Appendix 4 Biological Technical Report

VANTAGEPOINT CHURCH Project No. PLN15-1174 INITIAL STUDY

Biological Technical Report for the Vantage Point Church Project

Prepared for:

Vantage Point Church 5171 Edison Avenue, Suite C Chino, CA 91710 Phone: (909) 843-7883 Contact: Tom Lanning

Prepared by:

Carlson Strategic Land Solutions 327134A Paseo Espada, Suite 323 San Juan Capistrano, CA 92675 Phone: (949) 542-7042 Contact: Brianna Bernard

April 2017

Biological Technical Report for the Vantage Point Church Project

This page intentionally left blank.

April 2017 Biological Technical Report for the Vantage Point Church Project

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Acronyms, Abbreviations, and Glossary of Terms ...... iv

1.0 Introduction ...... 6

1.1 Purpose and Approach...... 6 1.2 Project Terms ...... 6 1.3 Project Location ...... 6 1.4 Historical Land Use...... 7

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION...... 7

3.0 Regulatory Context ...... 9

3.1 Federal Laws and Regulations ...... 9 3.2 California State Laws and Regulations ...... 9 3.3 Local Plans/Regulations ...... 9 3.4 Regulatory Permits...... 10

4.0 Survey and Methods ...... 10

4.1 Literature Review ...... 10 4.1.1 Sensitive Plant Communities ...... 10 4.1.2 Critical Habitat ...... 11 4.1.3 Special Status Plants and Wildlife ...... 11 4.1.4 Jurisdictional Waters ...... 13 4.2 Biological Survey ...... 13 4.2.1 General Biological Survey ...... 13 4.2.2 Burrowing Owl Survey ...... 13 4.3 Jurisdictional Delineation ...... 14

5.0 Results ...... 15

5.1 Vegetation Communities ...... 15 5.1.1 Southern Cottonwood Willow Riparian Forest ...... 16 5.1.2 Ruderal ...... 16 5.1.3 Developed ...... 16 5.2 Plants ...... 16 5.3 Critical Habitat ...... 17 5.4 Wildlife ...... 17 5.4.1 Burrowing Owl Habitat Assessment/Focused Survey ...... 17 5.4.2 Wildlife Species Observed or Detected ...... 18 5.5 Regional Connectivity/Wildlife Movement ...... 18

i April 2017 Biological Technical Report for the Vantage Point Church Project

5.5.1 Wildlife Movement within the Study Area ...... 20 5.6 Jurisdictional Areas ...... 20 5.7 MSHCP Riparian/Riverine and Vernal Pool Assessment ...... 20 5.8 Soils Mapping ...... 21

6.0 Project Impacts...... 22

6.1 Impacts to Vegetation Communities/Habitats ...... 23 6.1.1 Southern Cottonwood Willow Riparian Forest ...... 23 6.1.2 Ruderal and Developed...... 25 6.2 Potential Impacts to Special Status Plants ...... 25 6.3 Potential Impacts to Critical Habitat ...... 25 6.4 Potential Impacts to Special Status Wildlife ...... 25 6.5 Potential Impacts to Wildlife Movement ...... 29 6.6 Potential Impacts to Jurisdictional Features ...... 29 6.7 Potential Impacts to Riparian/Riverine ...... 29 6.8 MSHCP Consistency ...... 29

7.0 SCMs/PDFs Incorporated into Project and MMRP ...... 30

8.0 Proposed Mitigation ...... 33

8.1 Wildlife Species ...... 33

9.0 Cumulative Impacts ...... 34

10.0 Literature Cited ...... 35

TABLES

Table 1. Inventory of Existing Structures ...... 7 Table 2. Proposed Buildings ...... 8 Table 3. Vegetation Communities Observed within Study Area ...... 15 Table 4. Approximate Acreage of Potential Impacts to Vegetation ...... 23 Table 5 Impact Analysis Summary for Special Status Species ...... 26

FIGURES

Figure 1 Regional Map Figure 2 Project Vicinity Map Figure 3 CNDDB Occurrences Figure 4 Critical Habitat Map Figure 5 Study Area Vegetation Map

ii April 2017 Biological Technical Report for the Vantage Point Church Project

Figure 6 Jurisdictional Delineation and Riparian/Riverine Habitat Map Figure 7 Soils Map Figure 8 Vegetation Communities Impacts Map Figure 9 Jurisdictional and Riparian/Riverine Impact Map

APPENDICES

Appendix A Representative Photographs of Community Classification

Appendix B Special Status Plant Species Potential Occurrence Determination

Appendix C Plant Species Recorded During the Field Surveys

Appendix D Special Status Wildlife Species Potential Occurrence Determination

Appendix E Focused Burrowing Owl Survey

Appendix F Representative Photographs of Mulefat within the Ruderal Community

iii April 2017 Biological Technical Report for the Vantage Point Church Project

ACRONYMS, ABBREVIATIONS, AND GLOSSARY OF TERMS

BLM United States Bureau of Land Management BMPs Best Management Practices BUOW Burrowing owl CBOC California Burrowing Owl Consortium CDF California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife CESA California Endangered Species Act CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CNDDB California Natural Diversity Database CNPS California Native Plant Society Corps United States Army Corps of Engineers CRPR California Rare Plant Rank CSS Coastal Sage Scrub CWA Clean Water Act EIR Environmental Impact Report FESA Federal Endangered Species Act FGC California Fish and Game Code GPS Global Positioning System I-15 Interstate 15 LBV least Bell’s vireo MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation MSHCP Plan NEPA National Environmental Protection Act NHD National Hydrography Dataset NPDES National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NPPA Native Plant Protection Act NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service NWI National Wetlands Inventory OHWM Ordinary High Water Mark Project Vantage Point Church Project RCA Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority

iv April 2017 Biological Technical Report for the Vantage Point Church Project

RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board SAA Section 1600 Streambed Alteration Agreement SLS Carlson Strategic Land Solutions SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan U.S. United States USFS United States Forest Service USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service USGS United States Geological Survey WQC Section 401 Water Quality Certification

v April 2017 Biological Technical Report for the Vantage Point Church Project

1.0 Introduction

On behalf of Vantage Point team and the Vantage Point Church Project (Project), Carlson Strategic Land Solutions (SLS) has prepared this Biological Technical Report, which incorporates the findings from the field survey conducted by SLS biologists on June 3, 2016. This report provides a Technical Study for the approximately 11-acre Project, consisting of the Project site and surrounding200-foot survey buffer, collectively known as the “Study Area.”

1.1 Purpose and Approach

This report provides a summary of the conditions present during the 2016 survey, an assessment of the potential presence of sensitive biological resources, an analysis of the potential impacts to those resources due to Project implementation, and proposed mitigation. This report describes the current biological resources present within the Study Area including habitat communities, jurisdictional waters, and the potential occurrence of listed and “special status”1 plant and wildlife species. The potential biological significance of site construction and development in view of federal, state, and local laws and regulations are also identified in this report. The report also recommends, as appropriate, Best Management Practices (BMPs) and avoidance and minimization measures to reduce or avoid potential impacts. While general biological resources are discussed, the focus of this assessment is on those resources considered to be sensitive. This report was prepared based upon results of a literature review and field surveys.

1.2 Project Terms

The following terms will be used throughout this document and are defined as follows:

• Project site: the approximately 11-acre Vantage Point Project.

• Study Area: the area evaluated during the field survey, including the 11-acre Project site and surrounding 200-foot survey buffer area.

• Project Vicinity: intended to be a general term to describe the broader area surrounding the Study Area.

1.3 Project Location

The Project site is located northeast of Archibald Avenue and Prado Basin Park Road in the City of Eastvale, Riverside County, California. The street address for the Project site is 8500 Archibald Avenue, Eastvale, California (assessor’s parcel numbers 130-080-005 and 130-080-008) (Figures

1 These species typically have a limited geographic range and/or limited habitat. 6 April 2017 Biological Technical Report for the Vantage Point Church Project

1 and 2). The Project site is located within Riverside County, and within the United States Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-Minute Topographic Map Corona North Quadrangle.

Direct access to the Project site is from Archibald Avenue. Directions to the Project site from Interstate 15 (I-15) is to exit Second Street and head west on Second Street. From Second Street, head north onto River Road and continue onto Archibald Avenue.

1.4 Historical Land Use

Historically, the Project site was used for agriculture and equestrian uses. Above-ground electrical power lines bisect the Project site within a 60-foot wide easement oriented in a northwest to southeast alignment. Historically, farming north of the utility lines consisted of pens for livestock and equestrian uses, while south of the utility lines the property consisted of additional equestrian pens and agricultural fields as an ancillary use to the equestrian use. Two structures remain in the eastern portion of the Project site: a residence and workshop/storage building. Both structures were constructed in 2000. These buildings and their floor areas are listed in Table 1 below. Table 1. Inventory of Existing Structures Approximate Size Building (square feet) Residential Home 2,288 Workshop/Storage building 2,600 TOTAL 4,888

The Project site has been actively maintained, therefore most of the site consists of low ruderal vegetation (i.e., disturbed non-native plants) with sporadic ornamental trees and a small patch of mulefat in the northern portion of the property. The property sits at a higher elevation than the Santa Ana River, which is located directly to the east. The onsite elevation ranges from 547 feet to 584 feet. The site topography is low-sloping and drains in a southwesterly direction.

The Project site, and its immediate surroundings are generally devoid of natural vegetation – outside of the Santa Ana River itself – which is not included within the Project site.

2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

The Applicant proposes to construct a church campus consisting of four buildings, outdoor gathering areas, parking, and related infrastructure. Access to the Project is proposed at three separate locations, with two entry/exit drives located off Archibald Avenue and one entry/exit drive located to the south on Prado Basin Park Road. Each of the driveways includes one travel lane in each direction.

7 April 2017 Biological Technical Report for the Vantage Point Church Project

Due to the close proximity to the Santa Ana River and associated sensitive habitat for federal and state endangered species and species of concern, the proposed parking lot lighting has been strategically designed to avoid spillover light into the adjacent habitat. Throughout the property, lights will be utilized on the buildings and in parking lots with shielding to minimize light pollution. Furthermore, the parking lot lights will be on a timer system to further prevent unnecessary lighting. All streetlights and fire hydrants are proposed per City standards.

The Project proposes to relocate one of the utility poles located on-site. The relocated utility pole would be lowered approximately 7 feet and is intended to remain on the existing alignment. Off- site improvements include the widening of Archibald Avenue by two lane widths including a parkway and sidewalk.

All facilities outside of the public right of way, including drive aisles, parking lots, internal sidewalks, landscaping, storm drains, sewer lines, water lines, and detention basin would be privately maintained by the Applicant.

The Project proposes to construct a series of buildings, both one and two-stories, ranging in size from 12,800 square feet to 49,000 square feet with a maximum height of 34 feet. Table 2 below provides the square footage for each of the proposed buildings.

Table 2. Proposed Buildings Approximate Size Building (square feet) Phase 1 Worship Building and 18,700 Connection Phase 1 Children’s Building 13,100 Future Worship Building 49,000 Future Children’s Building 12,800 TOTAL 93,600

Phase 1 Worship Building and Connection Phase 1 Worship Building would consist of a 2-story building with a current height of 35 feet from finished grade. This building accommodates a 640-person seating venue, along with restrooms, common gathering areas, storage and staging space, and video and editing control room. Furthermore, Phase 1 Connection building proposes to connect the Phase 1 Worship building and the Phase 1 Children’s building. This area also includes a warming kitchen that will accommodate a café.

Phase 1 Children’s Building The Phase 1 Children’s Building would consist of a 2-story building consisting of variously sized classrooms, outdoor play area, and a multipurpose space along with restrooms. Building height

8 April 2017 Biological Technical Report for the Vantage Point Church Project is currently 35 feet from finished grade. The Children’s Building is located in the approximate midpoint of the Property.

Future Worship Building The Future Worship Building would consist of a 2-story building with a current height of 47 feet from finished grade. The Future Worship Building would accommodate a 1,000-person seating venue, along with restrooms, common gathering areas, and various administration and adult education rooms.

Future Children’s Building The Future Education building, is an additional to the Phase 1 Children’ building. The addition to the Phase 1 Children’s building is a 2-story building consisting of variously sized classrooms, a multipurpose space and large group gathering areas, indoor and outdoor play area, along with restrooms. Building height is currently 34 feet.

3.0 Regulatory Context

The following is a list of the key local, state, and federal laws and regulations that apply to protecting plant communities, plants, wildlife, and water quality from project impacts relevant to the Project.

3.1 Federal Laws and Regulations

• Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) • Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA)

3.2 California State Laws and Regulations

• California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) • California Endangered Species Act (CESA) and Fish and Game Code (FGC) sections 2050 et seq. • Lake and Streambed Alteration Program – FGC sections 1600-1616 • Porter-Cologne Water Quality Act – California Code, Division 7 • Migratory Birds – FGC section 3513 • Nongame Birds – FGC section 3800 (a) • Native Plant Protection Act (NPPA) – FGC sections 1900-1913

3.3 Local Plans/Regulations

• City of Eastvale General Plan • Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP): Eastvale Area Plan

9 April 2017 Biological Technical Report for the Vantage Point Church Project

3.4 Regulatory Permits

This report is prepared pursuant to and in support of CEQA, MSHCP consistency, and any applicable regulatory permit applications, including the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) Streambed Alteration Agreement (SAA), Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) Section 401 Water Quality Certification (WQC), and United States Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) Section 404 permit.

4.0 Survey and Methods

Preparation for this biological study began with a review of relevant available literature. This effort was followed by an onsite field survey on June 3, 2016. The purpose of the field surveys was to assess the existing habitat, confirm any onsite sensitive plant communities and jurisdictional waters, and to determine whether special status plant and wildlife species occur or potentially occur within the Study Area.

4.1 Literature Review

The study began with a review of relevant available literature on the biological resources within the Study Area and Project Vicinity.

4.1.1 Sensitive Plant Communities

Sensitive plant communities (sensitive habitats) are of limited distribution statewide or within a county or region and are often vulnerable to environmental effects of projects. Sensitive habitats are often threatened with local extirpation and are therefore considered valuable biological resources. Plant communities are considered “sensitive” if they meet any of the criteria listed below.

