Alts Development

PRELIMINARY DRAFT
WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY MSHCP

ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT
Prepared for:
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
TRANSPORTATION AND LAND MANAGEMENT AGENCY
P.O. Box 1605
4080 Lemon Street
Riverside, CA 92502-1605
Contact: Richard Lashbrook
Prepared by:
605 Third Street

Encinitas, California 92024
October 4, 2000
T able of Contents
Section Page No.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ES-1
1.0 INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.1 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.2 Purpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.3 Assumptions and Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2.0 DATA SOURCES AND EVALUATION TOOLS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

2.1 Data Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
2.2 Evaluation Tools . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
3.0 APPROACH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
3.1 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
3.2 Approach Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
4.0 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

4.1 Alternative 1: Species Considered for Conservation in
August 9, 1999 ?Draft MSHCP Proposal” (164 Species) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
4.2 Alternative 2: Listed, Proposed and Strong Candidate Species . . . . . . . . 57
4.3 Alternative 2a: Narrow Endemic Plants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
4.4 Alternative 3: Listed and Proposed Species . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64
4.6 Biological and Land Use Considerations for Alternatives Development . . 82
5.0 PRELIMINARY SPECIES ANALYSES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126

5.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126
5.2 Preliminary Species Analyses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
5.2.1 Birds .................................................. 127

B-1 Accipiter cooperii – Cooper’s hawk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127
B-2 Accipiter gentilis – northern goshawk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129
B-3 Accipiter striatus – sharp-shinned hawk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132
B-4 Agelaius tricolor – tricolored blackbird - colony . . . . . . . . 134
B-5 Aimophila ruficeps canescens –
southern California rufous-crowned sparrow . . . . . . . . . . . . 136
ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT October 4, 2000
WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY MSHCP i

Table of C ontents
B-6 Ammodramus savannarum– grasshopper sparrow . . . . . 138

B-7 Amphispiza belli belli – Bell’s Sage sparrow . . . . . . . . . . 139
B-8 Aquila chrysaetos – golden eagle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141
B-9 Asio flammeus – short-eared owl - breeding . . . . . . . . . . . 143
B-10 Asio otus – long-eared owl - breeding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144
B-11 Botaurus lentiginosus – American bittern . . . . . . . . . . . . . 146
B-12 Buteo regalis – ferruginous hawk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 147
B-13 Buteo swainsoni – Swainson’s hawk . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 148
B-14 Campylorhynchus brunneicapillus couesi –
coastal cactus wren . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 150
B-15 Cathartes aura – turkey vulture - breeding . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152
B-16 Catharus ustulatus – Swainson’s thrush - breeding . . . . . 154
B-17 Chaetura vauxi – Vaux’s swift . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156
B-18 Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus –
western snowy plover (nesting) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158
B-19 Charadrius montanus – mountain plover . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160
B-20 Circus cyaneus – northern harrier - breeding . . . . . . . . . . . 162
B-21 Coccyzus americanus occidentalis –
western yellow-billed cuckoo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163
B-22 Cypseloides niger – black swift (breeding) . . . . . . . . . . . . 165
B-23 Dendroica petechia – yellow warbler . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167
B-24 Elanus leucurus - white-tailed kite . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 169
B-25 Empidonax traillii extimus -
southwestern willow flycatcher . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171
B-26 Eremophila alpestris actia - California horned lark . . . . . . 173
B-27 Falco columbarius - merlin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175
B-28 Falco mexicanus - prairie falcon (breeding) . . . . . . . . . . . 176
B-29 Falco peregrinus - peregrine falcon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 178
B-30 Glaucidium gnoma - northern pygmy-owl . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180
B-31 Haliaeetus leucocephalus - bald eagle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182
B-32 Icteria virens - yellow-breasted chat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184
B-33 Ixobrychus exilis hesperis - western least bittern . . . . . . . 186
B-34 Lanius ludovicianus - loggerhead shrike . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 187
B-35 Melospiza lincolnii - Lincoln’s sparrow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 189
WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY MSHCP ii

Table of C ontents
B-36 Nycticorax nycticorax -

black-crowned night-heron (breeding rookeries) . . . . . . . . 191
B-37 Oporonis tolmiei - MacGillivray’s warbler . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193
B-38 Oreortyx pictus - mountain quail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 195
B-39 Otus flammeolus - flammulated owl . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197
B-40 Pandion haliaetus - osprey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199
B-41 Phalacrocorax auritus - double-crested cormorant . . . . . . 200
B-42 Picoides pubescens - downy woodpecker . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201
B-43 Plegadis chihi - white-faced ibis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 203
B-44 Polioptila californica californica -
coastal California gnatcatcher . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204
B-45 Progne subis - purple martin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 207
B-46 Speotyto cunicularia hypugaea -
western burrowing owl . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 208
B-47 Sphyrapicus thyroideus - Williamson’s sapsucker . . . . . . 211
B-48 Strix occidentalis occidentalis - California spotted owl . . 212
B-49 Tachycineta bicolor- tree swallow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215
B-50 Toxostoma lecontei - Le Conte’s thrasher . . . . . . . . . . . . . 216
B-51 Vermivora ruficapilla - Nashville warbler . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 218
B-52 Vireo bellii pusillus - least Bell’s vireo . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 220
B-53 Wilsonia pusilla - Wilson’s warbler . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 222
5.2.2 Mammals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224

M-1 Canis latrans – coyote . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224
M-2 Chaetodipus californicus femoralis –
Dulzura California pocket mouse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225
M-3 Chaetodipus fallax fallax –
northwestern San Diego pocket mouse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 227
M-4 Dipodomys merriami parvus –
San Bernardino kangaroo rat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229
M-5 Dipodomys stephensi – Stephens’ kangaroo rat . . . . . . . 231
M-6 Glaucomys sabrinus californicus –
San Bernardino flying squirrel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 233
M-7 Lepus californicus bennettii –
San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235
M-8 Felis rufus – bobcat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 237
WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY MSHCP iii

Table of C ontents
M-9 Mustela frenata latirostra – long-tailed weasel . . . . . . . . . 239

M-10 Neotoma lepida intermedia –
San Diego desert woodrat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 241
M-11 Perognathus longimembris brevinasus –
Los Angeles pocket mouse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 243
M-12 Puma concolor – mountain lion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 246
M-13 Sylvilagus bachmani – brush rabbit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 248
5.2.3 Amphibians . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 255

A-1 Bufo californicus – arroyo toad . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 255
A-2 Ensatina eschscholtzii klauberi –
large-blotched salamander . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 257
A-3 Rana aurora draytoni – California red-legged frog . . . . . . 259
A-4 Rana muscosa – mountain yellow-legged frog . . . . . . . . . 262
A-5 Scaphiopus hammondii – western spadefoot toad . . . . . 264
A-6 Taricha tarosa tarosa – coast range newt . . . . . . . . . . . . . 266
5.2.4 Reptiles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 269

R-1 Anniella pulchra pulchra –
silvery (California) legless lizard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 269
R-2 Arizona elegans occidentalis –
coastal (California) glossy snake . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 271
R-3 Charina bottae umbratica – southern rubber boa . . . . . . . 273
R-4 Charina [Lichanura] trivirgata rosefusca –
coastal rosy boa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 275
R-5 Clemmys marmorata – southwestern pond turtle . . . . . . . 277
R-6 Cnemidophorus tigris multiscutatus –
coastal western whiptail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 278
R-7 Cnemidophorus hyperythrus beldingi –
Belding’s orange-throated whiptail . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 280
R-8 Coleonyx variegatus abbottii –
San Diego banded gecko . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 283
R-9 Crotalus ruber ruber – northern red-diamond rattlesnake . 284
R-10 Diadophis punctatus – ringneck snake . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 287
R-11 Gambelia wislizenii – long-nosed leopard lizard . . . . . . . . 289
WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY MSHCP iv

Table of C ontents
R-12 Lampropeltis zonata pulchra –

San Diego Mountain kingsnake
Lampropeltis zonata parvirubra –
San Bernardino Mountain kingsnake . . . . . . . . . . . . 291
R-13 Phrynosoma coronatum blainvillei –
San Diego horned lizard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 293
R-14 Salvadora hexalepis virgultea –
coast patch-nosed snake . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 295
R-15 Sceloporus graciosus vandenburgianus –
southern sagebrush lizard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 296
R-16 Sceloporus orcuttii – granite spiny lizard . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 299
R-17 Thamnophis hammondii – two-striped garter snake . . . . 300
R-18 Thamnophis sirtalis infernalis –
California red-sided garter snake . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 302
R-19 Xantusia henshawi henshawi – granite night lizard . . . . . . 304
5.2.5 Invertebrates/Crustaceans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 307

C-1 Branchinecta lynchi – vernal pool fairy shrimp . . . . . . . . . . 307
C-2 Linderiella santarosae –
Santa Rosa Plateau fairy shrimp . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 308
C-3 Streptocephalus wootoni – Riverside fairy shrimp . . . . . . . 310
5.2.6 Invertebrates/Insects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 312

I-1 Euphydryas editha quino – quino checkerspot butterfly . . 312
I-2 Rhaphiomidas terminatus abdominalis –
Delhi Sands flower-loving fly . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 313
5.2.7 Fish ................................................... 316

F-1 Gila orcutti – arroyo chub . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 316
F-2 Catostomus santaanae – Santa Ana sucker . . . . . . . . . . . 317
F-3 Rhinichthys osculus – Santa Ana speckled dace . . . . . . . 319
5.2.8 Plants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 321

P-1 Allium munzii – Munz’s onion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 321
P-2 Ambrosia pumila – San Diego ambrosia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 324
P-3 Arabis johnstoni – Johnston’s rock cress . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 325
WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY MSHCP v

Table of C ontents
P-4 Arctostaphylos rainbowensis – rainbow manzanita . . . . . . 327

P-5 Astragalus pachypus var. jaegeri – Jaeger’s milk-vetch . 329
P-6 Atriplex coronata var. notatior –
San Jacinto Valley crownscale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 331
P-7 Atriplex coulteri – Coulter’s saltbush . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 333
P-8 Atriplex parishii – Parish’s brittlescale . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 334
P-9 Atriplex serenana var. davidsonii – Davidson’s saltbush . 336
P-10 Berberis nevinii – Nevin's barberry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 338
P-11 Brodiaea filifolia – thread-leaved brodiaea . . . . . . . . . . . . 340
P-12 Brodiaea orcuttii – Orcutt’s brodiaea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 344
P-13 Calochortus palmeri var. munzii – Munz’s mariposa lily . . 346
P-14 Calochortus plummerae – Plummer’s mariposa lily . . . . . 348
P-15 Calochortus weedii var. intermedius –
intermediate mariposa lily . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 350
P-16 Caulanthus simulans – Payson’s jewelflower . . . . . . . . . . 352
P-17 Ceanothus ophiochilus – Vail Lake ceanothus . . . . . . . . . 354
P-18 Chorizanthe leptotheca – Peninsular spineflower . . . . . . . 356
P-19 Chorizanthe parryi var. parryi – Parry’s spineflower . . . . . 359
P-20 Chorizanthe polygonoides var. longispina –
long-spined spineflower . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 360
P-21 Chorizanthe procumbens – prostrate spineflower . . . . . . 363
P-22 Convolvulus simulans – small-flowered morning-glory . . 366
P-24 Dodecahema leptoceras – slender-horned spineflower . . 367
P-25 Dudleya multicaulis – many-stemmed dudleya . . . . . . . . . 369
P-26 Dudleya viscida – sticky-leaved dudleya . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 372
P-27 Eriastrum densifolium spp. sanctorum –
Santa Ana River woollystar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 374
P-28 Eryngium aristulatum var. parishii –
San Diego button-celery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 375
P-29 Galium angustifolium spp. jacinticum –
San Jacinto Mountains bedstraw . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 376
P-30 Galium californicum spp. primum – California bedstraw . 378
P-31 Harpagonella palmeri var. palmeri –
Palmer’s grapplinghook . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 380
P-32 Hemizonia mohavensis – Mojave tarplant . . . . . . . . . . . . . 382
P-33 Hemizonia pungens spp. laevis – smooth tarplant . . . . . . 383
WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY MSHCP vi

Table of C ontents
P-34 Heuchera hirsutissima – shaggy-haired alumroot . . . . . . . 384

P-35 Holocarpha virgata ssp. elongata – graceful tarplant . . . . 386
P-36 Hordeum intercedens – vernal barley . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 388
P-37 Hulsea vestita ssp. callicarpha – beautiful hulsea . . . . . . . 389
P-38 Juglans californica – California black walnut . . . . . . . . . . . 391
P-39 Lasthenia glabrata ssp. coulteri – Coulter’s goldfields . . . 393
P-40 Lepechinia cardiophylla – heart-leaved pitcher sage . . . . 395
P-41 Lilium humboldtii ssp. ocellatus – ocellated Humboldt lily 397
P-42 Lilium parryi – lemon lily . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 399
P-43 Limnanthes gracilis ssp. parishii –
Parish’s meadowfoam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 400
P-44 Microseris douglasii ssp. platycarpha –
small-flowered microseris . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 402
P-45 Mimulus clevelandii – Cleveland’s bush monkeyflower . . 404
P-46 Mimulus diffuses – Palomar monkeyflower . . . . . . . . . . . . 406
P-47 Monardella macrantha spp. hallii – Hall’s monardella . . . 408
P-48 Mucronea californica – California spineflower . . . . . . . . . . 409
P-49 Muhlenbergia californica – California muhly . . . . . . . . . . . 411
P-50 Myosurus minimus ssp. apus – little mousetail . . . . . . . . . 413
P-51 Navarretia fossalis – spreading navarretia . . . . . . . . . . . . . 415
P-52 Orcuttia californica – California Orcutt grass . . . . . . . . . . . 418
P-53 Oxytheca caryophylloides – chickweed oxytheca . . . . . . . 420
P-54 Penstemon californicus – California beardtongue . . . . . . 422
P-55 Polygala cornuta var. fishiae – fish’s milkwort . . . . . . . . . . 424
P-56 Potentilla rimicola – cliff cinquefoil . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 426
P-57 Quercus engelmannii – Engelmann’s oak . . . . . . . . . . . . . 427
P-58 Romneya coulteri – Coulter’s matilija poppy . . . . . . . . . . . 430
P-59 Satureja chandleri – San Miguel savory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 432
P-60 Trichocoronis wrightii var. wrightii – Wright’s trichocoronis 434
WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY MSHCP vii

Table of C ontents
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Regional Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

Figure 2 Vicinity Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Figure 3 Vegetation in Western County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Figure 4 KTU+A/PSBS CSS Habitat Quality . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Figure 5 Listed and Proposed Species in MSHCP Study Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Figure 6 Listed, Proposed and Strong Candidate Species
in MSHCP Study Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
Figure 7 Species in MSHCP Study Area Considered for
Conservation in August 9 Go/No Go Proposal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Figure 8 Areas with MSHCP Study Area Potentially Affected by
Existing State and Federal Wetlands Regulations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Figure 9 Generalized Soils Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Figure 10 Willows Soils in the San Jacinto River-Perris Quadrangle . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
Figure 11 Flood and Inundation Susceptibility Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Figure 12 25% and Greater Slope in Western County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
Figure 13 Liquefaction Susceptibility in Western County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Figure 14 Surface Fault Rupture Susceptibility in Western County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
Figure 15 Subsidence in Western County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
Figure 16 Landslides in Western County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Figure 17 Sample Aerial Photograph – Digital Ortho Quarter Quad (DOQQ) . . . . . . 24
Figure 18 Existing Reserves in Western County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Figure 19 Existing Reserves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26
Figure 20 Conservation Analysis Units with Existing Reserves . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Figure 21 Composite Land Use . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
Figure 22 Alternative 3 Planned Open Space . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Figure 23 Parcels in Western County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
Figure 24 California Energy Commission Utilities Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Figure 25 SCE Existing Electric Power System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Figure 26 Preliminary Bio-regions and Generalized Soil Boundaries
on Elevation Data in Western Riverside County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Figure 27 Preliminary Bio-regions and Generalized Vegetation on
Hillshaded Relief in Western Riverside County . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Figure 29 Potential Methodology for Identifying Rock Outcrops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Figure 30 Alternative 1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY MSHCP viii

Table of C ontents
Figure 32 Alternative 2A . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1 Alternative 1 — Vegetation Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

Table 5 Summary of Potential Species Conservation
under Existing Reserves Alternative . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY MSHCP ix

SECTION 1.0
INTRODUCTION
1.1 BACKGROUND
In August 1999, Dudek & Associates, Inc. (DUDEK), the consultant to the County of Riverside
in the development of the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation
Plan (MSHCP), prepared a ?Draft MSHCP Proposal” for review by the County’s MSHCP
Advisory Committee. That ?Proposal” presented rough acreage estimates and descriptions
of areas desirable for conservation for protection of up to 164 species within Western
Riverside County. The rough parameters presented in the ?Draft MSHCP Proposal”
document were reviewed by the MSHCP Advisory Committee in September 1999. At that
time, the MSHCP Advisory Committee made a ?Go” decision to proceed with MSHCP
planning based on the rough parameters presented in the ?Proposal” document. The Advisory
Committee’s action was subsequently ratified by the County Board of Supervisors. Since that
time, the Advisory Committee has been working with the County and the consultant to develop
and evaluate MSHCP alternatives and funding and implementation strategies. This
Alternatives Development document has been prepared as the next incremental step in the
overall MSHCP preparation process.
1.2 PURPOSE
This Alternatives Development document has been prepared by the County’s MSHCP
consultant to provide information regarding potential MSHCP alternatives. This document is
the work product of the MSHCP consultant and does not represent the opinions of the County,
other agencies or stakeholders. This document provides information regarding a range of
potential MSHCP alternatives including the following:
ALTERNATIVE 1: Species Considered for Conservation in August 9 ?Draft

MSHCP Proposal” (164 species)
ALTERNATIVE 2: Listed, Proposed and Strong Candidate Species
ALTERNATIVE 2A: Narrow Endemic Plant Species
ALTERNATIVE 3: Listed and Proposed Species
ALTERNATIVE 4: Existing Reserves
WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY MSHCP 1

1 .0 INTRODUCTION
For each alternative, the following information is provided:
| Acreage ranges, by vegetation category;

| Map depicting general configuration of alternative;
| Species list
| Species rationale statements summarizing data used to support preliminary
conservation conclusions for each species.
This information, along with supporting technical data contained in this document and
appendices, is being provided to the County, cities, Wildlife Agencies, Scientific Review
Panel and others to assist in formulating a preferred alternative to be analyzed in detail as the
next step in the MSHCP planning process. The range of alternatives presented in this
document has been designed to provide the breadth and depth of information necessary to
assist stakeholders in evaluating the various choices and options to be considered in
formulating the MSHCP preferred alternative. The primary purpose of this document is
therefore to provide information to support the incremental, iterative MSHCP planning and
preparation process.
1.3 ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITATIONS
The following assumptions and limitations should be recognized when considering the
information contained in this document.
| This document provides information to support consideration of a range of

alternatives for the MSHCP. It is not a draft MSHCP and does not include
information that will be required to be included in the MSHCP such as:
estimates of species conservation and ?take”; conditions for species coverage;
adaptive management program; implementation mechanisms; funding
assurances.
| This document is based on information currently (September 2000) assembled

as part of the Riverside County Integrated Project (RCIP) data base, as
described in Section 2.1. This includes information as currently assembled for
the General Plan and CETAP components of the RCIP. It is recognized that
these components of the RCIP are the subject of ongoing analysis and review
and that data developed as part of the overall RCIP will be refined as the
planning process proceeds.

SECTION 2.0
DATA SOURCES AND EVALUATION TOOLS
This section describes and depicts data sources and evaluation tools that have been used
in developing the preliminary alternatives described in this document. These data sources
and evaluation tools will continue to be developed and refined and will continue to be used in
the further analysis of MSHCP alternatives. Both data sources and evaluation tools are listed
and summarized in this section. Data sources are those taken from the common,
comprehensive data base assembled for the overall Riverside County Integrated Project
(RCIP). Evaluation tools are items developed specifically for the MSHCP.
2.1 DATA SOURCES
The data sources summarized and depicted in this section represent data incorporated in the
overall RCIP database. These data were used to define a range of MSHCP alternatives as
described in Section 4.0 of this document.
The following maps generally represent mapped biological information incorporated in the
MSHCP database. A variety of literature-based biological data is also available and is
incorporated in the MSHCP database primarily in the form of species accounts and habitat
accounts. The study area for the MSHCP is depicted in Figures 1 and 2.
| MSHCP VEGETATION. The vegetation map as incorporated into the MSHCP data base
is depicted in Figure 3, Vegetation in Western County. This map was created by
Pacific Southwest Biological Services and mapped by KTU+A in 1995. As stated in
the February 1995 Pacific Southwest Biological Services/ KTU+A Western Riverside
County Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan Phase I Information Collection and
Evaluation Report, this map was created by compiling all known vegetation information
within the study area. These data sources include biological survey reports,
Weislander vegetation maps, satellite imagery and the Dangermond/RECON data set.
Methods used to create and interpret vegetation data included aerial photograph
interpretation, edge matching, digitizing and geographically registering the data. In
areas of concern, ground truthing occurred. Vegetation types were classified
according to Holland. It should be noted that the vegetation map is representative of
conditions at the time of the study; existing conditions today may differ from those
represented on the map.

2 .0 DATA SOURCES AND EVALUATION TOOLS
Figure 1 Regional Map

Figure 2 Vicinity Map

Figure 3 Vegetation in Western County

| COASTAL SAGE SCRUB (CSS) QUALITY. Figure 4, KTU+A/PSBS CSS Habitat Quality,
was created by Pacific Southwest Biological Services, Inc. and KTU+A. The
methodology behind the creation of a coastal sage scrub ranking was outlined in the
February 1995 Pacific Southwest Biological Services, Inc. Western Riverside County
Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan Phase I Information Collection and Evaluation
Report. This documented the following methodology for which a CSS ranking was
created for purposes of regional reserve planning for the California gnatcatcher within
Western Riverside County. Existing data developed through this collection and
evaluation process was extracted from the vector-based Arc/Info vegetation layer and
converted to a raster data set with a cell size of 1 acre. One acre was considered to
be adequate for the purposes of regional planning. A set of critical factors including
elevation, slope, patch size and adjacency were then developed and the data
categorized into optimal, good, marginal, fair-poor, neutral-poor, and none estimated
classifications. Non-critical factors such as patch shape and patch isolation were also
categorized into the optimal, good, marginal, fair, poor, and none. These scores were
compiled to create quality classifications including very high, moderate, low, and very
low. These quality classifications correspond to rankings depicted in Figure 4. It
should be noted that this CSS rating data corresponds to conditions at the time of the
study; existing conditions today may differ from those represented on the map.
| MSHCP SPECIES OCCURRENCE DATA BASE. UCR has assembled a species

occurrence data base for use during the MSHCP planning process. This data base
is accessible via http://ecoregion.ucr.edu/mshcp. This website is a clearinghouse for
biological information for the MSHCP. Occurrence information has been compiled
from museum records, USFWS data, published and unpublished accounts,
environmental impact reports and field notes of local naturalists. As of June 2000, this
database contained over 12,800 records.
Figures 5, 6 and 7 depict point data incorporated in the species occurrence database
with respect to Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 as described in this document. These figures
are provided simply to provide a general ?snapshot” of the distributions of MSHCP
species occurrence data for the various alternatives. It should e noted that the
precision of the data points varies in the database and the points shown on Figures
5, 6 and 7 should not be interpreted to indicate precise occurrence locations. In
addition, as noted in the attribute data incorporated in the species occurrence
database assembled by UCR, a single data point may represent multiple species.

Figure 4 KTU+A/PSBS CSS Habitat Quality

Figure 5 Listed and Proposed Species in MSHCP Study Area

Figure 6 Listed, Proposed and Strong Candidate Species in MSHCP Study Area

Figure 7 Species in MSHCP Study Area Considered for Conservation in August 9 Go/No
Go Proposal

The species occurrence database is constructed such that each data point can be
queried for information regarding species observed, date of observation(s), source of
data, and precision of data. The complete database is available for review on the
UCR website: http://ucr.ecoregion. edu/mshcp.
It should be noted that the species occurrence data represent known records of
species observations. Actual presence and distribution of individual species within the
MSHCP study area are likely greater than that reflected in the species occurrence
database.
| AREAS P OTENTIALLY AFFECTED BY WETLAND REGULATIONS . Figure 8, Areas Within

MSHCP Study Area Potentially Affected by Existing State and Federal Wetlands
Regulations, depicts USGS blueline streams, water bodies and appropriate habitat
types taken from the MSHCP vegetation map. The stream, river, canal or ditch and
pond, lake or sea classifications which appear on the map are a result of the Earth
Consultants International geologic hazards research/mapping effort in conjunction with
the RCIP general plan update (2000). Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub, playas and
vernal pools, riparian scrub/woodlands/ forests, meadows and marshes and open
water habitats are taken from the MSHCP vegetation map. It should be noted that
areas shown on the map are based on the regional-scale database assembled for the
MSHCP/RCIP. Actual delineation of areas subject to existing regulations would need
to be determined on a project by project basis.
| SOILS. The Generalized Soils Map included as Figure 9 shows the 25 general soil
types as they appear on the MSHCP soils map. These data are from the U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Soils Conservation Service (1994) and State Soil
Geographic (STATSGO) database for California.
| WILLOWS SOILS. Figure 10, Willows Soils in the San Jacinto River-Perris
Quadrangle, depicts a portion of the willows soils series within the San Jacinto River
floodplain. The soils data are taken from the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) soils
mapping for Western Riverside County (1971), for the San Jacinto River-Perris
quadrangle. This soils series is known to support sensitive plant species in this portion
of the San Jacinto River floodplain.

