HABITAT ASSESSMENT AND MSHCP CONSISTENCY ......located within the Community of Casa Blanca in the City of Riverside. The project site is located within an existing Southern California

HABITAT ASSESSMENT ANDMSHCP CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS

Casa Blanca Power ProjectCity of Riverside, Riverside County, California

Riverside West USGS Topographic Quadrangle, T3S, R5W, S4Assessor's Parcel Numbers: APNs 230-245-001, -002, and -003

Prepared for:

City of Riverside3900 Main Street

Riverside, California 92522

Contact: Rodrigo Gonzalez

Prepared by:

Michael Brandman Associates621 E. Carnegie Drive, Suite 100San Bernardino, California 92408

909.884.2255

Contact: Frank Coyle, Branch Manager

Survey Conducted By: Dale HameisterSurveys Conducted On: April 4, 2010

Report Date: May 14, 2010

Casa Blanca Power ProjectCity of Riverside, Riverside County, California Table of Contents

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section 1: Summary............................................................................................................1

Section 2: Introduction .......................................................................................................22.1 - Project Location.................................................................................................22.2 - Project Description.............................................................................................2

Section 3: Methods .............................................................................................................63.1 - Western Riverside County MSHCP Consistency Analysis .................................63.2 - Literature Review...............................................................................................63.3 - Plant Communities.............................................................................................63.4 - Riparian/Riverine Habitat and Jurisdictional Areas ............................................63.5 - Field Investigation..............................................................................................73.6 - Plants ................................................................................................................73.7 - Wildlife...............................................................................................................7

Section 4: Existing Conditions...........................................................................................84.1 - Environmental Setting........................................................................................84.2 - Soils ..................................................................................................................84.3 - Plant Communities.............................................................................................84.4 - Jurisdictional Waters........................................................................................124.5 - Nesting Birds ...................................................................................................124.6 - MSHCP ...........................................................................................................12

Section 5: Project Impacts................................................................................................135.1 - Impacts per Plant Community..........................................................................135.2 - Nesting Birds ...................................................................................................13

Section 6: Western Riverside County MSHCP Consistency Analysis ...........................146.1 - MSHCP Requirements ....................................................................................14

6.1.1 - Urban/Wildlands Interface Guidelines ...............................................146.1.2 - Sensitive Plant Species.....................................................................14

6.2 - Jurisdictional Waters........................................................................................146.2.1 - Riparian/Riverine Habitat ..................................................................146.2.2 - Riparian/Riverine Species .................................................................146.2.3 - Vernal Pools/Fairy Shrimp Habitat.....................................................14

Section 7: Recommendations ..........................................................................................157.1 - Nesting Birds ...................................................................................................15

Section 8: Conclusions.....................................................................................................16

Section 9: Certification .....................................................................................................17

Section 10: References.....................................................................................................18

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix A: Floral Compendia

Appendix B: Site Photographs

Appendix C: Regulatory Background

Casa Blanca Power ProjectCity of Riverside, Riverside County, California Table of Contents

iii

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Impacts per Habitat Type.......................................................................................13

LIST OF EXHIBITS

Exhibit 1: Regional Vicinity Map ............................................................................................3

Exhibit 2: Local Vicinity Topo Map.........................................................................................4

Exhibit 3: Local Vicinity Aerial Map........................................................................................5

Exhibit 4: USDA Soils Map....................................................................................................9

Exhibit 5: MSHCP Map........................................................................................................10

Exhibit 6: Plant Communities Map.......................................................................................11

Casa Blanca Power ProjectCity of Riverside, Riverside County, California Summary

1

SECTION 1: SUMMARY

This report contains the results of a Habitat Assessment (HA) and Western Riverside County MultipleSpecies Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) Consistency Analysis conducted by Michael BrandmanAssociates (MBA) on a 1.46-acre project site located in the City of Riverside, Riverside County,California. The purpose of this Habitat Assessment is to identify potential impacts to biologicalrecourses associated with the construct a new substation serving the electrical grid of the City for theproponent, the City of Riverside Utilities Department. Utilities plans to demolish and replace theexisting substation to upgrade the capacity of the station to serve the needs of local residential andbusiness customers. The project site contains non-native ruderal vegetation, non-native trees, andlandscaping. There are no anticipated impacts to sensitive species.