• The habitat is recognized and considered sensitive by United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and/or is under the jurisdiction of the Corps pursuant to Section 404 of the CWA. • The habitat is under the jurisdiction of the CDFW pursuant to FGC Sections 1600-1612 and 1900-1913, and/or is classified as sensitive in CDFW’s List of California Terrestrial Natural Communities (CDFW 2016) or California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB)2. • The habitat is recognized and considered sensitive by special interest groups such as the California Native Plant Society (CNPS). • The habitat is considered locally and/or regionally rare by CEQA, the MSHCP, and the City of Eastvale General Plan.

2 A CDFW species account database that inventories status and locations of rare plants and wildlife in California, was used to identify any sensitive plant communities and special status plants and wildlife that may exist within a two-mile radius of the Project site. 10 April 2017 Biological Technical Report for the Vantage Point Church Project

• The habitat has undergone a large scale reduction due to increased encroachment and development. • The habitat supports special status plant and/or wildlife species (defined below). • The habitat functions as an important corridor for wildlife movement.

4.1.2 Critical Habitat

Section 3 of FESA defines critical habitat as:

• Specific areas within the geographic area occupied by a federally listed species with physical or biological features essential to the conservation3 of the species and that may require special management considerations or protection.

• Specific areas outside the geographic area occupied by a federally listed species that are essential for the conservation of the species.

Critical habitat also receives protection under Section 7(a)(2) of FESA through prohibition against its destruction or adverse modification with regard to actions carried out, funded, or authorized by a federal agency. Section 7(a)(2) also requires conferences between federal agencies on federal actions that are likely to result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat.

The USFWS’ online service for information regarding Critical Habitat designations within California was reviewed to determine if the Study Area is within or near any species’ designated Critical Habitat (USFWS 2016a).

4.1.3 Special Status Plants and Wildlife

Plants and animals are afforded “special status” by federal agencies, state agencies, and/or non- governmental organizations because of their recognized rarity, potential vulnerability to extinction, and local importance. Plants and wildlife are considered special status species if they meet any of the following criteria.

• Taxa with official listing status under FESA and/or CESA. • Taxa proposed for listing under FESA and/or CESA. • Taxa designated a species of special concern by CDFW. • Taxa designated a state fully protected species by CDFW.

3 Use of all methods and procedures that are necessary to bring a federally listed species to the point at which listing under FESA is no longer necessary. 11 April 2017 Biological Technical Report for the Vantage Point Church Project

• Taxa identified as sensitive, unique or rare, by the USFWS, CDFW, the United States Forest Service (USFS), the United States Bureau of Land Management (BLM), and/or the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CDF). • Taxa protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (BGEPA), MBTA, and other laws and regulations. • Plants that meet the following definitions of rare or endangered under CEQA §15380(b) and (d): • Species considered by CNPS and CDFW to be “rare, threatened or endangered in California” (California Rare Plant Rank [CRPR] 1A, 1B and 2) (CNPS 2016). A majority of the CRPR 3 and CRPR 4 plant species generally do not qualify for protection under CESA and NPPA. • Species that may warrant consideration on the basis of local significance or recent biological information. • Some species included on the CNDDB Special Plants, Bryophytes, and Lichens List (CDFW 2016g). • A sensitive, unique, rare or uncommon species in a local context (CEQA §15125 (c)) or is so designated in local or regional plans, policies, or ordinances (CEQA Guidelines, Appendix G), such as the MSHCP and the City of Eastvale General Plan. Examples include a species at the outer limits of its known range or a species occurring on an uncommon soil type.

Available literature and databases were reviewed to identify sensitive habitats and special status plant and wildlife species that have the potential to occur within the Project Vicinity. Several agencies, including the USFWS, CDFW, and CNPS publish lists of particular taxa (species and subspecies) and the associated level of protection or concern associated with each. Reviewed and consulted literature and databases focused on the Project Vicinity, and included the following sources listed below:

• A CNDDB search was performed assessing a two-mile radius around the Study Area (CDFW 2016f). CNDDB records are generally used as a starting point when determining what special status species, if any, may occur in the Project Vicinity (Figure 3). • USFWS critical habitats mapped in the Project vicinity (Figure 4) (USFWS 2016a). • Online CNPS Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California (CNPS 2016) for the Project Vicinity based on the USGS 7.5-Minute Topographic Map Corona North Quadrangles, within a range of 300 feet to 1,000 feet elevation. • Pertinent maps, scientific literature, websites, and regional flora and fauna field guides.

The literature review provided a baseline of potentially occurring special status plant and wildlife species from the Project Vicinity that are representative of the habitats within and adjacent to the Study Area. Species occurrence and distribution information is based on documented occurrences where surveys have taken place for individual projects, known known distributions and elevation ranges, and habitat utilization from the relevant literature. Therefore, a lack of documented occurrence does not necessarily indicate that a given species is absent from the Study Area or Project Vicinity. 12 April 2017 Biological Technical Report for the Vantage Point Church Project

4.1.4 Jurisdictional Waters

Prior to conducting field surveys, the following sources were reviewed to determine the potential for jurisdictional features within the Study Area:

• National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) database and maps (USFWS 2016c) are a preliminary indicator of potential wetland areas based on changes in vegetation patterns as observed from satellite imagery which is not precise data. • USGS National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) provides the locations of “blue-line” streams as mapped on 7.5-Minute Topographic Map coverage. • Aerial Imagery (Google Earth©) (Google 2016). • USGS 7.5-Minute Topographic Maps. • NRCS Soil Survey.

4.2 Biological Survey

4.2.1 General Biological Survey

A field survey was performed on June 3, 2016 by SLS biologist Brianna Bernard to assess and map vegetation types, plants, and wildlife, and to identify habitat areas that could be suitable for special status species including annual plants that could not be identified at that time due to different seasonal blooming periods.

Plant species were identified using plant field and taxonomical guides, such as The Jepson Manual: Vascular Plants of California, second edition (Baldwin et al. 2012), and recorded in field notes. Aerial photographs and maps were used to assist in the delineation of plant community boundaries. Following the field survey, boundaries for the various plant communities were digitized and the vegetation map was created.

General wildlife surveys were conducted on foot and with binoculars within the Study Area, which is within the general distributional range of several special status terrestrial species (including MSHCP Covered Species) although most are not subject to specific published survey protocols.

All wildlife species encountered visually, audibly or via diagnostic signs (e.g., tracks, burrows, nests, scat, remains) were identified and recorded in field notes. Wildlife field guides were used to assist with identification of species. Photographs were taken to document existing conditions within the Study Area (Appendix A).

4.2.2 Burrowing Owl Survey

An initial burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) [BUOW] habitat assessment was performed in conjunction with the general biological survey on June 3, 2016 by SLS biologist Brianna Bernard

13 April 2017 Biological Technical Report for the Vantage Point Church Project

to assess and map potentially suitable BUOW habitat within the Study Area. A follow-up focused BUOW survey was performed on June 30, 2016 and involved walking the Study Area in a north- south direction, with special attention paid to those areas that appeared to provide suitable habitat for BUOW. Soil conditions, topography, vegetative communities, wildlife and habitat quality were documented. All encountered burrow entrances and debris piles were checked for the presence of BUOW, molted feathers, cast pellets, prey remains, eggshell fragments, tracks, or excrement according to the methods identified by the California Burrowing Owl Consortium (CBOC).

4.3 Jurisdictional Delineation

An assessment of the Study Area for the presence of jurisdictional features was conducted by SLS biologist Brianna Bernard on June 3, 2016. All depressions and drainages were evaluated for the presence of jurisdictional waters and wetlands according to the Corps and CDFW delineation guidelines, including connectivity or lack of connectivity to Traditional Navigable Waters. Dominant vegetation within and adjacent to the jurisdictional features within the Study Area was identified and recorded.

The Corps and the RWQCB have jurisdiction over Waters of the United States. Jurisdictional non- wetland features for the Waters of the United States are typically determined through the observation of an Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM), which is defined as the “line on the shore established by the fluctuation of water and indicated by physical characteristics such as a clear, natural line impressed on the bank, shelving, changes in the character of soil, destruction of terrestrial vegetation, the presence of litter and debris, or other appropriate means that consider the characteristics of the surrounding areas.” Projects with impacts to Waters of the United States are regulated under Sections 401 and 404 of the Clean Water Act.

To determine the presence of a jurisdictional wetland for the Waters of the United States, three indicators are required: (1) hydrophytic vegetation, (2) hydric soils, and (3) wetland hydrology. The methodology published in the United States Army Corps of Engineers 1987 Wetland Delineation Manual and the Arid West Supplement sets the standards for meeting each of the three indicators, which normally require that 50 percent or more dominant plant species typical of a wetland, soils exhibiting characteristics of saturation, and hydrological indicators be present. Projects with impacts to Waters of the United States are regulated under Sections 401 and 404 of the Clean Water Act.

CDFW has jurisdiction over Waters of the State (California Fish and Game Code §§1600 et seq.; California Code of Regulations, Title 14, §720). Section 1602 of the California Fish and Game Code (FGC) applies to streams. CDFW defines a stream as “a body of water that flows perennially or episodically and that is defined by the area in which water currently flows, or has flowed, over a given course during the historic hydrologic course regime, and where the width of its course can reasonably be identified by physical or biological indicators” (Brady and Vyverberg 2013). Likewise, CDFW regulates jurisdictional areas of riparian habitat only to the extent that those areas are part of a stream, river, or lake as defined above. 14 April 2017 Biological Technical Report for the Vantage Point Church Project

Prior to the field investigation, SLS biologist reviewed historical aerial imagery and topography for the Study Area to determine the potential for perennial, intermittent, or ephemeral drainages and associated riparian resources. Generally, indicators of jurisdictional drainages on an aerial photo include vegetation and/or incised lines indicating the path of flowing water. Following the desktop research, SLS biologist conducted an onsite field investigation. Based on the collective results of the desktop investigation and the field surveys, observed jurisdictional features were mapped using the following parameters:

• As stated above, the limits of the Corps’ jurisdiction extend to the OHWM. OHWM indicators include: the observation of benches, break in bank slope, particle size distribution, sediment deposits, drift, litter, and/or change in plant community. • The RWQCB shares the Corps’ jurisdictional methodology. • CDFW’s jurisdiction applies to all perennial, intermittent, and ephemeral rivers, streams, and lakes in the state. CDFW’s authority also includes riparian habitat (including wetlands) supported by a river, stream, or lake regardless of the presence or absence of hydric soils and saturated soil conditions. Generally, CDFW jurisdiction is mapped to the top of bank of the stream.

Jurisdictional areas within the Study Area meeting the parameters as described above, were mapped on a 200-scale aerial and recorded in the field notes. Results for the Jurisdictional Delineation and associated mapping can be found in Section 5.6.

5.0 Results

5.1 Vegetation Communities

Three vegetation communities identified within the Study Area were inspected to confirm habitat quality. Vegetation communities were mapped based on the Holland Classification System (Holland 1986). Where necessary, deviations were made on best professional judgment when areas did not fit into a specific habitat description provided by Holland. Plant communities were mapped in the field directly onto a 200-scale (1” = 200’) aerial photograph; acreages for each are listed in Table 3 and graphically depicted on Figure 5. Representative photographs of the vegetation communities can be found in Appendix A.

Table 3. Vegetation Communities Observed within Study Area Total Acreage within Total Acreage within Community Type Project Site Study Area Southern Cottonwood 0.00 3.83 Willow Riparian Forest Ruderal 10.3 14.2 Developed 0.91 11.0 TOTAL 11.2 29.0

15 April 2017 Biological Technical Report for the Vantage Point Church Project

The species composition and general description of the habitats observed during the 2016 field survey within the Study Area are described below.

5.1.1 Southern Cottonwood Willow Riparian Forest

A total of 3.83 acres of southern cottonwood willow riparian forest (SCWRF) is dominated by arroyo willow (Salix lasiolepis), black willow (Salix gooddingii), narrow leaf willow (Salix exigua), mulefat, Fremont’s cottonwood (Populus fremontii), elderberry, and western sycamore (Platanus racemosa). Portions of SCWRF consists of white alder (Alnus rhombifolia), tree tobacco, castor bean (Rincinus communis), and eucalyptus trees (Eucalyptus sp.). This sensitive community type (CNDDB 2016) is associated with the adjacent Santa Ana River and does not occur on the project site.

5.1.2 Ruderal

A total of 14.2 acres of ruderal areas are associated with prior disturbance from animal corrals and agriculture; regularly maintained (disked/mowed); and sparsely vegetated by non-native weedy species including Russian thistle (Salsola tragus), black mustard (Brassica nigra), tocalote (Centaurea melitensis), tree tobacco, red brome (Bromus madritensis ssp. rubens), slender oat (Avena barbata), and ripgut grass (Bromus diandrus). Furthermore, this area consists of bare ground, concrete debris, trash, old rubber tires, and old utility poles. Portions of the ruderal habitat also consist of sporadic common fig (Ficus carica), Mexican fan palm (Washingtonia robusta), canary island palm (Phoenix canariensis), Brazilian pepper tree (Schinus terebinthifolius), and Shamel ash (Fraxinus uhdei) mature trees. A small patch of mulefat (Baccharis salicifolia ssp. salicifolia) was observed with sporadic tree tobacco (Nicotiana glauca) and castor bean (Rincus communis). The mulefat observed is located in the northwestern portion of the site and is a result of a leaky hose within an animal pen on the adjacent residential property to the north and is not associated with a stream or drainage. The adjacent property to the north contains willow trees (Salix sp.) and elderberry (Sambucus nigra ssp. Caerulea) along the property boundary, also not associated with a drainage. These species are likely dependent on runoff from the animal pens and domestic water.

The ruderal habitat within the Study Area is not considered a sensitive vegetation community.

5.1.3 Developed

A total of 11.0 acres of developed areas are not vegetated and consist of existing structures and paved roads.

5.2 Plants

Special status plant species with the potential to occur in the Study Area were analyzed based on distribution, habitat requirements, and existing site conditions (Appendix B). The closest special

16 April 2017 Biological Technical Report for the Vantage Point Church Project

status plant species recorded through CNDDB is the Santa Ana woollystar (Eriastrum densifolium ssp. sanctorum) in 2006, located approximately 3.14 miles northeast of the Study Area. This species was not observed during the SLS surveys within the Study Area. The Study Area also includes the MSHCP overlay for the Narrow Endemic species San Diego ambrosia (Ambrosia pumila), Brand’s Phacelia (Phacelia stellaris), and San Miguel savory (Satureja chandleri). All plant species observed within the Study Area totaled 24 species during the survey on June 3, 2016 are listed in Appendix C of this report. As determined through the 2016 survey, no special status plant species were observed within the Study Area and given the site’s history of agriculture and disturbance, there is no opportunity for them to occur.