Figure 8 Areas with MSHCP Study Area Potentially Affected by Existing State and Federal
Wetlands Regulations

Figure 9 Generalized Soils Map

Figure 10 Willows Soils in the San Jacinto River-Perris Quadrangle

The following figures generally depict other mapped physical features incorporated in the
RCIP database that may relate to biological processes considered as part of the MSHCP.
Some of these figures depict hazards that may be considerations in evaluation of MSHCP
implementation techniques.
| FLOOD AND INNUNDATION. Figure 11, Flood and Innundation Susceptibility Map,
depicts each stream, river canal or ditch as well as all lakes, ponds and seas. 100 and
500 year floodplains are depicted as well. These data were compiled by Earth
Consultants International (2000) in conjunction with development of the Public
Safety/Hazards Element of the Riverside County General Plan. Flooding coverage
comes from a collection of resources. Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM) maps were
compared to the existing County data. The combined maps were then compared to
the HAZUS data set from Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). The
USGS flood prone information was used to complete the flood and inundation map.
| 25% SLOPES . Figure 12, 25% and Greater Slopes in Western County, depicts slopes
within steeply sloping areas based on USGS topography (1970) using 30 meter digital
elevation modeling (DEMs).
| LIQUEFACTION. Figure 13, Liquefaction Susceptibility in Western Riverside County,

depicts the data compiled by Earth Consultants International (2000) in conjunction with
the development of the Public Safety/Hazards Element of the Riverside County
General Plan update. The source of this information is the 2000 Riverside County
Seismic Safety Element Technical Report, prepared by Earth Consultants International
for the County of Riverside.
| SURFACE F AULT RUPTURE. Figure 14, Surface Fault Susceptibility Rupture, depicts
the data compiled by Earth Consultants International (2000) in conjunction with
development of the Public Safety/Hazards Element of the Riverside County General
Plan update. The source map used for this coverage was a State of California, The
Resources Agency, Department of Conservation 7.5 minute quadrangle topographic
map (original coverage 1974 with 1980 and 1995 updates). Data for the San
Gorgonio Pass Fault Zone region was used to initiate the data collection. There are
two different sources for these data, the State of California and the County of
Riverside. Additional references, including journal publications were utilized to
prepare this map. A complete list of these sources are filed with the RCIP GIS
Database Management team.

Figure 11 Flood and Inundation Susceptibility Map

Figure 12 25% and Greater Slope in Western County

Figure 13 Liquefaction Susceptibility in Western County

Figure 14 Surface Fault Rupture Susceptibility in Western County

| SUBSIDENCE. Figure 15, Subsidence Zones in Western County, depicts the data
compiled by Earth Consultants International (2000) in conjunction with the development
of the Public Safety/Hazards Element of the Riverside County General Plan update.
These data were developed by Earth Consultants International; accuracy is 1:100,000.
| LANDSLIDES . Figure 16, Landslide and Slope Instability Susceptibility in Western

County, depicts the data compiled by Earth Consultants International (2000) in
conjunction with the development of the Public Safety/ Hazards Element of the
Riverside County General Plan Update. The source for this map is Earth Consultants
International.
| SAMPLE AERIAL P HOTOGRAPH. Figure 17, Sample Aerial Photograph - Digital Ortho
Quarter Quad (DOQQ) provides a sample of the type of infrared aerial images
available in the MSHCP database. The DOQQ database was provided to the RCIP
team by the USFWS and was generated by USGS, 1994-1996.
In addition to information contained in the RCIP biological and physical features databases,
data regarding existing land uses and institutional arrangements were, and will continue to be,
considered during development and analysis of MSHCP alternative, along with continuing
evaluation of implementation strategies.
| EXISTING RESERVES . Figure 18, Existing Reserves in Western Riverside County and
Figure 19, Existing Reserves, Santa Ana River, were derived from the RCIP Existing
Land Status Map (County of Riverside). This initial research effort involved creating
an inventory of lands within Western Riverside County that could potentially be
considered as existing reserves. Additional information regarding the size,
characteristics and mission statements of the existing reserves is contained in the
April 2000 Draft Existing Reserves document previously distributed to the MSHCP
Advisory Committee.
| CONSERVATION ANALYSIS UNITS. Figure 20, Conservation Analysis Units With Existing
Reserves, depicts the general Conservation Analysis Units (CAUs) described in the
March 9, 2000 Technical Memorandum previously distributed to the MSHCP
Advisory Committee. The CAU’s represent the broad geographic areas which are the
primary focus of the MSHCP alternatives development process.

Figure 15 Subsidence in Western County

Figure 16 Landslides in Western County

Figure 17 Sample Aerial Photograph – Digital Ortho Quarter Quad (DOQQ)

Figure 18 Existing Reserves in Western County

Figure 19 Existing Reserves, Santa Ana River

Figure 20 Conservation Analysis Units with Existing Reserves

| COMPOSITE LAND USE. Figure 21, Composite Land Use, reflects existing land use
within both cities and the unincorporated county within the MSHCP study area. This
map was produced by the RCIP GIS management team (2000) and derived from data
taken from the Riverside County Specific/Community Plan Zoning and Open Space
Designations and WRCOG City General Plan land use database.
| ALTERNATIVE 3 P LANNED OPEN SPACE. Figure 22, Alternative 3 Planned Open Space,
reflects areas preliminary composite open space land use designations incorporated
in Alternative 3 of the General Plan update (May 31, 2000). Three preliminary open
space designations including Conservation, Conservation Habitat and Open Space
Rural are incorporated in Alternative 3. As stated in the April 26, 2000 General Plan
Alternative 3 Matrix of Land Use Designations, these three designations are
components of the Multi-purpose Open Space designation which is in turn one of four
Open Space components. According to the draft matrix, the Conservation designation
includes areas that should primarily serve as scenic and natural resources and may
consist of natural hazards which could accommodate human linkage and recreational
needs. The Conservation-Habitat designation reflects lands, both public or private,
that would be conserved and managed in accordance with the MSHCP. The Open
Space-Rural designation reflects privately held lands consisting of 20 acre minimum
lot sizes (maximum of one dwelling unit per acre). These areas may have slope or
other natural characteristics that may be accommodated by General Plan policies (The
Planning Center, April 26, 2000).
| P ARCELS IN WESTERN COUNTY. Figure 23, Parcels in Western County, provides an

image of existing assessors parcels within the MSHCP study area. This map is from
the Riverside County TLMA GIS system.
| UTILITIES . Figure 24, California Energy Commission Utilities Map and Figure 25
Southern California Edison Existing Electrical Power System, depict existing utility
transmission lines and associated support facilities. Data represented on Figure 24
were developed by the California Energy Commission (PUB. 700-99-001F), August
1999. The data depicted on Figure 25 were obtained from Southern California Edison
(1999).

Figure 21 Composite Land Use

Figure 22 Alternative 3 Planned Open Space

Figure 23 Parcels in Western County

Figure 24 California Energy Commission Utilities Map

Figure 25 SCE Existing Electric Power System

It should be noted that maps developed as part of the RCIP planning process are draft
documents and have yet to be verified by the County of Riverside or their representatives.
Maps may not represent the most current information available and may be revised without
prior notice. The geographic information system and other sources should be queried for the
most current information.
2.2 EVALUATION TOOLS
In addition to the elements of the RCIP data base described in Section 2.1, a variety of
evaluation tools have been developed specifically for use in the analysis of the preferred
MSHCP alternative when it is defined. In addition to the database described in Section 2.1,
these evaluation tools will form the basis of much of the conservation analysis for the preferred
MSHCP alternative, or alternatives. The information presented in this document represents
the current status (September 2000) in the development of the MSHCP-specific evaluation
tools. It should be recognized that development of the evaluation tools is an ongoing process
and they will be refined as the MSHCP planning process proceeds.
The following evaluation tools have been developed to date, specifically for the MSHCP, and
are included in this document.
| HABITAT ACCOUNTS: Habitat accounts have been developed specifically for the MSHCP
study area and are included in Appendix A to this document. The habitat accounts
summarize existing available information regarding the types, characteristics and
distribution of habitats, or vegetation communities, within the MSHCP study area,
including information contained in the MSHCP database, and information derived from
review of literature. Where information is available, the habitat accounts address
ecosystem processes and dynamics within the MSHCP study area. As part of the
conservation analysis of the preferred MSHCP alternative or alternatives, it is
anticipated that information from the habitat accounts will be used in the analysis of
species conservation for which a habitat-based approach is an important
consideration.
| S PECIES ACCOUNTS: Species accounts were previously provided to the MSHCP

Advisory Committee in April 2000. Since that time, the species accounts have been
augmented as additional information and literature is obtained and reviewed. The
current (September 2000) version of the species accounts will be provided to UCR for
posting on the UCR website (http://ecoregion.ucr.edu/mshcp). Included in Appendix

B to this document are copies of new species accounts that were not available at the
time the April 2000 species accounts were distributed, as well as species accounts
that have been substantially modified since April 2000.
| GIS EVALUATION TOOLS: Based on the available data described in Section 2.1, several
GIS analysis tools are being developed for use in the conservation analysis of the
preferred and other alternatives developed as part of the MSHCP. At this point, these
tools represent ?works in progress” and they will continue to be refined as the MSHCP
planning process proceeds. A description of the tools developed to date including
methodologies and graphic depictions is provided below.
The SRP has recommended that the MSHCP analyses not be driven by existing GIS
spatial data (vegetation, species point data, generalized soils, etc.), but rather be
based on the “biology of the species (habitat requirements, community linkages, life
cycles, pollination biology, etc.) as currently available in the literature (SRP, December
13, 1999).” Based on this recommendation, much of the conservation analyses will be
derived from data or concepts described in the literature and as detailed within the
species accounts, habitat accounts, and other contributions from local biologists rather
than from existing landscape-scaled GIS data or derivations based on these data.
With this in mind, we propose to use GIS as a tool to spatially illustrate concepts
derived from the biology of the species and conservation biology theory. Analyses
using GIS will be applied where the resolution and complexity of the existing data are
appropriate. Furthermore, the analyses will be kept simple, and examined for scale
dependence and sensitivity to biologically unimportant factors. GIS analysis will be
used to address three important landscape-scale issues concerning preserve
alternatives: (1) How effectively do the preserve alternatives represent the regional
diversity of habitats in the western Riverside region as a whole? (2) What is the spatial
extent of land affected by the urban/agriculture-habitat interface (i.e., edge-effects)?
and (3) how will this extent change within the proposed preserve alternatives?
• Bioregional Diversity
The literature and database review of species and habitats has shown that there is
considerable variation in wildlife and plant species composition in western Riverside
County that is not reflected in the existing vegetation database for the study area. As
an analytic tool to account for and depict this variation, a bioregions map was created
to assist in describing the regional-scale diversity of habitats within the study area.

! Data Layers and Map Development. Using the existing soils (Soil
Conservation Service), elevation (30-meter digital elevation map data [DEM]),
topography (hillshaded DEM mapping), and local expertise, a draft map that
roughly demarcates the general bioregions within the MSHCP study area was
drawn. While a discrete line cannot capture the continuum of habitat changes
and transitions within the study area, the bioregional boundaries roughly
represent areas where species turnover and habitat zone transitions are
pronounced in relation to changes in landform and other environmental features.
Because continuous climatic maps of precipitation and air temperatures
(maximum, minimum, average) are not available, landform and elevation were
used as surrogates for these variables to draw the initial map. DUDEK staff
and subconsultants knowledgeable of the distribution of flora and animal
species in western Riverside County then made minor adjustments to the
boundaries where elevation and landforms did not appear to accurately
represent distinct changes in species and habitat distributions. This
methodology is similar to the approach used to develop bioregions in San
Diego County (pers. comm. Oberbauer 2000). The validity of these bioregions
will be tested by examining the distribution of vegetation types and sensitive
species that fall within the regions. That is, do the bioregions truly reflect
different suites of species and vegetation communities in the study area? As
a work in progress, these boundaries are subject to change based on these
analyses and additional input from experts familiar with the western Riverside
region.
This mapping exercise yielded seven distinct bioregions. These bioregions are
depicted in Figure 26 in relation to elevation and soils and in Figure 27 in
relation to vegetation and landforms. The bioregions, along with their
characteristic features, are outlined below.
1. Santa Ana Mountains Bioregion

‚ Elevation generally > 2,000 feet. Lower elevations near the
Santa Rosa Plateau and Alberhill were included because of
floristic similarities.
‚ Indicative vegetation types include Diegan coastal sage scrub,
mesic chaparral, sparse coniferous vegetation.
‚ Heavily influenced by coastal climate (fog, rainfall, wind etc.).
‚ Low disturbance and urban influence.

Figure 26 Preliminary Bio-regions and Generalized Soil Boundaries on Elevation Data in
Western Riverside County

Figure 27 Preliminary Bio-regions and Generalized Vegetation on Hillshaded Relief in
Western Riverside County

2. Agua Tibia Mountains Bioregion
‚ Elevation generally > 2,000 feet.
‚ Indicative vegetation types include Diegan coastal sage scrub,
mesic chaparral, sparse coniferous vegetation.
‚ Low disturbance and urban influence.
‚ Less coastal influence
‚ Unique flora
3. Riverside Lowlands Bioregion

‚ Elevation generally < 2,000 feet. Estelle Mountain, Gavilan Hills,
and Lakeview Mountains were included based on floristic
similarities to lower elevation areas.
‚ Indicative vegetation types include Riversidian sage scrub and
annual grasslands.
‚ Relatively arid and within the Santa Ana Mountains’ rain shadow.
‚ Higher disturbance and urbanization.
4. Inland Foothills Bioregion

‚ Elevation between 2,000 and 3,000 feet.
‚ Indicative vegetation types include Riversidian sage scrub and
xeric chaparral associations.
‚ Less frequent frosts than mountains, snow rare.
5. Desert Transition Bioregion

‚ Elevation > 3,000 feet.
‚ Indicative vegetation types include red shank chaparral, Big
Basin sage scrub, semi-desert chaparral, semi-desert scrub.
‚ Arid, desert-influenced.
6. San Jacinto Mountains Bioregion

‚ Indicative vegetation types include coniferous forests, montane
chaparral, broad-leafed forests.
‚ Unique flora distinct from San Bernardino Mountains Bioregion.

7. San Bernardino Mountains Bioregion
‚ Indicative vegetation types include coniferous forests, montane
chaparral, broad-leafed forests.
‚ Unique flora distinct from San Jacinto Mountains Bioregion.
! Analyses. A reserve alternative that represents the spatial extent and patch
size for all regions will, theoretically, be more regionally diverse in species and
more likely to sustain ecosystem processes than one that concentrates
resources in a singular or few regions. For example, the chaparral in the Inland
Foothills Bioregion will be different from that in the Santa Ana Mountains
Bioregion. A biologically robust reserve system should attempt to conserve
both representations of chaparral.
The analyses of the bioregions will include at least the following:
1. The extent of vegetation communities and species present within each

bioregion of the study area.
2. The extent of vegetation communities and species within each bioregion
for the different reserve alternatives.
3. The acreage, patch size and distribution of vegetation types within each
bioregion by reserve alternative in relation to the existing baseline
conditions.
Additional analyses likely will be conducted as the work progresses and

different analyses suggest themselves.
The limitations of the bioregions analysis should be noted. Because of the

complex interaction between the physical environment and biological factors
that influence species and habitat distributions, boundaries for multiple
overlapping biotic distributions are not discrete. Although conceptually and
analytically convenient, depicting continuous variation in species and habitats
with artificial boundaries is simplistic and results in a loss of potentially
important information (as does any type of discrete categorical description of
a continuous variable).
The bioregions map also assumes that regional variation in the physical
environment correlates with high species turnover and higher species diversity.

This principle has been described theoretically (e.g., Cody 1986), but the
magnitude of change in species diversity from region to region in western
Riverside County is not known.
• Edge Effects
The interface between urban/agricultural development and native habitats represents

an area of complex interactions between at least three suites of plant and wildlife
species: (1) core area species that are sensitive to edge factors; (2) species that
occur primarily within core areas but are not highly sensitive to edge effects; and (3)
edge species that preferentially inhabit edge boundaries. Along urban and agricultural
boundaries, edge species typically are aggressive, habitat altering and persistent
colonizers of other habitats. Many of these species are non-natives that displace or
may directly prey on native species (e.g., domestic cats). Edge species are known to
be detrimental to native species diversity, although specific effects depend on the local
suite of species (e.g., Alberts et al. 1993; Andrén et al. 1985; Andrén and Angelstam
1988; Angelstam 1986; Brittingham and Temple 1983, Gates and Gysel 1978;
Sauvajot and Buechner 1993; Scott 1993; Wilcove 1985). Edge effects may include
introduction and colonization of competitive non-native species, alteration of normal
ecosystem process (e.g., increased/decreased fire intervals, changes in sound, light,
and hydrology and fluvial processes), direct mechanical disturbance, and creation of
habitat sinks. Estimates of the distances of urban edge effects have ranged from 15
meters to 5 kilometers (Laurance 1991). An example of a practical application of
presumed edge effects, and based on a review of the literature pertinent to the
southern California region, the City of San Diego Multiple Species Conservation
Program (MSCP) GIS modeling exercise used three zones of 150, 300, and 600 feet
of decreasing edge effect (OGDEN Environmental and Energy Services).
For this analysis, several different edge distance zones will be used to examine
sensitivity. First, the existing edge condition will be depicted to create the baseline for
the study area. The edge analysis will then be applied to the reserve alternatives to
quantify and depict the amount of the edge area that would result under the particular
alternative.
! Data Compilation and Processing. The edge analysis is designed to depict

existing conditions in the MSHCP study area. Thus, newly developed areas
and major highways were used to augment the vegetation database. Because
the existing land use GIS layer reflects the most current representation of

developed areas, these data were extracted. For highways, centerlines were
created from the existing highways data and buffered a common distance to
generate a new highway polygon layer suitable for analysis.
Because the edge analysis involves a measurement of habitat to the nearest

urban polygon, it was necessary to buffer the study area along its perimeter with
land cover information from surrounding areas (i.e., San Bernardino, Orange
and San Diego counties). The study area was buffered by 2,500 feet with
digital vegetation data collected for the adjacent counties. The vegetation
classifications used in these data were “cross-walked” to conform with the
community types in the MSHCP vegetation layer.
These data were collapsed into two categories: “urban” and “habitat” areas.
Urban areas include developed, major highways, and intensive agricultural
uses. Habitat areas include natural vegetation land covers and field/pasture
(provides foraging and movement habitat for many species). The resulting
vector-based (polygons) layers were converted into raster-based (grid) data
sets with 50, 100, and 208 square feet cell sizes (208 square feet = 1 acre).
These cell resolutions were chosen to conduct a sensitivity analysis to
determine the most suitable cell size. The resulting edge acreages with each
of the cell sizes are provide below as an example of a sensitivity analysis. The
spatial distribution of the edge areas for one sample of edge zones is depicted
in Figure 28.
These results show the edge effect analysis is sensitive to cell size. The
acreage distributions are similar for the 50 square feet and 100 square feet
cells, but apparently different for the “strong” edge effect category using 208
square feet cells. Likewise, this analysis will be conducted using different edge
distance zones to examine the effect of the distribution in relation to cell size.
Edge Range (ft) Edge Effect Acres
50-foot Cells
0 Urban 420,398
1-250 Strong 128,626
251-600 Moderate 116,142
> 600 Nil or None 593,592

Figure 28 Areas Affected By Urban and Agricultural Lands in Western Riverside County

100-foot Cells
0 Urban 419,360
1-250 Strong 115,825
251-600 Moderate 126,254
> 600 Nil or None 597,325
208-foot Cells (1 acre)

0 Urban 419,692
1-250 Strong 95,847
251-600 Moderate 119,559
> 600 Nil or None 632,660
At this time, we have not analyzed these data in enough detail to provide an adequate
interpretation of these results. Ultimately, however, we hope to use this edge analysis
tool to meaningfully compare the different reserve alternatives.
| EVALUATION TOOL FOR GRANITICS/ROCK OUTCROPS. Two reptile species, the granite
spiny lizard and the granite night lizard, are dependent on surficial rock formations.
The granite spiny lizard utilizes boulders, rock outcrops, boulder piles, and massive
rock formations, using the surface of rocks, granitic flakes, rock crevices, and fissures.
The granite night lizard is almost entirely restricted to granodiorite or metavolcanic
areas with massive rocks, rock outcrops, and flaking granite, spending most of their
lives within cracks, fissures, and flakes of rock. In an effort to determine conservation
for these two species, a variety of potential evaluation tools are being considered.
First, we reviewed the base granitic soils coverages created from the “underlying
geologic formation map” created by ECI in conjunction with the Public Safety/Hazards
Element of the General Plan. However the generated data only provided a map of sub-
surface granitic soils and was unable to predict areas with surficial boulders, rock
outcrops, or talus. Next, we reviewed the U.S.D.A. soils maps which were generally
good at predicting general areas where rock outcrops and massive boulder formations
might be present. Certain soil categories, such as Cieneba-Rock Outcrop -Sesame,
Las Posas-Rock Outcrop-Wyman, Rock Outcrop-Lithic Torriorthents-Omstott,
Sheephead-Rock Outcrop-Bancas, Gullied Land-Bull Trail-Rock Outcrop, and other
categories which included “Rock Outcrop,” were obvious areas to begin investigations.
However, these categories were determined to be too general and more detailed
analysis was required. Currently, we are investigating a potential methodology which
would allow more precise delineation of boulder formations and rock outcrops.

This potential methodology utilizes the MSHCP Digital Orthographic Quarter
Quadrangle (DOQQ) false-color infrared aerial photograph database, combined with
a Geographic Information System (GIS). Initially, DOQQ images of areas are viewed
on a computer screen. Because the images are photographed using a minimum of
three wavelengths, there are at least three color bands (red, green, and blue) which
may be manipulated in order to enhance the resolution of certain features. In addition,
the contrast values of the DOQQ image may be manipulated in the same manner to
achieve similar effects. Because rock reflects more light than most other ground cover
types, it appears nearly white on false-color infrared aerial photographs. By
decreasing the red and green color band percentages, increasing the blue color band
percentages, and increasing the contrast of the image, most of the non-relevant
images in the DOQQ disappears and rock outcrop formations theoretically are more
prominently depicted. Sample test images using this technique are depicted in Figure
29.
The intent is to utilize this methodology, combined with the knowledge of where key
populations are known, Soils Conservation Service (SCS) soils maps, and vegetation
coverages, to determine how much of the MSCHP conservation area will provide
suitable habitat characteristics for the lizards. While fine tuning is necessary to
develop the best image, this method may provide the best way to readily and quickly
discern rocky areas. Smaller-scale review of the images will provide the best
determination of small boulder clusters and rocky areas; however, larger-scale review
will show the “forest for the trees” and provide the best planning area-wide review of
important rock outcrop and boulder resources. Potential limiting factors may include
a lack of DOQQ coverage in certain parts of the MSHCP study area and interpretation
errors in areas with exposed soils that are light colored.
LITERATURE CITED
Alberts, A.C., A.D. Richman, D. Tran, R. Sauvajot, C. McCalvin, and D.T. Bolger. 1993.
Effects of habitat fragmentation on native and exotic plants in southern California
coastal scrub. In Interface Between Ecology and Land Development in California. J.E.
Keely (ed.). Southern California Academy of Sciences, Los Angeles, CA.
Andrén, H., and P. Angelstam. 1988. Elevated predation rates as an edge effect in habitat
islands: experimental evidence. Ecology 69:544-547.

Figure 29 Potential Methodology for Identifying Rock Outcrops

Andrén, H., P. Angelstam, E. Lindström, and P. Widén. 1985. Differences in predation
pressure in relation to habitat fragmentation: an experiment. Oikos 45:273-277.
Angelstam, P. 1986. Predation on ground-nesting birds’ nests in relation to predator

densities and habitat edges. Oikos 47:365-373.
Brittingham, M.C. and S.A. Temple. 1983. Have cowbirds caused forest songbirds to
decline? BioScience 33:31-35.
Cody, M.L. 1986. Diversity, rarity, and conservation in Mediterranean-climate regions. In

Conservation Biology: the Science of Scarcity and Diversity. M.E. Soulé (ed.),
Sinauer, Sunderland, MA, pp. 122-152.
Gates, J.E. and L.W. Gysel. 1978. Avian nest dispersion and fledgling outcome in field-forest
edges. Ecology 59:871-873.
Laurance, W.F. 1991. Edge effects in tropical forest fragments: application of a model for the
design of nature reserves. Biological Conservation 57:205-219.
Sauvajot, R.M. and M. Buechner. 1993. Conservation strategy and development: the effects
of urban encroachment on wildlife of the Santa Ana Mountains. Symposium on the
Interface Between Ecology and Land Development in California. Occidental College.
Scott, T. A. 1993. Initial effects of housing construction on woodland birds along the wildland
urban interface. Interface Between Ecology and Land Development in California. Pp.
181-187.
Wilcove, D.S. 1985. Nest predation in forest tracts and the decline of migratory songbirds.
Ecology 66:1211-1214.

