.5 Minute Topographic Quadrangles were used to assist in visually locating biologically sensitive resources (species or habitat) identified by the CNDDB records search text reports (CDFG, 2002h, i, j, k). CNDDB record search reports list sensitive plant species and habitat (biologically sensitive elements) occurring within USGS quadrangles, and provide specific information (e.g., state and federal protection status; global and state rank; CDFG listing status; R.E.D. Code status; specific locational data such as ' township, range, section, quarter, elevation, existence status, habitat quality, dates last observed, habitat preferences, usual species associates, ecological notes, etc.) for each recorded biologically sensitive element occurrence. ' The results of the record search and velum overlay map analysis were used to determine (a) if any sensitive resources had been previously reported within, or in the immediate local vicinity, of the project sites which might be impacted by development of the project site, and (b) which sensitive biological resources should be ' specifically searched for on the property during 2002 field surveys. Roripaugh Ranch O(( -site 17 TLC LC Road Improvement Projects ' (No AM available) ' FIELD SURVEYS INVESTIGATIONS ' Using information gathered, during the Pre -Field Surveys investigations, ten thorough, comprehensive focused plant and wildlife field surveys were performed on the following dates: • May 6, 2002 (Focused plant and wildlife survey) ' • May 16, 2002 (Protocol CAGN survey*) • May 23, 2002 (Protocol CAGN survey*) • May 31, 2002 (Protocol CAGN survey*) • June 7, 2002 (Protocol CAGN survey*) • June 10, 2002 (Focused plant and wildlife survey) 1 1 1 • June 14, 2002 (Protocol CAGN survey*) • June 21, 2002 (Protocol CAGN survey*) • December 15, 2002 (biological and jurisdictional resources mapping; plant and wildlife survey) • December 27, 2002 (biological and jurisdictional resources mapping; plant and wildlife survey) * = the CAGN surveys included compiling an inventory of all wildlife species observed during performance of each of the six CAGN surveys. In addition, all flowering plants of the CAGN survey area were inventoried after the CAGN surveys had been completed (after 1200 noon). No limitations that could have influenced the results of the biological assessment field investigations, were encountered (e.g., inclement weather, wrong time of day for surveys, strong winds, too hot, too cold, etc.). The weather conditions did not affect the field surveys results and field methods used in surveying the project site. A. Field Notes Hand written field notes were made to document the survey conditions, vegetational cover and predominant plant and wildlife species identified onsite. The field notes were later transcribed to computer files as the Appendix B Floral Compendium and the Appendix C Wildlife Compendium and used to prepare this general biological resources assessment. Appendices B and C provide lists of the plant and wildlife species identified onsite during the May -December 2002 field investigations. B. Photographs Documenting the Existing Conditions of Both Project Sites Photo Plate Nos. 1-9 (Appendix A) document the existing conditions of the project sites, and immediately surrounding land uses, observed during the 2002 biological assessment field surveys. Figures 6a and 6b show the location and direction from which each site photograph was taken. C. Field Surveys Methodologies Field surveys methodologies comply with currently accepted natural community and plant and wildlife surveys guidelines for biological elements, set forth by the County of Riverside and relevant state and federal resource agencies such as the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG, 2000), US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS, 1997; 2002a), etc. D. Sample Points, Transects, and any Additional Areas Surveyed The County's standard report format (Biological Impact Report Outline), for preparation of a general biological resources assessment report, requires that the assessment "show on an appropriately scaled map the location of sample points, transects, and any additional areas surveyed in the vicinity of the project." However, no survey map was prepared because the entirety of each project site was surveyed during performance of each of the ten 2002 field surveys. E. Species Inventories An inventory, listing the predominant field identified plant and wildlife species of the parcel, was compiled during the performance of the biological field surveys conducted between May 6 and December 27, 2002. As appropriate, the predominant plant and wildlife species observed were field identified to species by sight, calls, tracks, scat, external morphological features, flight patterns, etc. The field identified plant and wildlife species are listed in floral and wildlife compendia provided in Appendices B and C respectively. The species Roripaugh Ranch Offsite18 TLC Road Improvement Projects (No APNs available) I 1 1 1 1 1 H 1 1 lists are not intended to be comprehensive lists of all species utilizing the project site. The species lists are meant to provide information for use in characterizing the biological resources of the project sites. F. Plant Communities Identified on Project Sites The types of plant communities present onsite were identified and classified according to Holland's Preliminary Description of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California (Holland, 1986) when possible. In addition, and as appropriate, reference was made to how the existing plant communities present onsite would be classified in accordance with A Manual of California Vegetation (Sawyer and Keeler -Wolf, 1995). G. Focused Surveys • Six protocol CAGN surveys were conducted along east side of the future construction widening alignment of Butterfield Stage Road, between Rancho California Road and Calle Chapos. The surveys were conducted on the following dates: May 16, 23 and 31, June 7, 14 and 21 and December 15 and 27, 2002 (TLC, 2002b). Surveys were conducted to determine the presence or absence of the CAGN onsite. • QCB habitat assessment was performed within the two project sites to determine the potential for the QCB to occur within the project boundaries. H. Purpose of the General Biological Assessment Field Surveys Using information gathered during the survey investigation, field surveys were conducted to accomplish the following work tasks: • Develop an inventory of the predominant plant and wildlife species identifiable within project sites during performance of the ten 2002 biological field surveys. • Compile field notes describing the existing onsite vegetational types (habitat and non -habitat vegetational associations) and determine their habitat value in comparison to undeveloped properties in the surrounding local vicinity. • Prepare a map of, and describe the predominant types, current condition and value of the biological resources identified onsite. • Ascertain if the project sites are part of an existing wildlife movement corridor. • Determine the presence or absence of habitat potentially capable of supporting sensitive plant and wildlife species within the project sites. • Search the project sites for sensitive species (state or federally listed threatened or endangered or candidates listing) present and identifiable at the time the general biological and protocol CAGN field surveys were performed. • Ascertain the need to perform jurisdictional delineation, and, if any, identify, describe and map the location and nature of jurisdictional elements (wetlands, waters of California and the US and/or jurisdictional riparian habitat) are located within the project sites, describe them in a general manner. A "formal" jurisdictional delineation was not performed. • Identify and evaluate the significance of all potential direct, indirect, and cumulative project impacts to any sensitive biological resources, or any jurisdictional elements present onsite, resulting from road improvement activities along the right-of-way of each project site: Nicolas and Butterfield Stage Roads. I. Jurisdictional Issues Analysis of the Bachelor Mtn., California, USGS quadrangle (Figure 2) was performed prior to conducting onsite field surveys investigations. The analysis was performed to identify potentially jurisdictional elements (waters, wetlands and riparian habitat). Based on analysis of the topographic contours illustrated on the Bachelor Mtn., California, USGS quad sheet, it was determined that Santa Gertrudis Creek, a blue -line stream course, crosses Nicolas Road (NR) from northeast to southwest. In addition, four blue -line stream courses (three unnamed tributaries to Santa Gertrudis Creek and Long Canyon) cross Butterfield Stage Road (BSR) perpendicularly from east to west. The locations of the blue -line stream courses are illustrated on Figures 4a and 4b as NR -1 and BSR-1, 3, 4 and 6. Therefore, both project sites were inspected to determine if the blue -lines exhibited jurisdictional elements: waters, wetlands or riparian habitat and checked for additional jurisdictional stream courses not mapped on the USGS quadrangle. Roripaugh Ranch Off-site 19 TLC Road Improvement Projects (No APN, available) ' IV. RESULTS ' In accordance with the requirements of the County's Biological Impact Report Outline, this section of the biological assessment describes the botanical and zoological resources of the project "at length." This section discusses the results of the Field Survey investigation including an inventory of existing plant ' species (Appendix B, Floral Compendium), descriptions of onsite plant communities (non -habitat vegetational associations and habitat types) and associated wildlife species (Appendix C, Wildlife Compendium) of the project site. ' PRE -FIELD SURVEYS INVESTIGATIONS A. Literature Review Results ' As earlier discussed in Section III of this report, a literature review was conducted to obtain lists of plant and wildlife species and description of natural plant communities of properties in the vicinity of the project site. ' The following available sources were reviewed to obtain the species lists and habitat descriptions: California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), September 9, 2002d, Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB) Rare Find Record Search Results for the 1953 (Photorevised 1973; Photoinspected ' 1978) Bachelor Mtn., California USGS 7.5 Minute Topographic Quadrangle. California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), September 9, 2002e, Natural Diversity Data Base ' (CNDDB) Rare Find Record Search Results for the 1953 (Photorevised 1979) Murrieta, California USGS 7.5 Minute Topographic Quadrangle. California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), September 9, 2002f, Natural Diversity Data Base ' (CNDDB) Rare Find Record Search Results for the 1968 (Photorevised 1988) Pechanga, California USGS 7.5 Minute Topographic Quadrangle. ' California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), September 9, 2002g, Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB) Rare Find Record Search Results for the 1968 (Photorevised 1975) Temecula, California USGS 7.5 Minute Topographic Quadrangle. ' California Department Of Fish and Game (CDFG), September 9, 2002h, Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB) Quadrangle Velum Overlay No. 33117E1 for the 1953 (Photorevised 1973; Photoinspected 1978) Bachelor Mtn., California USGS 7.5 Minute Topographic Quadrangle. 1 California Department Of Fish and Game (CDFG), September 9, 2002i, Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB) Quadrangle Velum Overlay No. 33117E2 for the 1953 (Photorevised 1979) Murrieta, California USGS 7.5 Minute Topographic Quadrangle. California Department Of Fish and Game (CDFG), September 9, 2002j, Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB) Quadrangle Velum Overlay No. 33117D1 for the 1968 (Photorevised 1988) Pechanga, California USGS 7.5 Minute Topographic Quadrangle. California Department Of Fish & and Game (CDFG), September 9, 2002k, Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB) Quadrangle Velum Overlay No. 33117132 for the 1968 (Photorevised 1975) Temecula, California USGS 7.5 Minute Topographic Quadrangle. County Of Riverside, 1998, Western Riverside County Quino Checkerspot Butterfly Habitat Map. County of Riverside, Transportation and Land Management Agency, November 15, 2002, Draft MSHCP, Volume 1, The Plan. Riverside County Habitat Conservation Agency (RCHCA), March 23, 2000, Map: Plan Areas - Core Reserves (Identifies Plan Area/Free Area Boundary Per Ordinance No. 663.10 For The Stephens Kangaroo Rat). Roripaugh Ranch Off-site 20 TLC Road Improvement Projects (No APNs evailable) ' United States Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), Carlsbad, California, October 18, t 2000, Map: Coastal California Gnatcatcher Critical Habitat. Riverside County. United States Department of the Interior Fish And Wildlife Service (FWS), February 7, 2001, Quino Checkerspot Butterfly Proposed Critical Habitat Map. The information obtained from the review of these sources was used to perform focused species surveys, a QCB habitat assessment and prepare this report. ' B. Contact with State and Federal Resources Agencies In accordance with the requirements of the Riverside County Biological Impact Report Outline, letters were ' sent to US Fish and Wildlife Service and California Department of Fish and Game (TLC, 2002c, d), requesting letters detailing their concerns regarding the Roripaugh Ranch Off-site Road Improvement Projects. ' Results: Responses were received from the both agencies (CDFG, 2002m; FWS, 2002b). As appropriate, responses to the agency concerns were addressed in this report. In general, the agencies recommended "a biologist familiar with ...