5.3 Critical Habitat

The Study Area contains a total of 2.68 acres of designated critical habitat for the least Bell’s vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus [LBV]) within the northeastern portion and 2.76 acres of designated critical habitat for Santa Ana River sucker (Catostomus santaanae) along the eastern portion, both within the Santa Ana River (Figure 4). Approximately 0.02 mile both north and south of the Study Area are designated critical habitats for the southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus). The Project site contains 0.23 acres of designated critical habitat for the LBV in the north-eastern most portion of the Project Site. This area consists of ruderal vegetation and does not exhibit suitable habitat for LBV.

5.4 Wildlife

Special status wildlife species with the potential to occur in the Study Area were analyzed based on distribution, habitat requirements, and existing site conditions (Appendix D). The BUOW (observed 2005), western yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus occidentalis, observed 2001), southwestern willow flycatcher (observed in 1991), and Santa Ana sucker (observed in 2002) were identified through the CNDDB as being observed within 1.75 miles of the Study Area. Swainson’s hawk (Buteo swainsoni, observed 1919) and LBV (observed 2013) were recorded through the CNDDB as being observed within the Santa Ana River SCWRF habitat in the Study Area. None of these species or evidence of their presence were observed or heard during the 2016 survey, and given the site’s history of agriculture and disturbance, there is no opportunity for them to occur onsite.

Furthermore, the Delhi Sands flower-loving fly (Rhaphiomidas terminates abdominalis) was mapped as a CNDDB occurrence over the entire Corona North quadrant. However, the Study Area does not contain suitable habitat for this species.

5.4.1 Burrowing Owl Habitat Assessment/Focused Survey

During the initial field survey performed on June 3, 2016, the Project site contained suitable habitat for BUOW (ruderal areas), and potentially suitable burrows or burrow substitutes (i.e., manmade debris piles) were observed primarily along fence-lines. An additional focused BUOW

17 April 2017 Biological Technical Report for the Vantage Point Church Project

survey was performed on June 30, 2016 (Appendix E). No BUOWs or characteristic sign at the potential burrow entrances, including white-wash, pellets or feathers, were observed during both surveys. California ground squirrels were observed onsite and may be occupying most of the encountered burrows.

5.4.2 Wildlife Species Observed or Detected

The animal species or signs thereof observed during the SLS survey on June 3, 2016 are listed below:

Birds: • American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos) • Anna's hummingbird (Calypte anna) • California towhee (Melozone crissalis) • house finch (Haemorhous mexicanus) • killdeer (Charadrius vociferous) • mourning dove (Zenaida macroura) • red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis) • lesser goldfinch (Spinus psaltria) • Canada goose (Branta canadensis)

Mammals: • California ground squirrel (Spermophilus beecheyi) • desert cottontail (Sylvilagus audubonii)

5.5 Regional Connectivity/Wildlife Movement

Wildlife travel routes, corridors, linkages, and crossings link together areas of suitable habitat that are otherwise separated, fragmented and isolated by areas of urbanization. In their absence, various studies have concluded that some wildlife species, especially the larger and more mobile mammals, will not likely persist over time in fragmented or isolated habitat areas because they prohibit the infusion of new individuals and genetic information (MacArthur and Wilson 1967, Soule 1987, Harris and Gallager 1989). Wildlife movement pathways effectively act as links between different populations of a species. A group of smaller populations (termed “demes”) linked together via a system of such wildlife movement pathways is termed a “meta-population.” The long-term health of each deme within the meta-population is dependent upon its size and the frequency of interchange of individuals (immigration versus emigration). The smaller the deme, the more important immigration becomes, because prolonged inbreeding with the same individuals can reduce genetic variability. Immigrant individuals that move into the deme from adjoining demes mate with individuals and supply that deme with new genes and gene combinations that increases overall genetic diversity. An increase in a population’s genetic variability is generally associated with an increase in a population’s health.

18 April 2017 Biological Technical Report for the Vantage Point Church Project

Wildlife movement pathways mitigate the effects of habitat fragmentation by:

• Allowing animals to move between remaining habitats, which allows depleted populations to be replenished and promotes genetic diversity. • Providing escape routes from fire, predators, and human disturbances, thus reducing the risk that catastrophic events (such as fires or disease) will result in population or local species extinction. • Serving as travel routes for individual animals as they move within their home ranges in search of food, water, mates, and other needs (Fahrig and Merriam 1985, Simberloff and Cox 1987, Harris and Gallagher 1989).

Wildlife movement activities usually fall into one of three categories:

• Dispersal (e.g., juvenile animals from natal areas, individuals extending range distributions). • Seasonal migration. • Movements related to home range activities (foraging for food or water, defending territories, searching for mates, breeding areas, or cover).

The following terms to describe wildlife movement are defined below:

• Travel route: a landscape feature (such as a ridge line, drainage, canyon, or riparian strip) within a larger natural habitat area that is used frequently by animals to facilitate movement and provide access to necessary resources (e.g., water, food, cover, den sites). The travel route is generally preferred because it provides the least amount of topographic resistance in moving from one area to another; it contains adequate food, water, and/or cover while moving between habitat areas; and provides a relatively direct link between target habitat areas.

• Wildlife corridor: a piece of habitat, usually linear in nature, that connects two or more habitat patches that would otherwise be fragmented or isolated from one another. Wildlife corridors are usually bounded by urban land areas or other areas unsuitable for wildlife. The corridor generally contains suitable cover, food, and/or water to support species and facilitate movement while in the corridor. Larger, landscape-level corridors (often referred to as “habitat or landscape linkages”) can provide both transitory and resident habitat for a variety of species.

• Habitat Linkage: a connection between blocks of habitat with adequate size, configuration, and vegetation characteristics to provide for live-in habitat and/or provide interaction of wildlife to maintain natural evolutionary and ecological patterns. Linkages are fundamental for gene flow and large scale ecological processes. These areas are usually defined by the zones of “least resistance” for the genes of a given species to move or “flow” between core reserve populations.

19 April 2017 Biological Technical Report for the Vantage Point Church Project

• Wildlife crossing: a small, narrow area, relatively short in length and generally constricted in nature, that allows wildlife to pass under or through an obstacle or barrier that otherwise hinders or prevents movement. Crossings are typically manmade and include culverts, underpasses, drainage pipes, and tunnels to provide access across or under roads, highways, pipelines, or other physical obstacles. These are often “choke points” along a movement corridor.

5.5.1 Wildlife Movement within the Study Area

Large open spaces support a diverse ecological community representing all types of wildlife movements. Each category of movement may also be represented at a variety of scales from non-migratory movement of amphibians, reptiles, and some birds, on a local level to many square-mile home ranges of large mammals moving at a regional level. The Santa Ana River within the Study Area serves as a local wildlife corridor, and various bird species have been cited as occurring within the adjacent Project site as a result. Therefore, the Project site may serve minimally as a migratory stop for various birds as a foraging site.

5.6 Jurisdictional Areas

The field survey on June 3, 2016 determined that the Project site itself does not include any jurisdictional areas. However, the adjacent Santa Ana River, along the east portion of the Study Area is obviously jurisdictional as shown in Figure 6.

As previously discussed, the mulefat located within the ruderal area onsite is a result of a leaky hose from an animal pen on the adjacent residential property to the north and is not associated with natural flow and does not exhibit any biological or physical characteristics indicating federal and/or State jurisdictional areas (Appendix F).

5.7 MSHCP Riparian/Riverine and Vernal Pool Assessment

The Vantage Point Church Project MSHCP Consistency Analysis (SLS 2017) has determined the Project site does not contain any riparian habitat and that the onsite mulefat mapped within the ruderal community is the result of a leaky hose from an animal pen on the adjacent residential property to the north as observed by the field biologist (Appendix F). The hose was observed leaking water into a plastic animal trough on the neighboring site. The trough contained a hole at the bottom, which in turn directed water onto the Project site and became the artificial source for the mulefat within the ruderal vegetation community. The water leaked from the hose approximately 10 feet at a width of 8 inches before ultimately infiltrating into the soil. SLS concluded that the presence of mulefat within the ruderal onsite does not meet the MSHCP definition of riparian/riverine for the following reasons:

20 April 2017 Biological Technical Report for the Vantage Point Church Project

• There is no evidence of stream characteristics, such as bed and bank, nor of constant flow, such as debris lines or riffles in the soil, nor of hydraulic connectivity either up or downstream. • Review of historic aerial photographs does not show evidence of a stream at this location. • Should the artificial water source be turned off, it is expected the onsite mulefat will die off and the area return to ruderal vegetation, as historically shown on previous years’ aerials.

The Project site is adjacent to, but does not include, a reach of Santa Ana River to the east, which meets the MSHCP definition of riparian/riverine habitat (Figure 6).

Furthermore, the Project site contains no vernal pools or depressions as defined under MSHCP.

5.8 Soils Mapping

The United States Department of Agriculture Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) lists five soil types (series) in the Study Area (Figure 7), with the following occurring onsite, as described below:

Delhi Fine Sand Soils of the Delhi series consist of somewhat excessively drained soils with slow runoff and rapid permeability. These soils are found on 2 to 15 percent slopes at elevations of 25 to 1,400 feet. They formed in wind modified alluvium derived from granitic rock sources on floodplains, alluvial fans and terraces. Delhi fine sand is mapped on the south eastern most portion of the Study Area. This sand series will be avoided with Project implementation; therefore, no focused Delhi Flower- Loving Fly surveys are required.

Grangeville The Grangeville series consists of very deep, somewhat poorly drained soils that formed in moderate coarse textured alluvium dominantly from granitic rock sources. Grangeville soils are on alluvial fans and floodplains and have slopes ranging from 0 to 2 percent. Many areas have been reclaimed. Grangeville soils, Grangeville sandy loam and Granville very fine sandy loam, are mapped on the north eastern portion of the Study Area.

Ramona Very Fine Sandy Loam Soils of the Ramona series consist of well-drained soils with slow to rapid runoff and moderately slow permeability. These soils are found on nearly level to moderately steep. They are on terraces and fans at elevations of 250 to 3,500 feet. They formed in alluvium derived mostly from granitic and related rock sources. Ramona very fine sandy loam is mapped within the central/southwestern portion of the Study Area.

21 April 2017 Biological Technical Report for the Vantage Point Church Project

Pachappa Fine Sandy Loam Soils of the Pachappa series consist of well-drained with very slow runoff and moderate permeability. They occur on gently sloping alluvial fans and flood plains under annual grass-herb vegetation. Pachappa fine sandy loam soil is mapped within the north western portion of the Study Area.

Terrace Escarpments Terrace escarpments consist of variable alluvium on terraces and barrancas. Small areas of recently deposited alluvium may be near the bottom of the escarpments. This land is unaltered alluvial outwash derived from granite, gabbro, metamorphosed sandstone, sandstone, or micaschist. Terrace escarpments are not designated as a sensitive soil type by the MSHCP. Terrace escarpments are mapped within the central/eastern portion of the Study Area.

6.0 Project Impacts

This section discusses potential impacts to biological resources that could result from Project implementation. Biological resources may be either directly or indirectly impacted by a project. Direct and indirect impacts may be either permanent or temporary in nature. These impact categories are defined below.

• Direct impact: any loss, alteration, disturbance or destruction of biological resources that would result from project-related activities is a direct impact. Examples include vegetation clearing, encroaching into wetlands, diverting natural surface water flows, and the loss of individual species and/or their habitats. Direct permanent impacts resulting from Project implementation consist of any ground‐disturbing activities (i.e., vegetation removal, grading, paving, building of structures, installing landscaping, creating the fuel modification zone, etc.).

• Indirect impact: as a result of project-related activities, biological resources may also be affected in a manner that is not direct. Examples of indirect impacts include elevated noise, light, and dust levels, increased human activity, decreased water quality, erosion created by the removal of vegetation, and the introduction of invasive plants and unnatural predators (e.g. domestic cats and dogs). These indirect impacts may be both short term and long term in their extent.

• Permanent impacts: all impacts that result in the long-term or irreversible removal of biological resources are considered permanent. Examples include constructing a building or permanent road on an area containing biological resources.

• Temporary impacts: any impacts considered to have reversible effects on biological resources can be viewed as temporary. Examples include the generation of fugitive dust during grading, or removing vegetation and either allowing the natural vegetation to recolonize or actively revegetating the impact area.

22 April 2017 Biological Technical Report for the Vantage Point Church Project

Under each section, potential impacts are discussed.

6.1 Impacts to Vegetation Communities/Habitats

Figure 8 and Table 4 describe and list the approximate total acreages of vegetation communities that will be permanently impacted by Project activities. Calculations were based on the currently proposed development design in conjunction with the vegetation map from field surveys and aerial imagery.

Indirect temporary impacts to plant communities include the effects of fugitive dust created by grading activities, vehicle construction traffic, or offsite discharge of surface water runoff with its associated erosion and sedimentation. Grading-related dust could settle on plant surfaces and indirectly inhibit metabolic processes such as photosynthesis and respiration. Grading-related erosion, runoff, sedimentation, soil compaction, and alteration of drainage patterns may affect plants by altering site conditions so that the location in which they are growing becomes unfavorable. Another example of indirect impacts includes the introduction and spread of invasive, exotic plants which could result in permanent indirect impacts to adjacent native plant communities.

Table 4. Approximate Acreage of Potential Impacts to Vegetation Communities on the Project Site Existing Vegetation Total Impacts Total Avoided Vegetation Community onsite (acres) (acres) (acres) Southern Cottonwood Willow 0.00 0.00 0.00 Riparian Forest Ruderal 10.3 9.42 0.88 Developed 0.91 0.91 0.00 Total 11.2 10.3 0.88

6.1.1 Southern Cottonwood Willow Riparian Forest

Although no direct impacts will occur to the adjacent SCWRF with Project implementation, indirect temporary impacts to this sensitive vegetation community could occur from construction-related erosion, runoff, and fugitive dust. However, Project compliance with the following standard construction measures (SCMs) under applicable State and federal laws would reduce the potential for such indirect impacts to below significance:

• Work area limits will be defined and respected. All grading areas will have their boundaries clearly flagged or marked before Project implementation and all disturbances will be confined to the flagged areas. All key Project personnel will be instructed that their activities must be confined to locations within the flagged areas. Disturbance beyond the actual grading zone is prohibited without site-specific surveys.