SECTION 3.0
APPROACH
3.1 BACKGROUND
In November 1999, a document entitled Approach to Evaluation of Reserve Alternatives for

SRP Review was prepared by the County’s MSHCP consultant, Dudek & Associates, Inc.
The results of SRP review of that document were presented in an SRP report dated
December 13, 1999. A February 11, 2000 Joint USFWS/CDFG letter reporting the results
of the Wildlife Agencies’ review of the November 1999 document was also prepared. The
November 1999 document, along with the December 13, 1999 and February 11, 2000 review
documents, have been previously distributed to the MSHCP Advisory Committee.
The November 1999 Approach document states that it described ?the analytic approach to
be used to evaluate the relative merits of conservation alternatives developed as part of the
MSHCP planning process.” It is recognized in the Approach document that actual
development of MSHCP alternatives will be the result of an iterative process, integrated with
the overall RCIP, considering a wide variety of factors, including biological, land use and
economic considerations. It is further recognized that the MSHCP alternatives are intended
to consider biological goals and principles outlined in the Draft MSHCP Planning Agreement
and the guidelines of the federal Habitat Conservation Planning (HCP) Handbook and the
state Natural Communities Conservation Planning (NCCP) general process guidelines.
The various considerations incorporated in the Planning Agreement, HCP Handbook and
NCCP Process Guidelines are important components of the MSHCP alternatives
development process.
Since the November 1999 Approach document was prepared and reviewed, the MSHCP
Advisory Committee and stakeholders have been working together to define MSHCP
alternatives. This Alternatives Development document represents an incremental step in that
alternatives development process. As such, this document does not represent an application
of the Approach described in the November 1999 document, as modified by the SRP and
Wildlife Agencies review, to any particular MSHCP alternative or alternatives, and this
document should not be regarded as the MSHCP conservation analysis. It does, however,
provide information regarding the evaluation tools to be used in the conservation analysis and
summarizes the data known to be available by the MSHCP consultant, that will be used in the
conservation analysis. If other existing data are available that could contribute to the MSHCP
development and analysis process, reviewers of this document are encouraged to provide
such information to the County of Riverside for distribution to the MSHCP consultant.

3 .0 APPROACH
3.2 APPROACH SUMMARY
The approach summary presented in this section describes the approach to development of
the range of alternatives described in this Alternatives Development document. This
approach should be distinguished from the analytic approach to be applied to analyze the
relative merits of MSHCP alternatives, as described in the November 1999 Approach
document. That analytic approach is intended to be applied to the analysis of MSHCP
alternatives after they are defined. Certain elements of the analytic approach, have, however,
been incorporated in this document to provide supporting documentation and assist
stakeholders in reviewing choices and options and developing a preferred alternative for the
MSHCP. For example, substantial literature review has been completed in the assembly of
species accounts and habitat accounts and this literature provides a basis for the preliminary
species analyses included in Section 5.0 of this document.
The alternatives development approach includes the following key components:
| The range of alternatives was defined by the MSHCP Advisory Committee and relates
to the rough conservation locations, acreage estimates and species lists developed
for the August 9, 1999 ?Draft MSHCP Proposal,” as reviewed by the Wildlife Agencies.
| The alternatives development process is data driven and is based on the data
incorporated in the RCIP database, as well as data developed specifically for the
MSHCP, such as the species occurrence database, the species accounts and the
habitat accounts.
| The alternatives development process incorporates biological, land use and economic
considerations as guided by the draft Planning Agreement, FESA and the NCCP Act.
These guiding documents call for consideration of alternatives that address
conservation of individual species and their habitats as well as overall ecosystem
conservation. These guiding documents also call for consideration of land use and
economic activity in the development of alternatives. Relevant excerpts from these
guiding documents are provided below.
• Draft Planning Agreement: According to the draft MSHCP Planning

Agreement, the biological goals and principles underlying the MSHCP are to:
?promote the biological viability and recovery of western Riverside County ecosystems
and habitats, and species dependent thereupon, toward a goal of reducing the need to
list additional species in the future.”

3 .0 APPROACH
• HCP Handbook (USFWS + NMFS, November 1996). The Preface to the
handbook includes the following statements regarding the various factors to be
considered in the development of HCP’s: ?. . . HCPs are evolving from a process
adopted primarily to address single developments to a broad-based, landscape level
planning tool utilized to achieve long-term biological and regulatory goals. It also
suggests that the underlying spirit of the HCP process has begun to take hold.
These large-scale, regional HCPs can significantly reduce the burden of the ESA on
small landowners by providing efficient mechanisms for compliance, distributing the
economic and logistic impacts of endangered species conservation among the
community, and bringing a broad range of landowner activities under the HCP’s legal
protection. In addition, the Services have helped reduce the burden on small landowners
and have made it easier for them to be involved in the HCP process through
streamlining measures in the HCP process.
One of the greatest strengths of the HCP process is its flexibility. Conservation plans
vary enormously in size and scope and in the activities they address – – from half-acre
lots to millions of acres, from forestry and agricultural activities to beach development,
and from a single species to dozens of species. Another key is creativity. The ESA and
its implementing regulations establish basic biological standards for HCPs but
otherwise allow the crate potential of HCP participants to flourish. As a result, the
HCP program has begun to produce some remarkably innovative natural resource use
and conservation programs. The challenge of balancing biology with economics is a
complex one, but is fundamental to the HCP process.”
• NCCP General Process Guidelines (CDFG, January 1998):
I. Introduction
A. What is an NCCP? A Natural Community Conservation Plan (NCCP or

?plan”) is a plan for the conservation of natural communities that takes an
ecosystem approach and encourages cooperation between private and
government interests. The plan identifies and provides for the regional or
areawide protection and perpetuation of plants, animals, and their habitats,
while allowing compatible land use and economic activity. An NCCP seeks
to anticipate and prevent the controversies caused by species’ listings by
focusing on the long-term stability of natural communities.

3 .0 APPROACH
II. Characteristics of an NCCP. An NCCP is defined by the following
characteristics and these combined characteristics may distinguish an
NCCP from other types of conservation planning efforts.
A. Scope. The scope of the plan is regional or areawide (Fish and Game
Code §2805). Within the planning region, effective NCCP ?subregional
planning units” may be delineated to reflect both biological and
administrative boundaries. An NCCP is based on a scientific and
procedural framework that can effectively address cumulative impact
concerns and integrate them with multi-jurisdictional or subregional
planning efforts.
B. Ecosystem Conservation. The plan promotes wildlife diversity
through conservation of habitat on an ecosystem level. ?Wildlife” means
and includes all wild animals, birds, plants, fish, amphibians, and related
ecological communities, including the habitat upon which wildlife depend
for their continued viability (Fish and Game Code §711.2).
C. Science. The plan provides a conservation strategy that is based on
recognized principles of conservation biology, as well as the best
available scientific information about species and habitats.
D. Coordination. The plan promotes coordination and cooperation
among public agencies, landowners, other private interests, and
members of the public, and includes a mechanism by which private
interests can participate in the planning process.
E. Economic Activity. The plan allows compatible economic activity
including resource utilization and development.
As can be seen by the above excerpts, development of alternatives in accordance with the
guidance provided by the draft Planning Agreement, HCP Handbook and NCCP General
Process guidelines may address a wide variety of biological and non-biological factors.
These factors have generally been characterized as biological considerations and land use
considerations in the alternatives descriptions presented in Section 4.0 of this document. It
should be recognized, however, that the ultimate MSHCP alternative or alternatives selected
for detailed analysis and development will need to meet the regulatory issuance criteria of the
federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) and the NCCP Act before an actual permit is issued
for the MSHCP.

SECTION 4.0
DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES
This section provides a description of the alternatives assembled as part of the alternatives
development process. For each alternative, a map is provided depicting general areas
potentially conserved under the alternative along with a table summarizing acreages for
conservation under each alternative, by vegetation category. Following the summary
description of each alternative, lists of the biological and land use considerations incorporated
in the development of the alternative are provided.
The conservation areas depicted on the alternatives maps are purposefully generalized;
however, they are intended to indicate areas where conservation may occur under the various
alternatives. Key biological and physical features used to delineate the generalized areas
depicted on the maps include vegetation, species occurrence data, soils and floodplains. In
addition to this mapped information, data obtained through literature review, and biology and
natural history information from local biologists were also used to generally define potential
conservation areas.
Six generalized categories are illustrated on the alternatives. These categories are described
below:
C ORE AREA/SUBSTANTIAL HABITAT BLOCK: This category refers to large, generally

intact habitat areas that may be connected to, or isolated from other intact habitat
areas or linkages. In some cases, these areas may include substantial or key
populations of listed species. In other cases, the primary character of these areas is
that of a large, generally intact block of habitat. On the alternatives maps, these areas
include the new core areas identified in the August 9 ?Draft MSHCP Proposal”
(Badlands, Vail Lake/Wilson Creek, Sage/Aguanga) as well as habitat blocks
identified in the August 9 ?Proposal” (Lakeview Mountains, Double Butte, La Sierra
Hills, Jurupa Hills, Norco Hills, Alberhill, Scott Road/I-215 area).
LINKAGE: This category refers to areas that provide linkages connecting habitat blocks or
cores. Linkages may include large patches of ?live-in” habitat for certain species, as
well as facilitating wildlife movement. In some locations, linkages may be comprised
of patches of discontiguous habitat. Linkages generally include both upland and
wetland components. On the alternatives maps, linkages include areas identified in
the August 9 ?Draft MSHCP Proposal” such as the upland linkage from Lake Skinner
to Lake Mathews, the San Jacinto River linkage, the Tenaja corridor and Murrieta Hills

4 .0 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES
linkages, and linkages connecting the Vail Lake/Wilson Creek and Sage/Aguanga
core areas.
CONSTRAINED LINKAGES: This category refers to linkages connecting habitat blocks or

core areas that are generally constrained by existing land uses and urbanization.
Given existing constraints in these areas, provision of multiple, or redundant linkages
between habitat blocks is desirable from a conservation planning standpoint. In some
cases, provision of redundant linkages may not be possible. A variety of optional
locations for the constrained linkages are shown on the alternatives maps.
OTHER: This category includes locations that don’t fit into the definitions of core/substantial
habitat block, linkage or constrained linkage. On the alternatives maps, other areas
include locations identified in the August 9 ?Proposal” such as the Delhi fly area in the
northwest portion of the study area, the vernal pool areas in the vicinity of Hemet, and
the area south of Lake Elsinore.
PUBLIC/QUASI PUBLIC: This category includes existing reserves taken from the RCIP land
status database, as described in the April 2000 Description of Existing Reserves
document.
POTENTIAL CONSERVATION AREA SYMBOL: On Alternatives 2 and 3, a circular or oval

symbol is shown depicting potential conservation areas in the Vail Lake, Wilson
Creek, Anza Valley, Temecula Creek, Reche Canyon and Lambs Canyon Road areas,
the latter three areas shown on Alternative 2 only. This symbol indicates areas where
conservation would be needed to meet the species conservation objectives of the
particular alternative. Acreages for conservation in these areas are included in the
acreage estimates for Alternatives 2 and 3 and descriptions of the resources that
would need to be conserved in the symbol areas are included in the description of the
individual alternatives. Should Alternatives 2 or 3 be pursued for further analysis,
refinements to the conservation symbol areas indicating more specifically the
boundaries of areas to be conserved would need to be evaluated.

4.1 ALTERNATIVE 1: SPECIES CONSIDERED FOR CONSERVATION IN
AUGUST 9, 1999 ?DRAFT MSHCP PROPOSAL” (164 SPECIES)
Alternative 1 most closely resembles the areas identified as desirable for conservation in the
August 9 “Draft MSHCP Proposal.” While considering existing land use and other constraints,
this alternative focuses on the draft Planning Agreement language which seeks to “promote
the viability and recovery of western Riverside County ecosystems and habitats, and species
dependent thereupon, toward a goal of reducing the need to list additional species in the
future.” This alternative also focuses generally on the broad-based NCCP biological tenets
which are as follows:
| Conserve focus species and their habitats throughout the planning area
| Conserve large habitat blocks
| Conserve habitat diversity
| Keep reserves contiguous and connected
| Protect reserves from encroachment and invasion by non-native species
In consideration of these factors, and the MSHCP Advisory Committee direction to develop
an alternative that would conserve up to 164 species, this alternative represents the most
biologically robust of the alternatives described in this document. If this alternative is selected
for further consideration, the degree to which the alternative achieves the goals and principles
set forth in the draft Planning Agreement and the NCCP tenets will need to be evaluated in
more detail. However, based on the existing available data as described in this document
and in materials previously presented to the MSHCP Advisory Committee, and on preliminary
analyses completed to date, it appears that this alternative, including incorporation of
required HCP and NCCP features such as adaptive management and funding assurances,
would satisfy these objectives.
The generalized reserve configuration under this alternative is depicted in Figure 30. It should
be noted that the reserve configuration consists of the boundaries within which conservation
is proposed to be achieved. Table 1 provides a summary of acreages potentially conserved
under this alternative, by vegetation category. These acreages are estimates of areas that
are anticipated to be conserved within the reserve configuration depicted in Figure 30. As
shown in Table 1, under this alternative a total of 510,398 acres would be potentially
conserved, including 357,196 acres within existing reserves and 153,202 acres of currently
private land outside existing reserves. The biological and land use considerations associated
with this alternative are summarized in Section 4.6 of this document.

Figure 30 Alternative 1

TABLE 1
ALTERNATIVE 1 — VEGETATION SUMMARY
Percent of
Total Acres Total Acres Total Habitat
Total Acres in Existing of Additional Total Acres Acres
Vegetation Type in Study Area Reserves Conservation Conserved Conserved in
Study Area
Agriculture 169,475 8,483 15,500 23,983 14%
Chaparral 434,938 209,874 42,728 252,602 58%
Cismontane Alkali Marsh 1,266 2 52 54 4%
Coastal Sage Scrub 156,446 34,880 59,232 94,112 60%
Desert Scrubs 14,564 1,310 3,480 4,790 33%
Grassland 154,139 22,490 17,725 40,215 26%
Meadow 537 89 –– 89 17%
Meadows and Marshes 478 150 176 326 68%
Montane Coniferous Forest 29,880 20,691 36 20,727 69%
Peninsular Juniper Woodland and Scrub 1,081 277 481 758 70%
Playas and Vernal Pools 7,914 3,246 3,321 6,567 83%
Riparian Scrub, Woodland, Forest 15,028 6,015 3,102 9,117 61%
Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub 7,943 1,913 3,620 5,533 70%
Unknown 1,348 1,228 20 1,248 93%
Water 12,206 5,595 1,783 7,378 60%
Woodlands and Forests 33,222 20,408 1,946 22,354 67%
Developed or Disturbed Land 218,262 20,545
TOTALS 1,258,727 357,196 153,202 510,398
Note: Acreages represent estimates of areas potentially conserved within the Alternative
1 reserve configuration depicted on the Alternative 1 map.

4.2 ALTERNATIVE 2: LISTED, PROPOSED AND STRONG CANDIDATE
SPECIES
Alternative 2 was developed at the request of the MSHCP Advisory Committee to depict a
potential conservation scenario that would address listed, proposed and strong candidate
species. A total of 29 listed and proposed species occur in the MSHCP study area including
the following: Swainson’s hawk, mountain plover, western yellow-billed cuckoo, southwestern
willow flycatcher, peregrine falcon, bald eagle, California gnatcatcher, least Bell’s vireo, San
Bernardino kangaroo rat, Stephens’ kangaroo rat, arroyo toad, California red-legged frog,
mountain yellow-legged frog, quino checkerspot butterfly, Delhi sands flower loving fly,
Riverside fairy shrimp, vernal pool fairy shrimp, Santa Ana sucker, Munz’s onion, San Diego
ambrosia, San Jacinto Valley crownscale, Nevin’s barberry, thread-leaved brodiaea, Vail
Lake ceanothus, slender-horned spineflower, Santa Ana River woollystar, San Diego button
celery, spreading navarretia, and California Orcutt grass. In addition to the listed and
proposed species, this alternative also considers conservation needs for the following seven
species identified as “strong candidates” in discussions with the MSHCP Advisory
Committee: tricolored blackbird (breeding colony), coastal cactus wren, burrowing owl,
southwestern pond turtle, San Bernardino mountain kingsnake, San Diego mountain
kingsnake and Los Angeles pocket mouse. The focus of conservation for this alternative is
these 36 listed, proposed and strong candidate species.
It should be noted that this alternative focuses largely on conservation of the 36 species noted
above with less consideration of the draft Planning Agreement language and the broad-based
NCCP biological tenets highlighted above for Alternative 1. While large habitat blocks and
broad linkages are incorporated in this alternative in some areas, to provide for a reserve
scenario that would address the conservation needs of the focus species, less emphasis is
placed in this alternative on broad-based ecosystem conservation.
shown in Table 2, under this alternative a total of 476,498 acres would be conserved,
including 357,196 acres within existing reserves and 119,302 acres of currently private land
outside existing reserves.


TABLE 2
Percent of
Vegetation Type in Study Area Reserves Conservation Conserved Conserved in
Study Area
Agriculture 169,475 8,483 14,900 23,383 14%
Chaparrel 434,938 209,874 39,614 249,488 57%
Desert Scrubs 14,564 1,310 151 1,461 10%
Grassland 154,139 22,490 15,215 37,705 24%
Meadow 537 89 –– 89 17%
Unknown 1,348 1,228 6 1,234 92%
Water 12,206 5,595 943 6,538 54%
TOTALS 1,258,727 357,196 119,302 476,498
Note: Acreages represent estimates of areas potentially conserved within the Alternative
2 reserve configuration depicted on the Alternative 2 map.

New core areas in the Badlands, Vail Lake/Wilson Creek/Sage, and Anza Valley areas
identified in the August 9 “Draft MSHCP Proposal,” and depicted in a generalized
configuration on the Alternative 1 map, are illustrated with a symbol in the conservation
scenario map for Alternative 2. This is due to the fact that these areas would be needed for
the conservation of focus species under this alternative. However, the level of conservation
would likely be less than that which would occur under Alternative 1. A specific conservation
configuration would need to be developed should this alternative be selected for further
analysis. The symbols shown generally indicate conservation needs for the following species:
Badlands - tricolored blackbird, coastal cactus wren, Los Angeles pocket mouse; Vail
Lake/Wilson Creek/Sage - quino checkerspot butterfly, California gnatcatcher, burrowing owl,
least Bell’s vireo, arroyo toad, coastal cactus wren, Vail Lake ceanothus, Nevin’s barberry;
slender-horned spineflower, Anza Valley - ocastal cactus wren, Stephens’ kangaroo rat, Los
Angeles pocket mouse, and quino checkerspot butterfly.
Habitat blocks included in Alternative 1 but absent from this alternative include La Sierra Hills,
Norco Hills and Jurupa Hills. While the La Sierra Hills and Norco Hills areas represent
moderately large blocks of intact habitat and support a variety of species, they do not support
substantial populations or meet habitat requirements for the focus species under this
alternative and therefore are not included in this alternative. Likewise, the Jurupa Hills do not
support substantial populations of the focus species under this alternative. Scattered
gnatcatcher observations are, however, known from the Jurupa Hills and this area may
contribute to gnatcatcher conservation outside the MSHCP study area. For this reason, the
Jurupa Hills may need to be evaluated in greater detail should this alternative be selected for
further study.
A variety of linkages and constrained linkages are included in Alternative 1 but absent from
this alternative, including substantial linkages east of Lake Skinner and Diamond Valley Lake,
the upland portions of the linkage along Temescal Wash north of Alberhill, and the Tenaja
corridor linkage, as well as the Cahuilla Creek linkage east of the Vail Lake/Wilson
Creek/Sage core area. Constrained linkages absent from this alternative include lower Warm
Springs and Tucalota creeks, a variety of optional linkages along upper Warm Springs Creek
and in the French Valley area, linkages to the Santa Ana River via Springbrook Wash and
channelized portions of Temescal Wash, and linkages in the Cherry Valley, Banning Bench
and Banning Idyllwild panoramic highway areas. Although these linkages would contribute to
the overall conservation scenario under Alternative 1, they do not provide substantial support
for the focus species under this alternative and so are not depicted under this alternative
scenario. The channelized portion of Temescal Creek may support breeding for the Santa
Ana sucker and this area may need to be considered for inclusion in the reserve under this

alternative. More detailed information regarding the biological and land use considerations
associated with this alternative are summarized in Section 4.6 of this document.
4.3 ALTERNATIVE 2A: NARROW ENDEMIC PLANTS
Alternative 2A has been developed at the request of the MSHCP Advisory Committee to
provide information regarding areas that would need to be investigated for conservation under
an alternative focusing on narrow endemic plant species. The term endemic species means
native to a particular geographic area. Endemic does not imply rarity or endangerment; it only
refers to geographic distribution. The species coastal California gnatcatcher and San Diego
coyote thistle are endemic to southern California and northwestern Baja California, Mexico.
Globally, these are small distributions. A very narrowly-distributed species such as the plant
species San Jacinto Valley crown-scale is endemic to (found only in) western Riverside
County, a much smaller geographic area.
The term narrow endemic species has been used in conservation planning to refer to a
species that is restricted to a relatively small geographic area and for which
conservation planning decisions would have a substantial effect on the status of the
species. An example of a planning area sensitive plant species for which the term narrow
endemic does not fit well is chocolate-lily. Because this species is endemic to much of
coastal California and northwestern Baja California, Mexico, conservation decisions regarding
western Riverside County will have a relatively small effect on the global conservation status
of this species.
The focus of Alternative 2A is on the list of narrow endemic plant species distributed to the
MSHCP Preserve Science and Design Subcommittee in October 1999. The species list is
provided below. Figure 32 depicts six areas that would need to be considered in assembling
a reserve for narrow endemic plant species. The locations of the narrow endemic plants with
respect to the areas depicted on Figure 32 are noted in parentheses in the list below. The
letter (F) shown in parentheses in the list below indicates that the species is generally confined
to Forest Service Lands.
List A: Plant Species Endemic to Planning Area (7)

Allium munzii – Munz’s onion (Area 1)
Arabis johnstoni – Johnston’s rock-cress (F)
Atriplex coronata var. notatior – San Jacinto Valley crownscale (Areas 2, 3, 4)
Atriplex parishii – Parish’s brittlescale (Areas 2, 3, 4, 5)
Calochortus palmeri var. munzii – Munz’s mariposa lily (F)

Figure 32 Alternative 2A

Ceanothus ophiochilus – Vail Lake ceanothus (Area 6)
Galium angustifolium ssp. jacinticum – San Jacinto Mountains bedstraw (F)
List B: Plant Species for which Planning Ara is Critical to Conservation (Not
Endemic to Planning Area) (15)
Ambrosia pumila – San Diego ambrosia (Areas 1, 2)
Atriplex serenana var. davidsonii – Davidson’s saltscale (Areas 2, 3, 4)
Berberis nevinii – Nevin’s barberry (Area 6)
Brodiaea filifolia – thread-leaf brodiaea (Areas 2, 3)
Dodecahema leptoceras – slender-horned spineflower (Area 1)
Dudleya multicaulis – many-stemmed dudleya (Area 1)
Eriastrum densifolium ssp. sanctorum – Santa Ana River woollystar
(Santa Ana River)
Hemizonia pungens ssp. laevis – smooth tarplant (Area 3, Salt Creek)
Lasthenia glabrata spp. coulteri – Coulter’s goldfields (Areas 2, 3)
Lepechinia cordifolia – heart-leaf pitcher-sage (F)
Myosurus minimus ssp. apus – little mousetail (Area 4)
Navarretia fossalis – spreading navarretia (Areas 2, 3, 4, 5)
Orcuttia californica – California Orcutt grass (Areas 4, 5)
Satureja chandleri – San Miguel savory (Santa Rosa Plateau, Steele Rock)
Trichocoronis wrightii var. wrightii – Wright’s trichocoronis (Areas 2, 3)
The areas shown on Figure 32 depict a potential preserve planning area for narrow endemic
plant species. The potential preserve planning area indicates those locations potentially
conserved for narrow endemic plants as well as locations outside areas to be conserved. In
the locations outside the areas to be conserved, surveys for narrow endemic plant species
would need to be conducted under this alternative. In general, it is anticipated that
conservation areas for narrow endemic plant species under this alternative would overlap
similar areas identified for conservation in Alternative 1.
The MSHCP Advisory Committee has previously reviewed a draft narrow endemics policy
included in the Draft Policy matrix distributed to the Advisory Committee in May 2000. The
draft narrow endemics policy matrix described an approach where protocol surveys would be
conducted for narrow endemic plants during the appropriate season and, if populations of
plants were observed, avoidance and minimization measures would be undertaken in the
design of individual projects. Under this alternative, it is anticipated that such surveys would
occur in the areas depicted in Figure 32, in locations outside areas to be conserved.
Therefore, as stakeholders review this alternative for consideration, it should be recognized
that survey requirements are inherent in the definition of the alternative.

As discussed in the preliminary plant species analyses included in Section 5.0 of this
document, existing available distribution data are quite limited for many of the plant species
being considered for conservation under the MSHCP. The need to conduct surveys would
therefore apply to many of the plant species, in addition to the narrow endemic plants, if
coverage for these species is sought in the selected alternative for the MSHCP.
4.4 ALTERNATIVE 3: LISTED AND PROPOSED SPECIES
Alternative 3 was developed at the request of the MSHCP Advisory Committee to depict a
potential conservation scenario that would address only listed and proposed species. A total
of 29 listed and proposed species occur in the MSHCP study area as listed in the description
of Alternative 2. It should be noted that this alternative focuses largely on the conservation of
the 29 listed and proposed species within the MSHCP study area, with less consideration of
the draft Planning Agreement language and the broad-based NCCP biological tenets
highlighted above for Alternative 1. While large habitat blocks and broad linkages are
incorporated in this alternative in some areas, to provide for a conservation scenario that
would address the conservation needs of the listed and proposed species, less emphasis is
placed in this alternative on broad-based ecosystem conservation.
shown in Table 3, under this alternative a total of 451,005 acres would be conserved,
including 357,196 acres within existing reserves and 93,809 acres of currently private lands
outside existing reserves.
New core areas in the Vail Lake/WilsonCreek/Sage, and Anza Valley areas identified in the
August 9, 1999 “Draft MSHCP Proposal” and depicted in a generalized configuration on the
Alternative 1 map are illustrated with a symbol in the conservation scenario map for Alternative
3. This is due to the fact that these areas would be needed for conservation of the listed and
proposed species under this alternative. However, the level of conservation would likely be
less than that which would occur under Alternative 1. A specific conservation configuration
would need to be developed should this alternative be selected for further analysis. The
symbols shown generally indicate conservation needs for the following species: Vail
Lake/Wilson Creek/Sage - quino checkerspot butterfly, California gnatcatcher, least Bell’s


vireo, arroyo toad, Vail Lake ceanothus, Nevin’s barberry; slender-horned spineflower, Anza
Valley - Stephens’ kangaroo rat, quino checkerspot butterfly.
Conservation of the Potrero portion of the Badlands is also anticipated in Alternative 3.