Casa Blanca Power ProjectCity of Riverside, Riverside County, California Introduction

2

SECTION 2: INTRODUCTION

At the request of the City of Riverside Public Utilities Department, MBA conducted a habitatassessment and MSHCP Consistency Analysis for the Casa Blanca Substation Project located in theCity of Riverside, California, hereafter referred to as project site or site.

2.1 - Project Location

The project site is generally located north of Lake Mathews, south of State Route 91, East ofInterstate 15, and west of Interstate 215 (Exhibit 1). The site is located within Section 4; Township 3South; Range 5 West on the USGS Riverside West 7.5’ topographic quadrangle. The 1.46-acreproject site is specifically located north of Evans Street, south of Railroad Avenue, and west ofMadison Street. . The three parcels (APNs 230-245-001, -002, and -003) are located 0.16 milesouthwest of the intersection of Madison Street and Evans Street and 0.28 mile south of SR 91located within the Community of Casa Blanca in the City of Riverside. The project site is locatedwithin an existing Southern California Edison substation at 7615 Evans Street. The proposed projectalso includes two parcels for potential use located adjacent to the substation at 7605 and 7635 EvansStreet.

2.2 - Project Description

The City of Riverside Public Utilities Department proposes to improve the existing Casa BlancaSubstation, which represents a major infrastructure improvement in the southwestern portion of theCity’s electrical grid. The scope of the proposed improvements includes the voltage conversion ofthe existing Casa Blanca distribution feeders, demolition and upgrade replacement of the existingCasa Blanca Substation, the extension of 69kV subtransmission lines within the substation, and newdistribution feeders both overhead and underground.

NO

RT

H

Michael Brandman Associates

!

·|}þ83

·|}þ91

!"#$15

!"#$10

·|}þ60

·|}þ60

Riverside County

San Bernardino County

!"#$15

·|}þ241

·|}þ74

!"#$215

!"#$5

·|}þ210

!"#$215

!"#$215

Orange County

Riverside County

·|}þ74

·|}þ210

·|}þ66

·|}þ18

·|}þ330·|}þ18

Prado FloodControl Basin

LakeElsinore

PerrisReservoir

Lake Mathews

RailroadCanyon

Reservoir

Lake Arrowhead

Riverside

Nuevo

Norco

Chino

Perris

Colton

Rialto

Corona

El Toro

Ontario

Fontana

Wildomar

Sun City

Redlands

Woodcrest

Lake Elsinore

Moreno Valley

San Bernardino

Cleveland NF

San Bernardino NF

03980020 • 07/2010 | 1_regional.mxd

Exhibit 1Regional Location Map

Source: Census 2000 Data, The CaSIL, MBA GIS (2010).

5 0 52.5

Miles

!

Project Site

Text

CITY OF RIVERSIDE • CASA BLANCA POWER PROJECTHABITAT ASSESSMENT AND MSHCP CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS

Project Site

03980020 • 07/2010 | 2_local_topo.mxd

Exhibit 2Local Vicinity MapTopographic BaseN

OR

TH


Source: TOPO! USGS Riverside West (1980) 7.5' DRG.


Project Site

Project Site

2,000 0 2,0001,000

Feet

03980020 • 07/2010 | 3_local_aerial.mxd

Exhibit 3Local Vicinity Map

Aerial BaseNO

RT

H


Source: NAIP for Riverside County (2009).


·|}þ91

Evans St

Evans St

Madison St

Madison St

Indiana Ave

Indiana Ave

Railroad Ave

Railroad Ave

Peters St

Peters St

Grace St

Grace St

Fern St

Fern St

Casa Blanca St

Casa Blanca St

Freda Ave

Freda Ave

Emerald St

Emerald St

Lincoln Ave

Lincoln Ave

Cary St

Cary St

Verde St

Verde St

Cortez St

Cortez St

Diamond St

Diamond St

Pliny St

Pliny St

Jefferson St

Jefferson St

Samuel St

Samuel St

Winstrom

St

Winstrom

St

Bunker St

Bunker St

Diana Ave

Diana Ave

Depot St

Depot St

Cary St

Cary St

At and SF Railro

ad

At and SF Railro

ad

Project Site

400 0 400200

Feet

Casa Blanca Power ProjectCity of Riverside, Riverside County, California Methods

6

SECTION 3: METHODS

3.1 - Western Riverside County MSHCP Consistency Analysis

Geographic Information System (GIS) software was utilized to map the project site in relation to theMSHCP areas including Criteria Cells, Core Habitat, Linkages, and areas proposed for conservation.The Riverside County Integrated Project (RCIP) Conservation Summary Report Generator wasqueried to determine habitat assessment and potential survey requirements for the project site.