23 April 2017 Biological Technical Report for the Vantage Point Church Project

• Cleared or trimmed non-native, exotic vegetation and woody debris will be disposed of in a legal manner at an approved disposal site. Native vegetation will be chipped and stockpiled onsite for its later use as mulch for onsite landscaping areas adjacent to the Santa Ana River SCWRF habitat to the extent feasible.

• Employees, contractors, and site visitors will be prohibited from collecting plants.

In addition to the SCMs listed above, the Project is required to comply with the following construction BMPs found in Appendix C of the MSHCP:

• Water pollution and erosion control plans will be developed and implemented in accordance with RWQCB requirements.

• Access to construction sites will be via preexisting access routes.

• Equipment storage, fueling, and staging areas will be located on ruderal and developed areas and in such a manner as to prevent any runoff from entering the offsite sensitive habitats and Santa Ana River. Necessary precautions will be taken to prevent the release of cement or other toxic substances into surface waters. Project related spills of hazardous materials will be cleaned up immediately and contaminated soils removed to approved disposal areas, with any offsite/downstream areas of contamination reported to appropriate entities, including but not limited to, the City, USFWS, CDFW, and RWQCB.

• Construction equipment will be properly maintained; construction employees and contractors will be trained on proper implementation and monitoring of BMPs; chemicals will not be used near sensitive habitat areas; and procedures will be implemented to minimize the likelihood of hazardous spills and to control sediment-laden runoff.

• Graded areas subject to temporary impacts will be returned to preexisting contours and revegetated with appropriate native species.

Indirect long-term impacts to this sensitive vegetation community could include the effects of invasion of offsite native habitats from exotics in Project landscaping and storm water runoff pollution; however, compliance with the following standard Project Design Features (PDFs) under applicable local and State laws would reduce the potential for such indirect impacts to below significance:

• None of the exotic ornamental plant species listed in Section 5.4 Landscaping, General Provisions within the City’s Zoning Code and MSHCP as outlined in Appendix C of the MSHCP, will be allowed in Project landscaping that are known to prey upon or displace target native species of concern within adjacent offsite natural areas.

24 April 2017 Biological Technical Report for the Vantage Point Church Project

• Effective perimeter control BMPs to control discharge of pollutants from the Project site during construction.

With implementation of the above-listed SCMs and PDFs via their inclusion in the Project’s Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP), potential indirect impacts to sensitive habitats offsite would be reduced to below significance.

6.1.2 Ruderal and Developed

Direct impacts to 10.3 acres of the highly disturbed ruderal and developed areas onsite from Project grading are not significant because these areas are not considered sensitive habitats. The few mulefat shrubs observed within the ruderal vegetation community located in the north end of the Project site, contains an understory of invasive species, such as tree tobacco and castor bean and is a result of a leaky hose from an animal pen on the adjacent residential property. The impacts to the mulefat is not significant because of the isolated nature of the few shrubs, presence of invasive species within the understory, and artificial water source. Furthermore, this species is common in the Project vicinity and is not located within a sensitive habitat.

6.2 Potential Impacts to Special Status Plants

As concluded in Section 5.2 above, no special status plant species were observed during the 2016 survey and none are expected to occur onsite due to the historical agricultural and equestrian and the lack of suitable soil and habitat conditions; therefore, there are no potential impacts to special status plants due to Project implementation.

6.3 Potential Impacts to Critical Habitat

The proposed Project would not result in direct impacts to the designated critical habitats identified in Section 5.3 above, and potential indirect impacts to the offsite critical habitats within the Study Area will be avoided with the implementation of the SCMs and PDFs listed in Section 6.1 above. Therefore, with implementation of these SCMs and PDFs via their inclusion in the Project’s MMRP, potential indirect impacts to designated critical habitats offsite would be reduced to below significance.

6.4 Potential Impacts to Special Status Wildlife

Implementation of the Project could result in direct impacts to special status wildlife species through loss of potential hunting/foraging habitat (onsite ruderal areas) for MSHCP Covered Species (Swainson’s hawk, Stephen’s Kangaroo Rat, and San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat), as shown in Table 5 below. However, the potential indirect impacts for Swainson’s hawk would not be significant because suitable raptor foraging habitats are still present in large amounts throughout the surrounding Project Vicinity. Furthermore, the potential indirect impacts for Stephen’s Kangaroo Rat and San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat would not be significant because the active

25 April 2017 Biological Technical Report for the Vantage Point Church Project

maintenance on the project site has prevented the species from becoming established and occupying the site. Likewise, foraging habitats for these species is present in large amounts throughout the surrounding Project Vicinity.

Indirect impacts to avian species protected by the MBTA may occur as a result of Project construction (temporary, short-term) and operations (long-term). If Project construction is scheduled to occur during the typical breeding bird season (January through September), temporary noise impacts have the potential to disrupt foraging activities within onsite ruderal areas and offsite nesting activities within the SCWRF habitat in the adjacent reach of Santa Ana River. For potential short-term noise effects to birds that may forage in the onsite ruderal areas, it is expected such birds would fly away at the sight of approaching construction workers and equipment, and would therefore not be significantly impacted by construction-related noise levels. For potential short-term noise effects to offsite nesting birds (including some potential special status species) that may use the SCWRF habitat within the adjacent reach of Santa Ana River, construction-related noise levels could significantly impact these birds by disturbing their nesting activities (Impact Bio-1). Table 5 Impact Analysis Summary for Special Status Species Species Extent of Impact Significance of Impact Burrowing Owl Loss of potentially suitable habitat Less than significant MSHCP: Covered Species representing the majority of the due to ongoing Project site (ruderal areas); maintenance of the however, no BUOWs recorded site, which has onsite. prevented BUOW occupation. Coastal California gnatcatcher No suitable habitat associated with No Impact. MSHCP: Covered Species the Project Study Area. Delhi Sands Flower Loving Fly Suitable habitat is found on the No Impact. MSHCP: Covered Species southeast portion of the Study Area and is not directly or indirectly impacted from Project Implementation. Least Bell’s vireo Suitable habitat is found on the No Impact. MSHCP: Covered Species east portion of the Study Area within the Santa Ana River and is not directly or indirectly impacted from Project Implementation. San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat Loss of foraging habitat Less than significant MSHCP: Covered Species representing the majority of the due to ongoing Study Area (ruderal areas). maintenance of the project site, which has prevented occupation.

26 April 2017 Biological Technical Report for the Vantage Point Church Project

Species Extent of Impact Significance of Impact Santa Ana Sucker No suitable habitat is found within No Impact. MSHCP: Covered Species the Study Area. Suitable habitat is found adjacent to the Study Area within the Santa Ana River. Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Suitable habitat is found on the No Impact. MSHCP: Covered Species east portion of the Study Area within the Santa Ana River and is not directly or indirectly impacted from Project Implementation. Stephen’s Kangaroo Rat Loss of foraging habitat, Less than significant MSHCP: Covered Species representing the majority of the due to ongoing Study Area (ruderal areas). maintenance of the project site, which has prevented occupation. Swainson’s hawk Loss of potential foraging habitat Less than significant MSHCP: Covered Species representing the majority of the Impact. Study Area (ruderal areas). Tricolored blackbird No suitable habitat is found within No Impact. MSHCP: Covered Species the Study Area. Western yellow-billed cuckoo Suitable habitat is found on the No Impact. MSHCP: Covered Species east portion of the Study Area within the Santa Ana River and is not directly or indirectly impacted from Project Implementation.

Project construction could also result in additional short-term impacts including nightlighting, littering, and illegal wildlife collections. However, Project compliance with the following SCMs under State and federal laws would reduce the potential for such indirect impacts to below significance:

• All temporary construction-related nightlighting used in onsite development areas near the Santa Ana River will be shielded and/or directed downward to avoid indirect impacts to nocturnal wildlife that use the adjacent SCWRF habitat as such nightlighting could increase predation rates of these species.

• All construction contractors, subcontractors, and employees will comply with the litter and pollution laws and will institute a litter control/removal program during the course of construction activities to reduce the attractiveness of the area to opportunistic predators such as coyotes, opossums, and common ravens.

• Active nests (nests with chicks or eggs) cannot be removed or disturbed. Nests may be removed or disturbed by a qualified biologist, if not active.

27 April 2017 Biological Technical Report for the Vantage Point Church Project

• Construction employees, contractors, and site visitors will be prohibited from collecting wildlife.

Project operations have the potential to indirectly impact special status wildlife species that use the adjacent Santa Ana River SCWRF habitat. These potential indirect impacts include the increase of human activity adjacent to the Santa Ana River, as well as increased exposures of noise and lighting. The Project could also result in long-term indirect impacts to nesting birds using the adjacent Santa Ana River SCWRF habitat from increased human-activity noise levels (e.g., landscaping equipment, loudspeakers, vehicle revving). Such noise effects could significantly impact offsite nesting birds by disturbing their nesting activities. Furthermore, nocturnal wildlife that use the adjacent SCWRF could be indirectly impacted due to an increase in spillover light levels into this habitat from nightlighting over the long term, which could increase predation rates of these species.

However, these potential indirect impacts are expected to be substantially reduced because the Project site is buffered vertically and horizontally from the SCWRF habitat through topographic separation. For example, the site is situated at a much higher elevation (approximately 600 feet AMSL) than the Santa Ana River (approximately 540 feet AMSL), at its closest point to the River, with a substantial slope (approximately 40 to 60 feet high) down to the River. Likewise, the closest activity center within the proposed Project from SCWRF habitat would be setback approximately 100 feet in distance.

In addition to this topographic buffering, a perimeter barrier is proposed along the easterly development boundary consisting of a 6-foot tubular steel enclosure fencing; and all exterior lighting at parking lots and buildings will be shielded and/or directed downward to reduce nightlighting impacts. As such, the combined effect of these PDFs, the large elevation difference (vertical separation), intervening 40 to 60-foot high steep slope, and minimum 100-foot horizontal distance from the SCWRF habitat would provide a substantial buffer between the development and the River which would:

• further deter unauthorized human intrusions into the adjacent Santa Ana River SCWRF habitat and potential for long-term indirect impacts to special status wildlife species.

• serve to partially obstruct and reduce the increased noise and nightlighting levels entering the adjacent Santa Ana River SCWRF habitat and potential for long-term indirect impacts to special status wildlife species from increased human activities associated with the proposed Project.

With implementation of the perimeter barrier and nightlighting reduction PDFs via their inclusion in the Project’s MMRP, potential indirect long-term impacts to wildlife (including some potential special status species) within the adjacent reach of Santa Ana River would be reduced to below significance.

28 April 2017 Biological Technical Report for the Vantage Point Church Project

6.5 Potential Impacts to Wildlife Movement

As described earlier, the Project site is buffered from the adjacent Santa Ana River SCWRF habitat through vertical separation (approximately 600 feet AMSL for the site vs. 540 feet AMSL for the River), a substantial slope (approximately 40 to 60 feet high), and a minimum 100-foot development setback (horizontal separation). In addition, a perimeter barrier is proposed along the easterly development boundary; and all exterior lighting will be shielded and/or directed downward to reduce nightlighting impacts. The combined effect of topographic separation and these PDFs would provide a substantial buffer between the development and the River which would:

• deter unauthorized human intrusions into the adjacent Santa Ana River SCWRF habitat.

• serve to partially obstruct and reduce the increased noise and nightlighting levels entering the adjacent Santa Ana River SCWRF habitat.

As such, the proposed Project would not present a barrier to local north-south wildlife movements along the Santa Ana River to the east. With implementation of the perimeter barrier and nightlighting reduction PDFs via their inclusion in the Project’s MMRP, potential indirect long- term impacts to wildlife movements within the adjacent reach of Santa Ana River would be reduced to below significance.

6.6 Potential Impacts to Jurisdictional Features

No federal/State jurisdictional areas occur within the Project Site. Therefore, the Project would not result in direct or indirect impacts to jurisdictional waters and wetlands.

6.7 Potential Impacts to Riparian/Riverine

No MSHCP Riparian/Riverine resources occur within the Project site (refer to Section 5.7 above). Therefore, the Project would not result in direct impacts to MSHCP Riparian/Riverine Communities. Compliance with SCMs and PDFs outlined within Section 6.1.1, potential indirect impacts to sensitive habitats offsite would be reduced to below significance.

6.8 MSHCP Consistency

This section summarizes the Vantage Point Church MSHCP Consistency Assessment (April 2017). The Project site is not located within any MSHCP Criteria Areas, Cell Groups, or Subunits. Portions of the site are located within MSHCP overlay areas, as follows:

• Riparian and Riverine Areas (Section 6.1.2) • Narrow Endemic Plants (Section 6.1.3) • Western BUOW (Section 6.3.2) 29 April 2017 Biological Technical Report for the Vantage Point Church Project

Riparian/Riverine Areas (Section 6.1.2) No MSHCP Riparian/Riverine resources occur within the Project site (refer to Section 5.7 above). Therefore, the Project would not result in direct impacts to MSHCP Riparian/Riverine habitat. Compliance with SCMs and PDFs outlined within Section 6.1.1, potential indirect impacts to sensitive habitats offsite would be reduced to below significance.

Narrow Endemic Plants (Section 6.1.3) As discussed in Section 5.2 above, no special status or MSHCP Narrow Endemic plant species have been observed within the Study Area and given the site’s history of agriculture and disturbance, there is no opportunity for them to occur. Therefore, the Project would not result in direct or indirect impacts occur to MSHCP Narrow Endemic species.

Western Burrowing Owl (Section 6.3.2) Although no BUOWs, occupied burrows, or sign of BUOW use around the burrow/cavity entrances have been observed onsite (refer to Section 5.4.1 above), a pre-construction BUOW survey is still required to be conducted by a qualified biologist within 30 days of the commencement of ground disturbing activities in accordance with MSHCP Section 3.6.2. With implementation of this MSHCP requirement via its inclusion in the Project’s MMRP, potential impacts to onsite BUOW nesting burrows (if present) would be reduced to below significance.

With the measures outlined above, the Project is consistent with the MSHCP.

7.0 SCMs/PDFs Incorporated into Project and MMRP

The Project will comply with the following:

• As required by MSHCP Section 6.3.2, if Project construction is scheduled to occur during the BUOW breeding season (March through August), pre-construction protocol surveys for BUOW within the Study Area where suitable habitat is present will be conducted by a qualified biologist within 30 days prior to commencement of site disturbance. If active BUOW burrows are detected, all work within 300 feet of any active burrow will be halted until that nesting effort is finished. The onsite biologist will review and verify compliance with these boundaries and will verify the nesting effort has finished. Work can resume when no other active BUOW burrows are found.