(the) project site and listed species to further access the potential for direct, indirect, ' and cumulative effects likely to result from the proposed activity"(FWS, 2002b). If the project has "the potential to directly or indirectly impact species of plants or animals listed as State threatened or endangered," an Incidental Take Permit would be necessary. However, all impacts to CAGN observed within the project site and Riversidean Sage Scrub habitat along BSR are "covered" (mitigated) by The Assessment District 161 Final Multiple Species Subarea Habitat Conservation Plan (SHCP) executed on December 4, 2000 by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (Helix, 2001; Implementation Agreement, 2000). Therefore, all permitting requirements have been addressed. ' C. State Record Search and Velum Overlay Map Analysis Current Rare Find records search report data (CDFG, 2002d, e, f, g), velum overlay map (CDFG, 2002h, i, j ' k), CNPS Inventories (CNPS, 2001), CDFG and FWS response letters (CDFG, 2002m; FWS, 2002) and other sensitive species/element lists of major conservation organizations, that identify biologically sensitive species and habitat, were reviewed to determine if sensitive biological elements are present, or could be ' expected to occur onsite. As a result of the review it was determined that five (5) sensitive plant species (four listed and one unlisted but sensitive species) and fifteen (15) sensitive wildlife species (five listed and ten unlisted but sensitive species) have been recorded within the 2.0 miles radius of the property. These twenty species are identified on Tables 3 Sensitive Plant Species Recorded in the Vicinity of the Roripaugh Ranch Off-site Road Improvement Projects and 4 Sensitive Wildlife Species Recorded in the Vicinity of the Roripaugh Ranch Off-site Road Improvement Projects. The property was searched in 2002, to ascertain the presence or absence of potentially suitable habitat for the twenty Tables 3 and 4 species. ' FIELD SURVEYS INVESTIGATION ' A. Plant Communities and Vegetational Associations (Vegetational Types) An analysis of plant communities and associations of the property, was performed using Riverside County's Draft MSHCP map (MSHCP, 2002, Map 3-31), which includes both project sites: Nicolas and Butterfield Stage Roads. A-1. Vegetational Types Identified Along Both Roads by Riverside County's Draft MSHCP Map As illustrated on Figure 7, the Riverside County's Draft MSHCP Map 3-31 depicts the presence of the following six vegetational types within or immediately adjacent to the project site: (a) Grassland, (b) Coastal Sage Scrub, (c) Riparian Scrub, Woodland, Forest, (d) Chaparral, (e) Developed, Disturbed Land and (f) ' Agricultural Land. The County's vegetation map was "field checked" during 2002 field surveys. The vegetation types actually field identified within the project sites are shown on Figures 4a and 4b Biological Resources Map. 'TLC T Roripaugh Ranch Off-site 21 TL I. Road Improvement Projects ' (No APNs available) 4Ad! rf 4ION! 4 � 4►` �► b� M FAWN&% oor .ims 3J� � z 'f r 1� w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w Table 3: Sensitive Plant Species Recorded in the Vicinity of the Roripaugh Ranch Off -Site Road Improvement Projects PROTECTION PRESENCE OR PLANT HABITAT AND DISTRIBUTION BLOOMING STATUS ABSENCE AND SPECIES OF EACH SPECIES * PERIOD (Federal, State, POTENTIAL TO OCCUR CNPS) ONSITE A. LISTED PLANT SPECIES Allium munzii Heavy clay soils in grasslands and openings within March -May Fed: Endangered Absent. This species was not Munz's Onion chaparral, coastal scrub, cismontane woodland, pinyon- CA: Threatened observed onsite during 2002 jumper woodland, at elevations of 300 to 1,070 in (984 to CNPS: List 113 focused plant surveys. 3,510 feet) above msl. RED Code: 3-3-3 Low potential to occur along Distribution: Riverside County. G1; S1.1 Butterfield Stage Road Nearest CNDDB location: 1.3± miles N from the (BSR). No potential to occur intersection of Nicolas Road and San Diego Aqueduct along Nicolas Road due to the (CNDDB, 2002d, h). absence of potentially suitable habitat. Ambrosia Sandy loam or clay soil in chaparral, coastal scrub, valley May- Fed: Endangered Absent. This species was not pumila and foothill grassland, vernal pools, at elevations of 20 to September CA: None observed onsite during the San Diego 415 in (66-1,361 feet) above msl; persists where disturbance CNPS: List 113 2002 focused plant surveys. Ambrosia has been superficial. RED Code: 3-3-2 Distribution: Riverside and San Diego Counties. G 1; S1.1 Low potential to occur alongBSR. No potential to occur Nearest CNDDB location: 0.9± mile NW from the along Nicolas Road due to the intersection of Nicolas Road and MWD easement absence of potentially suitable (CNDDB, 2002d, h). habitat. Navarretia Playas, vernal pools in chenopod scrub, marshes and April -June Fed: Threatened Absent. This species was not fossalis swamps, at elevations of 30 to 1,300 m (98-4,264 feet) above CA: None observed onsite during the Spreading msl. CNPS: List 113 2002 focused plant surveys. Navarretia Distribution: Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside, San RED Code: 2-3-2 Bernardino and San Diego Counties. G2; S2.1 Not expected to occur along Nearest CNDDB location: 1.3± miles N from the either roads . due to the intersection of Nicolas Road and San Diego Aqueduct absence of potentially suitable (CNDDB, 2002d, h). habitat: vernal pools. Orcuttia Vernal pools, at elevations of 15-660 m (49-2,165 feet) April -August Fed: Endangered Absent. This species was not californica above msl. CA: Endangered observed onsite during the California Distribution: Los Angeles, Riverside, San Diego and Ventura CNPS: List IB 2002 focused plant surveys. Orcutt Grass Counties. RED Code: 3-3-2 Not expected to occur along Nearest CNDDB location: 1.9± miles NW from the G2; 52.1 either roads due to the intersection of Nicolas Joseph Roads. Population at this site absence of potentially suitable is extirpated (CNDDB, 2002d, h). habitat: vernal pools, marshes and swamps. B. UNLISTED BUT SENSITIVE PLANT SPECIES Chorizanthe Gabbroic clay in chaparral, coastal scrub, meadows, valley April -July Fed: None Absent. This species was not polygonoides and foothill grassland habitats, at elevations of 30 to 1,450 m CA: None observed onsite during the var. longispina (98-4,756 feet) above msl. CNPS: List 113 2002 focused plant surveys. Distribution: Riverside and San Diego Counties. RED Code: 2-2-2 Low potential to occur along Som flowerd p G25T3; 52.2 BSR.pNo potential to occur Nearest CNDDB location: 1.1± miles N from the along Nicolas Road due to the intersection of Nicolas Road and San Diego Aqueduct absence of potentially suitable (CNDDB, 2002d, h). habitat. * = Elevation range and distribution of the species follows the most current California Native Plant Society (CNPS) Inventory (CNPS, 2001). Table 4: Sensitive Wildlife Species Recorded in the Vicinity of the Roripaugh Ranch Off -Site Road Improvement Projects WILDLIFE HABITAT AND DISTRIBUTION ACTIVITY PRT ATUSON PRESENCE ABSENCE AND POTENTIAL TO SPECIES PERIOD (FEDERAL AND OCCUR ONSITE OF SPECIES STATE) A. LISTED WILDLIFE SPECIES Polioptila Obligate permanent resident of low coastal sage Year-round Fed: Threatened Present. This species was californica scrub in arid washes, on mesas and slopes below CA: None observed between La Serena California 2,500 feet in Southern California. CDFG: CSC Way and vicinity of Vista Del Gnatcatcher Nearest CNDDB location: 0.4± miles NW from the G2T2; S2 Monte Road during performance of 2002 protocol intersection of Nicolas Road and San Diego Aqueduct (CNDDB, 2002d, h). surveys. Dipodomys Annual and perennial grasslands (Non -Native Year-round Fed: Endangered The presence or absence could stephensi Grassland), also in coastal scrub and sagebrush with CA: Threatened be ascertained during the Stephens' sparse canopy cover. Prefers Buckwheat, Chamise, CDFG: None performance of small mammal Kangaroo Rat Brome Grass and Filaree. Will burrow into firm soil. "associated G2; S2 live -trapping studies. Trapping showed that SKR are with locations where grass cover and bare ground are Low to moderate potential to abundant but where bush and rock are uncommon." occur along Butterfield Stage Nearest CNDDB location: 0.1± miles SW from the Road intersection of La Serena Way and Butterfield Stage Road (CNDDB, 2002d, h). Branchinecta Inhabits small clear -water sandstone -depression Wet Season: Fed: Endangered Absent. This species was not lynchi pools and grassed Swale, earth slump, or basalt -flow After CA: None observed onsite during 2002 Vernal Pool Fairy depression pools, vernal pools. pool/swale CDFG: field surveys. Shrimp Nearest CNDDB location: 0.7± miles N from the holds greater G2G3; S2S3 intersection of Nicolas Road and MWD easement than 3 cm of standing Not expected to occur onsite due to the absence of potentially (CNDDB, 2002d, h). water 24 suitable habitat: vernal pools. hours after a rain event. Euphydryas editha Hills and mesas, sunny openings within chaparral March Fed: Endangered Not observed during 2002 quino and coastal sage shrublands. Needs high densities of CA: None surveys. Quino larval food (host) plants (Plantago spp., Antirrhinum CDFG: None Low potential to occur onsite Checkerspot coulterianum, Cordylanthus rigidus and/or Castilleja G5T1; S1 due to the absence of larval food Butterfly exserta). (host) plants (Plantago spp., Nearest CNDDB location: mapped immediately Antirrhinum coulterianum, adjacent to the project site, "around aqueduct & Cordylanthus rigidus and/or Nicolas Rd. intersection" (CNDDB, 2002d, h). Castilleja exserta) Streptocephalus Inhabits seasonally astatic pools filled by Wet Season: Fed: Endangered Absent. This species was not woottoni winter/spring rains, in areas of tectonic swales/earth After CA: None observed onsite during 2002 Riverside Fairy slump basins in grassland and coastal sage scrub. pool/swale CDFG: None filed surveys. Shrimp Endemic to Western Riverside and San Diego holds greater Gl; Sl Counties. than 3 cm of Not expected to occur onsite Nearest CNDDB location: 10.7± miles N from the standing due to the absence of potentially intersection of Nicolas Road and MWD easement water 24 hours after a suitable habitat: vernal pools. (CNDDB, 2002d, h). rain event. B. UNLISTED BUT SENSITIVE WILDLIFE SPECIES Cnemidophorus Prefers washes and other sandy areas with patches of April- Fed: None Absent. This species was not hyperythrus brush and rocks in low -elevation coastal scrub, September CA: None observed onsite during the 2002 Orange -throated chaparral, and valley -foothill hardwood habitats. CDFG: CSC focused wildlife surveys. Whiptail Perennial plants necessary for its major food- G5; S2 termites. Low potential to occur onsite. Nearest CNDDB location: 1.1± miles NE from the intersection of Nicolas Road and MWD easement (CNDDB, 2002d, h). Aimophila ruficeps Frequents relatively steep, open rocky hillsides with March -May Fed: None Present. This species was canescens grass and forb patches in coastal sage scrub and CA: None observed onsite during sparse mixed chaparral. CDFG: CSC performance of 2002 focused Southern G5T2T4; S2S3 wildlife surveys. California Rufous- Nearest CNDDB location: 1.0± miles SE from the crowned Sparrow intersection of Butterfield and Rancho California Roads (CNDDB, 2002d, h). Athene cunicularia Nests in mammals burrows (most commonly of the Year-round Fed: Species of Absent. This species was not Burrowing Owl California Ground Squirrel) in open, dry annual or Concern observed onsite during 2002 perennial grasslands, deserts and scrublands CA: None focused wildlife surveys. characterized by low -growing cover. CDFG: CSC Nearest CNDDB location: 0.2± miles N from the G4; S2 Low potential to occur onsite. intersection of Nicolas Road and San Diego Aqueduct (CNDDB, 2002d, h). Buteo regalis Open grasslands, sagebrush flats, desert scrub, low November- Fed: Species of Absent. This species was not foothills and fringes of pinyon -juniper habitat. March Concern observed onsite during the 2002 Ferruginous hawk CA: None focused wildlife surveys. Nearest CNDDB location: 0.6± miles SW from the CDFG: CSC intersection of Butterfield Stage Road and Calle G4; S3S4 Not expected to occur onsite Chapos (CNDDB, 2002d, h). due to the absence of .potentially suitable habitat: large open areas of grassland. Campylorhynchus Nests and roosts in tall Opuntia cactus. Also inhabits Year-round Fed: None Present. This species was brunneicapillus Southern California Coastal Sage Scrub. CA: None observed onsite during couesi Nearest CNDDB location: 0.4± miles NW from the CDFG: CSC performance of 2002 focused Coastal Cactus intersection of Nicolas Road and San Diego G5T2?Q; S2? wildlife surveys. Wren Aqueduct (CNDDB, 2002d, h). Circus cyaneus Nests on ground in shrubby vegetation, usually at November- Fed: None Absent. This species was not marsh edge; nest built in a large mound of sticks in March CA: None observed onsite during the 2002 Northern Harrier wet areas; forages in grasslands. CDFG: CSC focused wildlife surveys. Nearest CNDDB location: 0.6± miles NE from the G5; S3 Not expected to occur onsite intersection of Butterfield Stage Road and Calle due to the absence of potentially Chapos (CNDDB, 2002d, h), suitable nesting and foraging habitat: grassland, shrubs at marsh edge. Elanus leucurus Forages on open grasslands, meadows and marshes. February- Fed: Species of Absent. This species was not Nests on rolling foothill/valley margins with scattered October Concern observed onsite during the 2002 White-tailed Kite oaks and river bottomlands or marshes next to CA: None focused wildlife surveys. deciduous woodland. Needs dense-topped trees for CDFG: Fully Not expected to occur onsite nesting and perching. Protected due to the absence of potentially Nearest CNDDB location: 0.2± miles NW from the G5; S3 suitable nesting and foraging intersection of Nicolas Road and San Diego habitat: dense-topped trees, open Aqueduct (CNDDB, 2002d, h). grasslands, meadows and marshes. Eremophila Short-grass prairie, "bald" hills, mountain meadows, March- Fed: None Absent. This species was not alpestris actia open coastal plains, fallow grain fields, alkali flats in August CA: None observed onsite during the 2002 coastal region. CDFG: CSC focused wildlife surveys. California Horned G5T3; S3 Lark Nearest CNDDB location: 1.2± miles N from the Low potential to occur onsite. intersection of Butterfield Stage and Rancho California Roads (CNDDB, 2002d, h). Lepus californicus Intermediate canopy stages of coastal sage scrub Year-round Fed: None Present. This species was bennettii habitats and open shrub/herbaceous and CA: None observed onsite during tree/herbaceous edges. CDFG: CSC performance of 2002 focused San Diego Black- G5T3?; S3? wildlife surveys. tailed Jackrabbit Nearest CNDDB location: 0.2± miles NW from the intersection of Nicolas Road and San Diego Aqueduct (CNDDB, 2002d, h). Perognathus Open ground with sandy soils in lower elevation Year-round Fed: None The presence or absence could longimembris grassland and coastal scrub communities in the Los CA: None be ascertained during the brevinasus Angeles Basin. May not dig extensive burrows, CDFG: CSC performance of small mammal hiding under weeds and dead leaves instead. G5T1?; SI? live-trapping studies. Los Angeles Pocket Mouse Nearest CNDDB location: 0.6± miles NE from the May