The MSHCP also requires a riparian/riverine and vernal pool habitat assessment within the projectsite. According to the MSHCP, the documentation for the assessment shall include mapping and adescription of the functions and values of the mapped areas with respect to the species listed inSection 6.1.2, protection of species associated with riparian/riverine areas and vernal pools.

3.2 - Literature Review

Prior to the field visit, a literature review was conducted of the environmental setting of the projectsite. Literature reviewed includes the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA 1971) SoilSurvey for the project site, and the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB 2008). Theclosest recorded location of sensitive species was determined through a seven-mile radius query ofthe CNDDB (2008). The CNDDB ArcGIS database was utilized, together with ArcGIS software, tolocate the previously recorded locations of sensitive plant and wildlife occurrences and determine thedistance from the project site. Additionally, the Riverside County MSHCP was reviewed foradditional information on known occurrences of the species within Riverside County.

3.3 - Plant Communities

Plant communities were mapped using aerial photography and ground truthed by pedestrian surveysof the sites. The plant communities within the project site were classified according to the CaliforniaDepartment of Fish and Game (CDFG’s) List of Terrestrial Natural Communities (2003) andcross-referenced to descriptions provided in Holland’s Preliminary Descriptions of the TerrestrialNatural Communities of California (1986). An MBA biologist classified habitat when conditions didnot fit descriptions by the CDFG or Holland.

3.4 - Riparian/Riverine Habitat and Jurisdictional Areas

Aerial photography was reviewed prior to conducting general surveys. The photographs were used tolocate and inspect any potential natural drainage features and water bodies that may be consideredriparian/riverine habitat or under the jurisdiction of either the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers(USACE) and/or CDFG. In general, surface drainage features indicated as blue-line streams onUSGS maps that are observed or expected to exhibit evidence of flow are considered potentially

Casa Blanca Power ProjectCity of Riverside, Riverside County, California Methods

7

riparian/riverine habitat and may be subject to State and federal regulatory authority as “waters” ofthe U.S.

Under the MSHCP, riparian/riverine habitat is defined as lands which contain habitat dominated bytrees, shrubs, persistent emergents, or emergent mosses and lichens, which occur close to or whichdepend upon soil moisture from a nearby fresh water source; or areas with fresh water flow during allor a portion of the year.

3.5 - Field Investigation

MBA biologist Dale Hameister surveyed the project site on April 6, 2010, from 10:00 a.m. to11:00 a.m. Weather conditions during the survey included partly cloudy skies with an averagetemperature of 74° F (degrees Fahrenheit). The entire project site was assessed to determine theextent of plant communities and to evaluate the presence of jurisdictional features, andriparian/riverine habitat. Parameters assessed included soil conditions, presence of indicator species,slope, aspect and hydrology.

3.6 - Plants

Common plant species observed during the field survey were identified by visual characteristics andmorphology in the field and recorded in a field notebook. Unusual and less familiar plants wereidentified off-site using taxonomical guides. A soils map was used to identify areas of the site, whichcontain suitable soils to support sensitive plant species. A list of all species observed on the projectsite was compiled from the survey data (Appendix B). Taxonomic nomenclature used in this studyfollows the California Native Plant Society (CNPS 2008). In this report, scientific names are notedimmediately following common names of plant species (first reference only).

3.7 - Wildlife

Wildlife species detected during field surveys by sight, calls, tracks, scat, or other signs were recordedduring surveys in a field notebook. Field guides were used to assist with identification of speciesduring surveys and included the Sibley Field Guide to Birds of Western North America (2003) forbirds, and Burt and Grossenheider (1980) for mammals. Although common names of wildlife speciesare fairly well standardized, scientific names are used in this report and are provided in Appendix Bfor reference.

Casa Blanca Power ProjectCity of Riverside, Riverside County, California Existing Conditions

8

SECTION 4: EXISTING CONDITIONS

4.1 - Environmental Setting

The project site has a relatively flat topography ranging from an approximate elevation of865-867 feet above mean sea level (msl). The project slopes from east to west. The project site islocated within an area that has been developed or disturbed for many decades.