If active BUOW burrows are detected outside the breeding season, or during the breeding season but nesting activities have not begun, then passive and/or active relocation may be approved following consultation with CDFW. The installation of one- way doors may be installed as part of a passive relocation program. BUOW burrows will be excavated with hand tools by a qualified biologist when determined to be unoccupied, and backfilled to ensure that BUOWs do not re-enter the burrows. Upon completion of the survey and any follow-up measures that may be required, a report shall be prepared and submitted to the City for mitigation monitoring compliance record keeping. 30 April 2017 Biological Technical Report for the Vantage Point Church Project

• Employees, contractors, and site visitors will be prohibited from collecting plants.

• Water pollution and erosion control plans will be developed and implemented in accordance with RWQCB requirements.

• Access to construction sites will be via preexisting access routes.

• Graded areas subject to temporary impacts will be returned to preexisting contours and revegetated with appropriate native species.

• Effective perimeter control BMPs to control discharge of pollutants from the Project site during construction.

31 April 2017 Biological Technical Report for the Vantage Point Church Project

• Active nests (nests with chicks or eggs) cannot be removed or disturbed. Nests may be removed or disturbed by a qualified biologist, if not active.

• Construction employees, contractors, and site visitors will be prohibited from collecting wildlife.

32 April 2017 Biological Technical Report for the Vantage Point Church Project

8.0 Proposed Mitigation

8.1 Wildlife Species

Implementation of the following mitigation measure would reduce potential Project impacts to nesting birds to below significance:

MM Bio-1: If site disturbance is scheduled to occur during the typical nesting bird season (January through September), a pre-disturbance nesting bird survey shall be conducted by a qualified biologist within 5 days of site disturbance, to determine the presence of nests or nesting birds. If active nests are identified, the biologist shall establish non-disturbance buffers around them (500 feet for raptors and sensitive species, 200 feet for non-raptors/non-sensitive species). The biologist shall monitor these buffers weekly to ensure no work occurs within them, until the nesting effort is finished (i.e., the juveniles have successfully fledged and are surviving independent from the nest). Work can resume within the buffers when no other active nests are found. Alternatively, a qualified biologist may determine that construction can be permitted within the non-disturbance buffer areas with implementation of a monitoring and mitigation plan to prevent any impacts while the nest continues to be active (eggs, chicks, etc.). Upon completion of the survey and any follow-up measures that may be required, a report shall be prepared and submitted to the City for mitigation monitoring compliance record keeping. If vegetation clearing is not completed within 5 days of a negative survey, the nesting survey must be repeated to confirm the absence of nesting birds.

33 April 2017 Biological Technical Report for the Vantage Point Church Project

9.0 Cumulative Impacts

Direct impacts may occur to nesting birds, should construction activities and vegetation removal take place during the typical nesting season. However, adherence to the SCMs and PDFs as outlined in Section 7.0, as well as implementation of MM-Bio 1, will ensure impacts to special status species or their habitats are minimized thus reducing the Project’s contribution to cumulative impacts to less than significant.

Furthermore, the MSHCP was specifically designed to cover a large geographical area so that it would protect numerous special-status species and sensitive habitats throughout the region. It is the projected cumulative effect of future development that has required the preparation and implementation of the MSHCP to protect multiple habitats and species. Because the MSCHP provides a regional and comprehensive approach to conservation planning, the proposed Project’s contribution to cumulative impacts would also be less than significant.

34 April 2017 Biological Technical Report for the Vantage Point Church Project

10.0 Literature Cited

Amphibiaweb. 2016. Species Accounts. Retrieved from: http://amphibiaweb.org/search/index.html

AOU (The American Ornithologists' Union). 1998. Check-List of North American Birds. 7th Edition. American Ornithologists' Union, Washington, D.C. 829 pp.

Baldwin, B. G., D. H. Goldman, D. J. Keil, R. Patterson, T. J. Rosatti, and D. H. Wilken, editors. 2012. The Jepson Manual: Vascular Plants of California, second edition. University California Press, Berkeley.

Bowers, N., R. Bowers, and K. Kaufman. 2004. Mammals of North America. Houghton Mifflin Company, New York.

Brady, Roland H. III, Kris Vyverberg. 2013. Methods to Describe and Delineate Episodic Stream Processes on Arid Landscapes for Permitting Utility‐Scale Solar Power Plants. California Energy Commission. Publication Number: CEC‐500‐2014‐013.

Calflora. 2016. Calflora website - search for plants. Retrieved from: http://www.calflora.org/species/index.html.

CaliforniaHerps.com. 2016. California Herps. A Guide to the Reptiles and Amphibians of California. Retrieved from: http://www.californiaherps.com/.

Cal-IPC (California Invasive Plant Council). 2006. California Invasive Plant Inventory. Cal- IPC Publication 2006-02. California Invasive Plant Council: Berkeley, CA. Retrieved from: http://www.cal-ipc.org/ip/inventory/index.php.

CDFW (California Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2016. Natural Communities List (June 2016). Biographic Data Branch. The Vegetation Classification and Mapping Program. http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/vegcamp/natural_communities.asp.

CDFW (California Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2016a. California Endangered Species Act (CESA). Retrieved from: http://www.dfg.ca.gov/habcon/cesa/.

CDFW (California Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2016b. California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Retrieved from: http://www.dfg.ca.gov/habcon/ceqa/

CDFW (California Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2016c. Fish and Game Code Section 1600- 1616. Retrieved from: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi- bin/displaycode?section=fgc&group=01001-02000&file=1600-1616

CDFW (California Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2016d. Lake and Streambed Alteration 35 April 2017 Biological Technical Report for the Vantage Point Church Project

Program. Retrieved from: http://www.dfg.ca.gov/habcon/1600/

CDFW (California Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2016e. Life History Accounts and Range Maps – California Wildlife Habitat Relationship System. Retrieved from: http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cwhr/cawildlife.aspx.

CDFW (California Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2016f. RareFind, California Department of Fish and Wildlife, California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). State of California, The Natural Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Wildlife, Biogeographic Data Branch, California Natural Diversity Database, Sacramento, CA.

CDFW (California Department of Fish and Wildlife), Natural Diversity Database. June 2016 (2016g). Special Vascular Plants, Bryophytes, and Lichens List. Quarterly publication. 124 pp.

CDFW (California Department of Fish and Wildlife), Natural Diversity Database. 2016h. Special Animals List. Periodic publication. 52 pp. Retried from: http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cnddb/pdfs/spanimals.pdf

CDFW (California Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2016i. State and Federally Listed Endangered, Threatened, and Rare Plants of California. State of California, The Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Wildlife, Resource Management and Planning Division, Biogeographic Data Branch, California Natural Diversity Database, Sacramento, CA.

Clark, W.S. and B.K. Wheeler. 2001. A Field Guide to Hawks of North America, Second Edition. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston and New York.

CNPS, Rare Plant Program. 2016. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (online edition, v8- 02). California Native Plant Society, Sacramento, CA. Website http://www.rareplants.cnps.org [accessed June 2016].

Corps (United States Army Corps of Engineers). 2008. Regional Supplement to the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region (Version 2.0), ed. J. S. Wakeley, R. W. Lichvar, and C. V. Noble. ERDC/EL TR-08-28. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center.

Eder, Tamara. 2005. Mammals of California. Lone Pine Publishing International Inc, Auburn, WA.

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

EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). 2011. National Environmental Policy

36 April 2017 Biological Technical Report for the Vantage Point Church Project

Act (NEPA). Retrieved from: http://www.epa.gov/compliance/nepa/

EPA (United States Environmental Protection Agency). 2011. Laws and Regulations. Summary of the Endangered Species Act. Retrieved from: http://www.epa.gov/lawsregs/laws/esa.html

Fahrig, L., and G. Merriam. 1985. Habitat patch connectivity and population survival. Ecology 66:1762-1768.

Federal Interagency Committee for Wetland Delineation. 1989. Federal Manual for Identifying and Delineating Jurisdictional Wetlands. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and USDA Soil Conservation Service, Washington, DC Cooperative technical publication.

Fish and Game Commission. 2011. California Law. California Fish and Game Code. Retrieved from: http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/calawquery?codesection=fgc&codebody=&hits=20

Gallagher, Sylvia. 1997. Atlas of Breeding Birds, Orange County, California. Sea and Sage Audubon Press, Irvine, CA.

Google. 2016. GoogleEarth© website.

Government Printing Office. 1991. Federal Register, 1989 “Federal Manual for Identifying Jurisdictional Wetlands; Proposed Revisions.” August 14, 1991, Vol. 56, No. 157, pp 40446- 40480.

Harris, L.D. and Gallagher, P.B. 1989. New initiatives for wildlife conservation: The need for movement corridors. In defense of wildlife: Preserving communities and corridors. pp. 11-34. Edited by G. Mackintosh. Defenders of Wildlife, Washington, DC.

Holland, R.F. 1986. Preliminary Descriptions of the Terrestrial Natural Communities of California. State of California, The Resources Agency, Nongame Heritage Program, California Department of Fish & Game, Sacramento, Calif. 156 pp.

Jennings, M.R. and M.P. Hayes. 1994. Amphibian and Reptile Species of Special Concern in California. Submitted to the California Department of Fish and Game Inland Fisheries Division. Rancho Cordova, CA.

National Geographic Society. Edited by Jonathan Alderfer. 2006. Complete Birds of North America. National Geographic Society. Washington D.C.

NatureServe. 2016. NatureServe Explorer: An online encyclopedia of life [web application]. Version 7.1. NatureServe, Arlington, Virginia. Available http://explorer.natureserve.org.

37 April 2017 Biological Technical Report for the Vantage Point Church Project

NRCS (Natural Resource Conservation Service). 2016. Web Soil Survey. U.S. Department of Agriculture Natural Resources Condservation Service. Retrieved from: http://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/App/WebSoilSurvey.aspx

Riverside, County of. June 2003. Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP). Prepared by Dudek.

Riverside, County of. 2006. Burrowing Owl Survey Instructions for the Western Riverside Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Area.

Sibley, David Allen. 2000. National Audubon Society, The Sibley Guide to Birds. Alfred A. Knopf, New York.

Simberloff, D., and J. Cox. 1987. Consequences and costs of conservation corridors. Conservation Biology. 1:63-71

Soule, Michael E. 1987. Viable populations for conservation. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge Cambridgeshire and New York

SWRCB (State Water Resources Control Board). 2011. Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act with Additions and Amendments Effective January 1, 2011. Compiled by the Office of Chief Counsel. Retrieved from: http://www.swrcb.ca.gov/laws_regulations/docs/portercologne.pdf

USDA (United States Department of Agriculture) Natural Resources Conservation Service. 1995. Hydric Soils of California.

USFWS (United States Fish and Wildlife Service). 2016a. FWS Critical Habitat for Threatened and Endangered Species. Retrieved from http://ecosfws.gov/crithab/.

USFWS (United States Fish and Wildlife Service). 2016b. Migratory Birds & Habitat Programs. Migratory Bird Treaty Act. Retrieved from: http://www.fws.gov/pacific/migratorybirds/mbta.htm

USFWS (United States Fish and Wildlife Service). 2016c. National Wetlands Inventory. Wetlands Mapper. Retrieved from: http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/Data/mapper.html.

WTI (Wetland Training Institute, Inc.). 1999. Field Guide for Wetland Delineation: 1987 Corps of Engineers Manual. Glenwood, NM WTI 99-1. 143 pp.

WTI (Wetland Training Institute, Inc.). 2003. Wetland Delineation Lecture Notes and Field Guide for Wetland Delineation based on the Corps of Engineers 1987 Manual. WTI, New Mexico.

38 April 2017 Figures Approximate Project Location ^_

Prepared By: I Carlson SLS Map Created: 06/02/2016 Data Sources: Bing Maps VantagePoint Church Project Feet 0 2,500 5,000 10,000 Vicinity Map 1 inch = 10,000 feet FIGURE 1 Legend Approximate Site Boundary 200 Foot Buffer

Prepared By: I VantagePoint Church Project Carlson SLS Map Created: 06/02/2016 Data Sources: Bing Maps Feet 0 100 200 400 Study Area Map 1 inch = 200 feet FIGURE 2 Legend Approximate Site Boundary 5-mile Buffer CNDDB Occurences least Bell's vireo Santa Ana sucker Swainson's hawk arroyo toad burrowing owl coastal California gnatcatcher southwestern willow flycatcher western yellow-billed cuckoo

Prepared By: I Carlson SLS Map Created: 06/02/2016 Data Sources: Bing Maps VantagePoint Church Project Feet 0 1,750 3,500 7,000 10,500 CNDDB Occurences 1 inch = 7,500 feet FIGURE 3 Legend Approximate Site Boundary Critical Habitat Least Bell's Vireo Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Santa Ana Sucker

Prepared By: I Carlson SLS Map Created: 06/02/2016 Data Sources: Bing Maps VantagePoint Church Project Feet 0 450 900 1,800 2,700 Critical Habitat 1 inch = 1,800 feet FIGURE 4 Legend Approximate Site Boundary 200 Foot Buffer Vegetation Community Southern Cottonwood Willow Riparian Forest Ruderal Developed

Prepared By: I Vantage Point Church Project Carlson SLS Map Created: 06/02/2016 Data Sources: Bing Maps Feet 0 100 200 400 Vegetation Map 1 inch = 200 feet FIGURE 5 Legend Approximate Site Boundary 200 Foot Buffer Waters of the State Jurisdiction Riparian/Riverine Habitat

Prepared By: I Vantage Point Church Project Carlson SLS Map Created: 06/02/2016 Data Sources: Bing Maps Feet Jurisdictional Delineation and 0 100 200 400 1 inch = 200 feet Riparian/Riverine Habitat Impact Map FIGURE 6 Legend Approximate Site Boundary 200 Foot Buffer Soil Delhi Fine Sand, 2 to 15 percent slopes Grangeville Sandy Loam Grangeville Fine Sandy Loam Pachappa Fine Sandy Loam Ramona Very Fine Sandy Loam Terrace Escarpments

Prepared By: I Vantage Point Church Project Carlson SLS Map Created: 06/02/2016 Data Sources: Bing Maps Feet USDA NRCS, 2016 0 100 200 400 Soils Map 1 inch = 200 feet FIGURE 7 Legend Approximate Site Boundary 200 Foot Buffer Development Footprint Vegetation Community Southern Cottonwood Willow Riparian Forest Ruderal Developed

Prepared By: I Vantage Point Church Project Carlson SLS Map Created: 06/02/2016 Data Sources: Bing Maps Feet 0 100 200 400 Vegetation Impact Map 1 inch = 200 feet FIGURE 8 Legend Approximate Site Boundary 200 Foot Buffer Development Footprint Waters of the State Jurisdiction Riparian/Riverine Habitat

Prepared By: I Vantage Point Church Project Carlson SLS Map Created: 06/02/2016 Data Sources: Bing Maps Feet Jurisdictional and Riparian/Riverine 0 100 200 400 1 inch = 200 feet Habitat Impact Map FIGURE 9 Appendix A: Representative Photographs of Community Classification Appendix A – Representative Photographs of Community Classifications

Looking north across the Project site at the Ruderal Community.