Conservation in this area is focused on Stephens’ kangaroo rat and least Bell’s vireo.
TABLE 3. ALTERNATIVE 3 — VEGETATION SUMMARY
Percent of
Vegetation Type in Study Area Reserves Conservation Conserved Conserved
in Study
Agriculture 169,475 8,483 14,900 23,383 Area
14%
Chaparrel 434,938 209,874 27,014 236,888 54%
Desert Scrubs 14,564 1,310 –– 1,310 9%
Grassland 154,139 22,490 11,211 33,701 22%
Meadow 537 89 – – 89 17%
Unknown 1,348 1,228 6 1,234 92%
Water 12,206 5,595 855 6,450 53%
TOTALS 1,258,727 357,196 93,809 451,005
Note: Acreages represent estimates of areas potentially conserved within the Alternative 3
reserve configuration depicted on the Alternative 3 map.

Habitat blocks included in Alternative 2 but absent from this alternative include Double Butte
and the Lakeview Mountains. These areas were included in Alternative 2 to improve
conservation of strong candidate species such as burrowing owl and Los Angeles pocket
mouse. While they represent large blocks of intact habitat and support a variety of species,
they do not support substantial populations or meet habitat requirements for the focus species
under this alternative and therefore are not included in this alternative. The Jurupa Hills habitat
block is not included in either this alternative or in Alternative 2. As stated in the discussion
of Alternative 2, scattered gnatcatcher observations are known from the Jurupa Hills and this
area may contribute to conservation of the gnatcatcher outside the MSHCP study area. The
gnatcatcher is a listed species and one of the focus species under this alternative. For this
reason, the Jurupa Hills may need to be evaluated in greater detail should this alternative be
selected for further study.
Linkages included in Alternative 2 but absent from this alternative include the Tule Creek
linkage and the linkage east of Johnson Ranch and south of Lake Skinner. These linkages
were included in Alternative 2 for conservation of Los Angeles pocket mouse and burrowing
owl respectively. Since these species are not focus species under this listed and proposed
species alternative, they are not included in this alternative. More detailed information
regarding the biological and land use considerations associated with this alternative are
summarized in Section 4.6 of this document.
4.5 ALTERNATIVE 4: EXISTING RESERVES
At the request of the MSHCP Advisory Committee, the MSHCP consultant has completed a
brief analysis of species conservation that could potentially occur under an alternative that
focused on existing reserves only. The existing reserves only alternative is depicted in Figure
34. Table 4 summarizes vegetation acreages that would potentially be conserved under this
alternative. The level of conservation within existing reserves would be dependent upon
activities within the reserves and resource protection efforts undertaken by the reserve
managers. Information regarding the size, character and mission of the existing reserves is
included in the MSHCP Description of Existing Reserves document (April 2000) previously
distributed to the MSHCP Advisory Committee. Under this alternative, it is assumed that no
additional conservation or management would occur within the existing reserves beyond that
currently occurring or what might occur in the future with implementation of the USFS Southern
California Conservation Strategy.


TABLE 4
Total Acres Percent of Total

Total Acres in Existing Habitat Conserved
Vegetation Type in Study Area Reserves in Study Area
Agriculture 169,475 8,483 5%
Chaparrel 434,938 209,874 48%
Cismontane Alkali Marsh 1,266 2 0%
Coastal Sage Scrub 156,446 34,880 22%
Desert Scrubs 14,564 1,310 9%
Grassland 154,139 22,490 15%
Meadow 537 89 17%
Meadows and Marshes 478 150 31%
Montane Coniferous Forest 29,880 20,691 69%
Peninsular Juniper Woodland and Scrub 1,081 277 26%
Playas and Vernal Pools 7,914 3,246 41%
Riparian Scrub, Woodland, Forest 15,028 6,015 40%
Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub 7,943 1,913 24%
Unknown 1,348 1,228 91%
Water 12,206 5,595 46%
Woodlands and Forests 33,222 20,408 61%
TOTALS 1,258,727 357,196

A brief summary of potential species conservation under the Existing Reserves alternative is
presented in Table 5. Should this alternative be selected for further consideration, more
detailed analysis of specific species conservation considerations would be required. The
information provided in Table 5 does, however, provide indication of species not likely to be
conserved under this alternative. As shown in the table, of the 29 listed and proposed
species, only two bird species (peregrine falcon and western yellow-billed cuckoo) would be
considered to be conserved under this alternative. One mammal species, Stephens’
kangaroo rat, would be conserved based on the existing HCP; however, coverage would not
be expanded to populations outside the existing HCP area. In addition, two amphibian
species, mountain yellow-legged frog and California red-legged frog, and one plant species,
San Diego button-celery, could be considered to be conserved based on conservation on
Santa Rosa Plateau and on Forest Service lands. The remaining twenty-three listed and
proposed species would not be considered to be conserved under this alternative.
TABLE 5
SUMMARY OF POTENTIAL SPECIES CONSERVATION
UNDER EXISTING RESERVES ALTERNATIVE
Common Name Scientific Name Notes
LISTED AND PROPOSED SPECIES

B IRDS
bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Not conserved, needs larger foraging area around the lakes that they
winter at (such as Lake Elsinore, Lake Perris, Vail Lake, Lake Skinner,
Lake Mathews). Need less urbanization within the areas where they
winter.
coastal California Polioptila californica californica Not conserved, missing key populations in Alberhill, Sedco Hills,
gnatcatcher Canyon Lake, and corridor connection to Lake Skinner.
least Bell's vireo Vireo bellii pusillus Not conserved, still need other populations in Temecula Creek, Wilson
Creek, Santa Margarita River, Potrero Creek, Murrieta Creek, Temescal
Wash, San Timoteo Creek, Chino Creek, Alberhill Creek, Tucalota
Creek; although do get Santa Ana River and Prado, it's missing too
many key populations.
mountain plover Charadrius montanus Not conserved, need Mystic Lake and foraging area in the
Menifee/Winchester/Perris/Nuevo area.
peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus Conserved, regular visiting areas are protected at Prado Basin, Santa
Ana River, San Jacinto Wildlife Area, Lake Perris, Lake Skinner.

TABLE 5 (Continued)
southwestern willow Empidonax traillii extimus Not conserved, although population in Prado Basin and Santa Ana
flycatcher River is protected, all locations are key and this misses the locations in
Temecula River, Santa Margarita River, Murrieta Creek.
Swainson's hawk Buteo swainsoni Not conserved, because could occur anywhere and don't get
sufficient foraging habitat in central part.
western yellow-billed Coccyzus americanus occidentalis Conserved, only populations are in Santa Ana River and Prado Basin.
cuckoo
MAMMALS
San Bernardino kangaroo Dipodomys merriami parvus Not conserved, populations in Upper San Jacinto & Bautista not
rat included.
Stephens' kangaroo rat Dipodomys stephensi Conserved, however, coverage would not be expanded to populations
outside of existing HCP area.
A MPHIBIANS
California red-legged frog Rana aurora draytonii Conserved depending on 4-forest plan and Santa Rosa Plateau.
mountain yellow-legged Rana muscosa Conserved depending on 4-forest plan.

frog
southwestern arroyo toad Bufo microscaphus californicus Not conserved, habitat.
INVERTEBRATES/C RUSTACEANS
Riverside fairy shrimp Streptocephalus woottoni Not conserved, Hemet and other potential habitat not conserved.
vernal pool fairy shrimp Branchinecta lynchii Not conserved, although conserved at Santa Rosa Plateau, it is not
conserved else where.
INVERTEBRATES/INSECTS
Quino checkerspot Euphydryas editha quino Not conserved, Sage, Wilson Valley, Murrieta and Temecula not
butterfly included.
Delhi sands flower-loving Rhaphiomidas terminatus Not conserved, Mira Loma, Jurupa not included.
fly abdominalis
FISH
Santa Ana sucker Catastomus santaanae Not conserved, because the breeding areas for the fish, Temescal
Wash and San Timoteo Creek, are not included.

TABLE 5 (Continued)
P LANTS
California Orcutt grass Orcuttia californica Not conserved, doesn't include habitat where it is located (Salt Creek).
Munz's onion Allium munzii Not conserved, major populations are not captured within boundaries.
Nevin's barberry Berberis nevinii Not conserved, area does not encompass Vail Lake.
San Diego button-celery Eryngium aristulatum var. parishii Conserved, only populations are in Santa Rosa Plateau Preserve.
San Diego ambrosia Ambrosia pumila Not conserved, population at Nichols Road is not included.
San Jacinto Valley Atriplex coronata var. notatior Not conserved, San Jacinto River, Mystic Lake, or Upper Salt Creek are
crownscale not included.
Santa Ana River woollystar Eriastrum densifolium ssp. Not conserved, because floodplain along Santa Ana River is not
sanctorum included.
slender-horned spineflower Dodecahema leptoceras Not conserved, habitat and population Arroyo Seco, Kolb Creek, and
Vail Lake are not included.
spreading navarretia Navarretia fossalis Not conserved, San Jacinto River populations not conserved.
thread-leaved brodiaea Brodiaea filifolia Not conserved, Population along San Jacinto River is not included.
Vail Lake ceanothus Ceanothus ophiochilus Not conserved, Vail Lake populations are not conserved.
OTHER SPECIES
B IRDS
American bittern Botaurus lentiginosus Not conserved, because only the population in the Santa Ana River is
included. The populations in the Mystic Lake are not included
Bell's sage sparrow Amphispiza bellii bellii Not conserved, because don't get breeding locations or foraging area
in locations such as Canyon Lake, Wildomar, Murrieta, Badlands.
black swift (breeding) Cypseloides niger This species is conserved with the existing reserves if the 4-forest
management plan addresses both listed and non-listed species
identified as part of the MSHCP.
Black-crowned night-heron Nycticorax nycticorax Conserved, only breeding populations are in Santa Ana River and
Prado Basin.
Burrowing owl Speotyto cunicularia Not conserved, because don’t get sufficient grassland areas such as
Aguanga, sage, Temecula area.
cactus wren Campylorhynchus brunneicapillus Not conserved, because don't get breeding locations in patches
couesi dominated by cactus such as Anza, Badlands, Temecula area.

TABLE 5 (Continued)
California spotted owl Strix occidentalis occidentalis This species is conserved with the existing reserves if the 4-forest
California horned lark Eremophila alpestris actia Not conserved, because don’t get sufficient grassland areas such as
Aguanga, sage, Temecula area.
Cooper's hawk Accipiter cooperii Not conserved, because don't get breeding locations or foraging
habitat in woodland areas such as Temecula Creek, Murrieta Creek,
Alberhill, Canyon Lake.
double-crested cormorant Phalacrocorax auritus Conserved, only breeding populations are in Santa Ana River and
Prado Basin.
downy woodpecker Picoides pubescens Not conserved, because don't get breeding locations or foraging
ferruginous hawk Buteo regalis Not conserved, because could occur anywhere and don't get
flammulated owl Otus flammeolus This species is conserved with the existing reserves if the 4-forest
golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos Not conserved, because don’t know locations for nesting and don't
get enough foraging habitat or locations such as Badlands, Potrero,
Hemet area, and Banning.
grasshopper sparrow Ammodramus savannarum Not conserved, because don't get the grassland areas such as in Lake
Elsinore, Canyon Lake, Murrieta, Temecula.
Le Conte's thrasher Toxostoma lecontei Not conserved, because don’t get desert areas in the Sage, Aguanga
area, Wilson valley area.
Lincoln's sparrow Melospiza lincolnii This species is conserved with the existing reserves if the 4-forest
loggerhead shrike Lanius ludovicianus Not conserved, because don't get foraging habitat in grassland areas
such as Temecula Creek, Murrieta Creek, Badlands, Aguanga.
long-eared owl (breeding) Asio otus Not conserved, because don't know breeding locations, don't get
enough foraging habitat or locations such as Potrero, Temecula Creek.

TABLE 5 (Continued)
MacGillivray's warbler Oporonis tolmiea This species is conserved with the existing reserves if the 4-forest
merlin Falco columbarius Not conserved, because could occur anywhere and don't get
mountain quail Oreortyx picta This species is conserved with the existing reserves if the 4-forest
Nashville warbler Vermivora ruficapilla This species is conserved with the existing reserves if the 4-forest
northern goshawk Accipiter gentilis This species is conserved with the existing reserves if the 4-forest
northern harrier (breeding) Circus cyaneus Not conserved, because don't know breed in locations and don't get
the areas around Lake Elsinore, Temecula, Murrieta areas.
northern pygmy owl Glaucidium gnoma This species is conserved with the existing reserves if the 4-forest
osprey Pandion haliaetus Conserved, not known to breed in area. Foraging habitat is protected
in the open reservoirs such as Lake Perris, Lake Mathews, Lake
Skinner.
prairie falcon (breeding) Falco mexicanus Not conserved, because could occur anywhere and don’’t get
breeding locations or sufficient foraging habitat in areas such as
Mystic Lake and Moreno Valley/ Beaumont/Banning area.
purple martin Progne subis This species is conserved with the existing reserves if the 4-forest
rufous-crowned sparrow Aimophila ruficeps canescens Not conserved, don’’t get sufficient breeding and foraging locations
such as Alberhill, Murrieta, Wildomar, Temecula, or the habitat
linkages.
sharp-shinned hawk Accipiter striatus Not conserved, because don't know locations of breeding and don't
get sufficient winter foraging areas in the rest of the area such as
Banning, Alberhill, Homeland.

TABLE 5 (Continued)
short-eared owl (breeding) Asio flammeus Not conserved, because don't know locations of breeding, don't get
sufficient foraging habitat such as Lakeview Mts and Mystic lake.
Swainson's thrush Catharus ustulatus Not conserved, because only the population in the Santa Ana River is
included. The populations in the Temecula, Santa Margarita River and
other riparian are not included.
tree swallow Tachycineta bicolor Not conserved, because don't get breeding locations or foraging
tricolored blackbird Agelaius tricolor Not conserved, because don't know locations of breeding and don't
(colony) get past locations such as Mystic Lake and Badlands.
turkey vulture (breeding) Cathartes aura Not conserved, because don't know locations of breeding, don't get
sufficient foraging habitat such as Lakeview Mts and Badlands.
Vaux's swift Chaetura vauxi This species is conserved with the existing reserves if the 4-forest
western snowy plover Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus Not conserved, because need areas around Lake Elsinore and Mystic
lake.
western least bittern Ixobrychus exilis hesperis Not conserved, because need areas around Mystic Lake.
white-faced ibis Plegadis chihi Not conserved, because need areas around Mystic Lake.
white-tailed kite Elanus leucurus Not conserved, because don't know breeding locations in wooded or
riparian areas or foraging habitat in grassland areas such as Temecula
Creek, Murrieta Creek, Alberhill, Canyon Lake.
Williamson's sapsucker Sphyrapicus thyroideus This species is conserved with the existing reserves if the 4-forest
Wilson's warbler Wilsonia pusilla This species is conserved with the existing reserves if the 4-forest
yellow warbler Dendroica petechia brewsteri Not conserved, because don't get breeding locations or foraging
yellow-breasted chat Icteria virens auricollis Not conserved, because don't get breeding locations or foraging

TABLE 5 (Continued)
MAMMALS
Aguanga kangaroo rat Dipodomys merriami collinus Not conserved. Sage and Aguanga areas not conserved
American badger Taxidea taxus Not Conserved. Sage, Badlands, Beaumont, Banning, habitat
connections not conserved.
bobcat Lynx rufus californicus Not Conserved, habitat connections with National Forests, and other
key habitat locations, may not be conserved.
brush rabbit Sylvilagus bachmani Conserved. Adequate habitat in public lands would be conserved.
coyote Canis latrans clepticus Conserved. Species is adaptable to humans and relatively urbanized
landscapes.
Dulzura California pocket Chaeotodipus californicus femoralis Conserved. Much potential habitat in public lands in Cleveland
mouse National Forest.
long-tailed weasel Mustela frenata latirostra Not conserved. Linkages throughout planning area.
Los Angeles pocket Perognathus longimembris Not conserved. Drainages such as San Jacinto River, Temecula Creek,
mouse brevinasus San Timoteo Creek, and Reche Canyon are not conserved. Other
areas not conserved: Anza, Sage, Aguanga, Lagunga, Badlands,
Potrero Valley, Cactus Valley, Banning/Beaumont.
mountain lion Puma concolor Not conserved. Habitat linkages between Santa Ana Mountains and
Agua Tibia Mountains (etc.) would not be conserved. Badlands would
not be conserved.
northwestern San Diego Chaetodipus fallax fallax Conserved. Adequate conservation in existing reserve system.
pocket mouse
San Bernardino flying Glaucomys sabrinus californicus Conserved. Occurs in San Bernardino National Forest and subject to
squirrel Forest Plan.
San Bernardino kangaroo Dipodomys merriami parvus Not conserved. Conservation does not include Upper San Jacinto
rat River and Bautista Creek.
San Diego blacktailed Lepus californicus bennettii Not conserved. Lack conservation in Lakeview Mountains, Jurupa
jackrabbit Hills, along the San Jacinto River, Sage/Aguanga, Vail Lake, and Anza.
Habitat connections would not be conserved.
San Diego desert woodrat Neotoma lepida intermedia Potentially could be conserved under existing reserve system.

TABLE 5 (Continued)
southern grasshopper Onychomys torridus ramona Not conserved. Too little data to determine coverage.
mouse
A MPHIBIANS
coast Range Newt Taricha torosa torosa Not conserved, habitat
large blotched salamander Ensatina eschscholtzii klauberi Conserved, depending on 4-forest plan.
spadefoot toad Scaphiopus hammondii Not conserved, habitat
REPTILES
California legless lizard Anniella pulchra pulchra Not conserved, wide spread but limited habitat in current areas.
California red-sided garter Thamnophis sirtalis infernalis Not conserved, habitat is not captured.
snake
coast patch-nosed snake Salvadora hexalepis virgultea Marginally conserved based on habitat.
Coastal glossy snake Arizona elegans occidentalis Not conserved
coastal rosy boa Lichanura trivirgata roseofusca Probably conserved, sage scrub habitat and rocky chaparral.
coastal western whiptail Cnemidophorus tigris multiscutatus Not conserved, does not capture habitat.
granite night lizard Xantusia henshawi henshawi Not conserved, does not capture habitat.
granite spiny lizard Sceloporus orcuttii orcuttii Not conserved, does not capture habitat.
long-nosed leopard lizard Gambelia wislizenii Not conserved, does not capture habitat.
northern red diamond Crotalus ruber ruber Probably conserved, sage scrub habitat and rocky chaparral.
rattlesnake
orange-throated whiptail Cnemidophorus hyperythrus Not conserved, habitat is not included among boundaries.
beldingi
San Bernardino Mtn. Lampropeltis zonata parvirubra Conditionally conserved depending on 4-forest plan.
kingsnake
San Bernardino ringneck Diadophis punctatus modestus Not conserved, habitat

snake
San Diego banded gecko Coleonyx variegatus abbottii Not conserved, most areas not conserved.
San Diego horned lizard Phrynosoma coronatum blainvillei Not conserved, habitat

TABLE 5 (Continued)
San Diego Mountain Lampropeltis zonata pulchra Conditionally conserved depending on 4-forest plan.
kingsnake
San Diego ringneck snake Diadophis punctatus similis Not conserved, habitat
southern rubber boa Charina bottae umbratica Not conserved, habitat
southern sagebrush lizard Sceloporus graciosus Not conserved, habitat

vandenburgianus
southwestern pond turtle Clemmys marmorata pallida Not conserved, habitat
two-striped garter snake Thamnophis hammondii Not conserved, habitat
INVERTEBRATES/INSECTS
Santa Rosa Plateau fairy Linderiella santarosae Conserved

shrimp
FISH
arroyo chub Gila orcutti Not conserved, because only the population in the Santa Ana River is
included. The populations in the Santa Margarita, Temescal Wash,
and Temecula Creek are not included.
Santa Ana speckled dace Rhinichthys osculus Conserved, because populations in the Santa Ana River and parts of
San Jacinto River are included.
P LANTS
beautiful hulsea Hulsea vestita ssp. callicarpha Conserved, depending on 4-forest plan.
California beardtongue Penstemon californicus Conserved, depending on 4-forest plan.
California bedstraw Galium californicum ssp. primum Conserved, depending on 4-forest plan.
California black walnut Not conserved, hills east and west of Santa Rosa Plateau, Pedley,
Rubidoux.
California muhly Muhlenbergia californica Not conserved, Sage Aguanga, Estelle Mountain, Gavilan Hills and
Gavilan Plateau, La Paz Canyon, Temescal Canyon, near Prado Dam.
California spine flower Mucronea californica Not conserved, Wilderness Canyon.
chickweed oxytheca Oxytheca caryophylloides Conserved, depending on 4-forest plan.
Cleveland's bush Mimulus clevelandii Yes, because of the included sections of forest.
monkeyflower

TABLE 5 (Continued)
cliff cinquefoil Potentilla rimicola Conserved, depending on 4-forest plan.
Coulter's goldfields Lasthenia glabrata ssp. coulteri Not conserved, Mystic Lake, alkali flats between Lake Elsinore and
Alberhill, and San Jacinto River.
Coulter's matilija poppy Romneya coulteri Not conserved, Alberhill, Lake Skinner, Railroad Canyon, Murrieta, Hot
Springs, Temescal Canyon.
Coulter's saltbush Atriplex coulteri Not conserved, Murrieta area.
Davidson's saltscale Atriplex serenana var. davidsonii Not conserved, Salt Creek and San Jacinto River.
Engelmann oak Quercus engelmannii Not conserved, Gavilan Hills, and surrounding Santa Rosa Plateau.
Fish's milkwort Polygala cornuta var. fishiae Not conserved, Temecula Canyon and Cole Canyon.
graceful tarplant Holocarpha virgata ssp. elongata Not conserved, Cherry St. (Temecula) and Poly Butte.
Hall's monardella Monardella macrantha ssp. hallii Yes, habitat captured within Cahuilla Mountain.
heart-leaved pitcher sage Lepechinia cardiophylla Not conserved, Alberhill and Lake Elsinore.
intermediate mariposa lily Calochortus weedii var. intermedius Not conserved, Crown Valley and west of Vail Lake also NW of Santa
Rosa Plateau Preserve.
Jaeger's milk-vetch Astragalus pachypus var. jaegeri Not conserved, Vail Lake, Aguanga Valley, Sage, Temecula Canyon,
Castile Canyon and the canyon west of Portrero Creek.
Johnston's rock cress Arabis johnstonii Conserved, depending on 4-forest plan.
lemon lily Lilium parryi Conserved, depending on 4-forest plan.
little mousetail Myosurus minimus ssp. apus Not conserved, Salt Creek.
long-spined spineflower Chorizanthe polygonoides var. Not conserved, key population surrounding Vail Lake or population
longispina surrounding Lake Mathews.
many-stemmed dudleya Dudleya multicaulis Not conserved, Key population at Temescal Valley and Gavilan Hills.
Mojave tarplant Hemizonia mohavensis Conserved, all known populations in National Forest.
Munz's mariposa lily Calochortus palmeri var. munzii Conserved, depending on 4-forest plan.
ocellated Humboldt lily Lilium humboldtii ssp. ocellatum Conserved, depending on 4-forest plan.
Orcutt's brodiaea Brodiaea orcuttii Conserved, key population on Santa Rosa Plateau Preserve.