4.2 - Soils

Exhibit 4 depicts soils that are mapped within the project site (USDA 1971). The soils of the projectsite are comprised of Arlington fine sandy loam and Hanford fine sandy loam.

Each of the sandy loam series are well drained, and have slow to medium drainage. These soils aredeveloped in alluvium consisting mainly of granitic materials. The project site has been highlymodified in the past by commercial and residential development. None of these soils are listed assensitive in the MSHCP or provide suitable habitat for any sensitive plant species.

4.3 - Plant Communities

The proposed project potentially affects three distinct vegetation communities or land featuresdescribed below (Exhibit 5). There were no native plant species observed within the project site. Afull floral compendium is included in Appendix C.

Developed

Areas mapped as developed include paved areas and areas of infrastructure and commercialdevelopment that no longer provide habitat for any plant revegetation.

Ruderal

Areas mapped as ruderal are characterized as disturbed areas that are dominated by non-native plantspecies adapted to disturbance. The common species observed in the ruderal community includeleporinum barley (Hordeum murinum ssp. leporinum), red-stemmed stork's bill (Erodiumcicutarium), horseweed (Conyza canadensis), and bur clover (Medicago polymorpha).

Landscape

The majority of the vegetated areas of the project site contain non-native landscaping. Thelandscaping contains non-native shrubs including narrow leaf fire thorn (Pyracantha angustifolia),Spanish bayonet (Yucca baccata) and India Hawthorne (Rhaphiolepis indica). The landscaped areaalso contains non-native trees including tree of heaven (Ailanthus altissima) and Peruvian pepper tree(Schinus molle).

03980020 • 07/2010 | 4_soils.mxd

Exhibit 4Soils MapN

OR

TH


Source: Google Earth Pro (November 16, 2009); USDA NRCS soils, ca679 (2008).


Cary St

Cary St

HgA

AoA

At and SF Railro

ad

At and SF Railro

ad

Evans St

Evans St

Project Site

Soil Classifications

AoA - Arlington fine sandy loam,deep, 0 to 2 percent slopes

HgA - Hanford fine sandy loam,0 to 2 percent slopes

50 0 5025

Feet

03980020 • 07/2010 | 5_mshcp.mxd

Exhibit 5MSHCP Criteria Areas MapN

OR

TH


Source: NAIP for Riverside County (2009), RCIP MSHCP Data.


Project Site

·|}þ91

Magnolia Ave

Magnolia Ave

Jefferson St

Jefferson St

Adams St

Adams St

California Ave

California Ave

Arlington AveArlington Ave

Pal

m A

v eP

a lm

Av e

Str

e ete

r A

veS

tre e

ter

Ave

Victoria Ave

Victoria Ave

Madison St

Madison St

Grace St

Grace St

Jefferson St

Jefferson St

Washington St

Washington St

Was

hin

gto

n S

tW

ash

ing

ton

St

Mary St

Mary St

Monroe St

Monroe St

At and SF Railro

ad

At and SF Railro

ad

Project Site

MSHCP Criteria

Burrowing Owl Survey

Public/Quasi-Public Conserved Lands

2,000 0 2,0001,000

Feet

03980020 • 07/2010 | 6_veg.mxd

Exhibit 6Plant Communities MapN

OR

TH


Source: Google Earth Pro (November 16, 2009); MBA Field Survey (2010).


Evans St

Evans St

Cary St

Cary St

At and SF Railro

ad

At and SF Railro

ad

Project Site (0.73 acre)

Plant Communities (acres in project)

Landscape (0.06 acre)

Ruderal (0.03 acre)

Developed (0.64 acre)

50 0 5025

Feet

Casa Blanca Power ProjectCity of Riverside, Riverside County, California Existing Conditions

12

4.4 - Jurisdictional Waters

The United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) regulates discharges of dredged or fill materialinto waters of the United States. The State of California also regulates waters of the State andstreambeds under regional board and CDFG jurisdiction. These waters include wetlands and non-wetland bodies of water that meet specific criteria. The project site does not contain features that arejurisdictional under the Clean Water Act or State regulation for isolated waters or streambeds.

4.5 - Nesting Birds

The project site contains suitable nesting habitat for avian species. The MSHCP does not coverimpacts to nesting birds, however, they are protected under section 3503 of CDFG code or theMigratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). Several common bird species were observed within the projectarea during the survey. All bird species observed are included in the faunal compendium in AppendixC.