Looking east across the Project site at the Ruderal Community.

Photos taken June 3, 2016 Appendix A – Representative Photographs of Community Classifications

Looking south across the Project site at the Ruderal Community.

Looking south from the Project Site at the adjacent Southern Cottonwood Willow Riparian Forest.

Photos taken June 3, 2016 Appendix A – Representative Photographs of Community Classifications

Looking north across the Project site and adjacent Santa Ana River.

One of the two structures found on the Project Site.

Photos taken June 3, 2016 Appendix A – Representative Photographs of Community Classifications

The second structure found on the Project Site.

Some ruderal areas are not maintained.

Photos taken June 3, 2016 Appendix A – Representative Photographs of Community Classifications

Debris pile of demolished wood found on the Project Site.

Looking east from the Project Site at the adjacent Santa Ana River.

Photos taken June 3, 2016 Appendix A – Representative Photographs of Community Classifications

The second structure found on the Project Site.

Mulefat found within the ruderal as a result of a leaky hose on the adjacent property.

Photos taken June 3, 2016 Appendix A – Representative Photographs of Community Classifications

Adjacent leaky hose. For additional photos, please refer to Appendix F.

Photos taken June 3, 2016 Appendix B: Special Status Plant Species Potential Occurrence Determination Appendix B – Special Status Plant Species Potential Occurrence Determination

APPENDIX B

Special Status Plant Species Potential Occurrence Determination

This table summarizes conclusions from analysis and field surveys regarding the potential occurrence of special status plant species within the Study Area. During the field surveys, the potential for special status plant species to occur within the Study Area was assessed based on the following criteria:

• Present: observed on the site during the field surveys, or recorded on-site by other qualified biologists.

• Known to Occur: observed on site in the recent past, but not observed during the most recent biological survey.

• High potential to occur: observed in similar habitat in the region by a qualified biologist or habitat on the site is a type often utilized by the species, and the site is within the known distribution and elevation range of the species.

• Moderate potential to occur: reported sightings in surrounding region, or the site is within the known distribution and elevation range of the species, and habitat on the site is a type occasionally used by the species.

• Low potential to occur: the site is within the known distribution and elevation range of the species, but habitat on the site is rarely used by the species or for which there are no known recorded occurrences of the species within or adjacent to the site.

• None: a focused study failed to detect the species or no suitable habitat is present.

• Unknown: the species’ distributional/elevation range and habitat are poorly known.

Even with field surveys, biologists assessed the probability of occurrence rather than make a definitive conclusion about species presence or absence. Failure to detect the presence of the species is not definitive, and may be due to variable effects associated with fire, rainfall patterns, and/or season.

Appendix B – Special Status Plant Species Potential Occurrence Determination

Special Status Plants: Potential to Occur within the Study Area

Scientific Name Common Name Status General Habitat Description Potential For Occurrence within the Study Area Abronia villosa var. chaparral sand- CRPR: 1B.1 Annual herb of sandy areas in chaparral and coastal None. No suitable habitat or soils are found within aurita verbena MSHCP: Not sage scrub. Known from 80 to 1,600 meters (300 to the Study Area. Furthermore, the Project site is covered 5,300 feet) MSL. actively maintained and in a consistent Blooming period: January through August. nonvegetated state. Not observed during field survey. Ambrosia pumila San Diego FE, Range extends from Riverside County through San None. No suitable habitat or soils are found within ambrosia CRPR: 1B.1, Diego County into Baja. Found along drainages and the Study Area. Furthermore, the Project site is MSHCP: Section areas adjacent to riparian areas. Nearest location is actively maintained and in a consistent 6.1.2 NEPSSA 7 San Luis Rey. nonvegetated state. Not observed during field Blooming period: June to September survey. Centromadia pungens smooth tarplant CRPR:1B.2 Alkaline areas in chenopod scrub, meadows and None. No suitable habitat or soils are found within ssp. laevis MSHCP: seeps, ditches, playas, riparian woodland, and valley the Study Area. Furthermore, the Project site is Covered and foothill grassland. Known from below 480 actively maintained and in a consistent meters (1,600 feet) MSL. nonvegetated state. Not observed during field Blooming period: April through Sept survey. Deinandra paniculata paniculate tarplant CRPR: 4.2 Coastal scrub and valley and foothill None. No suitable habitat or soils are found within MSHCP: Not grassland/usually vernally mesic. Known from 25 to the Study Area. Furthermore, the Project site is covered 9540 meters (80 to 3,085 feet) MSL. actively maintained and in a consistent Blooming period: April through November. nonvegetated state. Not observed during field survey. Dudleya multicaulis many-stemmed CRPR:1B.2 Chaparral, coastal scrub, and valley and foothill None. No suitable habitat or soils are found within dudleya MSHCP: grassland. Often found on clay soils or granitic the Study Area. Furthermore, the Project site is Covered outcrops. Known from below 800 meters (< 2,600 actively maintained and in a consistent feet) MSL. nonvegetated state. Not observed during field Blooming period: May through July. survey. Eriastrum densifolium Santa Ana River FE, SE Found in sandy soils of floodplains and terraced None. No suitable habitat or soils are found within ssp. sanctorum woollystar CRPR: 1B.1 fluvial deposits of the Santa Ana River and larger the Study Area. Furthermore, the Project site is MSHCP: tributaries. Known from 120 to 625 meters (400 to actively maintained and in a consistent Covered 4,100 feet) MSL. nonvegetated state. Not observed during field Blooming period: June through September. survey. Lepidium virginicum Robinson's pepper- CRPR: 4.3 Dry soils on chaparral and coastal sage scrub often None. No suitable habitat or soils are found within var. robinsonii grass around rock outcrops. Widespread throughout the Study Area. Furthermore, the Project site is southern California foothills in dry, exposed locales. actively maintained and in a consistent Blooming period: January to July nonvegetated state. Not observed during field survey.

Appendix B – Special Status Plant Species Potential Occurrence Determination

Scientific Name Common Name Status General Habitat Description Potential For Occurrence within the Study Area Phacelia stellaris Brand's phacelia CRPR: 1B.1 Sandy washes and/or benches in alluvial flood plains. None. No suitable habitat or soils are found within MSHCP: Section Sandy soils. This species is generally dependent on the Study Area. Furthermore, the Project site is

6.1.2 NEPSSA 7 periodic flooding and sediment transport. actively maintained and in a consistent Blooming period: March through June nonvegetated state. Not observed during field survey. Satureja chandleri San Miguel savory CRPR: 1B.2 Rocky areas in chaparral, cismontane woodland, None. No suitable habitat or soils are found within MSHCP: Section coastal scrub, riparian woodland, and valley and the Study Area. Furthermore, the Project site is actively maintained and in a consistent 6.1.2 NEPSSA 7 foothill grassland. Rocky, gabbroic and nonvegetated state. Not observed during field metavolcanic substrates. Identifiable year round. survey. Blooming period: March to May

Legend Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) Listing Codes: federal listing is pursuant to the Federal Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA). FE = federally listed as endangered: any species, subspecies, or variety of plant or animal that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of their range. FT = federally listed as threatened: any species, subspecies, or variety of plant or animal that is considered likely to become endangered throughout all or a significant portion of its range within the foreseeable future.

California Endangered Species Act (CESA) Listing Codes: state listing is pursuant to § 1904 (Native Plant Protection Act of 1977) and §2074.2 and §2075.5 (California Endangered Species Act of 1984) of the Fish and Game Code, relating to listing of Endangered, Threatened and Rare species of plants and animals. SE = state listed as endangered: any species, subspecies, or variety of plant or animal that are in serious danger of becoming extinct throughout all, or a significant portion, of their range. ST = state listed as threatened: any species, subspecies, or variety of plant or animal that, although not presently threatened with extinction, is likely to become an endangered species in the foreseeable future.

California Rare Plant Ranks (Formerly known as CRPR Lists): the CRPR is a statewide, non-profit organization that maintains, with CDFG, an Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California. In the spring of 2011, CRPR and CDFG officially changed the name “CRPR List” or “CRPR Ranks” to “California Rare Plant Rank” (or CPRP). This was done to reduce confusion over the fact that CRPR and CDFG jointly manage the Rare Plant Status Review Groups and the rank assignments are the product of a collaborative effort and not solely a CRPR assignment.

CRPR: 1B - California Rare Plant Rank 1B (formerly List 1B): Plants Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in California and Elsewhere. All of the plants constituting California Rare Plant Rank 1B meet the definitions of Sec. 1901, Chapter 10 (Native Plant Protection Act) or Sections 2062 and 2067 (California Endangered Species Act) of the California Department of Fish and Game Code, and are eligible for state listing. It is mandatory that they be fully considered during preparation of environmental documents relating to CEQA.

CRPR: 2 - California Rare Plant Rank 2 (formerly List 2): Plants Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in California, But More Common Elsewhere. All of the plants constituting California Rare Plant Rank 2 meet the definitions of Sec. 1901, Chapter 10 (Native Plant Protection Act) or Sections 2062 and 2067 (California Endangered Species Act) of the California Department of Fish and Game Code, and are eligible for state listing. It is mandatory that they be fully considered during preparation of environmental documents relating to CEQA.

Appendix B – Special Status Plant Species Potential Occurrence Determination

CRPR: 4 - California Rare Plant Rank 4 (formerly List 4): Plants of Limited Distribution - A Watch List. Very few of the plants constituting California Rare Plant Rank 4 meet the definitions of Sec. 1901, Chapter 10 (Native Plant Protection Act) or Secs. 2062 and 2067 (California Endangered Species Act) of the California Department of Fish and Game Code, and few, if any, are eligible for state listing. Nevertheless, many of them are significant locally, and CRPR and CDFG strongly recommend that California Rare Plant Rank 4 plants be evaluated for consideration during preparation of environmental documents relating to CEQA.

California Native Plant Society (CRPR ) Threat Ranks: The CRPR Threat Rank is an extension added onto the California Rare Plant Rank (CRPR) and designates the level of endangerment by a 1 to 3 ranking with 1 being the most endangered and 3 being the least endangered. A Threat Rank is present for all California Rare Plant Rank 1B's, 2's, 4's, and the majority of California Rare Plant Rank 3's. California Rare Plant Rank 4 plants are seldom assigned a Threat Rank of 0.1, as they generally have large enough populations to not have significant threats to their continued existence in California; however, certain conditions exist to make the plant a species of concern and hence be assigned a California Rare Plant Rank. In addition, all California Rare Plant Rank 1A (presumed extinct in California), and some California Rare Plant Rank 3 (need more information) plants, which lack threat information, do not have a Threat Rank extension.

0.1 = seriously endangered in California (over 80% of occurrences threatened / high degree and immediacy of threat) 0.2 = fairly endangered in California (20-80% occurrences threatened / moderate degree and immediacy of threat)

Sources: • Calflora website - search for plants (Calflora 2016). • CRPR Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (CRPR 2016). • The Status of Rare, Threatened, and Endangered Plants and Animals of California, 2000–2004 (CDFG 2005). • The Jepson Manual: Vascular Plants of California, second edition (Baldwin et al. 2012). • RareFind, CDFW, California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) (CDFW 2016f). • State and Federally Listed Endangered, Threatened, and Rare Plants of California (CDFW 2016i). • Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP, 2016)

Appendix C: Plant Species Recorded During the Field Surveys Appendix C – Plant Species Recorded During the Field Survey

Appendix B contains the list of vascular plant taxa recorded during the biological survey conducted within the Study Area. Plant nomenclature and taxonomic order is based on The Jepson Manual: Vascular Plants of California, second Edition (Baldwin et al. 2012).

Appendix C Plant Species Observed during the Field Survey

Scientific Name Common Name Adoxaceae Muskroot Family Sambucus nigra ssp. caerulea elderberry

Asteraceae (Compositae) Sunflower Family Baccharis salicifolia ssp. salicifolia (=Baccharis mule fat salicifolia) Centaurea melitensis* tocalote (Malta star thistle)

Brassicaceae (Cruciferae) Mustard Family Brassica nigra* black mustard

Betulaceae Birch Family Alnus rhombifolia White Alder

Chenopodiaceae Goosefoot Family Salsola tragus* Russian thistle (tumbleweed)

Euphorbiaceae Spurge Family Ricinus communis* castor bean

Myrtaceae Myrtle Family Eucalyptus sp.* eucalyptus

Oleaceae Olive Family Olea europaea* common olive Fraxinus uhdei* Shamel ash

Platanaceae Sycamore Family Platanus racemosa western sycamore

Salicaceae Willow Family Populus fremontii Fremont’s cottonwood Salix exigua narrow leaf willow Salix lasiolepis arroyo willow Salix nigra black willow

Appendix C – Plant Species Recorded During the Field Survey

Scientific Name Common Name

Solanaceae Nightshade Family Nicotiana glauca* tree tobacco

Monocots Arecaceae (Palmae) Palm Family Phoenix canariensis* Canary Island Palm

Poaceae Grass Family Avena barbata* slender oat Bromus diandrus* ripgut grass Bromus madritensis ssp. Rubens* red brome

Legend * exotic plant species

Appendix D: Special Status Wildlife Species Potential Occurrence Determination Appendix D – Special Status Wildlife Potential Occurrence Determination

APPENDIX D

Special Status Wildlife Potential Occurrence Determination

This table summarizes conclusions from analysis and field surveys regarding the potential occurrence of special status wildlife species within the Study Area. During the field surveys, the potential for special status wildlife species to occur within the Study Area was assessed based on the following criteria:

• Present: observed on the site during the field surveys, or previously recorded on-site by other qualified biologists.