potentially occur onsite. intersection of Butterfield Stage Road and Calle Chapos (CNDDB, 2002d, h). I ' A-2. Plant Communities and Non -habitat Vegetational Associations (Vegetational Types) Identified Along Both Roads During the Field Surveys During the 2002 field surveys, it was determined that the project sites support the following habitat and ' vegetational associations: Butterfield Stage Road: I • Disturbed Riversidean Sage Scrub (between La Serena Way and Calle Chapos) ' • Non-native non -habitat Ruderal/Disturbed vegetational associations (including Landscaped areas) Nicolas Road: ' • Non-native non -habitat Ruderal/Disturbed vegetational associations (including Landscaped areas) No Grassland, Chaparral or "Riparian Scrub, Woodland, Forest" were identified in 2002 within the right- of-way of either project1site. All vegetational types field identified onsite are described in more details below. The discussion includes the following: • a brief introduction,' • a general habitat description, ' • a list of the dominant (indicator) species by which the vegetational type is identified, • distribution of habitat type in California, ' • a site specific description, • representative color Photographs of each vegetational association type, • habitat quality, • associated wildlife species, • protection status, ' • a quantitative analysis of proposed project impacts and • mitigation recommendations. ' A-2.1. Ruderal/Disturbed (CNDDB Element Code: N/A). Introduction: This non -habitat vegetative association covers 49.4± acres or 92.3% (including paved roads) of the 53.5± acre project sites. Habitat Description: Neither Holland (1986) nor Sawyer and Keeler -Wolf (1995) describe Ruderal/Disturbed vegetational associations as a plant community (habitat). ' Characteristic Species: No dominant plant species are associated with Ruderal/Disturbed areas in California; therefore, they are not identifiable by characteristic species. Instead, the species composition of Ruderal/Disturbed areas varies greatly, reflecting edaphic factors, degree and frequency of disturbance (e.g., ' dry -farming disking, planting, and harvest activities, dirt and paved road construction and use, hiking, off- road vehicle impacts, etc.), slope aspect, water availability, weed seed sources of the vicinity, landscape species planted by adjacent property owners, etc. ' Distribution: Since it is not defined as a habitat type, no distribution in California is provided in the literature. ' Site Specific Description: Ruderal/Disturbed areas of the two road improvement project sites are vegetated with associations of annual, locally common, non-native turf grass, landscape shrubs and trees, "weedy" grasses and (orbs and hardy native species growing like weeds such as Tocalote (Centaurea melitensis), ' Short -Pod Mustard (Hirschfeldia incana), Russian Thistle (Salsola tragus), Red -stemmed Fillaree Roripaugh Ranch O(( -site 28 TLC Road Improvement Projects ' (No APNs available) (Erodium cicutarium), Foxtail Chess (Bromus madritensis ssp. rubens), California Buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum), Jimson Weed (Datura wrightii). Landscaping species, such as Acacia (Acacia redolens), Silk Tree (Albizzia julibrissin), Cape Marigold (Dimorphotheca sinuata) growing within the project sites, adjacent to single-family residences. Representative Photographs: Photo Plate Nos. la, lb, 2a, 2b, 3a, 4b, 5b, 8a, 9a and 9b provide representative views of the RuderaUDisturbed areas of the project sites. Habitat Quality: Not applicable. Non-native Ruderal/Disturbed vegetational associations are not identified as habitat. ' Associated Wildlife: Compared to natural, native habitat in the immediately surrounding local vicinity, relatively few species of wildlife were identified in the association with the Ruderal/Disturbed areas of the two project sites. The few species identified were locally common, abundant species characteristically ' associated with Ruderal/Disturbed areas of the local vicinity. A complete list of the wildlife species identified onsite, is provided in Appendix C, Wildlife Compendium. Protection Status: Ruderal/Disturbed areas are not sensitive and have no current or proposed protection status. Project Impacts: Implementation of roads improvement plan would result in the removal of all existing ' RuderaUDisturbed vegetational association. This would not be considered a significant impact under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Mitigation Recommendations: No mitigation is recommended for non-significant potential direct impacts ' to onsite non-native non -habitat Ruderal/Disturbed vegetation. A-2.2. Riversidean Sage Scrub (CNDDB Element Code: 32700). Introduction: This habitat covers the 4.1± acre, or 7.7% of the 53.5± acre project sites along the east side of Butterfield Stage Road (BSR) north of La Serena Way and south of Calle Chapos. Habitat Description: This vegetation type, according to Holland (1986) is the most xeric type of Coastal ' Sage Scrub. Typical stands are fairly open, and dominated by California Sagebrush (Artemisia californica), California Buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum) and Foxtail Chess (Bromus madritensis ssp. rubens), each occupying at least 20% of cover. ' Characteristic Species: The other common species of this vegetational type include Atriplex canescens, Encelia farinosa, Ericameria linearifolia, E. pinifolia, Eriodictyon crassifolium, Gutierrezia californica, ' Isomeris arborea, Lotus scoparius, Malacothamnus fasciculatus, Salvia apiana, S. mellifera, Yucca whipplei. Distribution: Along the coastal base of the Transverse and Peninsular ranges from central Los Angeles ' county to the Mexican frontier (Holland, 1986). Site Specific Description: As shown on Figures 4a and 4b Biological Resources Map, the RSS habitat ' within the project sites is represented by seven small patches. The predominate species of the RSS habitat within the BSR project site include California Buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum), California Sagebrush (Artemisia californica), and Foxtail Chess (Bromus madritensis ssp. rubens). ' Representative Photographs: Photo Plate Nos. 4a, 4b, 5a and 5b provide representative views of the onsite RSS patches. ' Habitat Quality: The quality of the RSS patches within the BSR project site is poor to low due to their discontinuous character and highly disturbed nature. ' Roripaugh Ranch Off-site 29 TLC Road Improvemem Projects ' (No APNs avail.ble) I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Associated Wildlife: Two foraging CAGN pairs were observed on Butterfield Stage Road (BSR), during five of the six protocol surveys conducted between 16 May and 21 June 2002: (a) one pair northeast of the intersection of La Serena Way and BSR and (b) one pair north of the intersection of BSR and Vista Dell Monte. In addition, Southern California Rufous -crowned Sparrow and Coastal Cactus Wren were observed within some of the RSS patches. A complete list of the species identified onsite is provided in the Appendix C, Wildlife Compendium. Protection Status: RSS habitat does not have a specific protection under state or federal law. However, it is considered locally sensitive and is identified as a CNDDB natural, native plant Community With Highest Inventory Priorities (CHIP). It is considered a sensitive habitat because, in other parts of western Riverside county, it (a) supports a high diversity of plant and animal species and (b) is habitat for a number of sensitive species. Project Impacts: Implementation the road improvement projects will result in the removal of all existing highly disturbed RSS habitat patches within the project site right-of-ways: Nicolas and Butterfield Stage Roads. Mitigation Recommendations: All potential impacts to RSS habitat and the CAN observed in it, are covered by The Assessment District 161 Final Multiple Species Subarea Habitat Conservation Plan (SHCP) executed on December 4, 2000 by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (Helix, 2001; Implementation Agreement, 2000). B. Biological Resources Map The County's 2001 Biological Impact Report Outline requires preparation of a biological resources map showing the distribution of plant communities, stream courses, and any wildlife habitat occurring on the site. Figures 4a and 4b Biological Resources Map indicates that the majority of the project sites is vegetated with non -habitat Ruderal/Disturbed vegetational association. Only 4.1± acres of native Riversidean Sage Scrub (RSS) habitat occur in the northern portion of the BSR project site, along the Butterfield Stage Road right- of-way. The RSS habitat, comprised of disjunct highly disturbed patches, occurs north of La Serena Way and south of Vista Del Monte Road. C. Acreages of Plant Associations and Habitat Types Along Both Road Projects As shown on Table 5, in order of abundance, the two project sites support two vegetational associations including (a) Ruderal/Disturbed non -habitat vegetational association and (b) patches of highly disturbed native Riversidean Sage Scrub habitat. Table 5: Acreages of Plant Associations and Habitat Types CNDDB/Holland (1986) Acreages Percent of Property 1. Ruderal/Disturbed non-native non -habitat vegetational association 49.4± 92.3% 2. Disturbed Riversidean Sage Scrub habitat 4.1± 7.7% TOTAL 53.5± 100% D. Quantitative and Transect Data • Not applicable. No transects were walked. Instead, the entirety of both project sites was thoroughly surveyed on foot during each of the ten 2002 field surveys. Roripaugh Ranch 0!( -site 30 TLC Road Improvement Projects (No APNs available) I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 E. Complete Listing of all Plants and Animals Species Observed or Detected E-1. Listing of all Plants Species Observed within the Project Sites The Appendix B Floral Compendium (FC) provides a summary of the types of plants identified within the project site. It was compiled using the results of ten field surveys performed on May 6, 16, 23 and 31, June 7, 10, 14 and 21 and December 15 and 27, 2002. The FC was compiled to inventory onsite botanical resources and determine the presence or absence of sensitive floral species, present and identifiable at the time the surveys were conducted. It only lists those plant species actually identified within the project sites during the field surveys. It does not include a list of "expected but not observed" species. It is possible that a few annual or seasonal herbs, exotic landscape species, or very uncommon native, non- native or cultivar species may have been undetectable or overlooked during the field surveys because they were not obviously visible or identifiable (e.g., had not germinated, were not flowering, had not developed morphological structures necessary for identification to species, etc.). An analysis of the FC shows the following: • A total of 86 species were identified within the project sites during ten 2002 field surveys. • The plant species identified onsite are locally common species typically associated with disturbed Riversidean Sage Scrub and non-native non -habitat Ruderal/Disturbed vegetational associations and landscaped areas Riverside County, California. • Thirty-eight (38) non-native plant types have been identified within the project site. This represents 44.2% (38/86) of the 86 plant types identified within the project site. Natural undisturbed (pristine) habitats in Western Riverside County usually contain less than 25% of non-native plant species. High numbers of non -natives is indicative of highly disturbed areas such as the two road improvement projects (NR and BSR). E-2. PLANT Species of Concern Observed within the Project Sites No listed endangered or threatened species, protected species, species candidate for listing or plant species of concern were identified within the project sites during the ten 2002 biological field surveys. E-3. Potential Impacts to Sensitive Plant Species Identified within the Project Sites Implementation of the road improvement projects will not result in significant impacts to sensitive plant species because none were identified within the project sites during 2002 focused botanical surveys. E-4. Listing of all Animal Species Observed within the Project Sites The Appendix C Wildlife Compendium (WC) provides a summary of the types of wildlife identified within the project site. It was compiled using the results of the ten field surveys performed on May 6, 16, 23 and 31, June 7, 10, 14 and 21 and December 15 and 27, 2002. The WC was compiled to inventory onsite faunal resources and determine the presence or absence of sensitive wildlife species, present and identifiable at the time the surveys were conducted. It only lists those wildlife species actually identified within the project sites during the field surveys. It does not include a list of "expected but not observed" species. A limited number of wildlife species may have been undetectable or overlooked during the field surveys because they were not obviously present, visible or identifiable (e.g., had migrated out of the area, were secreted in subterranean boroughs, are nocturnal, were foraging off-site during the surveys, etc.). An analysis of the WC shows the following: • A total of 59 wildlife species (38 vertebrate and 21 invertebrate species) were identified onsite, between May 6 and December 27, 2002 field surveys. • The wildlife species identified onsite were all locally common species typically associated with the patches of disturbed Riversidean Sage Scrub and non-native non -habitat Ruderal/Disturbed vegetational associations and residential and commercial landscaped areas Riverside County, California. • The only listed species identified within the project sites is the threatened California Gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica; CAGN). Rorip.ogb Ranch Of&site 31 TLC Road Improvement Projects (No APNs available) tE-5. ANIMAL Species of Concern Observed within the Project Sites As previously discussed, two pairs of CAGN were observed within the BSR project site during the ' performance of protocol CAGN surveys (TLC, 2002c). No other listed endangered or threatened species were observed within the boundaries of either project site. Two unlisted but sensitive species were also observed within the project site: Southern California Rufous - crowned Sparrow and Coastal Cactus Wren (both species are CDFG Species of Concern; CSC). A third unlisted CSC, the Golden Eagle was observed flying over the BSR project site. ' E-6. Results of QCB Habitat Assessment Since a number of QCB records occur within the 2± kilometer radius of the project sites (CNDDB, 2002d, h; TKC, 2002), the QCB habitat assessment has been performed to determine the potential for the QCB too ' occur within the boundaries of the project sites. Findings: • The majority of natural vegetation has been removed from the project sites during the grading activities. ' The only natural vegetation within the project site, highly disturbed Riversidean Sage Scrub, occurs along the eastern side of Butterfield Stage Road, between Calle Chapos and La Serena Way. • The project site located outside the QCB critical habitat boundary (FWS, 2001; County, 1998). ' • The QCB is unlikely to occur onsite due to the absence of known larval food plants (Plantago spp., Antirrhinum coulterianum, Cordylanthus rigidus and/or Castilleja exserta). Therefore, additional QCB investigations are not recommended. ' E-7. Potential Impacts to Animals Species Identified within the Project Sites Implementation, of the proposed road improvement projects will result in significant impacts to CAGN occupied Riversidean Sage Scrub habitat (RSS). However, all impacts to the CAGN (and Southern ' California Rufous -crowned Sparrow) and RSS habitat within the project sites are "covered" (mitigated) by The Assessment District 161 Final Multiple Species Subarea Habitat Conservation Plan (SHOP) executed on December 4, 2000 by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (Helix, 2001; Implementation Agreement, 2000). 