TABLE 5 (Continued)
Palmer's grapplinghook Harpagonella palmeri var. palmeri Not conserved, Lake Skinner, Vail Lake, Hartford Springs Park,
Temescal Canyon, Paloma Valley, Good Hope, RecheCanyon, Alberhill
and Elsinore Peak.
Palomar monkeyflower Mimulus diffusus Not conserved, French Valley, Good Hope, Reche Canyon, Alberhill
Parish's brittlescale Atriplex parishii Not conserved, Salt Creek and Winchester Valley.
Parish's meadowfoam Limnanthes gracilis var. parishii Yes, located within the Santa Rosa Plateau Preserve.
Parry's spineflower Chorizanthe parryi var. parryi Not conserved, Aguanga, Anza Valley, Hartford Springs Park, Cactus
Valley, Gavilan Peak, Rawson Canyon, Lakeview Mountains, Reche
Canyon Summit, Banning, Crown Valley, Estelle Mountain, Vail Lake,
Valle Vista, Frogback Hills, and Gilman Hot Springs Road.
Payson's jewelflower Caulanthus simulans Not conserved, Anza Valley, Sage, Aguanga, Black Hills, French Valley,
Portola Road, Lake Elsinore, Meadow Brook, Wildomar, Beaumont,
Banning, Beaumont, Moreno Valley, Lakeview Mountains.
peninsular spineflower Chorizanthe leptotheca Not conserved, Temecula Canyon, Temescal River Valley, Gavilan
Plateau, Hemet, Kolb Creek, Vail Lake, Good Hope, and Valle Vista.
Plummer's mariposa lily Calochortus plummerae Not conserved, Cali Mesa, Badlands, Banning Canyon all of which
contain older populations that should be verified.
prostrate spineflower Chorizanthe procumbens Not conserved, but need to verify reports from Sedco Hills, Moreno
Valley and Anza; also reported from winchester.
Rainbow manzanita Arctostaphylos rainbowensis Not conserved, Gavilan Mountain, Temecula, Wildomar, Margarita Peak
and Pechanga areas.
San Jacinto Mountains Galium angustifolium ssp. jacinticum Conserved, depending on 4-forest plan.
bedstraw
San Miguel savory Satureja chandleri Conserved, depending on 4-forest plan.
shaggy-haired alumroot Huechera hirsuitissima Conserved, depending on 4-forest plan.
small-flowered microseris Microseris douglasii var. Not conserved, Alberhill, Lake Mathews, Paloma Valley, Vail Lake, and
platycharpha Lake Skinner.
small-flowered morning Convolvulus simulans Not conserved, Vail Lake, Temescal Canyon, Lake Skinner, Little Valley,
glory Murrieta, Paloma Valley, Tres Cerritos Hills, Salt Creek, San Jacinto
River.
smooth tarplant Hemizonia pungens ssp. laevis Not conserved, San Jacinto River, Salt Creek, Tres Cerritos Hills,
Temecula Creek.

TABLE 5 (Continued)
Southern California black Juglans californica var. californica Not conserved, hills east and west of Santa Rosa Plateau, Pedley,
walnut Rubidoux.
sticky-leaved dudleya Dudleya viscida Conserved, depending on 4-forest plan.
vernal barley Hordeum intercedens Not conserved, San Jacinto River and Salt Creek.
Wright's trichocoronis Trichocoronis wrightii var. wrightii Not conserved, San Jacinto River.
4.6 BIOLOGICAL AND LAND USE CONSIDERATIONS FOR

ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT
As described in Section 3.0 of this document, a variety of biological, land use and economic
considerations have been applied in development of the range of alternatives discussed in
this section. Biological and land use considerations are summarized in this section. To
facilitate review, the discussion in this section is organized around the geographic locations
defined by the conservation analysis units. The conservation analysis units were depicted in
the March 9, 2000 Technical Memorandum provided previously to the MSHCP Advisory
Committee. For reference purposes, a map illustrating the conservation analysis units is
presented in Figure 20 of this document.
As noted in the March 9, 2000 Technical Memorandum, the conservation analysis units focus
on areas not included within the existing reserves. Conservation within the existing reserves
is contemplated under all of the alternatives discussed in this document. Please refer to the
April 2000 Description of Existing Reserves document previously distributed to the MSHCP
Advisory Committee for additional information regarding the existing reserves.

SANTA ANA RIVER/PRADO BASIN
Biological Considerations
| Focus of conservation under Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 is maintenance and management

of existing reserves for the benefit of species considered for conservation in the
MSHCP. Species considered for conservation have a wide variety of needs, including
maintenance and enhancement of habitat, water quality, hydrologic functions, cover
and ability for movement. Augmenting existing reserves would be desirable, including
linkages along the Santa Ana River outside the MSHCP study area.
| Focus species toward which management efforts should be directed include

southwestern willow flycatcher, least Bell’s vireo, western yellow-billed cuckoo, Santa
Ana sucker, Santa Ana River woolly star, and slender-horned spineflower. This area
also supports a wide variety of other species as described in the March 9, 2000
Technical Memorandum, including wetland bird species, raptors (breeding and
wintering), Los Angeles pocket mouse and larger mammals.
Land Use Considerations
| The Santa Ana River is abutted by existing development within the MSHCP study area.
| Although the river area is surrounded by existing development to the north and south,
a large portion of the land within the 100-year floodplain boundaries is owned and
managed by several public agencies. The upper reaches of the river within Riverside
County is managed by the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation
District. Several areas are owned and managed by the Riverside County Regional
Parks and Open Space District as well as the California Department of Fish and
Game and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Other private, recreational based, entities
own and/or operate businesses within the river area.
| The upper section of the Santa Ana River is designated Open Space - Recreational
intermixed with the County’s water course overlay. The lower portions of the Santa Ana
River near the Prado Basin are largely covered by the County’s Watercourse Overlay
intermixed with Open Space - Recreation designations.

TEMESCAL WASH/CHINO HILLS LINKAGE
| Focus of conservation under Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 is maintenance of a continuous

linkage along Temescal Wash, including both wetland and upland components, from
Lee Lake to the Santa Ana River. Channelization north of Indiana Avenue significantly
constrains the linkage in this area, although maintenance of the connection may
contribute to the function of the wash as a juvenile nursery for Santa Ana River fish
species. Under Alternative 1, substantial upland habitat, generally east of the wash,
is incorporated in the conservation scenario, augmenting conservation between Lake
Mathews – Estelle Mountain Reserve and providing for a more biologically robust
reserve design in this area. Species considered for conservation in this area have a
wide variety of needs including maintenance and enhancement of habitat,
incorporation of wetland and upland components in the reserve design, and ability for
movement.
| Focal species along Temescal Wash toward which conservation efforts should be
directed include least Bell’s vireo, Stephens’ kangaroo rat, and possibly Los Angeles
pocket mouse (no records exist but suitable habitat is present). Incorporation of
additional upland habitat under Alternative 1 would contribute to conservation of
species such as cactus wren, California gnatcatcher, Cooper’s hawk, golden eagle
(associated with linkages to Chino Hills), black-tailed jackrabbit, mountain lion and
several reptile and plant species. This area also supports a wide variety of other
species as described in the March 9, 2000 Technical Memorandum.
| Maintenance of linkages from the Cleveland National Forest north to the Santa Ana
River/Prado Basin as well as to Chino Hills State Park is a consideration. Linkage
opportunities may be greater outside the MSHCP study area, such as via Coal
Canyon. Within the study area, it is desirable to consider linkages from the National
Forest to the river via Fresno Canyon and via an unnamed drainage at the western
boundary of the MSHCP study area.
| The Department of Forestry and Resource Management, University of California,

Berkeley, sponsored research addressing mountain lion movement within Orange
County. Part of this effort culminated in the June 1, 1993 Paul Beier and Reginald
Barrett Cougar in the Santa Ana Mountain Range, California, report. This report was
a component of the Orange County Cooperative Mountain Lion Study. Movement of

mountain lions from the Santa Ana Mountains in the Cleveland National Forest to the
Chino Hills northeast of Anaheim was documented. The use of Coal Canyon, the
drainage immediately west of the Riverside County line, was utilized by mountain lions
during this study. Additional north-south drainages feeding into the Coal Canyon
system were also noted as passages used by mountain lions within the study group.
| Collier marsh is a consideration for incorporation in the reserve design in this area.
| The northern reach of Temescal Wash is surrounded by existing development

associated with the Cities of Norco and Corona. Several segments of the wash are
concrete lined within these urban areas.
| Within the vicinity of Lee Lake, several mining operations are located alongside the
wash area.
| Throughout the southern half of the wash alignment, industrial, public service and
commercial developments are present.
| The Temescal Wash corridor is comprised of a mixture of land use designations as

currently shown on the County’s General Plan. The lower wash area is comprised of
Industrial/Business Park and Special Planning Area land use designations. The
County’s Watercourse Overlay is intermittent throughout the drainage system. Once
the wash enters into the urban areas associated with Corona and Norco, adjacent land
is largely designated Commercial and Industrial.
| Green River Meadow. This specific plan is located near the Santa Ana River between
the Orange County line and SR 71. This specific plan encompasses 412 acres and
would include a mixture of residential, commercial and recreational development.
| Wild Rose. This specific plan is located along both sides of I-15 immediately north of
the Temescal Canyon Road exit. This plan includes a mixture of residential and public
facility uses.
| Warm Springs Glen. Warm Springs Glen is located west of 1-15 east of the Cleveland
National Forest and north of Glen Ivy Hot Springs. This specific plan would incorporate
a mixture of residential and commercial development.

| Temescal Station. This specific plan is located east of I-15, west of Temescal Canyon
Road, north or Weirick Road and south of Cajalco Road. The project would consist of
112 acres of industrial and commercial development.
LAKE MATHEWS – ESTELLE MOUNTAIN TO CLEVELAND NATIONAL FOREST
| Focus of conservation under Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 is maintaining a linkage

connecting the Lake Mathews – Estelle Mountain Reserve areas to Cleveland National
Forest. A variety of linkage options are available, all of them constrained. Provision
of as many linkages as possible is desirable. Optional linkage locations include Indian
Truck Trail, Indian Canyon, Horsethief Canyon, and Bedford Canyon. For purposes of
analysis, an optional linkage location at Bedford Canyon is not included in Alternatives
2 and 3.
| Species likely to benefit from provision of linkage(s) in this area include mountain lion
(potential), bobcat, and coyote, as well as a variety of smaller species. Maintenance
of populations of these predators as part of the overall reserve design may be
important to maintaining populations of other sensitive species by controlling species
that predate on those species (i.e., so-called ?mesopredators”). Mountain quail may
also be present in the potential linkage areas.
| Munz’s onion, a listed plant species, may be present within some of the optional
linkage areas and could be considered in the linkage design.
Four possible linkages have been explored for a possible connection between the Cleveland
National Forest and the Lake Mathews/Estelle Mountain Reserve. These four linkages
options include Bedford Canyon, Indian Truck Trail, Indian Canyon and Horsethief Canyon.
Land use considerations for these linkages are summarized below.
BEDFORD CANYON LINKAGE
| This linkage area is surrounded by existing agriculture, specifically citrus orchards as

well as residential development.

| Bedford Canyon is located within an area designated with a mixture of Agricultural,
Low Density Residential and Medium Density Residential. Several areas immediately
east of I-15 are designated with the County’s Water Course Overlay.
| Wild Rose. The Wild Rose specific plan area is located immediately east and west
of I-15 within the vicinity of Bedford Canyon.
I NDIAN TRUCK TRAIL
| This area has been noted for an undercrossing structure which has allowed for wildlife
passage under I-15.
| This area is also undergoing plans for development of which a potential wildlife
connection has been taken into consideration.
| The area is designated by a mixture of Commercial, Mixed Use, Low Density

Residential, Medium Density Residential and Public Facilities.
| Sycamore Creek. This specific plan is located within the Indian Truck Trail area, west
of I-15 and would consists of a mixture of residential and commercial land uses. This
specific plan has been designed to allow for a wildlife movement corridor from the
Cleveland National Forest to the Indian Truck Trail undercrossing. This movement
corridor links up with the Lake Mathews/Estelle Mountain Reserve east of the freeway.
I NDIAN CANYON
| Land uses located within the alluvial plain of the north facing alluvial plain include citrus
groves, sporadic homesteads and a camp ground establishment.
| I-15 crosses over Indian Canyon Creek via two bridges, forming substantial
undercrossing passages.
| A majority of the land adjacent to the creek between the Cleveland National Forest and
I-15 is designated Commercial.
Although the Sycamore Canyon Specific Plan is located immediately northwest of the
creek area, no specific plans are known to be located within this potential linkage area.

HORSETHIEF CANYON
| The portion of Horsethief Canyon located outside of the Cleveland National Forest and
within the alluvial fan, has been developed and consists of avacado and citrus groves,
sporadic ranchettes and a major housing development.
| The portion of Horsethief Canyon located near the alluvial fan area (potential wildlife
linkage) consists of a mixture of Very Low Density Residential, Low Density
Residential and Open Space - Recreational. The area along I-15 is largely designated
Commercial north of the Specific Plan boundary.
| Horsethief Canyon. This specific plan is located southwest of I-15 on Horsethief

Canyon Road and approximately 13 miles south of the City of Corona. This specific
plan would consist of 978 acres including residential and commercial development.
GAVILAN HILLS/GAVILAN PLATEAU
| Focus of conservation under Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 is maintaining an upland scrub

connection from Meadowbrook to Lake Mathews, including linking existing reserve
areas such as North Peak, Steele Peak, Harford Springs, Motte-Rimrock and BLM
lands. An additional focus is conservation of a variety of sensitive plant species. Both
the upland scrub and plant conservation areas may include discontiguous habitat
patches.
| Focus animal species in this area toward which conservation efforts should be directed
include California gnatcatcher, Bell’s sage sparrow, burrowing owl, cactus wren, and
Stephens’ kangaroo rat. An historic location for quino checkerspot butterfly also
occurs in this area and this area should be reviewed in the context of the quino
recovery plan when it is available. This area also supports a wide variety of other
species as described in the March 9, 2000 Technical Memorandum.
| Focus plant species in this area toward which conservation efforts should be directed
include Munz’s onion, many-stemmed dudleya, smooth tarplant, little mousetail,
Coulter’s matilija poppy and Engelmann oak. A variety of other plant species are also
present in this area as described in the March 9, 2000 Technical Memorandum.

| The presence of Harford Springs Park/Reserve, North Peak Conservation Bank, Motte
Rimrock Reserve, unnamed RCHCA lands and several BLM parcels were taken into
consideration as these areas form the building blocks on which to compile a potential
reserve. These reserve areas are managed by the County’s Regional Park and Open
Space District, private conservation bank management teams, UC Riverside, the
RCHCA and BLM respectively.
| A large portion of the land surrounding the Lake Mathews/Estelle Mountain Reserve
consists of Rural Residential designations. A portion of the North Peak development
consists of Open Space - Multi-Purpose while the remaining portion consists of a
mixture of Residential and Mixed Use development designations. Several areas are
also designated Agricultural and Very Low Density Residential development.
| Three specific plans are located within this area, however detailed information is not
known at this time. It is assumed that as the MSHCP moves forward, information
pertaining to these specific plans may need to be attained.
LA SIERRA HILLS
| Focus of conservation under Alternative 1 is conservation of intact areas of upland

scrub habitat connecting to Lake Mathews, providing biologically a more robust
reserve design than would occur under the other alternatives. This area is not
considered to be conserved under Alternatives 2 and 3.
| No specific focus for species conservation in this area although populations of

California gnatcatcher and Stephens’ kangaroo rat occur in this area. This area,
together with Norco Hills and Jurupa Mountains, may provide a stepping stone or
archipelago, linkage for the gnatcatcher contributing to conservation of this species,
both within the MSHCP study area and in San Bernardino County.
| The Lake Mathews/Estelle Mountain Reserve is located to the south of this geographic
area.

| The cities of Corona and Norco are located immediately north and west of this area;
therefore northern and western edges of this area are surrounded by existing
development.
| A large portion of this area is designated Open Space - Multi-Purpose. Other areas
are designated Agriculture, Rural - Mountainous and Low Density Residential.
| Green Farms. This specific plan is located southeast of McKinley Street and Magnolia
Avenue and is bisected by the Riverside Canal. This plan consists of 303 total acres
including a mixture of residential, commercial and recreational development.
| The Sierra Collection. This specific plan is located north of El Sobrante Road, east of
La Sierra Avenue and north of Lake Mathews. This 424 acre development is planned
to consist of residential and recreational land uses.
| Lakehills Estates. This planned development is southwest of La Sierra Avenue

between Riverside and Lake Mathews. This development consists of approximately
1,680 acres consisting of a mixture of residential, commercial, public facility and
recreational development.
NORCO HILLS

grassland and scrub habitat, generally isolated from other habitat areas by existing
urban development. Potential upland or wetland connections to the Santa Ana River
are being considered but have not been explored at this time. This area is not
considered to be conserved under Alternatives 2 and 3.
| No specific focus for species conservation in this area, although the comments
provided above for La Sierra Hills would apply to this area.
| The area is surrounded by existing development associated with the Cities of

Riverside and Norco

| The City of Norco has designated the western portion of these hills as Rural
Mountainous. The City of Riverside has designated the eastern portion as Medium
Density Residential.
| Although this area is located entirely within incorporated cities, the western portion is
currently being planned for development. The Norco Hills Ranch Specific Plan
encompasses the area along the west base of the Norco Hills and would consist of a
large-lot/equestrian residential community. Several public facilities and parks would
be constructed in conjunction with this specific plan. The existing golf course would
also encompass a portion of this development.
JURUPA MOUNTAINS

scrub habitat, generally isolated from other habitat areas within the MSHCP study area
by existing urban development but connected to existing habitat areas offsite to the
north in San Bernardino County. Potential connections to the Jurupa Hills and the
Santa Ana River are being considered but have not been explored at this time. This
area is not considered to be conserved under Alternatives 2 and 3.
| Scattered locations for California gnatcatcher are known from this area and
conservation in this area may contribute to gnatcatcher conservation outside the
MSHCP study area. No other specific focus for species conservation in this area.
| The unincorporated communities of Rubidoux, Glen Avon and Mira Loma surround the
southern end of the Jurupa Mountains. These communities consist of a mixture of
commercial, residential and industrial land uses; therefore, southern borders of this
potential reserve area are developed.
| Many industrial distribution facilities centered around the SR60/I-15 corridors, are
located immediately west of this area.
| The BLM owns and manages two distinct parcels within this area.

| An area, located immediately north of the Pedley Road/SR 60 intersection is
designated Public Facilities in the County’s General Plan. This area encompasses the
Stringfellow Acid Pits Hazardous Waste Site.
| Other existing land use designations include Open Space - Mineral Resources, Rural -
Mountainous and several Low to Medium Density Residential designations.
| Rio Vista. The Rio Vista specific plan area is located north of SR60, east of
Armstrong Road and west of Rubidoux. This specific plan would consist of 918 acres
of residential and commercial development.
SATELLITE RESERVES FOR DELHI FLY
| Focus of conservation under Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 is conservation of Delhi Sands

flower-loving fly within the Mira Loma recovery unit as identified by the Recovery Plan
for this species. Conservation is likely to occur in the form of discontiguous habitat
patches, although potential habitat connections are being explored.
| The area surrounding Delhi fly habitat is highly developed and consists of
transportation and distribution facilities surrounding the I-15/SR60 junction.
| Consistent with existing land uses, the area is largely designated as Industrial. As
evident by the existing land use designation and recent development within the area,
it is envisioned that this area would become a regional distribution hub.
| A portion of the area located immediately west of the I-15/SR60 intersection is

dominated by Commercial land use designations.
No specific plans have been approved or are currently pending within this area.

SYCAMORE CANYON TO SANTA ANA RIVER CONNECTION
| Focus of conservation under Alternative 1 is maintaining a connection between

Sycamore Canyon/Box Springs to the Santa Ana River. All linkage options are
constrained in this area by existing urban development in the City of Riverside.
Options include a connection from Box Springs Reserve to the Santa Ana River via
Springbrook Wash, a connection that could also be extended easterly to Reche
Canyon. A connection between Box Springs and Sycamore Canyon reserves could
occur in the vicinity of Central Avenue with a couple of options in this area. A
connection from Sycamore Canyon Reserve to the Santa Ana River could occur along
Tequesquite Arroyo. If this alternative is selected for further consideration, these
linkage options would need to be reviewed in more detail. These linkages are not
assumed to be conserved under Alternatives 2 and 3.
| No specific focus for species conservation in this area. However, as with the Lake
Mathews to Cleveland National Forest linkage, maintenance of populations of mammal
predators that might use such connections may be important to maintaining
populations of other sensitive species. Due to constraints related to existing urban
development in this area, only more common mammal predators such as coyotes and
foxes are likely to be present. Some linkage value for gnatcatchers may also be
offered by this connection.
As documented in the description of each reserve alternative in Section 4.1-4.6, connection

from the Sycamore Canyon Reserve to the Santa Ana River may occur several ways.
SPRINGBROOK WASH (VIA BOX SPRINGS RESERVE).
| A potential connection between Sycamore Canyon and Box Springs is highly

constrained due to existing development surrounding the connection area.
| In order to assist in the development of potential connection corridors, information

supplied to the MSHCP team by Len Nunney, Department of Biology, UC
Riverside/Center for Conservation Biology was utilized. This information provided a

map of existing developed areas and a sketch of potential habitat corridor
connections.
| Once the connection was made from Sycamore Canyon to Box Springs, the
opportunities along Springbrook Wash were explored for connection to the Santa Ana
River. The area surrounding lower Springbrook Wash is surrounded by development;
portions of this area are concrete-lined. Within the Box Springs Reserve, Springbrook
Wash is a natural, north-flowing drainage.
| Several recreational-open space designations are located between Sycamore Canyon

and Box Springs. Aside from these Open Space designations, several High Density
Residential land use designations are scattered throughout this potential linkage area.
| Low Density Residential, Commercial, and Industrial land use designations are located
along the Springbrook Wash corridor between the Box Springs Reserve and the Santa
Ana River.
No county-based specific plans are located along either of these connection alignments.
Specific plans associated with the City of Riverside may be in the planning or implementation
phases. Therefore, additional investigation may be necessary in the future.
SYCAMORE CANYON /TEQUESQUITE ARROYO.
| A majority of the upper Sycamore Canyon area is surrounded by open space. Once
this drainage crosses SR91, it is largely surrounded by existing medium to high density
residential development.
| A majority of the land use designations surrounding Sycamore Canyon mirror the
existing land uses; Open Space - Recreational designations. Between SR91 and the
Santa Ana River, High Density Residential, Business and Commercial land uses
designations dominate this area of central Riverside.
There are no specific plans associated with the county planning process proposed within this
area; therefore, specific plans were not considered within this linkage corridor. Specific
plans may exist within the City of Riverside. Therefore, additional research may be necessary
in the future.

BOX SPRINGS RESERVE TO BADLANDS LINKAGE.
| This area is comprised of rural residential and agricultural land uses intermixed by
undeveloped steeply sloping areas.
| The residents and land owners within this area have been approached in the past
regarding participation in a land sale or donation to benefit the creation of a wildlife
corridor within this area. The Riverside Land Conservancy has also been working with
these landowners in an attempt to create a wildlife corridor within this area.
| The entire area is designated Rural-Mountainous.
No specific plans are currently being planned or implemented within this area.
BADLANDS/POTRERO VALLEY CORE
| The November 1999 Dudek & Associates DeAnza Cycle Park Habitat Evaluation
Report was utilized during the development of this potential core reserve design. This
report documented the existence of the least Bell’s vireo as well as many larger
mammals, including the American badger, within this area.
| Focus of conservation under Alternative 1 is maintaining a large core habitat area

including Potrero Valley, San Timoteo Creek, Reche Canyon and the remainder of the
Badlands. This area represents one of the largest intact habitat core areas in the
eastern portion of the MSHCP study area and is characterized by a mosaic of upland
and wetland habitats that contribute to species diversity in this area. Alternative 1
would represent a biologically robust reserve design in this area. Under Alternative 2,
only the Potrero Valley, San Timoteo Creek, Reche Canyon and Lambs Canyon Road
areas would be conserved. Under Alternative 3, only the Potrero Valley and San
Timoteo Creek areas would be conserved. The Alternatives 2 and 3 conservation
scenarios would focus primarily on individual species conservation.

| This is an important regional habitat connection between San Bernardino National
Forest areas within the MSHCP study area and existing habitat blocks in San
Bernardino County to the north.
| The San Timoteo Creek area is a focus of a current conservation planning process that
should be considered in overall MSHCP planning.
| Focus species under Alternative 1 include golden eagle, cactus wren, least Bell’s
vireo, tricolored blackbird, black-tailed jackrabbit, Los Angeles pocket mouse,
Stephens’ kangaroo rat, San Bernardino kangaroo rat (potential), and mountain lion.
This area also supports a wide variety of other species as described in the March 9,
2000 Technical Memorandum including raptors and other mammals.
| Focus species under Alternatives 2 and 3 include the listed, proposed and strong
candidate species in this area: Stephens’ kangaroo rat, least Bell’s vireo, cactus wren
and tricolored blackbird.
| This area is largely undeveloped.
| This area is dominated by steeply sloping geography. The existence of areas

dominated by 25% or greater slopes eliminates development potential within a large
portion of this area.
| The location of the Norton Younglove Reserve toward the northern end of this area as
well as the San Bernardino National Forest to the south serve as building blocks for a
potential core reserve.
| Several BLM parcels are located near the southern end of this area. The Potrero area
is designated as a BLM Area of Critical Environmental Concern.
| Aside from areas designated as Open space - Multi Purpose (National Forest, Norton
Younglove Reserve areas), a large majority of the Badlands area has been designated
as Rural - Mountainous.

| Southern reaches of the City of Beaumont extend into the Badlands. This area has
been designated Very Low Density Residential.
| As stated above, the area surrounding Potrero has been designated an Area of
Critical Environmental Concern by the BLM.
| Oak Valley. The Oak Valley Specific Plan is located northwest of the junction of I-10
and SR60 and east of San Timoteo Canyon Road. This specific plan encompasses
6,725 acres and would include residential, commercial, business park, golf and public
facilities uses.
BADLANDS/SAN BERNARDINO NATIONAL FOREST LINKAGE
| Focus of conservation under Alternative 1 is connections from the Badlands to San

Bernardino National Forest. All linkage options within the MSHCP study area are
constrained in this area. Optional linkage locations include a wetland linkage along
Noble Creek and a combined wetland and upland linkage in the Cherry Valley area.
Better linkage options may exist east of the MSHCP study area (e.g., along San
Gorgonio River and Hathaway within the MSHCP Creek). If this alternative is selected
for further study, these linkage options would need to be evaluated in greater detail.
No linkages in this area are anticipated under Alternatives 2 and 3.
| No specific focus for species conservation in this area. However, as with the Lake
Mathews to Cleveland National Forest linkage, maintenance of populations of large
mammal predators that might use such connections may be important to maintaining
populations of other sensitive species.
One option for this linkage component involves provision of an upland connection between the
Badlands and San Bernardino National Forest via the Cherry Valley area. A second option
would be to provide for a riparian linkage to the San Bernardino National Forest via Noble
Creek.