• Known to Occur: observed on site in the recent past, but not observed during the most recent biological survey.

• None: a focused study failed to detect the species or no suitable habitat is present.

• Unknown: the species’ distributional/elevation range and habitat are poorly known.

Even with field surveys, biologists assessed probability of occurrence rather than make definitive conclusions about species presence or absence. Failure to detect the species is not definitive, and may be due to variable effects associated with migration, weather, fire, and/or time of day and year.

Appendix D – Special Status Wildlife Potential Occurrence Determination

Special Status Wildlife: Potential to Occur within the Study Area

Scientific Name Common Name Status General Habitat Description Potential For Occurrence within the Study Area Accipiter cooperii Cooper’s hawk WL The Cooper’s hawk breeds primarily in riparian areas Moderate. Suitable foraging habitat including and oak woodlands and is most common in montane ruderal habitat occurs on site. Not observed MSHCP: canyons. It frequents landscapes where wooded areas during field survey. Covered occur in patches and groves and often uses patchy woodlands and edges with snags for perching. Dense stands with moderate crown-depths are usually used for nesting. They hunt in broken woodland and habitat edges. Within the range in California, it most frequently uses dense stands of live oak, riparian deciduous or other forest habitats near water. They are also found and can breed in suburban and urban settings. Agelaius tricolor tricolored BLMS, SSC, BCC Colonies require nearby water, a suitable nesting Moderate. Suitable foraging habitat including blackbird substrate, and open-range foraging habitat composed ruderal habitat occurs on site. Furthermore, the MSHCP: of grassland, woodland, or agricultural cropland. Project site is adjacent to the Santa Ana River. Covered Not observed during field survey. Aimophila ruficeps southern California WL They are found on grass-covered hillsides, coastal sage None. Suitable habitat does not exist within canescens rufous-crowned scrub, and chaparral and often occur near the edges of Study Area. Not observed during field survey. the denser scrub and chaparral associations. Preference sparrow MSHCP: is shown for tracts of California sagebrush. Optimal Covered habitat consists of sparse, low brush or grass, hilly slopes preferably interspersed with boulders and outcrops. The species may occur on steep grassy slopes without shrubs if rock outcrops are present. It is a very secretive species. Aquila chrysaetos Golden Eagle BLMS, FP, WL, Rolling foothills, mountain areas, sage-juniper flats, & None. Suitable habitat does not exist within BBC desert. Cliff-walled canyons provide nesting habitat in Study Area. Not observed during field survey. most parts of range; also, large trees in open areas. MSHCP: Covered Artemisiospiza belli Bell’s sage sparrow WL, BBC Chaparral and coastal sage scrub along the coastal None. Suitable habitat does not exist within lowlands, inland valleys and in the lower foothills of Study Area. Not observed during field survey. MSHCP: local mountains.

Appendix D – Special Status Wildlife Potential Occurrence Determination

Scientific Name Common Name Status General Habitat Description Potential For Occurrence within the Study Area Covered Asio otus long-eared owl SSC Riparian habitats are required by the long-eared owl, Moderate. Suitable foraging habitat including but it also uses live-oak thickets and other dense stands ruderal habitat occurs on site and suitable of trees. habitat occurs within the Santa Ana River. Not observed during field survey. Aspidoscelis orangethroat SSC, FSS The species is generally found in semi-arid brushy areas None. Suitable habitat does not exist within hyperythra beldingi whiptail typically with loose soil and rocks, including washes, Study Area. Not observed during field survey. MSHCP: stream sides, rocky hillsides, and coastal chaparral. Covered Habitat types include low elevation chaparral, non- native grassland, (Riversidian) coastal sage scrub, juniper woodland and oak woodland. Associations include alluvial fan scrub and riparian areas. Friable soil appears to be a necessary requirement for excavating burrows and hiding eggs. Athene cunicularia burrowing owl SSC, BLMS, BCC Burrowing owls are a year-round resident of California Low potential to occur onsite due to ongoing hypugaea including habitats of open, dry grassland, and desert. maintenance of ruderal habitat on site. Not MSHCP: They are generally restricted to mostly flat, open observed during field survey. Covered country with suitable nest sites. They use rodent or other burrows for roosting and nesting cover and acquire their burrows from either abandonment or eviction. Burrowing owls typically hunt from a perch. Buteo swainsoni Swainson's hawk ST, BLMS, BCC Swainson's hawks require large, open areas with Moderate. Suitable foraging habitat including MSHCP: abundant prey in association with suitable nest trees. ruderal habitat occurs on site. Not observed Covered Suitable foraging areas include native grasslands or during field survey. lightly grazed pastures and croplands, open deserts, sparse shrub lands. Swainson's hawks often nest peripherally to riparian systems of the valley, as well as utilizing lone trees or groves of trees, such as oaks, cottonwoods, walnuts and willows, adjacent to their hunting areas. In the Great Basin, they typically nest in juniper trees of juniper-sage flats not near riparian zones. Catostomus Santa Ana sucker FT, SSC Found in permanent streams with substrates that are None. Suitable habitat does not occur on site. santaanae MSHCP: generally coarse and consist of gravel rubble, and Not observed during field survey. Covered boulders with growths of filamentous algae.

Appendix D – Special Status Wildlife Potential Occurrence Determination

Scientific Name Common Name Status General Habitat Description Potential For Occurrence within the Study Area Coccyzus americanus western yellow- FT, SE, FSS, BCC This species is an uncommon to rare summer resident Moderate. Suitable foraging habitat including occidentalis billed cuckoo of valley foothill and desert riparian habitats in ruderal habitat occurs on site and suitable MSHCP: scattered locations in California. Formerly much more habitat occurs within the Santa Ana River. Not Covered common and widespread throughout lowland observed during field survey. California. Roosts and nests in densely foliaged, deciduous trees and shrubs in extensive thickets, particularly willows. Coleonyx variegatus San Diego banded MSHCP: Prefers rocky areas in coastal sage and chaparral. None. Suitable habitat does not exist within abbotti gecko Covered Study Area. Not observed during field survey. Crotalus ruber red-diamond SSC, FSS It can be found from the desert, through dense None. Suitable habitat does not exist within rattlesnake chaparral in the foothills (it avoids the mountains above Study Area. Not observed during field survey. MSHCP: around 4,000 feet), to warm inland mesas and valleys, Covered all the way to the cool ocean shore. It is most commonly associated with heavy brush with large rocks or boulders. Dense chaparral in the foothills, cactus or boulder associated coastal sage scrub, oak and pine woodlands, and desert slope scrub associations are known to carry populations of the northern red- diamond rattlesnake, however, chamise and red shank associations may offer better structural habitat for refuges and food resources for this species than other habitats. They need rodent burrows, cracks in rocks or surface cover objects. Dipodomys merriami San Bernardino FE, SSC Typically found in Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub None. No suitable habitat on site. Not observed parvus kangaroo rat and sandy loam soils, alluvial fans and floodplains, and during field survey. MSHCP: along washes with nearby sage scrub. Covered Dipodomys stephensi Stephen’s FE, ST This species prefers large areas of disturbed or patchy Low potential to occur onsite due to ongoing kangaroo rat annual and perennial grasslands and open coastal sage maintenance of ruderal habitat on site. Not MSHCP: scrub. Preferred perennials plant species include observed during field survey. Covered buckwheat and chamise and preferred annual plant species include brome grass. The nearest known populations are in Rancho Guejito and at the Naval Weapons Station in Fallbrook. Empidonax traillii Southwestern FE, SE Riparian woodlands along streams and rivers with Moderate. Suitable foraging habitat including

Appendix D – Special Status Wildlife Potential Occurrence Determination

Scientific Name Common Name Status General Habitat Description Potential For Occurrence within the Study Area extimus willow flycatcher MSHCP: mature dense thickets of trees and shrubs. ruderal habitat occurs on site and suitable Covered habitat occurs within the Santa Ana River. Not observed during field survey. Eumops perotis western mastiff SSC, BLMS Western mastiff bats are found in a variety of habitats, None. No suitable habitat on site. Not observed californicus bat such as semi-arid to arid habitats, including conifer and during field survey. MSHCP: Not deciduous woodlands, coastal scrub, annual and covered perennial grasslands, palm oases, chaparral, desert scrub, and urban, but the species’ distribution may be geomorphically determined, occurring primarily where there are significant rock features offering suitable roosting habitat. A cliff dwelling species, where maternity colonies of 30 to several hundred roost generally under exfoliating rock slabs and rock crevices along cliffs. Western mastiff bats can also be found in similar crevices in large boulders and buildings. When roosting in rock crevices they require a sizable drop from their roost in order to achieve flight. Western mastiff bats prefer deep crevices that are at least 15 or 20 feet above the ground. Foraging is concentrated around bodies of water but also includes coastal sage scrub, chaparral, and grassland habitats. Gila orcutti arroyo chub SSC, FSS Native to streams from Malibu Creek to San Luis Rey None. No suitable habitat on site. Not observed River basin. Found in slow water stream sections with during field survey. MSHCP: mud or sand bottoms and feeds heavily on aquatic Covered vegetation & associated invertebrates. Icteria virens yellow-breasted SSC In southern California they are primarily found in tall, Moderate. Suitable foraging habitat including chat dense, relatively wide riparian woodlands and thickets ruderal habitat occurs on site and suitable MSHCP: of willows, vine tangles, and dense brush with well- habitat occurs within the Santa Ana River. Not Covered developed understories. Nesting areas are associated observed during field survey. with streams, swampy ground, and the borders of small ponds. Breeding habitat must be dense to provide shade and concealment. It winters south to Central America. Lasiurus xanthinus Western yellow SSC Roost in trees, hanging from the underside of a leaf. None. No suitable habitat on site. Not observed bat Commonly found in the southwestern U.S. roosting in during field survey.

Appendix D – Special Status Wildlife Potential Occurrence Determination

Scientific Name Common Name Status General Habitat Description Potential For Occurrence within the Study Area the skirt of dead fronds in both native and non- native MSHCP: Not palm trees and have also been documented roosting in covered cottonwood trees. Nyctinomops pocketed free- SSC This bat species prefers rocky desert areas with high None. No suitable habitat on site. Not observed femorosaccus tailed bat cliffs or rock outcrops. Rock crevices in cliffs are during field survey. MSHCP: Not preferred as roosting sites, since the bat must drop covered from the roost to gain flight speed. Typically reproduces in rock crevices, caverns, or buildings. Ranges from southern California to New Mexico. Phrynosoma blainvillii coast horned lizard SSC, BLMS Occurs in a variety of vegetation types including coastal Low potential to occur onsite due to ongoing sage scrub, chaparral, annual grassland, oak woodland maintenance of ruderal habitat on site. Not MSHCP: and riparian woodlands. observed during field survey. Covered Polioptila californica coastal California FT, SSC A non-migratory, permanent resident of coastal sage None. No suitable habitat on site. Not observed californica gnatcatcher scrub habitat, which is a broad category of vegetation during field survey. MSHCP: that includes the following plant communities: Ventura Covered coastal sage scrub, Diegan coastal sage scrub, maritime succulent scrub, Riversidean sage scrub, Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub, southern coastal bluff scrub, and coastal sage-chaparral scrub. They also use chaparral, grassland and riparian habitats next to coastal sage scrub, but these habitats are used dispersal and foraging. They avoid nesting on steep slopes. Setophaga petechial Yellow warbler SSC, BBC Riparian plant associations in close proximity to water. Moderate. Suitable foraging habitat including Frequently found nesting and foraging in willow shrubs ruderal habitat occurs on site and suitable and thickets, and in other riparian plants including MSHCP: habitat occurs within the Santa Ana River. Not Covered cottonwoods, sycamores, ash, and alders. observed during field survey. Vireo bellii pusillus least Bell’s vireo FE, SE Least Bell’s vireos primarily occupy riverine riparian Moderate. Suitable foraging habitat including habitats that typically feature dense cover within 1-2 m ruderal habitat occurs on site and suitable MSHCP: of the ground and a dense, stratified canopy. Typically, habitat occurs within the Santa Ana River. Not Covered it is associated with southern willow scrub, observed during field survey. cottonwood-willow forest, mule fat scrub, sycamore alluvial woodland, coast live oak riparian forest, arroyo willow riparian forest, or mesquite in desert localities. It

Appendix D – Special Status Wildlife Potential Occurrence Determination

Scientific Name Common Name Status General Habitat Description Potential For Occurrence within the Study Area uses habitat which is limited to the immediate vicinity of water courses. 2,000 feet elevation in the interior. This species is generally restricted to major river systems in San Diego County.

Legend Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) Listing Codes: federal listing is pursuant to the Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended. The official federal listing of Endangered and Threatened Animals is published in the Federal Register, 50 CFR 17.11. FE = federally listed as endangered: any species, subspecies, or variety of plant or animal that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of their range. FT = federally listed as threatened: any species, subspecies, or variety of plant or animal that is considered likely to become endangered throughout all or a significant portion of its range within the foreseeable future. FC = federal candidate for listing. FPT = federally proposed threatened.

California Endangered Species Act (CESA) Listing Codes: state listing is pursuant to §2074.2 and §2075.5 (California Endangered Species Act of 1984) of the Fish and Game Code, relating to listing of Endangered, Threatened and Rare species of plants and animals. The official California listing of Endangered and Threatened animals is contained in the California Code of Regulations, Title 14, and Section 670.5. SE = state listed as endangered: any species, subspecies, or variety of plant or animal that are in serious danger of becoming extinct throughout all, or a significant portion, of their range. ST = state listed as threatened: any species, subspecies, or variety of plant or animal that, although not presently threatened with extinction, is likely to become an endangered species in the foreseeable future. SCT = state candidate for listing as threatened.

California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW): SSC = species of special concern: status applies to animals which 1) are declining at a rate that could result in listing, or 2) historically occurred in low numbers and known threats to their persistence currently exist. The CDFW has designated certain vertebrate species as “species of special concern” because declining population levels, limited ranges, and/or continuing threats have made them vulnerable to extinction. Fully protected: animal species may not be taken or possessed at any time and no licenses or permits may be issued for their take except for collecting these species for necessary scientific research and relocation of the bird species for the protection of livestock. WL = watch list: these birds have been designated as “Taxa to Watch” in the California Bird Species of Special Concern report (Shuford and Gardali 2008). The report defines “Taxa to Watch” as those that are not on the current special concern list that (1) formerly were on the 1978 (Remsen 1978) or 1992 (CDFG 1992) special concern lists and are not currently listed as state threatened and endangered; (2) have been removed (delisted) from either the state or federal threatened and endangered lists (and remain on neither), or (3) are currently designated as “fully protected” in California. United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS): BCC = USFWS bird of conservation concern: listed in the USFWS’S 2008 Birds of Conservation Concern report. The report identifies species, subspecies, and populations of all

Appendix D – Special Status Wildlife Potential Occurrence Determination migratory non-game birds that, without additional conservation actions, are likely to become candidates for listing under the ESA. While all of the bird species included in the report are priorities for conservation action, the list makes no finding with regard to whether they warrant consideration for ESA listing.