4.6 - MSHCP

The project site is within APNs 230-245-001, 230-245-002 and, 230-245-003 within the Cities ofRiverside and Norco Area Plan. The project site is not within a Cell or any designated survey areasfor sensitive species. The project site does not contain any riverine/riparian habitat, vernal pools orUrban/Wildlands interface areas.

Casa Blanca Power ProjectCity of Riverside, Riverside County, California Project Impacts

13

SECTION 5: PROJECT IMPACTS

5.1 - Impacts per Plant Community

The flowing table provides the quantities for each habitat type within the project area:

Table 1: Impacts per Habitat Type

Habitat Type Acres

Developed 0.64

Landscape 0.06

Ruderal 0.03

Total 0.73

5.2 - Nesting Birds

There is a potential for nesting birds to utilize the non-native shrubs and trees within the project site.Potential impacts to nesting birds can be eliminated if vegetation suitable for nesting activitiy isremoved outside of the nesting bird season, which is typically the end of February to the end ofAugust.

Casa Blanca Power Project Western Riverside CountyCity of Riverside, Riverside County, California MSHCP Consistency Analysis

14

SECTION 6: WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY MSHCP CONSISTENCYANALYSIS

6.1 - MSHCP Requirements

The proposed project site is located in City of Riverside and is not within an MSHCP Criteria Cell(Exhibit 5). The MSHCP also establishes habitat assessment requirements for certain species ofplants, birds, mammals, and amphibians. Since the project is not within a mammal, amphibian surveyarea or riparian/riverine area, no additional analysis is required for this project.

6.1.1 - Urban/Wildlands Interface Guidelines

According to the MSHCP, the Urban/Wildlands Interface Guidelines are intended to address indirecteffects associated with locating development in proximity to the MSHCP Conservation Area(MSHCP, p 6-42). The project site is not within the vicinity of a conservation area (Exhibit 6) andthe Urban/Wildlife Interface Guidelines are not applicable.

6.1.2 - Sensitive Plant Species

The project site is not within the MSHCP Narrow Endemic Plant Species (NEPS) or Criteria AreaSpecies (CAS) Survey Areas. There were no rare plants found within the project area and there is nosuitable habitat for rare plants.

6.2 - Jurisdictional Waters

There are no jurisdictional drainages within the project area.

6.2.1 - Riparian/Riverine Habitat

There is no riparian/riverine habitat found within the project site.

6.2.2 - Riparian/Riverine Species

None of the riparian/riverine species listed in Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP were found within theproject site.

6.2.3 - Vernal Pools/Fairy Shrimp Habitat

No depressions or areas where water would pool were observed within the project site. No vernalpools occur on the project site and there is no suitable habitat for fairy shrimp to occur.

Casa Blanca Power ProjectCity of Riverside, Riverside County, California Recommendations

15

SECTION 7: RECOMMENDATIONS

7.1 - Nesting Birds

Ground disturbing and vegetation removal activities should be conducted outside of the nesting birdseason. If these activities must occur during the nesting season, a nesting bird survey should beconducted within 7 days prior to any ground disturbing activities to determine if any nesting birdsoccur within the project site. If nesting birds are not found within the project site, no further actionsare required. If nesting birds are observed on site, no impacts shall occur within 250 feet (500 feet forraptors) of any active nests. Construction activity may only occur within 250 feet of an active nest atthe discretion of a biological monitor.

Casa Blanca Power ProjectCity of Riverside, Riverside County, California Conclusions

16

SECTION 8: CONCLUSIONS

No sensitive species of habitats were observed within the project site. The project site does notcontain any riverine/riparian habitat, vernal pools or Urban/Wildlands interface areas. The followingrecommended actions will ensure that the project is consistent with the MSHCP:

Preconstruction nesting bird survey if vegetation removal is conducted between February andAugust.

Casa Blanca Power ProjectCity of Riverside, Riverside County, California Certification

17

SECTION 9: CERTIFICATION

I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present data andinformation required for this biological evaluation, and that the facts, statements, and informationpresented are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Date: _______May 17, 2010________ Signed: ________________________________Dale Hameister

Casa Blanca Power ProjectCity of Riverside, Riverside County, California References

18

SECTION 10: REFERENCES

Burt, W.H. and R.P. Grossenheider. 1980. A field guide to mammals of North America to Mexico:Third Edition. The Peterson Field Guide Series. Houghton Mifflin Company, New York,USA.