CHERRY VALLEY.
| This area is surrounded by urban and rural residential development to the north and
south.
| A BLM parcel is located near the northeast corner of the City of Beaumont. This parcel
serves as a building block for a linkage from the Badlands to the San Bernardino
National Forest.
| The linkage would follow and are designated as Open Space - Recreational west of
I-10. This Open Space - Recreational designation continues east of I-10 where the
potential linkage would traverse an area designated as Low Density Residential. Rural
Residential and Rural - Mountainous designations encompass land further east
between Low Density designations and the San Bernardino National Forest.
No County Specific Plans are located within this potential linkage area. It is understood that
as this process moves forward, additional coordination with the Cities would be necessary
as there may be development proposals which could have an impact on a potential preserve
linkage within this area.
NOBLE CREEK.
| Portions of this drainage are in a natural state while segments have undergone
concrete lining or earthen structure improvements. This riparian system traverses the
City of Beaumont and is largely surrounded by urban land uses.
| A BLM parcel is located adjacent to the northeast corner of the City of Beaumont. This
parcel serves as a building block from the Badlands to the San Bernardino National
Forest.
| Within the unincorporated County area, Noble Creek is designated as an Open

Space-Recreation area. Once this drainage crosses I-10, agricultural designations
intermixed with Medium and High Density Residential land uses dominate the
drainage area. Between the BLM parcel located northeast of the City of Beaumont
and the San Bernardino National Forest, Rural - Mountainous and Agricultural
designations are located.

There are no Specific Plans within the unincorporated area which were utilized during this
alternatives development process. As this process moves forward, coordination with the City
of Beaumont may be necessary as development proposals within city boundaries may be
applicable to this planning process.
SAN GORGONIO RIVER
| Focus of conservation under Alternatives 1,2 and 3 is maintaining the San Gorgonio
River connection from the MSHCP study area to the Coachella Valley multi-species
planning area. The river provides a sand source for conservation of species in the
Coachella Valley.
| No specific focus for species conservation in this area.
| Coordination with the Bill Havert, Executive Director, Coachella Valley Mountains
Conservancy took place during the summer of 2000. Meetings regarding the
Coachella Valley HCP helped identify the biological and land use relationship between
the Western Riverside County MSHCP and the Coachella Valley HCP.
| The San Gorgonio River flows from the east side of the San Bernardino Mountains to
the Coachella Valley. This river corridor passes through Morongo Indian lands.
Therefore, due to the sovereignty of these lands, a complete connection to the
Coachella Valley is not visually depicted on the alternatives map.
| The San Gorgonio River drainage enters into the City of Banning, designations include
Agriculture, Low Density Residential, Industrial/Business Park and Special Planning
Area.
| The portion of the river traversing the Morongo Indian lands has been designated
Rural-Mountainous according to the existing County General Plan.

| Highland Springs. The Highland Springs Specific Plan is located north of Brookside
Avenue, east of Bellflower Avenue and southeast of the BLM parcel mentioned above.
This specific plan would result in over 1,100 acres of residential and recreational
development.
BANNING/IDYLLWILD HIGHWAY
| Focus of conservation in this area under Alternative 1 is maintaining the MSHCP study
area portion of the linkage between the northern and southern units of the San
Bernardino National Forest. Other linkage opportunities are present outside the
MSHCP study area toward Cabazon. Existing intact blocks of scrub habitat should
contribute to the linkage design in this area. This linkage is not assumed to be
conserved under Alternatives 2 and 3.
| Focal species in this area include a wide variety of reptile species, a range of mammal
species, including Los Angeles pocket mouse, Bell’s sage sparrow, and mountain
quail.
| Several sections of land within this focused area are owned by the Morongo Indians.
| The upper reaches of this potential preserve area encompass a BLM parcel
immediately north of the San Bernardino National Forest.
| Rural - Mountainous designations make up a majority of the land within this focus area
with a small portion consisting of Low Density Residential.
No specific plan information was considered during the development of this potential preserve
design as no specific plans are currently being planned for this area.

SAN JACINTO RIVER–MIDDLE REACH
| Focus of conservation under Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 is maintaining sufficient Willow

soils within the San Jacinto River floodplain to support self-sustaining sensitive plant
populations, including maintenance of appropriate hydrology to support these species.
An additional conservation focus is maintaining and enhancing the linkage value of this
portion of the San Jacinto River for both wildlife movement and live-in habitat.
| Focus species along this portion of the San Jacinto River toward which conservation
efforts should be directed include San Jacinto Valley crownscale, thread-leaved
brodiaea, spreading navarretia, smooth tarplant, Coulter’s goldfields, and Wright’s
trichocoronis. This area also supports a wide variety of other species as described
in the March 9, 2000 Technical Memorandum.
| The San Jacinto River has been modified in many areas. A majority of the land
associated with the 100-year floodplain supports agriculture.
| The San Jacinto River Flood Control Project, sponsored by the Riverside County Flood
Control and Water Conservation District, encompasses a large portion of this planning
area. Materials such as preliminary design and biological resource data submitted by
the Flood Control District have been provided to the MSHCP consultant.
| A majority of the river area is designated as Open Space - Multi-Purpose. Abutting

this designation within the 100-year floodplain, lands are designated as Low - Density
Residential. Near the junction with I-215, the river floodplain is designated as Open
Space - Recreational, Industrial, Mixed Use and Public Facilities.
| Stoneridge. Stoneridge is located south of Ramona Expressway and north of Nuevo

Road. This area encompasses 605 acres and would involve the construction of
residential dwelling units.

| Priessman. Priessman is located south of Ramona Expressway, north of Nuevo Road
and east of Foothill Avenue. The specific plan encompasses over 1,100 acres and
would largely consist of a residential development intermixed with commercial, park,
golf and public facilities uses.
| Rancho Nuevo. The Rancho Nuevo specific plan straddles the San Jacinto River
immediately south of Ramona Expressway and the Lake Perris State Recreation area.
| Lake Nuevo Village. The Specific Plan would be located immediately southwest of the
Rancho Nuevo Specific Plan.
MYSTIC LAKE /LINK TO BADLANDS
| Focus of conservation under Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 is maintaining habitat within Mystic

Lake in a configuration compatible with the San Jacinto Wildlife Area. A conservation
scenario that generally follows the existing floodplain in this area would support
achievement of MSHCP conservation goals.
| A linkage under Gilman Springs Road may facilitate wildlife movement from Mystic
Lake/San Jacinto Wildlife Area to the Badlands area.
| Focus species associated with Mystic Lake toward which conservation efforts should
be directed include peregrine falcon, American bittern, western snowy plover,
tricolored blackbird, coastal cactus wren, mountain plover and a wide variety of raptors
and wetland species such as black-crowned night heron, white-faced ibis (breeding),
merlin, northern harrier. San Jacinto Valley crownscale, a listed plant species, is also
known from this area.
| The Mystic Lake area is surrounded by the Lake Perris State Recreation area to the
west, the San Jacinto Wildlife Refuge to the south and the steeply sloping Badlands
area to the east.

| Information supplied by the Friends of the Northern San Jacinto Valley relating to the
conservation value of the Mystic Lake area has been incorporated into the MSHCP
data base.
| A majority of the Mystic Lake area is comprised of agricultural operations consistent

with the County General Plan designation.
LAKEVIEW MOUNTAINS
| Focus of conservation under Alternatives 1 and 2 is conservation of intact areas of

upland scrub habitat, generally isolated from other habitat areas in the MSHCP study
area by existing urban development. Potential connections to the Double Butte area
and to vernal pool areas in the vicinity of Warren Road and Stetson Avenue may exist
but have not been explored at this time and are not considered included in Alternatives
1 and 2. This area is not considered to be conserved under Alternative 3.
| Focus species associated with the Lakeview Mountains toward which conservation
areas should be directed include burrowing owl, coastal cactus wren, and golden
eagle. A variety of other bird, mammal and reptile species are known from this area
as described in the March 9, 2000 Technical Memorandum.
| A large portion of these mountainous areas consist of steeply sloping topography.
| The majority of this area consists of Rural Residential and Rural - Mountainous land
use designations.
| The surrounding lowland areas are designated as Very Low Density Residential land
uses.
| Sky Mesa. The Sky Mesa Specific Plan is located north of the community of
Homeland and northwest of Juniper Flats Road. The specific plan would include large
lot/rural residential development.

ESTELLE MOUNTAIN/MEADOWBROOK
| Focus of conservation under Alternative 1 is on providing for conservation of Temescal

Wash and augmenting existing conservation within the Estelle Mountain, North Peak
and BLM lands with existing adjacent upland habitat. Under Alternatives 2 and 3, only
the Temescal Wash area would be incorporated in the conservation scenario and the
existing reserves would not be augmented in this area.
| Focus animal species toward which conservation efforts in this area should be directed
include least Bell’s vireo, California gnatcatcher, Bell’s sage sparrow, Stephens’
kangaroo rat. A variety of other animal species are also present in this area as
described in the March 9, 2000 Technical Memorandum.
| Large populations of gnatcatchers are located south and north of State Highway 74
and are a focus of conservation under Alternatives 1, 2 and 3.
| Munz’s onion is a listed plant species toward which conservation efforts in this area
should be directed. Under Alternatives 2 and 3, surveys for Munz’s onion outside the
designated conservation area may be needed to assure conservation of this species.
A variety of other plant species are also present in this area as described in the March
9, 2000 Technical Memorandum.
| Several existing reserve areas were considered as they form building blocks for a
potential reserve within this area. A BLM parcel is located east of Alberhill, east of the
City of Lake Elsinore boundary. The Lake Mathews/Estelle Mountain Reserve to the
north serves as a large block of intact, preserved habitat, from which to angle a reserve
toward.
| The northern section of this area is designated Rural - Mountainous.
| The southern portion within the City of Lake Elsinore consists of a variety of urban
uses. Near the SR74 and I-15 junction, Commercial, Industrial/Business Park, High
Density Residential, Low Density Residential and Very Low Density Residential
designations have been planned within the City of Lake Elsinore.

| Several Open Space - Multi Purpose land uses are located south of Canyon Lake near
Railroad Canyon Road. This designation coincides with the Lower San Jacinto River.
Low Density Residential areas surround this area.
There are no Specific Plans located within unincorporated county areas within this planning
area. City of Lake Elsinore Specific Plan information was not available for this alternatives
development effort.
ALBERHILL AREA
| Focus of conservation under Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 is conservation of a large block

of habitat west of I-15 supporting sensitive species. This area also includes Upper
Temescal Wash extending to Lake Elsinore, and a potential connection to Cleveland
National Forest.
| The primary focus animal species in this area is the California gnatcatcher. A variety
of other animal species are present in this area as described in the March 9, 2000
Technical Memorandum.
| Focal plant species toward which conservation efforts should be directed in this area
include San Diego ambrosia and Munz’s onion.
| The Alberhill area is characterized by several undeveloped areas.
| This area supports several mining operations.
| The area has been designated for a mixture of Open Space - Mineral Resources,
Special Planning Area, Low to Medium Density Residential and Public Facilities.

SEDCO HILLS/WILDOMAR
| Focus of conservation under Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 is provision of a portion of the

upland scrub linkage from Lake Skinner to Lake Mathews. Conservation may occur
in the form of discontiguous habitat blocks, however, efforts should be made to
minimize breaks and to locate habitat blocks in proximity to each other.
| Focus species toward which conservation efforts should be directed in this area
include the California gnatcatcher. Quino checkerspot butterfly is also a focus for
conservation in the southern portion of this area. A variety of other animal species are
| The Sedco Hills/Wildomar area consists largely of undeveloped hillsides.
| Development associated with Lake Elsinore is located along the western border of
these hillsides whereas agricultural areas dominated the flatter areas east of these
hillsides.
| Three BLM parcels are located south of Bundy Canyon Road and north of Clinton Keith
Road. These areas could serve as building blocks for a potential reserve within this
area.
| Although not a part of the MSHCP data base, the Greer Ranch Specific Plan map was
submitted by the City of Murrieta. This map depicted the location of various
development areas within the Greer Ranch project.
| Land use designations within the City of Lake Elsinore include Open Space-Multi
Purpose immediately surrounding Railroad Canyon Road, Low Density Residential
immediately east of I-15 and Special Planning Area immediately east of the planned
open space areas.
| County land use designations south of the city limits include Rural-Mountainous,
Agriculture and Low Density Residential. Low Density Residential designations

particularly surround Bundy Canyon Road and The Farm Specific Plan. Several Open
Space-Recreational land use designations surround the Low Density Residential
designations of The Farm. One area within The Farm consists of a commercial center.
Toward the southern end of the potential preserve planning area, Rural-Mountainous
and Very Low Density Residential land use designations make up the proposed land
uses for this area.
| The Farm. The Farm Specific Plan is located south of Bundy Canyon Road and
southeast fo the City of Lake Elsinore. The specific plan encompasses 1,520 acres
and would include mobile home residential, commercial, public facilities and
recreational land uses.
MURRIETA CREEK
| Focus of conservation under Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 is maintenance and enhancement

of habitat within Murrieta Creek to support wetland species, and to provide a linkage
from the Murrieta Creek/Temecula Creek/Pechanga Creek confluence to Santa Rosa
Plateau and Cleveland National Forest. It is anticipated that the northern connection
to the Santa Rosa Plateau and Cleveland National Forest would be provided via Cole
Canyon.
| Conservation strategies for this area may be refined in the context of the Army Corps
of Engineers Murrieta Creek Feasibility Study.
include least Bell’s vireo and other bird species. A variety of other species are also
| Murrieta Creek is surrounded by urban development throughout a majority of its

alignment.

| The US Army Corps of Engineers in cooperation with local interest groups is in the
process of developing a flood control plan called the Murrieta Creek Feasibility Study.
| Within the City of Temecula, Murrieta Creek is overlain with an Open Space -
Recreation overlay designation.
| From south to north, the creek area within the City of Murrieta traverses Special
Planning Area, Medium Density Residential, Industrial/Business Park, Low Density
Residential and Rural Residential land use designations.
Murrieta Creek is located entirely within the Cities of Temecula and Murrieta. It is understood
that as the MSHCP process progresses, additional development proposal information may
need to be attained from the City of Murrieta.
FRENCH VALLEY AREA
| Focus of conservation under Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 is maintenance of a large block

of habitat generally east of I-215 and south of Scott Road, primarily as a reserve area
for quino checkerspot butterfly. This area is also important to narrow endemic plant
species and supports a variety of other species. Also a focus under Alternatives 1, 2
and 3 is provision of a linkage from the AD161 conservation area to the referenced
habitat block. Linkage constraints are present in this area and provision of the linkage
may involve habitat creation or enhancement.
| Under Alternative 1, a focus for conservation in this area is also provision of linkages
between the habitat block referenced above and the Southwest Riverside County Multi-
Species Reserve. Linkage options are constrained in this area. A variety of options
could be considered under Alternative 1 including a linkage along Warm Springs
Creek, an upland connection south of Warm Springs Creek, unnamed drainages in the
French Valley area, and a linkage along Tucalota Creek. Since the linkages are
anticipated to function as constrained linkages, it would be beneficial, from a
conservation planning standpoint, to provide more than one linkage in this area.

| Focus animal species toward which conservation efforts should be directed include
quino checkerspot butterfly and California gnatcatcher.
| Focus plant species toward which conservation efforts should be directed include
Munz’s onion, California Orcutt grass, and spreading navarretia.
FRENCH VALLEY TO SOUTHWESTERN RIVERSIDE C OUNTY M ULTI SPECIES RESERVE. Several

alternatives may be considered for this potential linkage; Warm Springs Creek, an upland
linkage immediately south of Warm Springs Creek, three unnamed drainages in the French
Valley area and Tucalota Creek.
WARM SPRINGS CREEK
| This area is largely composed of existing agricultural operations intermixed with

undisturbed native habitats.
| The eastern terminus of this linkage would involve lands owned and operated by
Metropolitan Water District in association with Diamond Valley Lake.
| The creek traverses areas designated as Low Density Residential, Medium Density
Residential, Ope Space-Multi Purpose, Very Low Density Residential, Agriculture and
Rural Residential.
UPLAND CONNECTION SOUTH OF WARM SPRINGS CREEK
| This area is largely composed of existing agricultural fields intermixed with undisturbed
areas.
| This linkage largely consists of Very Low Density Residential, Agriculture and Rural-
Mountainous designations.
UNNAMED DRAINAGES IN THE FRENCH VALLEY AREA
| The three drainages traverse an area largely composed of agricultural fields intermixed
with undisturbed areas.

| There are several land use designations present within this area; Low Density
Residential, Very Low Density Residential, Public Facilities, Open Space -
Recreational and Commercial. The County’s Water Course overlay is present within
several areas in these drainage areas. Water/drainage areas are also designated
as Open Space - Multi Purpose.
| Winchester 1800. The Winchester 1800 Specific Plan is located southwest of Lake
Skinner, east of Winchester Road and north of Auld Road. This 1,576-acre specific
plan would consist of commercial and recreational and supporting land uses.
| Dutch Village. The Dutch Village Specific Plan straddles Winchester Road between
Auld and Baxter Roads. This specific plan totals 778 acres and would consist of
residential and industrial development.
| Quinta Do Largo. This specific plan is located southwest of Lake Skinner, east of
Winchester Road and north of Clinton Keith Road. This 470-acre development would
consist of a mixed use development, with residential, commercial and office and
industrial uses.
TUCALOTA CREEK
| The area is largely composed of rural residential establishments intermixed with

agricultural and undisturbed areas.
| The lower end of Tucalota Creek is designated as Open Space - Multi-Purpose. The
creek is then designated as Industrial, Low Density Residential, Very Low Density
Residential, Commercial, Open Space - Recreational east of the French Valley
Airport. Near the western edge of the Lake Skinner Operations Area, the creek returns
to sporadic Open Space - Multi- Purpose designations.
| Winchester Properties. This specific plan is located southeast of Lake Skinner and
east of the intersection of Winchester and Murrieta Hot Springs Road. This 1,042 acre
development would consist of a business park surrounded by a residential community
oriented around the Tucalota Creek drainage.

| Borel Air Park. This specific plan is located southwest of Lake Skinner and east of
Winchester Road/Murrieta Hot Springs Road intersection. This 783-acre development
would consist of a commercial, office and industrial park oriented around the French
Valley Airport.
| Crown Valley Village. The Crown Valley Village is located southwest of Lake Skinner
and east of the Winchester Road/Murrieta Hot Springs Road intersection. This 166-
acre development would consist of a residential community.
| Rancho Bella Vista. The Rancho Bella Vista Specific Plan is located southwest of
Lake Skinner and east of the Winchester Road/Murrieta Hot Springs Road. This 798-
acre development would consist of a residential community.
Aside from connections between the French Valley area and the Southwestern Riverside
County Multi Species Reserve, a large habitat block is depicted for conservation within the
French Valley Area on the Alternatives map. The following land use considerations are
characteristic of this area:
| The French Valley area is largely agricultural within the area north of Clinton Keith
Road and south of Scott Road. The area south of Clinton Keith Road is currently being
developed with large specific plan development tracts. The overall topography within
this area consists of gently rolling hills vegetated by a mixture of chaparral, grassland
and coastal sage scrub habitats as well as agricultural/rural residential ranchettes.
| Roadways present at this time include Keller Road and Clinton Keith Road which are
currently unimproved.
| The area north of Clinton Keith Road is currently void of residential development
outside of Rural Residential. This area consists of large blocks of Agricultural, Very
Low Density Residential, Rural Residential and Rural Mountainous designations.
Industrial and Commercial designations are located along the I-215 corridor.
| Borel Air Park. See above.
| Murrieta Hot Springs. This specific plan stretches north of Murrieta Hot Springs Road
to the vacant parcels south of Clinton Keith Road. This specific plan consists of 2,715
acres and would involve development of a residential community with a small amount
of supporting commercial development.

TEMECULA CREEK
| This area includes the portion of Temecula Creek west of Vail Lake. The Temecula
Creek linkage in this area is quite constrained west of Anza Road and is less
constrained, and characterized by Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub east of Anza
Road. A focus of conservation in this area under Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 is maintaining
and enhancing habitat for sensitive species and maintaining Temecula Creek as a
linkage from the Murrieta Creek/Temecula Creek/Pechanga Creek confluence to Vail
Lake.
| Focus species toward which conservation efforts should be directed include least
Bell’s vireo and arroyo toad (potential) in the upper portion of this linkage. A wide
variety of other species are present in this area including southwestern pond turtle,
cactus wren, and Los Angeles pocket mouse.
| Lower Temecula Creek is largely surrounded by urban development. The middle

sections of this drainage are abutted by open land including several agricultural
operations. The upper reaches of this drainage, immediately west of Vail Lake,
traverse undeveloped land comprised largely of coastal sage scrub, alluvial fan sage
scrub and grasslands.
| Along the Lower reaches of Temecula Creek, within the City of Temecula, an Open
Space - Recreation designation has been placed over this area. Lands abutting this
designation are planned for commercial and Medium Density Residential
development.
| Outside of the City of Temecula, the area is designated Open Space - Recreation and
Open Space - Multi-Purpose and is abutted by Agricultural and Low Density
Residential designations. East of Anza Road, the creek flows through an area
designated for Agriculture and finally to the Vail Lake Special Planning Area.

| Red Hawk. This specific plan is located southeast of Temecula, east of I-15, south of
SR79 and east of Pala Road. This 1,275 acre development has been partially
constructed and consists of residential, golf, commercial and supporting public facility
land uses.
| Vail Ranch. The Vail Ranch Specific Plan is located east of I-15, south of SR79, west
of Butterfield Stage Road and east of Margarita Road. This 719-acre development
consists of residential, business park and commercial land uses.
PECHANGA CREEK
| This area includes the portion of Pechanga Creek from the Murrieta Creek/ Temecula
Creek/Pechanga Creek confluence to the Pechanga Indian reservation. The focus of
conservation in this area under Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 is maintaining and enhancing
habitat for sensitive species, and provision of a linkage along Pechanga Creek, which
may serve as a portion of a connection between the Palomar Mountains (Agua Tibia
Wilderness) and the Santa Ana Mountains.
| This drainage follows the Wolf Valley and is largely developed with Low Density and
Tourist/Commercial Recreational Uses associated with the Pechanga Indian
Reservation. The eastern section of this valley consists of agricultural fields.
| Pechanga Indian Lands are located between Wolf Valley and the Cleveland National
Forest, which prevents planning for a continuous linkage between Temecula Creek and
the national forest lands.
| Although a majority of the area surrounding this creek to the east is currently
undeveloped, land use designations such as Medium Density Residential,
Commercial, High Density Residential and Public Facilities characterize this drainage.
| Red Hawk. See above.