United States Forest Service (USFS): FSS = Forest Service sensitive: those plant and animal species identified by a Regional Forester that are not listed or proposed for listing under the ESA and for which population viability is a concern, as evidenced by: (a) significant current or predicted downward trends in population numbers or density or (b) significant current or predicted downward trends in habitat capability that would reduce a species' existing distribution.”

United States Bureau of Land Management (BLM): BLMS = BLM sensitive: those plant and animal species on BLM administered lands and that are (1) under status review by the USFWS/NMFS; or (2) whose numbers are declining so rapidly that federal listing my become necessary, or (3) with typically small and widely dispersed populations; or (4) those inhabiting ecological refugia or other specialized or unique habitats. BLM policy is to provide the same level of protection as USFWS candidate species.

California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection (CDF): CDF: S = CDF sensitive: species is a California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection sensitive species. The Board of Forestry classifies as sensitive species those species that warrant special protection during timber operations.

Sources: • A Guide to the Reptiles and Amphibians of California (CaliforniaHerps.com 2016). • A Field Guide to Hawks of North America, Second Edition (Clark and Wheeler 2001). • Atlas of Breeding Birds, Orange County, California (Gallagher 1997). • Amphibian and Reptile Species of Special Concern in California (Jennings and Hayes 1994). • A Field Guide to Mammals of North America North of Mexico. Fourth Edition (Reid 2006). • A Natural History of California (Schoenherr 1992). • A Field Guide to Western Reptiles and Amphibians, Third Edition (Stebbins 2003). • Amphibian species accounts (Amphibiaweb 2016). • AOU website (AOU 2016). • California Bird Species of Special Concern: A ranked assessment of species, subspecies, and distinct populations of birds of immediate conservation concern in California (Shuford and Gardali 2008). • Check-List of North American Birds, 7th edition (American Ornithologists' Union [AOU] 1998). • Complete Birds of North America (National Geographic Society 2006). • Field Guide to the Birds of North America, 4th Ed (National Geographic Society 2002). • Fifty-first supplement to the AOU Check-List of North American Birds (Chesser et. al. 2010). • Life History Accounts and Range Maps (CDFW 2016e). • Life on the Edge: A Guide to California’s Endangered Natural Resources. Wildlife (Thelander et al. 1994). • Mammals of North America (Bowers et al. 2004). • Mammals of California (Eder 2005). Appendix D – Special Status Wildlife Potential Occurrence Determination

• Mammals of North America (Kays and Wilson 2002). • Mammalian Species of Special Concern in California (Williams 1986). • Mammal Species of the World (Wilson and Reeder 2005). • NatureServe Explorer (NatureServe 2016). • National Audubon Society, the Sibley Guide to Birds (Sibley 2000). • RareFind, CDFW, California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) (CDFW 2016). • Reference Atlas to the Birds of North America (National Geographic Society 2003). • Shorebirds of North America. The Photographic Guide (Paulson 2005). • Special Animals List (CDFW 2016h). • Standard Common and Current Scientific Names (Center for North American Herpetology website [CNAH] website 2016). • The Smithsonian Book of North American Mammals (Wilson and Ruff 1999). • Terrestrial Mammal Species of Special Concern in California (Bolster 1998).

Appendix E: Focused Burrowing Owl Survey CARLSON STRATEGIC LAND SOLUTIONS, INC.

July 5, 2016

Tom Lanning Vantage Point Church 5171 Edison Avenue, Suite C Chino, CA 91710

Subject: Results of a Focused Burrowing Owl Survey Conducted for the Vantage Point Church Project in Eastvale, California.

Dear Tom:

This letter report provides a summary of existing conditions and provides the results of a focused burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) [BUOW] survey conducted on the approximate 11-acre Vantage Point Project site (Project) and within a 500-foot buffer of the Project where direct or indirect impacts could potentially occur. The 11-acre Project site and 500-foot (approximately 150-meter) buffer are considered the Study Area. The survey was conducted on June 30, 2016 by Brianna Bernard of Carlson Strategic Land Solutions (SLS). The purpose of the survey was to identify presence or absence of BUOW, suitable burrows and/or burrow surrogates, and any other sign of BUOW within the Study Area.

Project Location The Project site is located northeast of Archibald Avenue and Prado Basin Park Road in the City of Eastvale, Riverside County, California. The street address for the Project site is 8500 Archibald Avenue, Eastvale, California (assessor’s parcel numbers 130-080-005 and 130-080-008) (Figure 1). The Project site is located within the Riverside County, and within the United States Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-Minute Topographic Map Corona North Quadrangle. Direct access to the Project site is from Archibald Avenue. Directions to the Project site from Interstate 15 (I-15) is to exit Second Street and head west on Second Street. From Second Street, head north onto River Road and continue onto Archibald Avenue.

Survey Methods Prior to the field survey, available literature and databases including the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB), were reviewed to identify sensitive habitats and special status wildlife species, including BUOW in the vicinity of the Study Area.

Carlson Strategic Land Solutions | 27134A Paseo Espada, Suite 323, San Juan Capistrano, California 92675 Tom Lanning July 5, 2016

SLS biologist conducted the focused BUOW field survey within the Study Area on June 30, 2016. The survey was performed between 7:00 am and 8:45 am, temperatures during the survey ranged between approximately 64° F and 75° F, with predominant sunny, clear skies and 0-2 mph winds. The survey was conducted during typical BUOW peak activity time and was not conducted during rain, high winds (> 20 miles per hour), dense cloud cover >75%, or temperatures above 90°F. The BUOW survey consisted of one survey in accordance with the focused BUOW survey as identified in Burrowing Owl Survey Instructions for the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Area (County of Riverside 2006). The survey involved walking through suitable habitat within the Study Area. The pedestrian survey transects were spaced approximately 10 to 15 meters apart to allow 100 percent visual coverage of the ground surface. According to the MSHCP guidelines, if suitable habitat is present the biologist should also walk the perimeter of the property, which consists of a 150-meter (approximately 500 feet) buffer zone around the Project boundary. If permission to access the buffer area cannot be obtained, the biologist shall not trespass, but visually inspect adjacent habitats with binoculars. Parcels of land that could not be accessed (e.g. private property) were viewed using binoculars from vantage points to survey for BUOW activity or signs thereof, as well as other nesting bird activity. During the survey, SLS paid special attention to those habitat areas that appeared to provide suitable habitat for BUOW. The methods used to detect and identify BUOW included observation of key signs such as sight, scat, tracks, burrows, nests, and calls. All encountered burrows or structure entrances were checked for the presence of BUOWs, molted feathers, cast pellets, prey remains, eggshell fragments, tracks, or excrement at or near a burrow entrance. Natural or man‐ made structures and debris piles that could support BUOWs were also surveyed. All burrows were monitored at a short distance from the entrance, and at a location that would not interfere with owl behavior. On site soil conditions, topography, vegetative communities, and habitat quality were documented during the field survey. The methods used to detect and identify BUOW included observation of key signs identified by the California Burrowing Owl Consortium (CBOC) such as sight, scat, tracks, burrows, nests, and calls. All wildlife species encountered visually or audibly during the field survey were identified and recorded in field notes. Binoculars were used to aid in the identification of observed wildlife. Photographs were taken to document existing conditions within the Study Area; photo-pages are attached (Attachment A).

Carlson Strategic Land Solutions | 27134A Paseo Espada, Suite 323, San Juan Capistrano, California 92675 Tom Lanning July 5, 2016

Results Vegetation and Land Conditions The Project site is comprised of mostly vacant disturbed land with a few remnant non-native weeds including black mustard (Brassica sp.), cheeseweed (Malva parviflora), Russian thistle (Salsola sp.), tocalote (Centaurea melitensis), tree tobacco (Nicotiana glauca), red brome (Bromus madritensis ssp. rubens), slender oat (Avena barbata), and ripgut grass (Bromus diandrus). Historically, the Project site has been used for agriculture and equestrian uses and the soil is therefore well-tilled. The Project site has been actively maintained, therefore most of the Project site is in a consistent nonvegetated state. There are several areas of low vegetation with sporadic mature trees and shrubs. All areas are disturbed onsite. The area to the north, south, and west of the Project site is developed with residential communtieis. The property sits at a higher elevation than the Santa Ana River, which is located directly to the east.

Wildlife During the field survey, the following birds were observed/detected:

• red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis) • American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos) • killdeer (Charadrius vociferous) • white crowned sparrow (Zonotrichia • mourning dove (Zenaida macroura) leucophrys) • Anna's hummingbird (Calypte anna) • house finch (Carpodacus mexicanus)

The following mammals were observed/detected:

• California ground squirrels (Spermophilus beecheyi) [animals and burrows]

Burrowing Owl No BUOWs or evidence of BUOWs were observed on site within the Study Area during the focused survey. A majority of the Project site was characterized by actively maintained agricultural fields mostly lacking necessary sized burrows to provide suitable nesting habitat at the time of the survey. Much of the 500-foot buffer is developed. Potentially suitable burrows and burrow substitutes were observed primarily along fence-lines, or other types of man-made debris piles; however, there was no sign of BUOW use around the burrow/cavity entrances. Potential BUOW foraging and nesting habitat was observed within the Study Area; however, no BUOW, active burrows, or signs of BUOW were observed during the survey. Based on the lack of any direct or indirect evidence of presence, including lack of detection of burrowing owls, the survey results indicate that BUOW were not occupying the Study Area at the time of the survey.

Carlson Strategic Land Solutions | 27134A Paseo Espada, Suite 323, San Juan Capistrano, California 92675 Tom Lanning July 5, 2016 Conclusion Based on the results of the field survey, the Study Area is not considered to be occupied by BUOWs; however, it does contain potentially suitable foraging habitat. Therefore, prior to clearing and grubbing the Project site, the applicant shall take the following measure to avoid impacts to burrowing owl.

• Pre-construction surveys for burrowing owl within the survey area where suitable habitat is present shall be conducted by a qualified biologist within 30 days prior to the commencement of ground disturbing activities. If active burrowing owl burrows are detected during the breeding season, all work within 300 feet of any active burrow will be halted until that nesting effort is finished. The on-site biologist will review and verify compliance with these boundaries and will verify the nesting effort has finished. Work can resume when no other active burrowing owl burrows nests are found.

If active burrowing owl burrows are detected outside the breeding season or during the breeding season and its determined nesting activities have not begun, then passive and/or active relocation may be approved following consultation with the City. The installation of one-way doors may be installed as part of a passive relocation program. Burrowing owl burrows shall be excavated with hand tools by a qualified biologist when determined to be unoccupied, and back filled to ensure that animals do not re-enter the holes/dens. Upon completion of the survey and any follow-up construction avoidance management, a report shall be prepared and submitted to the City for mitigation monitoring compliance record keeping.

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

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (949) 542-7042 Sincerely,

Brianna Bernard Project Manager/Biologist

Carlson Strategic Land Solutions | 27134A Paseo Espada, Suite 323, San Juan Capistrano, California 92675 Tom Lanning July 5, 2016

Figures

Figure 1 Vicinity Map Figure 2 Study Area Map

Attachment Attachment A Site Photographs

References California Burrowing Owl Consortium (CBOC). Burrowing Owl Survey Protocol and Mitigation Guidelines. 1993. CDFW (California Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2016. Life History Accounts and Range Maps – California Wildlife Habitat Relationship System. Retrieved from: http://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cwhr/cawildlife.aspx. CDFW (California Department of Fish and Wildlife). 2016. RareFind, California Department of Fish and Game, California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). State of California, The Natural Resources Agency, Department of Fish and Game, Biogeographic Data Branch, California Natural Diversity Database, Sacramento, CA. CDFW (California Department of Fish and Wildlife), Natural Diversity Database. July 2016. Special Animals List. Periodic publication. 51pp. National Geographic Society. 2011. Field Guide to the Birds of North America, 6th Ed. National Geographic Society, Washington, D.C. Riverside, County of. June 2003. Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP). Prepared by Dudek. Riverside, County of. 2006. Burrowing Owl Survey Instructions for the Western Riverside Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Area.

Carlson Strategic Land Solutions | 27134A Paseo Espada, Suite 323, San Juan Capistrano, California 92675 Figures Approximate Project Location ^_

Prepared By: I VantagePoint Church Project Carlson SLS Map Created: 06/02/2016 Data Sources: Bing Maps Feet 0 150 300 600 Study Area Map 1 inch = 300 feet FIGURE 2 Attachment A: Site Photographs Attachment A – Site Photographs

Looking north across the Project site.

Inadequately sized burrow observed during the field survey.

Photos taken June 30, 2016 Attachment A – Site Photographs

Looking northeast across the Project site.

Looking west on the Project Site at the adjacent residential.

Photos taken June 30, 2016 Attachment A – Site Photographs

Looking north across the Project site and adjacent Santa Ana River.

Looking south on the Project Site.

Photos taken June 30, 2016 Attachment A – Site Photographs

Man made derbis pile that was throughly examined for signs of BUOW signs.

Photos taken June 30, 2016 Appendix F: Representative Photographs of Mulefat within the Ruderal Community Water Source Appendix F – Representative Photographs

Looking south at the Mulefat within the ruderal community as a result of a leaky hose on the adjacent property.

Closest to the fence of the adjacent property where the leak is occurring.

Photos taken June 3, 2016 Appendix F – Representative Photographs

Above and below photos: Adjacent animal pen with hose. The hose was connect to the water barrel. The water barrel had the crack, which in turn leaks onto the Project site.

Photos taken June 3, 2016 Appendix F – Representative Photographs

Above and below photos: Adjacent animal pen with hose. The hose was connect to the water barrel. The water barrel had the crack, which in turn leaks onto the Project site.

Photos taken June 3, 2016 Appendix F – Representative Photographs

Adjacent animal pen with hose. The hose was connect to the water barrel. The water barrel had the crack, which in turn leaks onto the Project site.