1 1 1 LJ 1 F. Plant Association Location and Native and Non-native Status F-1. Plant Associations in Which Each Species Was Found Columns 4 and 5 of the Appendix B Floral Compendium provide information regarding the plant association where each species was found: Ruderal/Disturbed (including the landscaping vegetation associated with the large lot single-family rural residences; "R"), Riversidean Sage Scrub ("S") and Creek environs ("C"). F-2. Native and Non-native Status As indicated by "X" in Column 1 of the Floral Compendium, 38 non-native plant species were identified onsite which represents 44.2% (38/86) of the 86 plant types identified onsite. Natural habitats in Western Riverside County usually contain less than 25% of non-native plant species. The unusually high percentage of non -natives growing onsite is indicative of the high degree of past and on-going disturbances along Nicolas and Butterfield Stage Roads. G. Plant Species of Concern that Once Were or Could be Expected to be Present, but Were not Observed G-1. Plant Species of Concern Once Present Onsite No plant species of concern that once were, or could be expected to be present onsite, were identified as being present onsite during the literature review and records searches (CDFG, 2002d -k). G-2. Plant Species of Concern Expected to Occur, but Were not Observed As a result of the analysis of the CNDDB records it was determined that five sensitive plant species are recorded within a 2.0 miles radius of the property. However, due to the disturbed nature of the only native plant habitat - Riversidean Sage Scrub habitat, these species have low or no potential to occur onsite (see Table 3). Roripaugh Ranch Off-site 32 TUC Road Improvement Projects (No APNs available) ' G-3. Results of Focused Searches for Plant Species of Concern ' No species of concern were identified within the project sites during any of the ten focused botanical surveys performed between May 6 and December 27, 2002. ' G-4. Conclusion Due to (a) the highly disturbed nature of RSS habitat within the project sites, (b) the lack of CNDDB records for any plant species of concern onsite or within a 2.0± mile radius and (c) the failure to locate any ' plant species of concern during the 2002 focused field surveys, no plant species of concern could reasonably be expected to occur onsite. G-5. Recommendations ' No further investigations, regarding plant species of concern, are recommended prior to implementation of the road improvement projects. ' H. Estimates of Population Sizes No quantitative population studies were conducted onsite. L Indications of Wildlife Breeding Activity ' No evidence of vertebrate breeding activity (e.g., bird nests) was observed onsite between May 6 and December 27, 2002. ' I-1. Impacts to Breeding Wildlife of the Project Site Impacts to breeding wildlife will not be significant under the CEQA because no evidence of breeding activity was observed. ' I Occurrence of Wildlife in Relation to Wildlife Habitat Types No wildlife species were identified to be specifically associated with any particular habitat type. Wildlife ' species identified onsite occurred randomly over the project sites in highly disturbed patches of Riversidean sage Scrub and non-native non -habitat Ruderal/Disturbed vegetational associations and rural residential landscaping. K. Site -Specific Lists of Plant and Wildlife Species All plant and wildlife species, field -identified onsite during the ten 2002 biological surveys are listed in the Appendix B Floral Compendium and Appendix C Wildlife Compendium, respectively. ' • No listed threatened or endangered plant species, or species candidate for listing, were identified onsite during the 2002 surveys. ' The only listed species, the CAGN and unlisted but sensitive Southern California Rufous -crowned Sparrow and Coastal Cactus Wren were identified within the only native natural habitat — Riversidean Sage Scrub. Although, it was not observed on either road improvement project site, an immature Golden ' Eagle was sighted on May 16, 2002, flying overhead in the vicinity of BSR. • The compendia do not include a listing of "expected but not observed" species. L. Site -Specific List and Discussion of Invertebrates Comprehensive focused searches were conducted over the entirety of both project sites for invertebrates between May 6 and December 27, 2002. Table 6 lists the twenty-one invertebrate species identified along Nicolas and Butterfield Stage Roads. Invertebrate taxonomy used in this report follows Hogue, 1993, Powell and Hogue, 1979, and Borror and White, 1970. • All 21 invertebrate species s identified, are locally common, abundant species. • No unusual species concentrations, unique, or symbiotic relationships between an invertebrate, vertebrate, plant species or specific habitat type was identified onsite between May 6 and December 27, 2002. Roripaugh Ranch Off-site 33 TLC Road Improvement Projects (No APNs available) ' L-1. Sensitive Invertebrates • None of the invertebrate species observed onsite are currently identified as listed, or unlisted but sensitive species, by the US Fish and Wildlife Service or the California Department of Fish and Game. • The nearest CNDDB location for the sensitive invertebrate species Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp and Riverside Fairy Shrimp is 1.4± miles north from the intersection of Nicolas Road and San Diego Aqueduct. However these species are not expected to occur in within the project sites due to the absence of potentially suitable shrimp habitat: vernal pools. • Although, mapped immediately adjacent to the NR project site (around aqueduct & Nicolas Rd. intersection") by the CNDDB records (CDFG, 2002d, h), the QCB is not expected to occur within right-of-way for Nicolas and Butterfield Stage Roads, due to the absence of QCB host and nectary species. Table 6: Invertebrate Faunal List for the Roripaugh Ranch Off Off-site Road Improvement Projects CLASS INSECTA INSECTS (19) Apis mellifera Honey Bee Apodemia mormo Mormon Metalmark Bombus sp. Bumble Bee Chrysops sp. Deer Fly Dasymutilla sp. Velvet -ant Forficula auriculata European Earwig Gryllus pennsylvanicus Field Cricket Icaricia acmon Acmon Blue Iridomyrmex humilis Argentine Ant Parasarcophaga sp. Flesh Fly Pepsis chrysothymus Tarantula Hawk Pieris rapae Cabbage Butterfly Pogonomyrmex californicus California Harvester Ant Pyrgus albescens Western Checkered Skipper Solenopsis xyloni Southern Fire Ant Sympetrum corruptum Pastel Skimmer Tibicinoides cupreosparsus Red -winged Grass Cicada Trimerotropis pallidipennis Pallid Band -wing Vespula pensylvanica Yellow Jacket CLASS GASTROPODA SNAILS AND SLUGS (1) Helix aspersa Brown Garden Snail CLASS ARACHNIDAE ISPIDERS (1) Latrodectus hesperus I Western Black Widow Roripaugh Ranch Off-site 34 TLC Road Improvement Projects (No APNs available) 1 ' M. California Native Plant Society Plant Field Surveys Form and/or a Natural Community Field Surveys Form for Unusual Plant Communities California Natural Community Field Survey Form for the only natural habitat within the project sites, RSS, ' was filled out and sent to the CDFG. The copy of the form is provided in Appendix D. No listed or unlisted but sensitive plant species were identified within the project sites. Therefore, no CNPS plant survey form was filled out. N. Jurisdictional Issues N-1. Literature Review Results ' Analysis of the Bachelor Mtn., California, USGS topographic quadrangle (Figure 2) was performed prior to conducting onsite field surveys investigations. The analysis was performed to identify potentially jurisdictional elements (waters, wetlands and riparian habitat). ' Findings: • Based on analysis of the topographic contours of the USGS quadsheet it was determined that Santa 1 Gertrudis Creek, a blue -line stream course, crosses Nicolas Road. • Four blue -line stream courses (Long Canyon and unnamed tributaries to Santa Gertrudis Creek) run perpendicular to Butterfield Stage Road. The locations of the blue -line stream courses are illustrated on ' Figures 4a and 4b. The results of the pre -field survey analysis were "field checked" during 2002 field surveys. Both projects ' were also inspected for additional jurisdictional stream courses not mapped on the Bachelor Mtn., California quadrangle. 1 I 1 1 1 1 N-2. Field Surveys Results Table 7 summarizes the results of the field inspection of the stream courses identified as blue -line on Bachelor Mtn., California, USGS quadrangle: NR -1 and BSR-1, 3, 4 and 6 and the additional two stream courses not illustrated as blue -lines on Bachelor Mtn., California, USGS quadrangle: BSR-2 and 5 (Figures 4a and 4b). N-3. Need to Perform a Jurisdictional Delineation • Due to the presence of jurisdictional elements (primarily state and federal waters), and non jurisdictional features (topographic swales), a performance of a "formal" jurisdictional delineation is recommended. Butterfield Stage Road: • A jurisdictional delineation must be performed to determine, if any regulatory approvals will be necessary to authorize the impacts of the road improvement projects on blue -line stream courses traversing BSR. It is our understanding that Glen Lukos Associates (GLA) has been contracted to perform a jurisdictional delineation for the BSR improvement project. Nicolas Road: Regulatory approvals will be required to authorize construction of Nicolas Road improvement across Santa Gertrudis Creek. • A jurisdictional delineation must be performed to ascertain the acreages of jurisdiction to be impacted by implementation of the Nicolas Road improvement project. Roripaugh Ranch Off-site 35 TLC Road Improvemcnt Projccts (No APN$ available) Table 7: Preliminary Analysis of Stream Courses Characteristics and Presence or Absence of Jurisdictional Elements Along the Two Road Improvement Projects Stream Course Identification and Presence of Bed and Banks (OHWM*) Presence of Presence of Location Keyed to Project Figures Riparian Wetlands and Photo Plates Within ROW East of ROW West of ROW Habitat NR -1 (Figure 4a; Photo Plate No. 2) Yes. Yes. Yes. Yes. Mule Fat, Possible due Santa Gertrudis Creek, where it crosses Willows and to the Nicolas Road just northeast of the Cottonwoods. presence of intersection of Nicolas Road and Calle hydric Girasol. vegetation. BSR- 1 (Figure 4b; Photo Plate No. 3) No. Intermittent bed No well-defined bed and No. UPL** only. No. Calle Chapos and banks banks (recently disked). (recently disked). BSR-2 (Figure 4b; Photo Plate No. 4b) Yes. Well-defined Intermittent between west No. UPL only. No. Andrea Circle sandy bottom. side of BSR and Walcott Lane, may eventually connect to Santa Gertrudis Creek. BSR-3 (Figure 4b; Photo Plate No. 5) Sandy stream Sandy stream Sandy stream bottom No. UPL only. No. Vista Del Monte Road bottom along bottom along along stream course. stream course. stream course. BSR-4 (Figure 4b; Photo Plate No. 6) No. No bed and Recently paved No. Bare dirt or No. Along La Serena Way banks. A dirt portions of La Ruderal/Disturbed vineyard road Serena Way. weedy vegetation only. only. BSR-5 (Figure 4b; Photo Plate No. 7) No. Sandy surface, Concrete V -ditch leading No. UPL only. No. Stream course south of La Serena Way no bed and to RCP under fill lot. May and north of Long Canyon banks. eventually connect to Murrieta Creek. BSR-6 (Figure 4b; Photo Plate No. 8) No. Surface flows Bed and banks leading to No. UPL only. No. Long Canyon indicated by RCP under fill lot. May sand. eventually connect to Murrieta Creek. * OHWM = Ordinary High Water Mark ** UPL = Upland Vegetation Predominating I ' V. RARE, ENDANGERED OR SENSITIVE SPECIES AND HABITATS A. LISTED AND UNLISTED BUT SENSITIVE PLANT SPECIES ' No plant species listed as threatened or endangered were identified onsite during performance of the ten 2002 field surveys. The Appendix B Floral Compendium provides a complete list of the locally common plant species identified onsite. ' As part of the 2002 biological assessment, Table 3 Sensitive Plant Species Recorded in the Vicinity of the Roripaugh Ranch Off -Site Road Improvement Project Sites was prepared to identify which listed, and unlisted but sensitive plant species of concern, are recorded within the 2.0± miles radius from the road ' improvement project sites. Table 3 was constructed using information obtained from an analysis of the CNDDB records search reports, and velum quadsheet overlays, for the Bachelor Mtn., California and the adjacent Murrieta, Pechanga and Temecula, California quadrangles (CDFG, 2002d -k). Five plant species, ' Munz's Onion, San Diego Ambrosia, Spreading Navarretia, California Orcutt Grass and Long-spined Spineflower, were recorded within a 2± mile radius of two road improvement project sites. ' Table 3 provides the following information for each species: common and scientific name, habitat and distribution, blooming period, state, federal and the CNPS protection status, R -E -D Code, global and state ranking, and probability of occurrence within the project site. The probability of occurrence is based on such factors as the presence/absence of suitable habitat, the presence/absence of CNDDB records on or in the ' immediate vicinity of the project site, the results of focused