TENAJA CORRIDOR
| The focus of conservation in this area is on providing an upland connection from Santa
Rosa Plateau to the Cleveland National Forest unit in the southern portion of the
MSHCP study area. Substantial intact blocks of upland scrub, grassland and
chaparral habitat are present in this area. This linkage may be part of a connection
from the Palomar Mountains to the Santa Ana Mountains.
| MSHCP planning should coordinate closely with The Nature Conservancy efforts in the
Tenaja Corridor area.
| The primary species focus in this area is large mammal movement, however, a wide
variety of species are present in this area.
| This area consists of large rural residential ranchette/estates and is generally devoid
of intense development.
| The Nature Conservancy has been actively purchasing parcels within this area in an
attempt to provide for a continuous linkage from the Santa Rosa Plateau to the
Cleveland National Forest. Several of these lots are then sold back to private interests
assuming placement of conservation easements. Information from the Nature
Conservancy regarding this program has been utilized during this process.
| The entire corridor study area has been designated Rural - Mountainous.
LAKE ELSINORE
| The focus of conservation in this area under Alternative 1 is maintaining wetland and
grassland habitat south of Lake Elsinore, including the San Jacinto River discharge
into Lake Elsinore, primarily to support waterfowl, shorebirds, and other wetland
species. This area is not assumed to be conserved under Alternatives 2 and 3.

| This area largely consists of recreational open space land uses and is devoid of
development.
| A majority of this area is designated Open Space - Multi Purpose however is

surrounded by Special Planning Areas, Low Density Residential, Public Facilities,
Medium Density Residential, High Density Residential and Commercial.
LOWER SAN JACINTO RIVER/CANYON LAKE
| The focus of conservation in this area under Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 is maintaining the
existing reserves in this area including Kabian Park, BLM lands, and the Four Seasons
conservation land, and enhancing linkages between the existing reserves as
opportunities present themselves. These conservation areas provide linkage value
along the lower San Jacinto River and also provide for conservation of adjacent upland
scrub habitat.
| Focus species toward which conservation efforts in this area should be directed
include the California gnatcatcher and narrow endemic plant species associated with
the San Jacinto River. A variety of other species, including the Stephens’ kangaroo
rat, are also present in this area.
| This area traverses several land ownerships including the Cities of Lake Elsinore and
Canyon Lake. The focus within this area has also been to incorporate BLM land
associated with Kabian Park, other Riverside County park land.
| The upper end of this section of the San Jacinto River is surrounded by Low Density
Residential and undeveloped hillsides.

| Canyon Lake as well as all areas upstream of this waterbody within this planning area
are designated by the County’s Watercourse Overlay. South of Canyon Lake, the river
is largely designated by Open Space - Multi Purpose designations as well as Low
Density Residential.
| The area adjacent to the river upstream of Canyon Lake is surrounded by Open Space
- Recreational designations associated with Kabian Park. Urban land use
designations such as Low Density Residential, Medium Density Residential and
Commercial abut the river south of the lake.
LOWER WARM SPRINGS CREEK
| The focus of conservation in this area under Alternative 1 is maintaining and enhancing
lower Warm Springs Creek as a linkage to Murrieta Creek. The linkage is constrained
in this area. This area is not assumed to be conserved under Alternatives 2 and 3.
| Lower Warm Springs Creek is located entirely within the City of Murrieta and is largely
abutted by urban development.
| Several urban areas are less dense as evident by the rural residential land uses
present.
| Within city boundaries, most areas are designated as Agriculture, Commercial or a

Special Planning Area.
LOWER TUCALOTA CREEK
| The focus of conservation in this area under Alternative 1 is maintaining and enhancing
lower Tucalota Creek as a linkage to Murrieta Creek. The linkage is constrained in
this area. This area is not assumed to be conserved under Alternatives 2 and 3.

| The lower segment of Tucalota Creek flows through urban areas associated with the
Cities of Temecula, Murrieta and several specific plan developments within the County.
| Much of this drainage area is maintained by the Riverside County Flood Control and
Water Conservation District.
| This drainage is designated Open Space - Multi-Purpose within the County, however
within the City of Temecula, an Open Space - Recreational designation exists.
Adjacent land use designations include Industrial, Commercial, Low Density
Residential, Medium Density Residential within the County and Commercial, Industrial
and Special Planning area within the City of Temecula.
| Winchester Properties. See Discussion under French Valley Area.
UPLAND CONNECTION WEST OF I-15/MURRIETA AREA
| The focus of conservation in this area is on providing an upland connection west of I-15
from the Santa Rosa Plateau to the Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve and San
Diego County. Intact patches of upland scrub habitat are present in this area. This
connection may also form a portion of a linkage from the Palomar Mountains to the
Santa Ana Mountains.
| The focus of species conservation in this area is provision of an archipelago, or

steppingstone, connection between gnatcatcher populations in San Diego County and
the MSHCP study area. Provision of this connection would also facilitate mammal
movement.
| This area is steeply sloping and undeveloped.
| The entire area is located within the unincorporated County.

| A majority of this area is designated Rural - Mountainous.
| Very Low Density Residential land use designations are located adjacent to the
junction of De Luz Road and Rancho California Road.
| Walker Basin. Walker Basin is located south of the Santa Rosa Plateau Ecological
Reserve, south of Rancho California Road and east of De Luz Road. This 573-acre
residential community is oriented around a golf course in addition to local commercial
services.
VAIL LAKE /WILSON CREEK
| The focus of conservation in this area under Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 is maintaining large
block(s) of interconnected habitat centered around Vail Lake and Wilson Valley, and
including Arroyo Seco and the portion of Temecula Creek east of Vail Lake. The
presence of large blocks of intact habitat not heavily constrained by existing land uses
presents opportunities to create a substantial multiple species reserve in this area.
Under Alternative 1, a substantial linkage along upper Tucalota Creek is envisioned,
including upland and wetland components, and connecting the Southwest Riverside
County Multi-Species Reserve to potential conserved lands in the Wilson Valley area.
This linkage area is not assumed to be conserved under Alternatives 2 and 3.
| The conservation configuration in the Vail Lake area should be designed to provide
linkages to the Agua Tibia Wilderness Area to the south.
| The focus species toward which conservation efforts should be directed in the Vail
Lake area include California gnatcatcher, quino checkerspot butterfly, arroyo toad,
coastal cactus wren, Stephens’ kangaroo rat, orange-throated whiptail, San Diego
horned lizard, Vail Lake ceanothus, Nevin’s barberry and slender-horned spineflower.
A wide variety of other species are also known from this area as documented in the
Report on the Conservation Value of the Vail Lake Region (December 12, 1997).
| A focus species toward which conservation efforts should be directed in the Wilson
Valley area is the quino checkerspot butterfly. A wide variety of other species are also
present in this area including California gnatcatcher and Stephens’ kangaroo rat.

| A focus species toward which conservation efforts should be directed in the upper
Temecula Creek area is arroyo toad. A variety of other species are also present in
this area.
| This area is largely undeveloped and supports sporadic agricultural operations.
| BLM lands are present north of Vail Lake and along the general alignment of Sage
Road.
| Several conservation banks are either approved or in the planning stages in this area.
| The Vail Lake area is designated as a Special Planning Area.
| The Wilson Valley and surrounding areas are designated Rural Residential, Rural-
Mountainous and Very Low Density Residential.
ANZA VALLEY
| The focus of conservation in this area under Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 is maintaining a

large block of habitat in the Anza Valley area, including the existing Silverado Ranch
Conservation Bank. The presence of large blocks of intact habitat not heavily
constrained by existing land uses presents the opportunity to create a substantial
multiple species reserve in this area. Under Alternative 1, a substantial linkage is
envisioned along Tule Creek, including upland and wetland components. Also under
Alternative 1, a linkage is anticipated along Cahuilla Creek to the Indian reservation.
Only the Tule Creek linkage is assumed under Alternative 2 and neither the Tule Creek
nor the Cahuilla Creek linkage are assumed under Alternative 3.
| Provision of linkages between potential conserved lands in this area and the Beauty
Mountain Management Area would be desirable.

| The focus species toward which conservation efforts should be directed in the Anza
Valley area include Stephens’ kangaroo rat, quino checkerspot butterfly, Los Angeles
pocket mouse, and burrowing owl. A wide variety of other species are also present
in this area.
| This area is composed of a large undeveloped rural landscape which supports a

varying degree of agricultural operations.
| A large portion of this area consists of the BLM Beauty Mountain Planning Area which
is located along the San Diego County line. In addition to BLM lands within this area,
California State Parks owns several sections of land associated with Anza Borrego
Desert State Park near the southeast corner of the study area.
| The Cahuilla Indian Reservation is located within the Cahuilla/Anza Valley.
| The Silverado Mitigation Bank is present in this area.
| The existing Composite Land Use Map depicts this area as a combination of Open
Space - Multi-Purpose and Low Density Residential.
UPPER SAN JACINTO RIVER/BAUTISTA CREEK CONFLUENCE
| A focus for conservation in this area under Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 is maintenance and
enhancement of habitat for sensitive species and provision of linkages along the San
Jacinto River from San Bernardino National Forest to the Badlands, including direct
habitat connections and narrower linkages in the vicinity of Lamb Canyon Road. Under
Alternative 1, a linkage is also envisioned from the Valle Vista area to Poppet Flats.
| The focus species toward which conservation efforts should be directed in this area
include San Bernardino kangaroo rat, mountain yellow-legged frog, arroyo toad and
slender-horned spineflower. A wide variety of other species are also known from this
area as described in the March 9, 2000 Technical Memorandum.

| Low density residential land uses combined with mobile home communities
characterize the confluence area of these two waterways. As you travel upstream, land
uses become less dense and consist of agriculture and lower density residential
areas.
| Soboba Indian lands are located along the eastern bank of the San Jacinto River.
| The presence of a large BLM parcel northeast of the headwaters of Bautista Creek
provides a building block for a potential preserve.
| Near the confluence of Bautista Creek and the San Jacinto River, Medium Density
Residential designations exist. Several areas immediately adjacent to the San Jacinto
River have been designated Agriculture. Upstream from the confluence, Agricultural
and Rural - Mountainous designations serve a majority of the landscape.
CACTUS VALLEY/MICA BUTTE/DIAMOND VALLEY LAKE LINKAGE
| A focus for conservation in this area under Alternative 1 is provision of a substantial

linkage from Diamond Valley Lake to both the San Bernardino National Forest and
potential conservation areas in the Wilson Valley area. Existing habitat and land use
characteristics in this area appear to offer potential for provision of a substantial
linkage. Provision of such a linkage would provide for a biologically more robust
reserve design under Alternative 1. This area is not assumed to be conserved under
Alternatives 2 and 3.
| Specific species conservation is not a focus in this linkage area, however, a wide
variety of species are present in this area as described in the March 9, 2000 Technical
Memorandum.
| This area is largely undeveloped and consists of blocks of natural vegetation

intermixed with agricultural resources.

| This area is bordered by the Southwestern Riverside County Multi Species Reserve
to the west and the San Bernardino National Forest to the east.
| BLM parcels are present between the two blocks of public land in this area.
| Jud Monroe, Manager of the Southwestern Riverside County Multi Species Reserve,
supplied the MSHCP planning team with materials depicting recent acquisitions which
have been incorporated into the reserve.
| The valleys within this area are designated for Agricultural use while the steep sloping
areas are designated Rural - Mountainous.
HEMET VERNAL POOLS
| The focus of conservation in this area under Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 is maintenance of

sensitive species within the Hemet vernal pools. The conservation configuration in this
area may consist of discontiguous patches of habitat, however, conservation of the
watersheds supporting the vernal pool areas needs to be addressed.
| Focus species toward which conservation efforts in this area should be directed
include spreading navarretia, Munz’s onion, and, possibly, fairy shrimp. The vernal
pool areas also provide habitat for burrowing owl and a variety of other species as
described in the March 9, 2000 Technical Memorandum.
| A portion of the information utilized in this alternatives development process was

derived from the June 1995 RECON Distribution, Status and Conservation of Vernal
Pool and Alkali Playa Wetlands of the Upper Salt Creek Drainage, Hemet, California
Report. This report documents the existence of vernal pool and alkali playa habitat
within several parcels through field research. Aerial photography was used to outline
potential habitat outside of those areas specifically studied. Details such as plant,
wildlife, soil and hydrology characteristics of the area were documented.

| This area is characterized as a low-lying flat area, generally not urbanized. Agricultural
areas are located within this area. Urban land uses associated with the City of Hemet
are located to the east.
| This area has been and continues to be the subject of transportation improvement
planning associated with SR79.
| Low Density Residential land use designations dominate the City of San Jacinto’s
planned land use for the northern section of this area. Several commercial centers are
planned intermittently along Warren Road. Agricultural designations are located south
of Esplanade Avenue and west of Warren Road within the unincorporated County. A
Special Planning Area is located along the western edge of Hemet as far south as
SR74. South of SR74, land use designations such as Agriculture and Rural -
Mountainous represent unincorporated County lands. The southwestern corner of
Hemet has a substantial Public Facilities overlay designation.
No specific plans within the county are located within this area. However, development
proposals within the Cities of Hemet and San Jacinto may need to be analyzed as the
MSHCP process moves forward.
DOUBLE BUTTE
| Focus of conservation under Alternatives 1 and 2 is conservation of intact areas of

upland scrub habitat, generally isolated from other habitat areas in the MSHCP study
area by existing urban development.
| No specific focus for species conservation in this area, however, this area has value
for Los Angeles pocket mouse and burrowing owl, two of the strong candidate species
considered under Alternative 2.

| The area is the site of a closed landfill currently owned and managed by the Riverside
County Waste Department.
| This area is currently designated as Open Space - Multi-Purpose and Rural -

Mountainous.
SALT CREEK
| Focus of conservation in this area under Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 is maintenance of the

biological values along the existing Salt Creek channel and provision of a Salt Creek
linkage to Diamond Valley Lake.
include primarily narrow endemic plant species such as California Orcutt grass, San
Jacinto Valley crownscale, thread-leaved brodiaea, little mousetail, smooth tarplant,
spreading navarretia, and Coulter’s goldfields. This area also provides habitat for
burrowing owl, and potentially Los Angeles pocket mouse, both strong candidate
species under Alternative 2.
| A large portion of this drainage is maintained by the Riverside County Flood Control
and Water Conservation District.
| Salt Creek is designated Open Space - Recreational immediately east of the City of
Canyon Lake. East of I-215 and within the Menifee area, the drainage is Open Space
- Recreational. East of Menifee specific designations for this watercourse are not
given. Designations such as Very Low Density Residential, Low Density Residential
and Public Facilities are associated with this drainage south of the Winchester Area.
This drainage traverses or is located adjacent to areas currently being planned for
development including the following specific plans:

| Audie Murphy Ranch. This specified plan is located within the Menifee Valley and is
bounded by Railroad Canyon Lake to the west and Holland Road to the east. This
991-acre community would consist of a residential-golf based community with
supporting commercial services.
| Newport Hub. The Newport Hub specific plan is located east of I-215, north of Newport
Road and south of Salt Creek. This 57-acre development would consist of a
commercial center.
| Menifee Village. This specific plan is located southeast of Sun City, east of I-215, west
of Briggs Road and on either side of Newport Road. This 1,856-acre residential
community would include commercial services, community facilities and an industrial
center.
| Winchester Hills. This specific plan is located east of I-215, south of SR-74 and west
of SR79. This specific plan straddles North Olive and is located east of Leon Road.
This 2,891 acre community would consist of five distinct neighborhoods which would
include residential, commercial, school, golf and manufacturing land uses.
| The Crossroads in Winchester. This specific plan is located west of SR-74, north of
Old Newport Road, south of the Salt Creek Channel and east of Rice Road. This 222-
acre specific plan would consist of eight residential villages accompanied by a
commercial services center.

SECTION 5.0
PRELIMINARY SPECIES ANALYSES
5.1 INTRODUCTION
The preliminary species analyses presented in this section have been prepared to provide
stakeholders with information regarding the species that may be conserved under the various
alternatives presented in this document and the considerations involved in conservation of
individual species. Such considerations may include a variety of adaptive management
activities as well as other considerations such as survey requirements. This information is
provided to assist stakeholders in selecting a preferred alternative for the MSHCP, along with
a list of species to be conserved under the MSHCP.
For each species considered for conservation, a preliminary rationale statement and
summary of conservation considerations is presented in Section 5.2 of this document. Using
the available data and literature, the species rationale statements describe the logic behind
the preliminary conservation conclusion for each species. The conservation conclusions for
individual species under each alternative are summarized in tabular form in the Executive
Summary to this document.
It is important to note that the species rationale statements do not represent the complete
analysis for any particular MSHCP alternative. For example, the rationale statements do not
include elements that will be required in the MSHCP such as: estimates of conservation and
?take”; conditions of coverage; adaptive management; implementation mechanisms. These
components of the MSHCP species analysis will be applied to the preferred MSHCP
alternative when it is defined.
The species rationale statements incorporate existing information known by the County’s
MSHCP consultant at this time. Additional information that could be supplied by reviewers
of this document is welcomed and should be provided to the County for distribution to the
MSHCP consultant.

5.0 PRELIMINARY SPECIES ANALYSES
5.2.1 BIRDS
B-1 Accipiter cooperii – Cooper’s hawk

State: Species of Special Concern
Federal: Partners in Flight Priority Bird Species; San Bernardino National Forest
Sensitive
Other: Audubon Society Blue List
ALTERNATIVE 1
RATIONALE: The Cooper’s hawk could be adequately conserved under Alternative 1.
The Cooper’s hawk occurs in landscapes where wooded areas occur in patches with snags
for perching (Beebe 1974). Within its range in California, it most frequently uses dense
stands of live oak, riparian, or other forest habitats near water (Zeiner, et al. 1990). Data
records are located throughout much of the study area except in the easternmost desert areas
and some of the montane areas. Many of these records may be for spring and fall migrating
transients or a wintering population. Important breeding populations include a large
concentration in the Prado Basin and contiguous reaches of the Santa Ana River. Locations
appear to be concentrated along the Santa Ana River, within the Lake Elsinore/Canyon Lake
area, and in the southwestern portion along Temecula and Murrieta creeks and along the
Santa Margarita River. Other geographic locations, which may or may not include key
population areas include: Alberhill, Anza, Badlands, Banning, Cabazon, El Cerrito, Gavilan
Hills, Homeland/ Lakeview, Idyllwild, Lake Riverside, Rubidoux, Sage, Wildomar, Winchester,
Woodcrest, Bautista Creek, San Timoteo Creek, Potrero Creek, Temescal Wash, Wilson
Creek, Diamond Valley Reservoir, Lake Mathews, Lake Perris, Lake Skinner, San
Bernardino National Forest, San Jacinto Wildlife Area, Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve,
and the Santa Rosa Plateau.
The Cooper’s hawk is considered conserved under Alternative 1 because the key population
within the Prado Basin and Santa Ana River is conserved as well as the populations that are
located along the I-15 corridor (Temecula and Murrieta creeks, Alberhill, Lake Elsinore,
Temescal Wash), the drainages that are located in the southwestern portion of the planning
area, as well as the more isolated and scattered breeding locations in the eastern portions
of the planning area including but not limited to Potrero, San Timoteo Creek, Bautista Creek,

Wilson Creek, Badlands, Anza, Lakeview Mountains, Sage, and the existing preserves at
Lake Mathews, Lake Perris, Lake Skinner, Diamond Valley Reservoir, San Jacinto Wildlife
Area, Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve, and parts of the Santa Rosa Plateau. Locations
within the San Bernardino National Forest also will receive protection as identified under the
forest service management plan.
CONSERVATION CONSIDERATIONS
Forests in the Pacific Southwest include the Los Padres, Angeles, San Bernardino, and
Cleveland National Forests. These forests are the subject of a Southern California
Conservation Strategy that addresses ecosystem processes and conservation of forest
species while allowing appropriate recreation and other activities on Forest Service lands.
The goal of this program is to develop Forest Plans which “restore, recover, and maintain
species and continue to provide for various uses of the forest” (California Biodiversity News
2000). The Forest Plans will provide guidance for resource management and will establish
goals, objectives and management requirements. The Forest Plans will be prepared in
accordance with the National Forest Management Act and National Environmental Policy Act
which require Environmental Assessments of proposed actions and public review. An
Environmental Impact Statement for all four forests is scheduled for release for public review
in January of 2002 (California Biodiversity News 2000). The Forest Plan for the San
Bernardino National Forest will address potential impacts to the Cooper’s hawk, including
logging and road construction.
It is our understanding that this current planning effort is focused on addressing the impacts
of forest activities on federally-listed threatened and endangered species. To address the
Cooper’s hawk, the Forest Plans would also need to address the effects of forest activities
on this species and associated forest habitats. In addition, the Cooper’s hawk may also be
present within private inholdings in the MSHCP planning area of the San Bernardino National
Forest. Activities within these private inholdings would need to be reviewed by the County for
compatibility with MSHCP goals and objectives for this species.
Habitat destruction, mainly in lowland riparian areas, due to urbanization and development is
probably the main threat, although direct or indirect human disturbance at nest sites can be
equally detrimental. Exclosures, reforestation, and other measures have been suggested for
riparian nesting habitat in some regions however there is no documentation of the relative
effect of such measures. Timing timber harvests for the nonbreeding season or for stands that
are unused by the Cooper’s hawk avoids impacts to known nests. Stands that have been
thinned but not clear-cut, if done during the nonbreeding season are then reoccupied the next

season for breeding (Rosenfield and Bielefeldt 1993). Timing of impacts that may occur in
the lowland riparian forest areas that contain nest sites also should be considered in order to
avoid impacts to nesting Cooper’s hawks. In areas where potential Cooper’s hawk nest
habitat is located, surveys should be done to locate the nest site prior to removal of trees.
ALTERNATIVE 2
Similar to Alternative 1, the Cooper’s hawk would be considered conserved under Alternative
2. The main difference between these two alternatives for this species is the lack of
conservation of the population within the Badlands. Conservation considerations are as
above with emphasis on surveys to avoid impacts to nesting locations.
ALTERNATIVE 3
Similar to Alternative 1, the Cooper’s hawk would be considered conserved under Alternative
3. The main difference between these two alternatives for this species is the lack of
conservation of the population within the Badlands and Lakeview Mountains. Conservation
considerations are as above with emphasis on surveys and avoidance to avoid impacts to
nesting locations.
B-2 Accipiter gentilis – northern goshawk

Federal: Federal Special Concern species; Partners in Flight Priority Bird
Species; Species of Management Concern; USDA Forest Service
Region 5 Sensitive; San Bernardino National Forest Sensitive
ALTERNATIVE 1
RATIONALE: The northern goshawk could be adequately conserved under Alternative

1.
Northern goshawks typically nest in moderately dense montane forests that are broken by
lakes, streams, meadows, or openings. The goshawk prefers middle and higher elevations
and mature, dense conifer forests but it nests in most forest types and it is found throughout
the geographic range from sea level to the alpine elevations (Squires and Reynolds 1997).
There currently is a known maximum of two breeding pairs in the Lake Fulmor/Lawlor Lodge
area in the San Jacinto Mountains (Michael Patten, Riverside County Editor for American

Field Notes and Past Secretary, California Bird Records Committee, pers. comm., 1998).
It may occur as a transient migrant almost anywhere within the planning area and has been
found in semi-wooded areas in the lowlands and around isolated groves of trees and has
been recorded for the vicinity of Hemet in November (Garrett and Dunn 1981).
The northern goshawk is considered conserved under Alternative 1 because the key
population is located within the San Bernardino National Forest which is included under this
alternative. However, conservation of this species will depend on additional conservation
considerations described below.
species and continue to provide for various uses of the forest.” (California Biodiversity News
Bernardino National Forest will address potential impacts to the northern goshawk, including
logging and road construction.
northern goshawk, the Forest Plans would also need to address the effects of forest activities
on this species and associated forest habitats. In addition, the northern goshawk may also
be present within private inholdings in the MSHCP planning area of the San Bernardino
National Forest but probably predominantly for foraging or during transient movements.
Activities within these private inholdings would need to be reviewed by the County for
A study of conservation attempts in southeast Alaska concluded that long rotation forestry
(e.g., 300 years) and uneven-aged silvicultural management would best maintain sustainable

populations of goshawks (Iverson, et al. 1996). Focused surveys of potential breeding locales
in the San Jacinto Mountains are needed to locate (and then appropriately protect) any
breeding goshawk pairs. Of special management concern is providing forest conditions for
supporting diverse prey populations (Squires and Reynolds 1997). Consequently, attention
needs to be given to the general habitat over the entire foraging range of a pair of goshawks,
because nest buffers by themselves are ineffectual. Where management goals include both
timber harvests and goshawks, the suggested method of Crocker-Bedford (1990) is to
practice silviculture that maintains prime goshawk habitat (dense large trees with open
understory) within foraging range of nests (> 2,000 hectares). The watershed surrounding the
nest location should be divided into thirds, with the nest concentration at the junction of the
thirds. The first third, 1,000 to 2,000 hectares, would be regenerated over the first one-third
of the extended rotation period. The second 1,000 to 2,000 hectares would be regenerated
over the second third of the rotation period, and so on. As a result, at any one time, a 1,000
hectare to 2,000 hectare block near a territory’s nest would be in prime foraging habitat while
a second block would be in marginal foraging habitat.
ALTERNATIVE 2
Similar to Alternative 1, the northern goshawk is considered conserved under Alternative 2.
ALTERNATIVE 3
Similar to Alternative 1, the northern goshawk is considered conserved under Alternative 3.

B-3 Accipiter striatus – sharp-shinned hawk
Sensitive
ALTERNATIVE 1
RATIONALE: The sharp-shinned hawk could be adequately conserved under

Alternative 1.
The sharp-shinned hawk breeds in young coniferous forests with high canopy associations.
Habitats that they are documented to use include ponderosa pine, black oak, riparian
deciduous, mixed conifer, and Jeffrey pine. The species uses dense stands in close proximity
to open areas. Sharp-shinned hawks may occur in a large variety of woodland habitats during
winter and migration periods and are most common in southern California in the coastal
lowlands and desert areas (e.g., Garrett and Dunn 1981). Although sharp-shinned hawks
have been repeatedly recorded in the San Jacinto Mountains during summer months, there
are no confirmed records of breeding there or in the study area as a whole (Grinnell and Miller
1944; Garrett and Dunn 1981). Locations recorded within the database include only migrant
and wintering observations and include: Alberhill, Banning, El Cerrito, Homeland/Lakeview
Mountains, Rubidoux, Santa Rosa Plateau, Sun City, Motte-Rimrock Reserve, Woodcrest,
Santa Ana River, Lake Mathews Reserve, Lake Perris, San Bernardino National Forest, and
San Jacinto Wildlife Area.
The sharp-shinned hawk is considered conserved under Alternative 1 because the potential,
but undocumented, breeding area is located within the San Bernardino National Forest which
is included under this alternative. Many of the wintering and migration areas, which are less
predictable in their use, also are included in this alternative. These wintering and migration
areas include: the Prado Basin and Santa Ana River, the I-15 corridor (Temecula and Murrieta
creeks, Alberhill, Lake Elsinore, Temescal Wash), the drainages that are located in the
southwestern portion of the planning area, as well as the more isolated and scattered
wintering or migration locations in the eastern portions of the planning area such as Potrero,
Lakeview Mountains, and the existing preserves at Motte-Rimrock Reserve, Lake Mathews,
Lake Perris, San Jacinto Wildlife Area, and parts of the Santa Rosa Plateau.

Bernardino National Forest will address potential impacts to the sharp-shinned hawk,
including timber harvest and road construction.
sharp-shinned hawk, the Forest Plans would also need to address the effects of forest
activities on this species and associated forest habitats. In addition, the sharp-shinned hawk
may also be present within private inholdings in the MSHCP planning area of the San
Bernardino National Forest predominantly for use for foraging unless dense forest areas are
present. Activities within these private inholdings would need to be reviewed by the County
for compatibility with MSHCP goals and objectives for this species.
Sharp-shinned hawks are negatively affected by timber harvesting and exposure to pesticides
(Henny 1987; Reynolds 1989). Focused surveys are recommended within the forest areas
and might reveal the presence of a breeding population in the San Jacinto Mountains.
ALTERNATIVE 2
Similar to Alternative 1, the sharp-shinned hawk would be considered conserved under

Alternative 2.