California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). 2003 (September). List of California TerrestrialNatural Communities. California Department of Fish and Game, Natural Diversity DataBase. Sacramento, California.

California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). Februar 2010. Wildlife & Habitat Data AnalysisBranch, Department of Fish and Game

Holland, R.F. 1986. Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California.Non-game Heritage Program. California Department of Fish and Game. Sacramento,California.

McDonald, D., N.M. Korfanta, and S.J. Lantz. 2004. The Burrowing Owl: A TechnicalConservation Assessment. Prepared for the USDA Forest Service, Rocky Mountain Region,Species Conservation Project. Accessed on the internet March 21, 2006:http://www.fs.fed.us/r2/projects/scp/assessments/burrowingowl.pdf

Riverside County. 2003 (June). Final Western Riverside County Multiple Species HabitatConservation Plan. http://www.rcip.org/

Riverside County Environmental Programs Department. March 29, 2006a. Burrowing Owl SurveyInstructions for the Western Riverside Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Area.Accessed on the internet at:http://www.tlma.co.riverside.ca.us/epd/documents/Burrowing_Owl_Survey_Instructions.pdf

Riverside County Environmental Programs Department. August 17, 2006b. Western RiversideMSHCP 30-day Pre-Construction Burrowing Owl Survey Report Format. Accessed on theinternet at:http://www.tlma.co.riverside.ca.us/epd/documents/Burrowing_Owl_30_day_Survey_Requirements.pdf

Sawyer, J.O. and T. Keeler-Wolf. 1995. A Manual of California Vegetation. California Native PlantSociety. Sacramento, California.

Sibley, D.A. 2003. The Sibley Filed Guide to Birds of Western North America. Alfred A. Knopf,New York, USA. 471 p.

Skinner, M.W., and B.M. Pavlik. 1994. California Native Plant Society’s Inventory of Rare andEndangered Vascular Plants of California. California Native Plant Society. SpecialPublication, No. 1, 5th ed.

U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1971. Soil Survey: Riverside County, California.Department of the Interior. U.S. Government Printing Office. Washington, DC.


Appendix A: Floral Compendia

Flora Compendia

Anacardiaceae Sumac or Cashew FamilySchinus molle Peruvian pepper tree

Asteraceae Sunflower FamilyChamomilla suaveolens pineapple weed

Conyza canadensis horseweed

Lactuca serriola prickly lettuce

Sonchus asper sow thistle

Sonchus oleraceus common sow thistle

Taraxacum officinale common dandelion

Brassicaceae Mustard FamilySisymbrium irio London rocket

Fabaceae Legume FamilyMedicago polymorpha California bur clover

Geraniaceae Geranium FamilyErodium cicutarium red-stemmed stork's bill

Malvaceae Mallow FamilyMalva parviflora cheeseweed

Moraceae Mulberry Family Morus alba white mulberry

Oleaceae Olive FamilyOlea europaea olive

Oxalidaceae Oxalis FamilyOxalis radicosa dwarf wood-sorrel

Plantaginaceae Plantain FamilyPlantago lanceolata English plantain

Rosaceae Rose FamilyPyracantha angustifolia narrow leaf fire thorn

Rhaphiolepis indica India Hawthorne

Simaroubaceae Quassia FamilyAilanthus altissima tree of heaven

Agavaceae Agave FamilyYucca baccata Spanish bayonet

Poaceae Grass FamilyBromus catharticus rescue grass

Cynodon dactylon Bermuda grass

Festuca brevipila hard fescue

Hordeum murinum ssp. leporinum leporinum barley

Poa annua annual bluegrass

Fauna Compendia

Phrynosomatidae LizardsSceloporus occidentalis western fence lizard

Falconidae FalconsFalco sparverius American kestrel

Trochilidae HummingbirdsCalypte anna Anna's hummingbird

Mimidae Mockingbirds/ThrashersMimus polyglottos northern mockingbird

Fringillidae FinchesCarpodacus mexicanus house finch

Passeridae True sparrowsPasser domesticus house sparrow

Sciuridae SquirrelsSpermophilus beecheyi California ground squirrel

Geomyidae Pocket GophersThomomys bottae Botta's pocket gopher


Appendix B: Site Photographs

03980020 • 07/2010 | B_photos_1_2.mxd

Appendix BSite Photographs


Source: Michael Brandman Associates (2010).


Photograph 1: View of substation.