plant surveys, etc. The analysis of Table 3 are provided below. A-1. LISTED Plant Species A-1.1 CNDDB Records for Listed Plant Species • No CNDDB records for listed plant species occur within either project site. • CNDDB records for four listed plant species (Munz's Onion, San Diego Ambrosia, Spreading Navarretia and California Orcutt Grass) occur within a 2.0± mile radius of the project sites. A-1.2. Field Observations of Listed Plant Species • None of the four listed species, recorded within the 2.0± mile radius of the project sites, were observed within either project site. • No potentially suitable habitat for the Spreading Navarretia and California Orcutt Grass (vernal pools, marshes and swamps) is present within either project site. Therefore, these species are not expected to occur within either project site. • No Munz's Onion and San Diego Ambrosia habitat is present within the NR project site. • Although, marginally suitable habitat for the Munz's Onion and San Diego Ambrosia is present within the BSR project site (Riversidean Sage Scrub), these species were not observed during 2002 focused plant surveys conducted during the flowering period for these plants (March -May and May -September, respectively). A-2. UNLISTED but Sensitive Plant Species A-2.1 CNDDB Records for Listed Plant Species • No CNDDB records for unlisted but sensitive plant species occur within either project site. • A CNDDB record for one unlisted but sensitive species (Long-spined Spineflower) is present within a 2.0± mile radius of the project sites. Roripaugh Ranch Off-site 37 TLC Road Improvement Projects (No APNs available) t A-2.2. Field Observations of Listed Plant Species • No unlisted but sensitive species were observed within either project site. ' • No Long -spine Spineflower habitat is present within the NR project site. • Although, marginally suitable habitat for the Long-spined Spineflower is present within the BSR project site (Riversidean Sage Scrub), this species was not observed during 2002 focused plant surveys ' conducted during the flowering period for this plant (April -July). B. LISTED AND UNLISTED BUT SENSITIVE WILDLIFE SPECIES ' As part of the 2002 biological assessment, Table 4 Sensitive Wildlife Species Recorded in the Vicinity of the Roripaugh Ranch Off -Site Road Improvement Projects was prepared to identify which listed, and unlisted wildlife species of concern, are recorded within the 2.0± miles radius from the project site. Table 4 was ' constructed using information obtained from an analysis of the CNDDB records search reports, and velum quadsheet overlays, for the Bachelor Mtn. and the adjacent Murrieta, Pechanga and Temecula, California quadrangles (CDFG, 2002d -k). Five listed and ten unlisted but sensitive wildlife species were recorded within a 2± mile radius of two road improvement project sites. Table 4 provides the following information for each species: common and scientific name, habitat and distribution, blooming period, state, federal and the CDFG protection status, global and state ranking, and ' probability of occurrence within the project site. The probability of occurrence is based on such factors as the presence/absence of suitable habitat, the presence/absence of CNDDB records on or in the immediate vicinity of the project site, the results of focused surveys, etc. ' B-1. LISTED Wildlife Species B-1.1 CNDDB Records for Listed Wildlife Species ' • No listed wildlife species are recorded within the boundaries of either road improvement project site. • The absence of CNDDB records for listed wildlife species within the road improvement project sites was confirmed by plotting the UTM coordinates for the five listed wildlife species recorded within a ' 2.0± mile radius of the project sites: CAGN, QCB, SKR, and Vernal Pool and Riverside Fairy Shrimps. All UTM coordinates for the listed species are outside both project sites boundaries. • Records for the QCB, SKR, and the Vernal Pool and the Riverside Fairy Shrimps are mapped within the 2.0± miles radius of the project site. B-1.2. Field Observations of Listed Wildlife Species ' California Gnatcatcher • Two foraging CAGN pairs were observed within the BSR project site, in the vicinity of La Serena Way and Vista Del Monte Road, during the performance of protocol CAGN surveys on May 16, 23, 31 and June 7 and 21, 2002 (TLC, 2002c). • No evidence of CAGN breeding (nesting) was observed within the 38.6± acre BSR project site. Findings: • Actual or potential impacts to CAGN, QCB, the Riverside Fairy Shrimp and Riversidean Sage Scrub ' habitat identified between La Serena Way and Calle Chapos, resulting from construction widening of Butterfield Stage Road between Rancho California Road and Calle Chapos are "covered" (mitigated) by The Assessment District 161 Final Multiple Species Subarea Habitat Conservation Plan (SHCP) ' executed on December 4, 2000 by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (Helix, 2001; Implementation Agreement, 2000). • An analysis of the Riverside County Habitat Conservation Agency (RCHCA) Plan Areas - Core Reserves Map (Identifies Plan Area/Free Area Boundary Per Ordinance No. 663.10 For The Stephens' Rorip..,h Reach Off-site 38 TLC Road Improvement Projects (No APNs available) Kangaroo Rat) showed that the two road improvement project sites are located in the SKR fee area (RCHCA, 2000). Therefore, any potential impacts to the SKR habitat, individuals or populations will be mitigated by payment of an SKR mitigation fee. • The Veinal Pool Fairy Shrimp is not expected to occur within either project site due to the absence of potentially suitable habitat: vernal pools. Therefore, neither the shrimp, or its habitat (vernal pools), will be impacted by implementation of the road improvement projects. The nearest recorded location for the Vernal Pool Fairy Shrimp and Riverside Fairy Shrimps is in Skunk Hollow, dated 1990 (CDFG, 2002d, h). B-2. UNLISTED but Sensitive Wildlife Species ' B-1.1 CNDDB Records for Unlisted but Sensitive Wildlife Species • No CNDDB records for unlisted but sensitive wildlife species occur within either project site. ' • As documented on Table 4, CNDDB records for ten unlisted but sensitive wildlife species occur within a 2.0± mile radius from the project site. B-1.2. Field Observations of Unlisted but Sensitive Wildlife Species • Two Table 4 wildlife unlisted but sensitive species were observed within the BSR project site: Southern California Rufous -crowned Sparrow and Coastal Cactus Wren. In addition, a single Golden Eagle ' individual, not recorded by the CNDDB within the 2.0± miles radius of either project site, was observed flying over on May 16, 2002. All three species are CDFG Species of Concern. to Although, potentially suitable habitat for the Orange -throated Whiptail, Burrowing Owl and California Horned Lark is present within the BSR project site, they were not observed during 2002 focused surveys. ' • The presence or absence of Los Angeles Pocket Mouse within the project sites could be ascertained during the performance of small mammal live -trapping studies. ' • No potentially suitable nesting and foraging habitat for the Golden Eagle, Ferruginous Hawk, Northern Harrier and White-tailed Kite occurs within the project site. Therefore, these species are not expected to nest within the project site. C. SENSITIVE HABITAT TYPES An analysis of CNDDB records showed that no sensitive habitat types have been recorded within a 2.0± mile radius of the project site. Roripaugh Ranch Off-site 39 TLC Road Impro.ement Projects (No APNs available) I ' VI. IMPACTS AND MITIGATION RECOMMENDATIONS A. DIRECT, INDIRECT AND CUMULATIVE IMPACTS This section provides a listing, evaluation and discussion of potential direct, indirect and cumulative impacts ' associated with project implementation to threatened, rare, endangered or unique species, either listed or proposed, both onsite, and within a 0.25± mile radius, of the project site. ' A-1. Thresholds for Determining Significance This section of the biological assessment evaluates the effects of development of the project site. The following analysis was conducted in accordance with guidelines of the California Environmental Quality ' Act (CEQA), Appendix G criteria for threshold of significance. A specific criterion that applies to the onsite removal of existing non-significant vegetational habitat is listed below. The CEQA defines significant effect upon the vegetational habitat, and associated locally common wildlife species, in the following manner. That ' is, effects are significant if they result in the following actions. • Reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or wildlife (the CEQA defines a species as "rare or endangered" if it is (a) listed under state or federal Endangered Species Acts, or (b) "can be shown to meet the criteria" for listing). • Interfere substantially with the movement of any resident or migratory fish or wildlife species. ' • Substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species. • Cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels. ' • Threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community. • Environmental effects, which are individually limited but cumulatively considerable when, viewed in ' connection with the effects of past, present, and probably future projects. A-2. Direct Project Impacts ' A-2.1. Impacts to Threatened, Rare, Endangered or Unique PLANT Species Implementation of the road improvement projects will not reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant species for the following reasons: ' • No CNDDB records for listed, or unlisted but sensitive plant species occur within the project site. • None of the sensitive plant species listed on Table 3, were identified onsite during the ten 2002 field surveys. ' • No sensitive plant species are expected to occur onsite due to the absence of the natural native habitat from the majority (92.3%, or 49.4± acres) of the project sites and the patchy character and highly ' disturbed nature of the 4.1± acre patch of RSS habitat to be removed by implementation of the proposed BSR road improvement. Finding ' • The road improvement proposed for the two project sites will not impact listed, or unlisted but sensitive plant species, because none were observed onsite. Furthermore, none are expected to occur onsite due to the absence of potentially suitable habitat from the majority (92.3%) of the project sites. ' A-2.2. Impacts to Threatened, Rare, Endangered or Unique WILDLIFE Species Implementation of the road improvement projects will not reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered wildlife species for the following reasons: ' • Potential impacts to listed species, such as the CAGN or QCB, are "covered" (mitigated) by The Assessment District 161 Final Multiple Species Subarea Habitat Conservation Plan (SHCP) executed on December 4, 2000 by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (Helix, 2001; Implementation Agreement, ' 2000). Roripaugh Ranch Off -sine 40 TLC Road Improvement Projects ' (No APNs available) 1 ' • CNDDB records for the SKR are present within a 0.1± mile radius of the two road improvement project sites. Therefore, SKR individuals, populations and habitat will be impacted. • Two of the unlisted but sensitive wildlife species, identified on Table 4, were observed onsite during ' performance of the focused wildlife field surveys: the Southern California Rufous -crowned Sparrow and the Coastal Cactus Wren. Potential impacts to the sparrow are also covered by the AD 161 SHCP. No mitigation will be required to the unlisted Coastal Cactus Wren. ' • No other sensitive wildlife species are expected to occur within the project sites because no other sensitive species, or potentially suitable habitat for other sensitive wildlife species was observed onsite. ' Finding • Impacts to listed, or unlisted but sensitive wildlife species will be "covered" by AD 161 SHCP. ' A-2.3. Impacts to Plant Communities (Habitat) Implementation of land use plan proposed for the project sites would involve removal of all patches of ' highly disturbed RSS and non-native non -habitat Ruderal/Disturbed vegetational associations, present within the project sites. This will not substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, will not cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels and will not threaten to eliminate a plant or wildlife community (habitat). ' Findings • The loss of 49.4± acres of non -habitat Ruderal/Disturbed vegetation will not be considered a significant ' direct or indirect impact under the CEQA. • The loss of 4.1± acres of disturbed RSS habitat will be less than significant impact with mitigation proposed by the AD 161 SHCP. A-2.4. Impacts to State and Federal Jurisdictional Elements Santa Gertrudis Creek, a blue -line stream course, crosses Nicolas Road just northeast of the intersection of t Nicolas Road and Calle Girasol. Four blue -line stream courses cross Butterfield Stage Road between Chemin Clinet and Calle Chapos. ' Finding • Santa Gertrudis Creek (Figure 4a) will be impacted during construction of the proposed Nicolas Road improvements. Therefore, regulatory approvals (401, 404, 1603) will be required to authorize ' construction of the Nicolas Road improvement. A jurisdictional delineation will be necessary to qualitatively and quantitatively describe the state and federal waters and associated Willow/Mule Fat/Cottonwood vegetation that will be impacted. ' Long Canyon and three unnamed blue -line tributaries of Santa Gertrudis Creek (Figure 4b) will be impacted by construction of the BSR road improvement. As an aside, "Long Canyon" is referred to as "Long Valley Wash" in the Roripaugh Ranch EIR (TKC, 2002). A jurisdictional ' delineation will be performed by GLA to ascertain the need to obtain regulatory approvals. It is possible that the BSR blue -lines are non jurisdictional "isolated waters." If so, this must be documented in a delineation report. ' A-2.5. Impacts to Wildlife Movement Corridors (WMC) Although, some local wildlife certainly move along the project sites (e.g., birds, coyotes, dogs, horses, etc), field investigations showed that the project sites are apparently not connected to or part of a distinct WMC. ' Finding • The implementation of the proposed road improvement projects will not interfere substantially with the movement of any resident or migratory fish or wildlife species. ' TLC Roripaugh Ranch Off-site 41 L L.l. Road Improvement Projects ' (No APN, available) A-3. Indirect Project Impacts Finding • The implementation of the proposed road improvement projects will not result in significant indirect ' impacts to sensitive biological or jurisdictional elements. A-4. Cumulative Project Impacts ' Within the State CEQA Guidelines, §15065, subd. (c), mandatory findings of significance are required when "the project has possible environmental effects which are individually limited but cumulatively considerable." The CEQA defines "cumulatively considerable", as "the incremental effects of an ' individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects and the effects of probable future projects". Finding • The implementation of proposed road improvement projects will not result in any measurable environmental effects, which are individually limited but cumulatively considerable when, viewed in connection with the effects of past, present, and possible future projects. Roripaugh Ranch Off-site 42 TLC Road Improvement Projects (No APNs available) ' B. MITIGATION RECOMMENDATIONS ' B-1. Loss of Habitat Types and Non -Habitat Vegetational Association All identifiable and possible impacts to sensitive habitat within the project sites are "covered" (mitigated) by The Assessment District 161 Final Multiple Species Subarea Habitat Conservation Plan (SHCP) executed ' on December 4, 2000 by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (Helix, 2001; Implementation Agreement, 2000). B-2. Impacts to Federal and State Jurisdictional Elements ' A jurisdictional delineation must be performed along both road improvement project alignments to qualitatively and quantitatively document all jurisdictional elements (waters and riparian habitat) present along either project alignment. The results of the delineation will be used to determine which, if any, regulatory approvals will be required to authorize construction of the road improvement being proposed. ' B-3. Impacts to Wildlife Movement Corridors Although, some local wildlife certainly move along the project sites, the field investigation showed that the ' project sites are not apparently connected to or part of a distinct primary or secondary wildlife movement corridor. Therefore, mitigation measures are not recommended regarding impacts to wildlife movement corridors. ' B-4. Impacts to Threatened, Rare, Endangered or Unique PLANT Species All impacts to sensitive species, known or potentially occurring within the two project sites, are "covered" (mitigated) by The Assessment District 161 Final Multiple Species Subarea Habitat Conservation Plan (SHCP) executed on December 4, 2000 by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (Helix, 2001; Implementation Agreement, 2000). ' B-5. Impacts to Threatened, Rare, Endangered or Unique WILDLIFE Species All impacts to sensitive species, known or potentially occurring within the two project sites, are "covered" (mitigated) by The Assessment District 161 Final Multiple Species Subarea Habitat Conservation Plan ' (SHCP) executed on December 4, 2000 by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (Helix, 2001; Implementation Agreement, 2000). The project sites lie within the County's SKR fee area. Therefore, any potential impacts to SKR individuals ' or populations will be mitigated by payment an SKR mitigation fee to the RCHCA. B-6. Indirect Impacts ' Under the CEQA, no significant indirect impacts are anticipated. Therefore, no mitigation measures regarding indirect impacts are recommended. B-7. Cumulative Impacts ' Under the CEQA, no significant cumulative impacts are anticipated. Therefore, no mitigation measures regarding cumulative impacts are recommended. ' C. TABULATION OF RECOMMENDED MITIGATION MEASURES No mitigation measures are recommended because all impacts to listed or unlisted but sensitive species and Riversidean Sage Scrub habitat identified within the project sites are "covered" (mitigated) by The ' Assessment District 161 Final Multiple Species Subarea Habitat Conservation Plan (SHCP) executed on December 4, 2000 by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (Helix, 2001; Implementation Agreement, 2000) and payment of the SKR fee to the RCHCA. ' AB 3180 Mitigation Monitoring: Not applicable since no mitigation measures are proposed. D. ADDITIONAL INVESTIGATIONS A jurisdictional delineation must be performed along both road improvement project alignments to ' qualitatively and quantitatively document the Table 7 jurisdictional elements (waters and riparian habitat) identified along the two road improvement project alignments. The results of the delineation will be used to determine which, if any, regulatory approvals will be required to authorize construction of the road ' improvement being proposed. Rorip..gh Ranch Off -sit, 43 TLC Road Improvement Projects (No APNs available) Attachment E-4 LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE CHECKLIST FOR BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES (Attach to report) Project Name: The study areas are within the right-of-way for Nicolas Road from the MWD easement to Joseph Road and Butterfield Stage Road from Calle Chagos to Rancho California Road the project is related to Roripaugh Ranch Specific Plan FIR approved in 2002 State Clearinghouse # 97121030 Wildlife & Vegetation Potentially Less than Significant Less than No Significant with Mitigation Significant Impact Impact Incorporated (SHCP) Impact (Check the level of impact that applies to the following questions) a) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Conservation Community Plan, ' or other approved local, regional, or state conservation plan? X — b) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any endangered, or ' threatened species, as listed in Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations (Sections 670.2 or 670.5) or in Title 50, Code of Federal Regulations (Sections 17.11 or 17.12)? _ X (SHCP)* _ ' c) Have a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Wildlife Service? X (SHCP) — — d) Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with ' established native resident migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? — — — X e) Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in ' local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? ' — X (SHCP) — — f) Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, ' hydrological interruption, or other means? X g) Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? X h) Create any impact which is individually limited, but cumulatively considerable. "Cumulatively considerable' means that the incremental effects of an individual project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects as defined in Section 15130 (14 Calif. Code of Regs.) X * = AD 161 Subarea Habitat Conservation Plan SHCP (Helix, 2001; Implementation Agreement, 2000) E-4.1 ' Attachment E-4 ' LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE CHECKLIST FOR BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Findings of Fact: • Two foraging CAGN pairs were observed within the survey area, during ' five of the six protocol surveys conducted between 16 May and 21 June 2002. • No QCB are expected to occur within the study area due to the absence of known QCB host and food plants and highly disturbed nature of RSS habitat along BSR. Proposed Mitigation: • None. • Road Improvement Impacts, to the California Gnatcatcher pairs, three unlisted but sensitive wildlife species and Riversidean Sage Scrub (RSS) habitat identified between La Serena Way and Calle Chapos, are "covered" (mitigated) by The Assessment District 161 Final Multiple Species Subarea Habitat Conservation Plan (SHCP) executed on December 4, 2000 by the US Fish and Wildlife Service (Helix, 2001; Implementation Agreement, 2000). • Although, no QCB or Riverside Fairy Shrimp were identified, all impacts to potentially suitable habitat are also "covered" by the SHCP. Monitoring Recommended: None. The monitoring is not appropriate. �� Prepared By: Date: 01-10-03 Thomas A. Leslie. M.S. E-4.2 VIII. REFERENCES, VOUCHERS, ETC. A. BIBLIOGRAPHY See Section X, References Cited And Relevant, But Not Cited And Persons Contacted. B. REFERENCES CITED See Section X, References Cited And Relevant, But Not Cited And Persons Contacted. C. PERSONS CONTACTED Each person contacted is listed alphabetically by name in the Section X; References Cited and Relevant but Not Cited and Persons Contacted section. of this,report. D. HERBARIA AND COLLECTIONS VISITED No herbaria or collections were visited. E. DISPOSITION OF VOUCHER SPECIMENS N/A. No voucher specimens were collected. F. CURRENT PHOTOS ' Eighteen current color photographs of the project site, showing representative views of the existing onsite biotic resources and abiotic features of the property, are provided in Appendix A (Photo Plate Nos. 1-9) of this biological assessment report. IX. CERTIFICATION ' I hereby certify that the statement furnished above and . in the attached exhibits present the data and information required for this biological surveys, and that the facts, statements and information present herein are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and'belief. 1 1 1 1 I 1 DATE: O I 1) Fieldwork Perf ed By: Thomas A. Leslie, M.S. 3) Fieldwork Performed By: NISPI 4 -FM Wrm Roripaugh Ranch Off -rim Road Improvement Projecm (No APN, available) SIGNED:—Z' c7� Report Author Thomas A. Leslie, M.S. Riverside County Certified Biologist 2) Fieldwork Performed By: Nadya V4Leslie, M.S. 46 TLC ' X. REFERENCES CITED, REFERENCES NOT CITED BUT RELEVANT, AND PERSONAL CONTACTS ' Bailey, L, 1949, Manual of Cultivated Plants, Revised Edition, Macmillan Publishing Company. California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), December 9, 1983, Revised May 8, 2000, Guidelines for Assessing the Effects of Proposed Projects on Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Plants and Natural ' Communities. California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB), July, 2002a, Special Animals. ' California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB), July, 2002b, Special Vascular Plants, Bryophytes, and Lichens List. ' California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), July 2002c, State and Federally Listed Endangered and Threatened Animals of California. California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB), September 9, 2002d, Rare Find Record Search Results for the 1953 (Photorevised 1973; Photoinspected 1978) Bachelor Mtn., California USGS 7.5 Minute Topographic Quadrangle. California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB), September 9, 2002e, Rare Find Record Search Results for the 1953 (Photorevised 1979) Murrieta, California ' USGS 7.5 Minute Topographic Quadrangle. California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB), September 9, 2002f, Rare Find Record Search Results for the 1968 (Photorevised 1988) Pechanga, California ' USGS 7.5 Minute Topographic Quadrangle. California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB), September 9, ' 2002g, Rare Find Record Search Results for the 1968 (Photorevised 1975) Temecula, California USGS 7.5 Minute Topographic Quadrangle. ' California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB), September 9, 2002h, Quadrangle Velum Overlay No. 33117E1 for the 1953 (Photorevised 1973; Photoinspected 1978) Bachelor Mtn., California USGS 7.5 Minute Topographic Quadrangle. ' California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB), September 9, 2002i, Quadrangle Velum Overlay No. 33117E2 for the 1953 (Photorevised 1979) Murrieta, California USGS 7.5 Minute Topographic Quadrangle. 1 11 1 1 California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB), September 9, 2002j, Quadrangle Velum Overlay No. 33117D1 for the 1968 (Photorevised 1988) Pechanga, California USGS 7.5 Minute Topographic Quadrangle. California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), Natural Diversity Data Base (CNDDB), September 9, 2002k, Quadrangle Velum Overlay No. 33117132 for the 1968 (Photorevised 1975) Temecula, California USGS 7.5 Minute Topographic Quadrangle. California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), October 20021, State and Federally Listed Endangered, Threatened and Rare Plants of California. California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), December 16, 2002m, Biological Proposed Roripaugh Ranch Off-site Street Improvement, Riverside County, California. Roripaugh Ranch Off-site 47 TLC Road Improvement Projects (No APNs available) California Native Plant Society (CNPS), August 2001, Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California, 6d' edition. Clarke, Herbert, 1989, An Introduction to Southern California Birds, Mountain Press Publish. Co., Missouri, MT. County Of Riverside, 1998, Western Riverside County Quino Checkerspot Butterfly Habitat Map. County of Riverside, Transportation and Land Management Agency, November 15, 2002, Draft MSHCP, Volume 1, The Plan. Helix Environmental Planning, Inc. (Helix), May, 1999, Rancho California Water District EM -20 Turnout and Transmission Main Project, Appendix C, Biological resources Technical report. Helix Environmental Planning, Inc. (Helix), July 21, 2000, Environmental Assessment for Assessment District 161. Helix Environmental Planning, Inc. (Helix), January 2001, Assessment District 161 Final Multiple Species Subarea Habitat Conservation Plan (SHCP). Hickman, J.C. Ed, 1996, The Jepson Manual: Higher Plants of California, University of California Press, Ltd., Berkeley and Los Angeles, California. Hogue, C., 1993, Insects of the Los Angeles Basin; Second Edition, Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County. Holland, R., October 1986, State of California, the Resources Agency, California Department of Fish and Game: Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California. Implementation Agreement For The Assessment District 161 Final Subregional Habitat Conservation Plan, November 17, 2000, Executed by Elizabeth H. Stevens, US Fish and Wildlife Service, on December 4, 2000. Jameson, E. And H. Peeters, 1988, California Mammals, University Of California Press, Los Angeles. Knecht, A., 1971, Soil Surveys of Western Riverside Area, California. Munz, P.A., 1974, A Flora of Southern California, University of California Press. Peterson, Roger T, 1990, A Field Guide to Western Birds, Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston, 432 Pages. Powell, J., C. Hogue, 1979, California Insects, University of California Press. Reed. P.B., Jr., 1988, National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands: California (Region 0). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Riverside County Habitat Conservation Agency (RCHCA), March 23, 2000, Map: Plan Areas - Core Reserves (Identifies Plan Area/Free Area Boundary per Ordinance No. 663.10 for the Stephens Kangaroo Rat). Robbins, C.S., B. Bruun, H.S., Zim, 2001, Birds of North America, Western Publishing Company, Racine, Wisconsin. Sawyer, J. And T. Keeler -Wolf, 1995, A Manual of California Vegetation, Sacramento, California. Stebbins, R. C., 1985, A Field Guide to Western Reptiles And Amphibians. Houghton Mifflin, Boston 48 TLC Roripaugh Ranch Off-site ' Road Improvement Projects (No APNs available) ' The Keith Companies (TKC), April 1, 2002, 2"d Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report, Roripaugh ' Ranch Specific Plan, SCH # 97121030. Thomas Guide 2003 San Bernardino and Riverside Counties Street Guide and Directory, Detail Map Page t 929, Coordinates D-7 and E-7 and Detail Map Page 959, Coordinates B-1, C-1, E-1, E-2, E-3, E-4 and F-4. Thomas Leslie Corporation (TLC), May 3, 2002a, Pre -Survey Notification Regarding Performance Of Six ' California Gnatcatcher Protocol Surveys. Thomas Leslie Corporation (TLC), July 29, 2002b, Results of Six Protocol California Gnatcatcher Surveys. ' Thomas Leslie Corporation (TLC), September 9, 2002c, Letter Sent to California Department of Fish and Game: Preparation of a Biological Assessment for Roripaugh Ranch Off-site Street Improvement. ' Thomas Leslie Corporation (TLC), September 9, 2002d, Letter Sent to US Fish and Wildlife Service: Preparation of a Biological Assessment for Roripaugh Ranch Off-site Street Improvement. United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), Soil Conservation Service, March 1992, Hydric Map Unit Listing for Western Riverside Area, California. ' United States Department of the Interior Geological Survey (USGS), 1953 (Photorevised 1973; Photoinspected 1978), State of California Department of Water Resources, Bachelor Mtn., California, 7.5 minute series (Quadrangle topographic). ' United States Department of the Interior Geological Survey (USGS), 1953 (Photorevised 1979), State of California Department of Water Resources, Murrieta, California, 7.5 minute series (Quadrangle topographic). ' United States Department of the Interior Fish And Wildlife Service (FWS), July 28, 1997, Coastal California Gnatcatcher (Polioptila califomica califomica) Presence/Absence Survey Protocol. ' United States Department of the Interior Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), Carlsbad, California, October 18, 2000, Map: Coastal California Gnatcatcher Critical Habitat. Riverside County. ' United States Department of the Interior Fish And Wildlife Service (FWS), February 7, 2001, Quino Checkerspot Butterfly Proposed Critical Habitat Map. United States Department of the Interior Fish And Wildlife Service (FWS), February 2002a, Quino ' Checkerspot Butterfly (Euphydryas editha quino) Survey Protocol Information. United States Department of the Interior Fish And Wildlife Service (FWS), November 18, 2002b, Response Letter to the Request for a List of Proposed, Threatened, or Endangered Species Potentially ' Occurring Along the Proposed Roripaugh Ranch Off-site Street Improvement, Riverside County. 11 ' Roripaugh Ranch Of.,im 49 LLl.. Road Improvement Projects ' (No APNs available) APPENDIX A PHOTO PLATE NOS. 1-9 (ATTACHMENT E-6) RORIPAUGH RANCH OFF-SITE ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 1 7 ' 1 a. 1 1 ' lb. 1 PHOTO PLATE NO. 1 For Roripaugh Ranch OB site Road Improvement Project Areas Westerly view along the southerly side of Nicolas Road. Bare unvegetated dirt borders Nicolas Road along most of its length. The road shoulders, along both sides of Nicolas Road are periodically disked for weed control. The wire fencing and Eucalyptus trees are situated outside the road improvement right-of-way (05/06/02). Southwesterly view along the northerly side of Nicolas Road. Bare unvegetated dirt borders Nicolas Road along most of its length. The road shoulders, along both sides of Nicolas Road, are periodically disked for weed control. The wire fencing and Pine and Eucalyptus trees are situated outside the road improvement right-of-way (05/06/02). PHOTO PLATE NO.2 For Roripaogh Ranch Off-site Road Improvement Project Areas 2a. Northerly view up Santa Gertrudis Creek. The creek, illustrated as a blue -line stream course on the Bachelor Mtn., California USGS topographic quadrangle, crosses Nicolas Road immediately northeast of the intersection of Nicolas Road and Calle Girasol. The creek is bordered by a Ruderal/Disturbed vegetational association dominated by Short -pod Mustard (Hirschfeldia incana) and California Buckwheat (Eriogonurn fascicuWum) (12/15/02). 1 2b. Westerly view of the Ruderal/Disturbed vegetational association bordering Santa Gertrudis Creek near the intersection of Nicolas Road and Liefer Road (12115/02). PHOTO PLATE NO.3 For Roripaugh Ranch Off-site Road Improvement Project Areas 3a. Southerly view, of the northerly end of the intersection of the Butterfield Stage Road (BSR), and the westerly end of the unpaved gravel Calle Chapos. This portion of the right-of-way is bare unvegetated dirt. The red dashed lines indicate the approximate location of a USGS topographic quadrangle blue -line stream course. The stream course does not exhibit an ordinary high water mark (definable banks and bed) (12115102). ' 3b. Easterly view, up the USGS blue -line stream course (BSR-1) shown in 3a. However, no definable bed and banks were observed in this area during 2002 field investigations. The area appears to be a non -jurisdictional topographic swale (12115102). M no PHOTO PLATE NO.4 For Roripaagh Ranch Oft -site Road Improvement Project Areas r. Southerly view of the BSR right-of-way. A non jurisdictional swale, non- USGS blue -line lacking an ordinary high water mark (OHWM: definable banks and bed) is located along the toe of the Sage Scrub covered slope in this photograph (12115102). Orr Northerly view of the portion of the BSR right-of-way east of Andrea Circle. The red dashed line in the center of this photograph indicate the location of a stream course (BSR-2) that exhibits definable banks and bed (OHWM). The stream course is not illustrated as a USGS blue -line stream course (12115102). I 1 L L I ' 5a. 1 1 1 ' 5b. PHOTO PLATE NO.5 For Roripaugh Ranch Off-site Road Improvement Project Areas Northerly view of the BSR right-of-way where Vista Del Monte Road crosses it. The red dashed line indicates the location of an unnamed USGS blue -line stream course BSR-3. An ordinary high water mark (OHWM) is visible where the blue -line crosses the BSR right-of-way. The slope immediately south of the stream course is patchily vegetated with disturbed sage scrub (12115102). Southerly view, from Vista Del Monte Road, across the unnamed blue -line stream course BSR-3. An OHWM is visible where the blue -line stream course BSR-3 crosses the BSR right-of-way (12115102). 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ' 6a. 1 1 1 1 1 6b. 1 1 PHOTO PLATE NO.6 For Roripaugh Ranch Off-site Road Improvement Project Areas Southerly view toward the intersection of Butterfield Stage Road (BSR) and La Serena Way. The BSR right-of-way in this area has been completely disturbed. The westerly portion of BSR has been graded. Grading of the eastem side of the roadway will be completed as part of the Roripaugh Ranch off-site street improvements project Although, a USGS blue -line stream course BSR4 is illustrated along fa Serena Way, no definable banks and bed were identified during 2002 field investigations along La Serena Way (12115102). Easterly view of the intersection of La Serena and Butterfield Stage Road, along an area mapped (on Figures 2 and 4b) as a USGS blue -line stream course. No stream course elements, banks and bed, riparian habitat or wetlands were observed in this area. Instead, a grape vineyard, a fence and a dirt vineyard access road are the only things visible in this area (12127102). 7a. PHOTO PLATE NO.7 For Rens h Ranch Off-site Road Improvement Pmjed Areas Easterly view of topographic feature BSR-5. No stream course elements, OHWM, wetland, or riparian habitat were observed within or to the east of the future alignment of BSR. Instead, a weedy field and an abandoned vineyard are the only things visible in this area (12127102). 7b. Southeasterly view of BSR-5. Water sheet flowing along the topographic feature during storm events may be "picked up" by a concrete and conveyed through RCP under fill lot. The flows may eventually connect to Murrieta Creek (12127102). 8a. M PHOTO PLATE NO.8 For Ronpauo Ranch OH -ate Road Improvement Project Areas Southeasterly view of the portion of BSR where Gong Canyon (BSR-6) crosses it. This drainage is illustrated as a blue -line stream course on the Bachelor Mtn., California, USGS topographic quadrangle (12115102). Westerly view down long Canyon (BSR-6). This photograph documents the presence of definable banks and bed westerly of the BSR right-of-way (05106102). 9a. PHOTO PLATE NO.9 For Roripano Ranch off-site Road Improvement Project Areas Southeasterly view of the southeasterly end of Butterfield Stage Road (BSR). Vineyards and Residential Urban Exotic landscaping border this portion of BSR (12/15/02). Southeasterly view of the unvegetated engineered slopes bordering the existing paved BSR. BSR will be widened easterly as part of the road improvement project. Residential Urban Exotic landscaping species grow in association with the single-family residences constructed adjacent to BSR (05/06/02). Appendix B I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 C 1 k 1 1 APPENDIX B FLORAL COMPENDIUM FOR RORIPAUGH RANCH OFF-SITE ROAD IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA I ' INTRODUCTION The Appendix B Floral Compendium (FC) provides a summary of the types of plants identified within the project site. It was compiled using the results of ten field surveys performed on May 6, 16, 23 and 31, June t 7, 10, 14 and 21 and December 15 and 27, 2002. The FC was compiled to inventory onsite botanical resources and determine the presence or absence of sensitive floral species, present and identifiable at the time the surveys were conducted. It only lists those plant species actually identified within the project sites ' during the field surveys. It does not include a list of "expected but not observed" species. It is possible that a few annual or seasonal herbs, exotic landscape species, or very uncommon native, non- native or cultivar species may have been undetectable or overlooked during the field surveys because they ' were not obviously visible or identifiable (e.g., had not germinated, were not flowering, had not developed morphological structures necessary for identification to species, etc.). The Floral Compendium is comprised of six (6) columns. COLUMN 1: NON-NATIVE ' Each non-native plant type observed and identified during the ten 2002, botanical field surveys is indicated by an "X." The presumed origins of plant species follow those listed in Hickman (1993) and Munz (1974). Thirty-eight (38) non-native plant types have been identified within the project site. This represents 44.2% ' (38/86) of the 86 plant types identified within the project site. Natural habitats of Western Riverside County usually contain less than 25% of non-native plant species. High numbers of non -natives is indicative of highly disturbed properties such as the project site. ' COLUMN 2: SCIENTIFIC NAMES All plant species field identified within the project site, during the performance of the ten 2002 botanical ' field surveys, were identified to scientific family, genus and species names whenever possible. The floral taxonomy used in Appendix C follows the third edition of Hickman (1996). Families are listed in alphabetical order in accordance with Hickman (1996); within each family, the genus and species names are alphabetically arranged. COLUMN 3: COMMON NAMES Common names may vary among biologists, published botanical literature and regions, but scientific names ' are "universal." Whenever possible, Jepson manual common names were given precedent (Hickman, 1996). When no common name was provided in Jepson, common names listed in Munz (1974) or other available, southern California botanical literature were used. The total number of plant types identified onsite (86) is ' indicated in parentheses at the head of this column. COLUMNS 4-5: 2002 BOTANICAL INVENTORIES ' The "X's" in these columns indicate the species identified within the project site, by the habitat type or vegetational association, they were growing in during the 2002 field surveys for each of the two street improvement project sites: Nicolas and Butterfield Stage Roads. ' • Riversidean Sage Scrub (disturbed by off-road vehicle trails and previous construction activities). • Ruderal/Disturbed (including Landscaped Areas; along the majority of both streets). • Ephemeral Creeks (Santa Gertrudis Creek crossing the central portion of Nicolas Road; Long Canyon, tcrossing Butterfield Stage Road). COLUMN 6: FLOWERING ' The "F's" in this columns indicate the species flowering during June 2002, field surveys. 