Photograph 2: North facing view of APN 230-245-001.

03980020 • 07/2010 | B_photos_3_4.mxd

Appendix BSite Photographs


Source: Michael Brandman Associates (2010).


Photograph 3: North facing view of APN 230-245-003.

Photograph 4: Landscaping in northeast corner of project site (230-245-003).


Appendix C: Regulatory Background

Casa Blanca Power ProjectCity of Riverside, Riverside County, California Appendix C

C-1

REGULATORY BACKGROUND

Special status species are native species that have been afforded special legal or managementprotection because of concern for their continued existence. There are several categories ofprotection at both federal and State levels, depending on the magnitude of the threat to continuedexistence and existing knowledge of population levels.

FEDERAL ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT

The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) administers the federal Endangered Species Act(FESA) that provides a process for listing species as either threatened or endangered, and the methodsof protecting listed species. The FESA defines as “endangered” any plant or animal species that is indanger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range. A “threatened” species is aspecies that is likely to become endangered in the near future. A “proposed” species is one that hasbeen officially proposed by USFWS for addition to the federal threatened and endangered species list.

Section 9 of the FESA prohibits “take” of threatened or endangered species. The term “take” meansto harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage insuch conduct. The presence of any federally threatened or endangered species that are in a projectarea generally imposes severe constraints on development, particularly if development would result in“take” of the species or its habitat. Under the regulations of the FESA, the USFWS may authorize“take” when it is incidental to, but not the purpose of, an otherwise lawful act.

CALIFORNIA ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT

The CDFG administers the California Endangered Species Act (CESA). The State of Californiaconsiders an endangered species as one whose prospects of survival and reproduction are inimmediate jeopardy. A threatened species is considered as one present in such small numbersthroughout its range that it is likely to become an endangered species in the near future in the absenceof special protection or management. A rare species is one that is considered present in such smallnumbers throughout its range that it may become endangered if its present environment worsens.State threatened and endangered species are fully protected against take, as defined above.

SECTION 3503 AND 3511 OF CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME CODE

The CDFG administers the California Fish and Game Code. There are particular sections of the Codethat are applicable to natural resource management. For example, section 3503 of the Code states it isunlawful to take, possess, or needlessly destroy the nest or eggs of any bird. Section 3511 of theCode lists fully protected bird species, where the CDFG is unable to authorize the issuance of permitsor licenses to take these species. Pertinent species that are fully protected by the State include goldeneagle (Aquila chrysaetos) and white-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus).

Casa Blanca Power ProjectCity of Riverside, Riverside County, California Appendix C

C-2

MIGRATORY BIRD TREATY ACT

The Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) makes it unlawful to pursue, capture, kill, or possess orattempt to do the same to any migratory bird or part, nest, or egg of any such bird listed in wildlifeprotection treaties between the United States, Great Britain, Mexico, Japan, and the countries of theformer Soviet Union.

WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY MSHCP

The MSHCP is a comprehensive, multi-jurisdictional Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) focusing onconservation of species and their associated habitats in western Riverside County. The goal of theMSHCP is to maintain biological and ecological diversity within a rapidly urbanizing region.

The approval of the MSHCP and execution of the Implementing Agreement (IA) by the wildlifeagencies allows signatories of the IA to issue “take” authorizations for all species covered by theMSHCP, including State- and federal-listed species as well as other identified sensitive species and/ortheir habitats. Each city or local jurisdiction will impose a Development Mitigation Fee for projectswithin their jurisdiction. With payment of the mitigation fee to the County and compliance with thesurvey requirements of the MSHCP where required, full mitigation in compliance with the CaliforniaEnvironmental Quality Act (CEQA), National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), CESA, and FESAwill be granted. The Development Mitigation Fee varies according to project size and projectdescription. The fee for residential development ranges from approximately $800 per unit to $1,600per unit depending on development density (County Ordinance 810.2). Payment of the mitigation feeand compliance with the requirements of Section 6.0 of the MSHCP are intended to provide fullmitigation under CEQA, NEPA, CESA, and FESA for impacts to the species and habitats covered bythe MSHCP pursuant to agreements with the USFWS, the CDFG, and/or any other appropriateparticipating regulatory agencies and as set forth in the IA for the MSHCP.

Documents

HABITAT ASSESSMENT AND MSHCP CONSISTENCY ......located within the Community of Casa Blanca in the City of Riverside. The project site is located within an existing Southern California