27% of the plant species identified onsite were blooming in June 2002. ' Roripaugh Ranch Off-site B—I TLC Road Improvement Projects ' (No APNa available) I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1] V > c N c v z SCIENTIFIC NAMES COMMON NAMES (86)c4 b b y y D b y o z c C4 z bON CO o 3 0 w o DIVISION ANTHOPHYTA FLOWERING PANTS 66 50 23% Class Dicotyledones Dicots FAMILY AMARANTHACEAE AMARANTH FAMILY X Amaranthus albus Tumbleweed - - - R - - - FAMILY ANACARDIACEAE SUMAC FAMILY X Schinus molle Peruvian Pepper Tree - - - R FAMILY ASCLEPIADACEAE SUNFLOWER FAMILY Sarcostemma cynanchoides ssp. hartwegii Climbing Milkweed - - - S - - - FAMILY APIACEAE CARROT FAMILY Daucus pusillus Rattlesnake Weed - - - S - - - FAMILY ASTERACEAE SUNFLOWER FAMILY Ambrosia acanthicarpa Annual Bur -sage R/S/C R Artemisia californica California Sagebrush S - - - - - - Artemisia dracunculus Tarragon S/C - - - - - - Baccharis pilularis Chaparral Broom - - - R - - - Baccharis salicifolia Mule Fat C R F X Centaurea melitensis Tocalote R/S/C R F X Chamomilla suaveolens Pineapple Weed R - - - I - - X Cnicus benedictus Blessed Thistle R - - - - - - X Conyza bonariensis Flax -leaf Fleabane R - - - - - - Conyza canadensis Horseweed R/C - - - - - - X Dimorphotheca sinuata Cape Marigold - - - R - - - Ericameria ericoides California Goldenbush C R - • - Erigeron foliosus var. foliosus Leafy Daisy - - - R Filago californica California Filago R Gnaphalium canescens Cudweed - - - R Grindelia camporum Gumplant R R Hemizonia fasciculata IFascicled Tarplant R/S R F Roripaugh Ranch Off-site Road Improvement Projects ' (No APNa available) ME TLC I L 1 U 1 1 1 1 i'I Roripaugh Ranch Off-site Road Improvement Projects (No APNs available) W TLC Heterotheca grandii lora Telegraph Weed R/C R - - - Lessingia filaginifolia California -aster S/C R - - - X Sonchus asper Prickly Sow Thistle - - - R - - - Xanthium strumarium Cocklebur - - - R - - - FAMILY BORAGINACEAE BORAGE FAMILY Amsinckia eastwoodiae Large -flower Fiddleneck R R - - - Cryptantha sp. Cryptantha R R - - - Heliotropium curassavicum Wild Heliotrope C R F Plagiobothrys nothofulvus Popcornflower R R - - - FAMILY BRASSICACEAE MUSTARD FAMILY R Hirschfeldia incana Short -pod Mustard R/S/C R/C F X Sisymbrium Trio London Rocket R R - - - FAMILY CACTACEAE CACTUS FAMILY Opuntia littoralis Coastal Prickly Pear S - - - F FAMILY CAPRIFOLIACEAE HONEYSUCKLE FAMILY Lonicera subspicata var. denudata Honeysuckle S - - - - - - Sambucus mexicana Blue Elderberry S R F FAMILY CARYOPHYLLACEAE PINK FAMILY X Stellaria media Common Chickweed - - - R - - - FAMILY CHENOPODIACEAE GOOSEFOOT FAMILY X Chenopodium album Pigweed R R - - - X Salsola tragus Russian Thistle R/S/C R F FAMILY CONVOLVULACEAE MORNING-GLORY FAMILY Calystegia macrostegia Morning Glory - - - R F FAMILY CRASSULACEAE STONECROP FAMILY Dudleya saxosa Dudleya S - - - - - - FAMILY CUCURBITACEAE GOURD FAMILY l Cucurbita foetidissima Calabazilla R RI F Roripaugh Ranch Off-site Road Improvement Projects (No APNs available) W TLC Roripaugh Ranch Off-site B-4 TLC Road Improvement Projects (No APNs available) FAMILY CUSCUTACEAE DODDER FAMILY Cuscuta californica California Dodder S - - - F FAMILY EUPHORBIACEAE SPURGE FAMILY Chamaesyce albomarginata Rattlesnake Weed R R F Croton califomicus California Croton R - - - - - - Eremocarpus setigerus Dove Weed R R - - - FAMILY FABACEAE LEGUME FAMILY X Acacia redolens Acacia - - - R - - - X Albizzia julibrissin Silk Tree Astragalus pomonensis Pomona Locoweed R - - - - - - Lotus purshianus Spanish Clover R - - - - - - Lotus scoparius California Broom S - - - X Melilotus indica Sourclover - - - R F X Vicia villosa Hairy Vetch - - - R F FAMILY GERANIACEAE GERANIUM FAMILY X Erodium cicutarium Red -stemmed Filaree R/C R F FAMILY LAMIACEAE MINT FAMILY X Marrubium vulgare Horehound C R - - - Salvia apiana White Sage S R F Salvia columbariae Chia S FAMILY MALVACEAE MALLOW FAMILY X Malva parviflora Cheeseweed R - - - - - - FAMILY MYRTACEAE EUCALYPTUS FAMILY X Eucalyptus globulus Blue Gum - - - R X Eucalyptus polyanthemos Silverdollar Gum - - - R F X Eucalyptus tereticornis Forest Red Gum - - - R - - - FAMILY NYCTAGINACEAE FOUR O'CLOCK FAMILY Abronia villosa var. villosa IDesert Sand -verbena R - - - F Mirabilis californica JWishbone Bush S - - - F Roripaugh Ranch Off-site B-4 TLC Road Improvement Projects (No APNs available) LI 1 H 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Roripaugh Ranch Off-site Road Improvement Projects (No APNs available) MKI TLC FAMILY PAPAVERACEAE POPPY FAMILY Eschscholzia californica California Poppy R R F FAMILY POLYGONACEAE BUCKWHEAT FAMILY Chorizanthe fimbriata Fringed Spineflower S - - - Eriogonum fasciculatum California Buckwheat R/S/C R/C F X Rumex crispus Curly Dock R - - - - - - FAMILY PRIMULACEAE PRIMROSE FAMILY X Anagallis arvensis Scarlet Pimpernel R - - - - - - FAMILY RUBIACEAE MADDER FAMILY Galium angustifolium Narrow -leaved Bedstraw S - - - - - - FAMILY SALICACEAE WILLOW FAMILY Salix gooddingii Goodding's Black Willow S - - - - - - FAMILY SIMAROUBACEAE QUASSIA FAMILY X Ailanthus altissima Tree of Heaven E - - - - - - FAMILY SOLANACEAE NIGHTSHADE FAMILY Datura wrightii Jimson Weed R - - - F X Nicotiana glauca Tree Tobacco S/C R F FAMILY TAMARICACEAE TAMARISK FAMILY X Tamarix ramosissima Tamarisk R - - - --- --Class Class Monocotyledones Monocots FAMILY ARECACEAE PALM FAMILY Washingtonia filifera California Fan Palm R - - - - - - FAMILY LILIACEAE LILY FAMILY Bloomeria crocea Common Goldenstar S - - - - - - Dichelostemma capitatum Blue Dicks S R - - - FAMILY POACEAE GRASS FAMILY X Avena barbata Slender Wild Oat R/C R - - - X JAvenafatua lWild Oat R - - - I- - - Roripaugh Ranch Off-site Road Improvement Projects (No APNs available) MKI TLC X Symbols/Abbreviations: I Bromus diandrus Ripgut Grass R/C R - - - X JBromus hordeaceus Soft Chess R - - - X Bromus madritensis ssp. rubens Foxtail Chess R/S R - - - X Hordeum murinum Barley R/C R - - - Nassella pulchra Purple Needle -grass S - - - - - - X Phalaris minor Littleseed Canary Grass S X Schismus barbatus Mediterranean Grass R - - - - - - X Triticum aestivum Cereal Wheat - - - R - - - X Vulpia myuros Vulpia S - - - -- --- Symbols/Abbreviations: sp. = Plant identified to genus only. - - - = Indicates cell was intentionally left blank. C = Ephemeral Stream Courses: Santa Gertrudis Creek, Long Canyon and tributaries. R = RuderaUDisturbed (including landscaped vegetation). S = Riversidean Sage Scrub. Roripaugh Ranch Off-site B-6 TLC Road Improvement Projects (No APNs available) I 1 1 1 APPENDIX C 1 I i WILDLIFE COMPENDIUM 1 1 FOR RORIPAUGH RANCH OFF-SITE 1 ROAD IMPROVEMENT 1 PROJECTS 1 1 1 1 RIVERSIDE COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 INTRODUCTION The Appendix C Wildlife Compendium (WC) provides a summary of the types of wildlife identified within the project site. It was compiled using the results of the ten field surveys performed on May 6, 16, 23 and 31, June 7, 10, 14 and 21 and December 15 and 27, 2002. The WC was compiled to inventory onsite faunal resources and determine the presence or absence of sensitive wildlife species, present and identifiable at the time the surveys were conducted. It only lists those wildlife species actually identified within the project sites during the field surveys. It does not include a list of "expected but not observed" species. A limited number of wildlife species may have been undetectable or overlooked during the field surveys because they were not obviously present, visible or identifiable (e.g., had migrated out of the area, were secreted in subterranean boroughs, are nocturnal, were foraging off-site during the surveys, etc.). The Wildlife Compendium is comprised of four (4) columns summarizing the following information. COLUMN 1: FAMILY, GENUS AND SPECIES SCIENTIFIC NAMES All wildlife species identified within the project sites during the ten 2002 wildlife field surveys, were identified to scientific family, genus and species names whenever possible. Scientific taxonomic nomenclature used in the Wildlife Compendium follows that of Clarke (1989) and Robbins et al. (2001) for birds of southern California, Peterson (1990) for western birds, Jameson and Peeters (1988) for California mammals, Stebbins (1966) for reptiles and amphibians and Hogue (1993) and Powell and Hogue (1979), for insects. Classes and families are listed in phylogenetic order in accordance with Clarke and Robbins et al., Jameson and Peeters, Peterson, Stebbins, Hogue and Powell. Within each family, the genus and species names are alphabetically arranged. The wildlife species of the project sites are locally common species typically associated with disturbed Riversidean Sage Scrub and non-native non -habitat Ruderal/Disturbed vegetational associations and landscaped areas of Riverside County, California. COLUMN 2: FAMILY, GENUS AND SPECIES COMMON NAMES Common family and wildlife names also follow Clarke and Robbins et al., Peterson, Jameson and Peeters, Stebbins and Hogue and Powell. Common names may vary among biologists, published wildlife literature, and regions but scientific names are "universal." Whenever possible, common names listed in Clarke, Robbins et. al, Jameson and Peeters, Stebbins and Hogue and Powell were given precedent. When no common name was provided in Clarke, Peterson, Jameson and Peterson, Stebbins and Hogue and Powell, common names listed in other available, southern California faunal literature was used. The total number of wildlife species identified onsite (59) is indicated in parentheses at the head of this column. COLUMNS 3-4:2002 FAUNAL INVENTORIES The 'Xs" in these columns indicate the species identified within the project site, by its location — along Butterfield Stage (BSR) or Nicolas (NR) Roads. More species (47) were identified along BSR because it is longer and it is ordered on the east by natural habitat and dense patches of non-native trees in some places. Roripaugh Ranch Off-site C-1 TLC Road Irnpravcment Project. (No APNa available) I 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 11 1 SCIENTIFIC NAMES COMMON NAMES (59) BSR NR CLASS REPTILIA REPTILES (4) 47 25 FAMILY IGUANIDAE IGUANIDS Uta stansburiana Side -blotched Lizard X X Sceloporus occidentalis Western Fence Lizard X Sceloporus orcutti Granite Spiny Lizard --- X FAMILY COLUBRIDAE COLUBRIDS Pituophis melanoleucus Gopher Snake X --- CLASS AVES BIRDS (26) FAMILY ACCIPITRIDAE BUTEOS, KITES, HARRIERS Aquila chrysaetos Golden Eagle (immature) X --- Buteo jamaicensis Red-tailed Hawk X X FAMILY CATHARTIDAE NEW WORLD VULTURES Cathartes aura Turkey Vulture X --- FAMILY FALCONIDAE FALCONS Falco sparverius American Kestrel X --- FAMILY RECURVIROSTRIDAE AVOCETS AND STILTS Recurvirostra americana American Avocet X --- FAMILY CHARADRIIDAE PLOVERS AND RELATIVES Charadrius vociferus Killdeer X --- FAMILY COLUMBIDAE PIGEON AND DOVES Zenaida macroura Mourning Dove X X FAMILY CUCULIDAE CUCKOOS, ANIS, AND ROADRUNNERS Geococcyx californianus Roadrunner X --- FAMILY TROCHILIDAE HUMMINGBIRDS Calypte anna Anna's Hummingbird X --- FAMILY TYRANNIDAE TYRANT FLYCATCHERS Sayornis nigricans Black Phoebe --- X Tyrannus verticalis Western Kingbird --- X Tyrannus vociferans Cassin's Kingbird X --- Roripaugh Ranch Off-site Road Improvement Projects (No APNs available) C-2 TLC I 1 1 1 1 1 1 FAMILY HIRUNDINIDAE SWALLOWS Petrochelidon pyrrhonota Cliff Swallow X (No APNs available) FAMILY CORVIDAE JAYS, MAGPIES, AND CROWS Corvus brachyrhynchos American Crow X X Corvus corax Common Raven FAMILY TROGLODYTIDAE WRENS Campylorhynchus brunneicapillus couesi Coastal Cactus Wren X --- FAMILY MIMIDAE MOCKINGBIRDS AND THRASHERS Mimus polyglottos Northern Mockingbird X X FAMILYSYLVHDAE GNATCATCHERS Polioptila californica California Gnatcatcher (pair) X --- FAMILY STURNIDAE STARLINGS Sturnus vulgaris European Starling --- X FAMILY ICTERIDAE BLACKBIRDS AND ORIOLES Icterus pustulatus Streak -backed Oriole X --- Stumella neglecta Western Meadowlark X --- FAMILY THRAUPIDAE TANAGERS Piranga ludovichiana Western Tanager X FAMILY EMBERIZIDAE SPARROWS Aimophila rufceps canescens Southern California Rufous -crowned Sparrow X Pipilo crissalis California Towhee X -- Pipilo maculatus Spotted Towhee X --- FAMILY FRINGILLIDAE FINCHES Carpodacus mexicanus House Finch X CLASS MAMMALIA MAMMALS (8) FAMILY CANIDAE DOGS, FOXES AND ALLIES Canis familiaris Domestic Dog X X Canis latrans Coyote (Individual and scat) X --- FAMILY EQUIDAE HORSES Equis caballus lHorse __ X ' Roripaugh Ranch Off-site Road Improvement Projects (No APNs available) C-3 FAMILY SCIURIDAE SQUIRRELS Spermophilus beecheyi California Ground Squirrel X X FAMILY GEOMYIDAE POCKET GOPHERS Thomomys bottae Southern Pocket Gopher X X FAMILY HETEROMYIDAE POCKET MICE AND KANGAROO RATS Dipodomys agilis Pacific Kangaroo Rat X X FAMILY LEPORIDAE RABBITS AND HARES Lepus californicus Black -tailed Jack -rabbit X --- Sylvilagus audubonii Audubon's Cottontail X X INVERTEBRATES CLASS INSECTA INSECTS (19) Apis mellifera Honey Bee X X Apodemia mormo Mormon Metalmark X --- Bombus sp. Bumble Bee X --- Chrysops sp. Deer Fly X Dasymutilla sp. Velvet -ant X - Forficula auriculata European Earwig --- X Gryllus pennsylvanicus Field Cricket --- X Icaricia acmon Acmon Blue X Iridomyrmex humilis Argentine Ant X X Parasarcophaga sp. Flesh Fly X --- Pepsis chrysothymus Tarantula Hawk X --- Pieris rapae Cabbage Butterfly --- X Pogonomyrmex californicus California Harvester Ant X X Pyrgus albescens Western Checkered Skipper --- X Solenopsis xyloni Southern Fire Ant X X Sympetrum corruptum Pastel Skimmer X --- Tibicinoides cupreosparsus Red -winged Grass Cicada X --- Trimerotropis pallidipennis Pallid Band -wing X --- Vespula pensylvanica Yellow Jacket X --- CLASS GASTROPODA SNAILS AND SLUGS (1) Helix aspersa Brown Garden Snail X CLASS ARACHNIDAE SPIDERS (1) Latrodectus hesperus lWestern Black Widow X --- Roripaugh Ranch Off-site C—Y TLC Road Improvement Projects (No APNs available) I 1 1 I I 11 I I I I I I I APPENDIX D CALIFORNIA NATURAL COMMUNITY FIELD SURVEY FORM I 1 California Natural Community Field Suruey Form Mail to: Natural Diversity Data Base California Dept. of Fish and Game 1416 Ninth Street Sacramento, CA 95814 (916) 324-6857 For office use only Source Code Quad Code Community Code Occ Map Index Update Y N Please provide as much of the following information as you can. Please attach a map (if possible, based on the ' USGS 7.5 minute series) showing the site's location and boundaries. Use the back if needed. Community Name: Riversidean Sage Scrub (RSS) ' Reporter: Thomas A. Leslie E -Mail Address: tlescorp@aol.com Phone: (909) 296-6232 Affiliation and Address Thomas Leslie Corporation P.O. Box 2229 Temecula, CA 92593-2229 Date of field work: December 15 2002 County: Riverside Location: Along Butterfield Stage Road north of La Serena Way to Calle Chapos. Quad name: Bachelor Mountain T 7S R 7W 1/4 of sec 20. 21, 28, 29, 33 Meridian 'UTM Zone Northing Easting Landowner/Manager: Ashby USA LLC 470E Harrison Street, Corona, California. 92879-1314 Photographs:SlideO PrintX Elevation: 1.180-1.240 ft Aspect: Slope(indicate % or °) Drainage: Site acreage: 38.6± acres Evidence of disturbance/threats: ' Current land use: Substrate/Soils: Nine (9) soils occur within the Vroiect area including Arlington and Greenfield fine sandy loams (A[D2) Greenfield sandy loam (GyD2) Gullied land (GzG). Hanford coarse sandy loams (HcC, HcD2 and HfD), Ramona and Buren sandy learns (RmE3) Ramona and Buren learns (RnE3) and Rough broken land (RuF). General description of community: The majority of the lroiect area is graded bare unvegetated dirt and a scatte 1 1 Any Special Plants or Animals present: Successional status/Evidence of regeneration of dominant taxa: Overall site quality: Excellent Good Fair Poor X Comments: Disturbed by off-road vehicle use grading of fire breaks, grading of Butterfield Stape Road Basis for report: Remote image Binocular/Telescopic survey Windshield survey Brief walk-thru Detailed survey X Other Releve: In the space below, indicate each species cover % within the following growth form categories: Trees Shrubs Herbs/Graminoids Artemisia californica Centaurea melitensis Eriogonum fasciculatum Hirschfeldia incana ]bens Salvia apiana Bromus madritensis ssp. rut] scoparius Nassella pulchra