ALTERNATIVE 3
Similar to Alternative 1, the sharp-shinned hawk would be considered conserved under

Alternative 3.
B-4 Agelaius tricolor – tricolored blackbird - colony

Species; Fish and Wildlife Service Migratory Nongame Birds of
Management Concern
Other: Audubon Society California Watch List
ALTERNATIVE 1
RATIONALE: The tricolored blackbird could be adequately conserved under

Alternative 1.
The tricolored blackbird breeds near fresh water, preferably in emergent wetlands with tall,
dense cattails or tules, but also in thickets of willow, blackberry, wild rose, tall herbs and it
forages in grassland and cropland habitats (Zeiner et al. 1990). These colonies require
nearby water, a suitable nesting substrate, and open-range foraging habitat of natural
grassland, woodland, or agricultural cropland. In winter, they often form single-species, and
sometimes single-sex, flocks, but they also flock with other blackbird species. The historical
colonies appear to be located generally in the western portion of the planning area, along the
Interstate 15 corridor, including the Alberhill area and near Temecula (Dehaven et al. 1975).
The largest colony during the 1980s, at the San Jacinto Wildlife Area, contained 3,000 pairs
(4,500 adults) and was extant in 1989. The tricolored blackbird has been recorded along the
Santa Ana River, along the Interstate 15 corridor, within the Badlands north of De Anza Cycle
park and Mystic Lake. Documentation of current major breeding colonies is not available.
The tricolored blackbird is considered conserved under Alternative 1 because the potential
and historic but undocumented breeding colony locations are conserved. These locations
include the Alberhill area, Temecula Creek, San Jacinto Wildlife Area, Santa Ana River,
Badlands, and Mystic Lake.

A principal factor implicated in the population decline and the loss of individual colonies is
elimination of wetland habitat, which has drastically reduced available nesting and foraging
habitat and predation resulting from the proximity of nesting colonies to human activities
(Beedy, et al. 1991). Poisoning, either deliberate or indirect, and increased disturbance by
humans, from agriculture operations such as harvesting, have also been cited as contributing
to the continued population decreases (Beedy, et al. 1991). A critical feature of the tricolored
blackbird is that it requires a nesting site, frequently in association with a wetland habitat, that
may accommodate many pairs and adequate protection from predation for the nests as well
as suitable foraging in the form of more upland habitat. Management objectives include
maintaining a viable, self-sustaining population throughout the current geographic range,
avoiding the losses of the colonies and their associated habitats, increasing the breeding
population on suitable public and private lands managed for this species, and enhancing the
public awareness and support for protection of habitat and active colonies (Beedy and
Hamilton 1999). Thus, timing of human activities around colonies and protection from
predation may be required to consider this species conserved.
ALTERNATIVE 2
Similar to Alternative 1, the tricolored blackbird would be considered covered under

Alternative 2
ALTERNATIVE 3
The tricolored blackbird would not be considered conserved under Alternative 3 due to the
lack of conservation of potential nesting area and historic occupation locations within the
Badlands.

B-5 Aimophila ruficeps canescens – southern California rufous-
crowned sparrow
Federal: Federal Special Concern species;
ALTERNATIVE 1
RATIONALE: The southern California rufous-crowned sparrow could be adequately

conserved under Alternative 1.
Rufous-crowned sparrows are found on grass-covered hillsides, coastal sage scrub, and
chaparral and often occur near the edges of the denser scrub and chaparral associations.
Preference is shown for tracts of California sagebrush (Artemisia californica). It also
colonizes grass that grows as a successional stage following brush fires (Unitt 1984). Optimal
habitat consists of sparse, low brush or grass, hilly slopes preferably interspersed with
boulders and outcrops (Bent 1968). The database locations indicate the majority of reported
occurrences are in the southwestern corner and central portion of the county, forming a belt
along the Interstate 15 corridor, more sparsely along the Interstate 215 corridor, south to
Temecula to the Lake Skinner area and north to the Badlands. Although difficult to assign key
population areas to the broad scatter of database locations some trends of clumps of
locations appear to include the areas in the vicinity of Lake Mathews, Lake Elsinore/Canyon
Lake area, Gavilan Plateau, Santa Rosa Plateau, Wildomar, Murrieta, Temecula, Lake
Skinner, Sage, Lakeview Mountains, Diamond Valley Reservoir, Lake Perris, Badlands and
east of City of Riverside.
The southern California rufous-crowned sparrow is considered conserved under Alternative

1 because large areas of suitable habitat are conserved and key habitat connections would
be maintained within the alternative. Habitat for the species is conserved along the Interstate
15 corridor from the Santa Ana River to Temecula, Gavilan Hills and Plateau, as a corridor
through the Sedco Hills area to Lake Skinner, north to Diamond Valley Reservoir, portions of
the Lakeview Mountains, around Lake Perris and most of the Badlands. Conservation would
depend on preserving the function of the habitat linkages and including fire as a habitat
management tool as noted in the conservation considerations below.

The loss of coastal sage scrub for agriculture and urban development has reduced the
available habitat for this resident species (Bent 1968; Unitt 1984). Although knowledge of
rufous-crowned sparrows in the planning area appears to be limited, the species appears to
have relatively broad habitat preferences and a scattered distribution (Garrett and Dunn
1981). Given the available information, this species apparently would benefit from steep
slope preservation and maintenance of open edge conditions of coastal sage scrub that
perpetuate herbaceous (grass and forb) elements. The limited use of prescribed fires may
provide the disturbance that enhances foraging areas for this species.
ALTERNATIVE 2
Similar to Alternative 1, the rufous-crowned sparrow would be considered conserved under

Alternative 2, however, due to lack of conservation within the lower Wilson Valley and the
narrower design of the conserved area from Alberhill north, additional conservation
considerations will be necessary and may include rigorous management of the function of the
corridors and active fire management to maintain suitable habitat in the Vail Lake area.
ALTERNATIVE 3
Similar to Alternative 1, the rufous-crowned sparrow would be considered conserved under

Alternative 3; however, due to lack of conservation within the lower Wilson Valley, Lakeview
Mountains, and the narrower design of the conserved area from Alberhill north, additional
conservation considerations will be necessary and may include rigorous management of the
function of the corridors and active fire management to maintain suitable habitat in the Vail
Lake area. Additionally due to the lack of conservation within the Lakeview Mountains area,
surveys may be required to determine the population sizes are being maintained within the
planning area preserves or to identify key populations within the Lakeview Mountains that may
require special management or avoidance considerations.

B-6 Ammodramus savannarum– grasshopper sparrow
State: None
Federal: Partners in Flight Priority Bird Species; Species of Management
Concern
ALTERNATIVE 1
RATIONALE: The grasshopper sparrow could be adequately conserved under

Alternative 1.
The grasshopper sparrow generally prefers dense, dry or well-drained grassland, especially
native grassland with a mix of grasses and forbs for foraging and nesting. Although shrub and
forb species are used for perching, they tend to avoid grassland areas with extensive shrub
cover and the presence of native grasses is less important than the absence of trees (Smith
1963; Vickery 1996). The database records are relatively sparse but indicate the species
occurs within the central portion of the planning area and is predominantly located in the south-
central area. Grasshopper sparrows apparently are most heavily concentrated in the Prado
Basin, Santa Rosa Plateau, Lake Skinner, Black Mountain, and Kabian Park areas and,
possibly, in the Lake Mathews area (Loren R. Hays, Fish and Wildlife Service, pers. obs.;
Michael Patten, pers. comm., 1998). Additional areas of concentration based on the
database include the Lake Elsinore/Canyon Lake area, Murrieta Hot Springs and Temecula
area, as well as the Diamond Valley Reservoir.
The grasshopper sparrow is considered conserved under Alternative 1 because large areas
of suitable habitat are conserved and key habitat connections would be maintained within the
alternative. Habitat for the species is conserved along the Interstate 15 corridor from the
Santa Ana River and Prado Basin inclusive of Lake Mathews and Lake Elsinore to Temecula,
as a corridor through the Sedco Hills area to Lake Skinner, and north to Diamond Valley
Reservoir. Conservation would depend on preserving the function of the habitat linkages and
including timing of potential impacts as a habitat management tool as noted in the
conservation considerations below.
Continuing threats to the species apparently include habitat loss, degradation, and
fragmentation. Management of grasslands, including deferred mowing until after the breeding
season, has successfully enhanced grasshopper sparrow populations (Vickery 1996). The

overall breeding success in areas where the timing of mowing is not scheduled to avoid the
breeding season show a low nesting success of 14 percent which is too low to serve as a
source population area (Kershner and Bollinger 1996). Breeding success was not found to
differ with closeness to the edge in limited habitat blocks, although nesting was avoided within
50 meters of edge habitats (Delisle and Savidge 1996). Minimum tract area of grassland
requirements for grasshopper sparrows were determined to be 12 hectares (Walk and
Warner 1999). Thus a conservation consideration is to maintain large blocks of grassland
habitat with a minimum size of 12 hectares and to schedule areas that required mowing or
discing to avoid the breeding season.
ALTERNATIVE 2
The grasshopper sparrow would not be considered conserved under Alternative 2 due to the
lack of linkages within the southern portion of the planning area and the lack of conserved
habitat in the Interstate 15 corridor north of Alberhill to the Santa Ana River area.
ALTERNATIVE 3
The grasshopper sparrow would not be considered conserved under Alternative 3 due to the
lack of linkages within the southern portion of the planning area and the lack of conserved
habitat in the Interstate 15 corridor north of Alberhill to the Santa Ana River area.
B-7 Amphispiza belli belli – Bell’s Sage sparrow

Federal: Partners in Flight Priority Bird Species; Species of Management
Concern; Federal Special Concern species
ALTERNATIVE 1
RATIONALE: The Bell’s sage sparrow could be adequately conserved under

Alternative 1.
Bell’s sage sparrow is an uncommon to fairly common but localized resident breeder in dry
chaparral and coastal sage scrub along the coastal lowlands, inland valleys, and in the lower
foothills of local mountains. In cismontane California, it frequents chaparral dominated by
chamise, and coastal scrub dominated by sage. Other coastal scrub plant species

associated with Bell’s sage sparrow include Artemisia, Purshia, and Atriplex as well as
mixed brush and cactus patches in arid washes (Grinnell and Miller, 1944). High overgrown
chaparral stands generally have fewer sage sparrows than shorter shrubs recovering from
recent fires (Martin and Carlson 1998). Database records indicate the species is widely
scattered throughout the study area except in the montane and desert regions from which data
may be lacking due to survey effort. In general, within the planning area, the species occurs
in the central portions and foothill areas. In addition to existing core areas in the Lake
Elsinore, Canyon Lake, Wildomar, Murrieta and Diamond Valley Reservoir areas, other areas
include Steele Peak, and along the foothills of the San Jacinto and Box mountains. (B.
Carlson, pers. comm., 1998). Although difficult to assign key population areas to the broad
but sparse scatter of database locations some trends or clumps of locations appear to include
the areas in the vicinity of Lake Mathews, Gavilan Hills and Plateau, Lake Elsinore/Canyon
Lake area, Santa Rosa Plateau, Wildomar, Murrieta, Temecula, Lake Skinner, Sage,
Lakeview Mountains, Diamond Valley Reservoir, Lake Perris, Badlands and east of the City
of Riverside.
The Bell’s sage sparrow is considered conserved under Alternative 1 because large areas
of suitable habitat are conserved and key habitat connections would be maintained within the
alternative. Habitat for the species is conserved along the Interstate 15 corridor from the
Santa Ana River through the Lake Mathews area, Gavilan Hills and Plateau, Lake Elsinore,
Wildomar area to Temecula, as a corridor through the Sedco Hills area to Lake Skinner, north
to Diamond Valley Reservoir, portions of the Lakeview Mountains, around Lake Perris and
most of the Badlands. The Box Springs area and portions of the Santa Rosa Plateau are
preserved as well. Conservation would depend on preserving the function of the habitat
linkages and including fire as a habitat management tool as noted in the conservation
considerations below.
Loss of coastal sage scrub habitat, which includes foraging, roosting and nesting areas, to
development activities, fire, and agriculture appear to be the primary threats to this species
in western Riverside County. Bolger, et al. (1997) studied the 20-most common bird species
within a 260 km2 area of coastal San Diego County in relation to edge/ fragmentation
sensitivity. The sage sparrow was found to be one of four species whose abundance is most
reduced by presence of edges/fragmentation. The sage sparrow is more likely to remain in
an area that has high shrub cover, low disturbance, combined with large patch size and high
within site spatial similarity. The scale at which species presence is influenced has not been
quantified but has been determined to be much larger than the size of an individual’s home

range (Knick and Rotenberry 1995). Thus a conservation consideration is to maintain large
blocks of habitat and maintain the function of the habitat linkages for the species.
ALTERNATIVE 2
Bell’s sage sparrow is not considered conserved under Alternative 2 due to lack of
conservation within the Badlands, the narrow configuration of conserved habitat between
Alberhill and the Santa Ana River and lessened conservation within the Wilson Valley area
east of Vail lake.
ALTERNATIVE 3
Bell’s sage sparrow is not considered conserved under Alternative 3 due to lack of
conservation within the Badlands, the narrow configuration of conserved habitat between
Alberhill and the Santa Ana River and lessened conservation within the Wilson Valley area
east of Vail lake.
B-8 Aquila chrysaetos – golden eagle

State: Species of Special Concern, and Fully Protected Species
Sensitive
ALTERNATIVE 1
RATIONALE: The golden eagle could be adequately conserved under Alternative 1.
Within southern California, the golden eagle occurs in grasslands, brushlands, deserts, oak
savannas, open coniferous forests, and montane valleys. It uses rolling foothills and mountain
terrain, wide arid plateaus deeply cut by streams and canyons, open mountain slopes, and
cliffs and rock outcrops. Nesting is primarily restricted to rugged, mountainous country (Garrett
and Dunn 1981). The golden eagle is generally recorded throughout the central portion and
foothill areas of the planning area. Golden eagles have been detected in recent years in the
Badlands, at Lake Perris, at Lake Mathews, Steele Peak, Menifee area, Temecula area, at
the western escarpment of the San Jacinto Mountains (Michael Patten, pers. comm., 1998)
and in the Prado Basin (L.R. Hays, pers. obs.). Additional localities include Potrero Valley,
Hemet area, Banning area, and Santa Rosa Plateau. The species nested in 1998 in the
Chino Hills just outside of the study area and may nest in or near the other aforementioned

locales. Nesting locations have not been identified within the database.
The golden eagle is considered conserved under Alternative 1 because large areas of
suitable habitat and potential nest sites are conserved within the alternative. Habitat for the
species is conserved within the Prado Basin/Santa Ana River near the Chino Hills, the Lake
Mathews area, Gavilan Hills, Lake Perris, Potrero Valley, portions of the Lakeview Mountains,
most of the Badlands and portions of the Santa Rosa Plateau. The escarpment of the San
Jacinto Mountains is included within this alternative because the San Bernardino Forest
Service lands are included. Conservation would depend on surveying for and preserving nest
sites as noted in the conservation considerations below.
Bernardino National Forest will address potential impacts to the golden eagle.
golden eagle, the Forest Plans would also need to address the effects of forest activities on
this species and associated forest habitats. In addition, the golden eagle may also be present
within private inholdings in the MSHCP planning area of the San Bernardino National Forest.
As is intimated above, the golden eagle avoids settled areas and therefore has almost
certainly declined in the study area and California as a whole within the past century due to
loss of large unfragmented habitat areas (Grinnell and Miller 1944). Additional threats to this

species are human disturbance of nest areas, urbanization, poaching, and electrocution from
high tension wires (Remsen 1978). Nest site locations may require restrictions from human
intrusion during the nesting season and surveys for nesting locations should be conducted.
ALTERNATIVE 2
The golden eagle is not considered conserved under Alternative 2 due to the lack of
conserved habitat within the Badlands and in the Vail Lake/Wilson Valley area which may
provide foraging area or possibly nest sites.
ALTERNATIVE 3
The golden eagle is not considered conserved under Alternative 3 due to the lack of
conserved habitat within the Badlands and in the Vail Lake/Wilson Valley/Anza Valley area
which may provide foraging area or possibly nest sites.
B-9 Asio flammeus – short-eared owl - breeding

Federal: Partners in Flight Watch List; Fish and Wildlife Service Migratory
Nongame Birds of Management
ALTERNATIVE 1
RATIONALE: The short-eared owl could be adequately conserved under Alternative

1.
The short-eared owl is commonly found in open treeless areas using fence posts and small
mounds as perches (Zeiner et al. 1990). It requires dense vegetation and tall grasses, brush,
ditches, and wetlands which are used for resting and roosting cover (Grinnell and Miller 1944).
Typically it winters in agricultural fields and grasslands (Garrett and Dunn 1981). It is
considered an uncommon and local winter visitant in the planning area and has been
documented to likely overwinter with some regularity but has not been documented to occur
in western Riverside County as a breeding bird (Garrett and Dunn 1981). The database has
few records within the central portion of the planning area. However, none of the locations are
documented as breeding locations. The few locations within the database include the area
near Lake Mathews, Lake Perris, Lake Skinner, and Mystic Lake/San Jacinto Wildlife Area.

One literature source indicates the Lakeview Mountains area may regularly be used by
wintering birds (Garrett and Dunn 1981).
The short-eared owl is considered conserved under Alternative 1 because large areas of
suitable habitat and potential nest sites are conserved within the alternative. Habitat for the
species is conserved within the Lake Mathews, Lake Perris, Lake Skinner, Mystic Lake/San
Jacinto Wildlife Area, and portions of the Lakeview Mountains. Conservation would depend
on conducting surveys to identify locations of nest sites and avoid impacts to nest sites, if
found, as noted in the conservation considerations below.
Numbers of the short-eared owl have declined over most of the range in recent decades
because of destruction and fragmentation of grassland and wetland habitats, and due to
grazing (Remsen 1978). The short-eared owl nests on the ground in a depression concealed
in vegetation and may thus be difficult to observe or detect during surveys of grassland areas
(Zeiner et al. 1990; Lehman et al. 1998). Surveys in grassland areas where short-eared owls
are observed should be conducted. If nest sites are found, these areas should be avoided
during the nesting season.
ALTERNATIVE 2
Similar to Alternative 1, the short-eared owl is considered conserved under Alternative 2.
ALTERNATIVE 3
Similar to Alternative 1, the short-eared owl is considered conserved under Alternative 3.

Although portions of the Lakeview Mountains are not conserved with this alternative, the
nearby upper Salt Creek and San Jacinto Valley are considered conserved and provide
potential nesting and foraging habitat. Surveys for nest sites should be conducted and buffers
around nest sites may be needed.
B-10 Asio otus – long-eared owl - breeding
Sensitive
ALTERNATIVE 1

RATIONALE: The long-eared owl could be adequately conserved under Alternative 1.
The long-eared owl typically occurs in dense, riparian and live oak thickets near meadow
edges, and nearby woodland and forest habitats (Marks et al. 1994). It is also found in dense
conifer stands at higher elevations, however this is for roosting and nesting only and the
forested areas within which it occurs are usually adjacent to more open habitat including
grasslands and shrublands (Marks et al. 1994). The only known breeding location is for
Potrero Creek (Garrett and Dunn 1981; Hayworth pers. obs.). The long-eared owl has been
recorded for the riparian habitat of the Santa Margarita River and Prado Basin along the
Santa Ana River; however, the exact location is unknown and breeding is not documented but
could be likely. Although there are no known key population areas, the database documents
locations within the Santa Ana River area, Lake Elsinore, Temecula Creek, and at the San
Jacinto Wildlife Area.
The long-eared owl is considered conserved under Alternative 1 because potential and known
nesting areas and areas where the species has been observed in the past are conserved
within the alternative. Habitat for the species is conserved within the Prado Basin/Santa Ana
River, Santa Margarita River, Temecula Creek, Lake Elsinore, and San Jacinto Wildlife Area.
Conservation would depend on conducting surveys to identify locations of nest sites and avoid
impacts to nest sites, if found, as noted in the conservation considerations below.
The destruction and fragmentation of riparian habitat and live oak groves have been major
factors in the decline of this species (Remsen 1978). Preservation of healthy riparian stands
and planting of conifers or other large trees in groves near open habitat would be important
management actions for long-eared owls. Surveys in potential nesting areas where long-
eared owls are observed should be conducted. If nest sites are found, these areas should be
avoided during the nesting season.
ALTERNATIVE 2
Similar to Alternative 1, the long-eared owl is considered conserved under Alternative 2.
ALTERNATIVE 3
Similar to Alternative 1, the long-eared owl is considered conserved under Alternative 3.

B-11 Botaurus lentiginosus – American bittern
State: None
Federal: Species of Management Concern; Partners in Flight Priority Bird
Species
ALTERNATIVE 1
RATIONALE: The American bittern could be adequately conserved under Alternative

1.
American bitterns are found almost exclusively in emergent habitat of freshwater marshes and
vegetated borders of ponds and lakes (Grinnell and Miller 1944). Although American bitterns
have been repeatedly recorded in the San Jacinto Wildlife Area/Mystic Lake area (Garrett and
Dunn 1981) and the Prado Basin/Santa Ana River and could breed at both locales, there
currently are no confirmed breeding colonies in western Riverside County. Other geographic
locations recorded within the database include: Lake Mathews Reserve, Lake Elsinore, and
Lake Perris. These records do not confirm breeding locations but the habitat is present and
breeding could occur in these regions.
The American bittern is considered conserved under Alternative 1 because potential nesting
and foraging areas and areas where the species has been observed in the past are
conserved within the alternative. Habitat for the species is conserved within the Prado
Basin/Santa Ana River, Lake Mathews Reserve, Lake Elsinore, Lake Perris, and Mystic
Lake/San Jacinto Wildlife Area. Conservation would depend on managing the habitat within
the conserved area to prevent exotic invasion and promote healthy development of emergent
vegetation, as noted in the conservation considerations below.

The population of the American bittern has declined due to the draining of marshes, human
disturbance, and pesticides. Overgrazing of emergent vegetation also is detrimental to the
species. (Arbib 1979). American bitterns have been known to nest within restored bulrush
marsh areas, a floodwater storage pool and even various kinds of upland vegetation, although
this is rare (Svedarsky 1992). The species may also make use of wetlands created by
surface mining (Perkins and Lawrence 1985). The area where the species occurs in the
Prado Basin is carefully managed to minimize human disturbance and to maximize tule and
bulrush concentrations, which provide cover for this secretive species. This management
activity should be continued as part of the conservation considerations within other conserved
areas that are potentially used by the species.
ALTERNATIVE 2
Similar to Alternative 1, the American bittern is considered conserved under Alternative 2.
ALTERNATIVE 3
Similar to Alternative 1, the American bittern is considered conserved under Alternative 3.
B-12 Buteo regalis – ferruginous hawk

Species; Species of Management Concern
ALTERNATIVE 1
RATIONALE: The ferruginous hawk could be adequately conserved under Alternative

1.
Within southern California, including the planning area, ferruginous hawks typically winter in
open fields, grasslands, and agricultural areas (Garrett and Dunn 1981). Important wintering
areas in the planning area include the Lakeview-Perris area, the Prado Basin area, the
Murrieta area, Domenigoni Valley, and Rawson Canyon (Michael Patten, pers. comm., 1998).
The ferruginous hawk is considered conserved under Alternative 1 because large areas of

suitable winter foraging habitat are conserved. These include areas within Prado Basin,
Lakeview Mountains, Lake Perris, Double Butte, Diamond Valley Reservoir, and the area
around Sage and Wilson Valley. Conservation would depend, however, on preserving the
important wintering areas of the ferruginous hawk as noted below in the conservation
considerations.
In winter, the species is behaviorally flexible and tolerant of human disturbance and alteration
of landscapes providing that an adequate prey base is available (Plumpton and Anderson
1997). It mostly eats lagomorphs, ground squirrels, and mice; it also takes birds, reptiles, and
amphibians. Focused surveys within the central portion of the planning area are warranted
to identify regionally important wintering concentrations.
ALTERNATIVE 2
Similar to Alternative 1, the ferruginous hawk is considered conserved under Alternative 2.
ALTERNATIVE 3
Similar to Alternative 1, the ferruginous hawk is considered conserved under Alternative 3.
B-13 Buteo swainsoni – Swainson’s hawk

State: Threatened
Federal: Partners in Flight Priority Bird Species
ALTERNATIVE 1
RATIONALE: The Swainson’s hawk could be adequately conserved under Alternative

1.
During their migration movements, the Swainson’s hawk rests and feeds in grasslands and
harvested fields, especially where grasshoppers are numerous, often perching on fence posts,
telephone poles, and power poles. Large flocks may roost at night in trees (England et al.
1997). There are probably no key population areas within the planning area, however,
migratory stopovers or observations of flight within the area include locations along the Santa
Ana River, where they may roost due to the access to trees, Badlands, Wildomar, Santa Rosa

Plateau, Winchester, and Wilson Valley. They probably occur during migration where ever
there are foraging and roosting opportunities.
The Swainson’s hawk is considered conserved under Alternative 1 because large areas of
suitable winter foraging habitat are conserved. These include areas within Prado Basin/Santa
Ana River, Lakeview Mountains, Lake Perris, Double Butte, Diamond Valley Reservoir,
Badlands, Santa Rosa Plateau, and the area around Sage and Wilson Valley. Conservation
would depend, however, on preserving the important wintering areas of the Swainson’s hawk
as noted below in the conservation considerations.
Some of the population decline of the Swainson’ hawk may be due to urbanization, loss of
foraging habitat and possibly to long-term rodent control programs (Fry 1995). Mortality
during migration, uses of toxic chemicals in South America, or habitat loss on the wintering
grounds are not plausible causes of disappearance of the species from southern California
(Riseborough et al. 1989). Swainson’s hawks were more abundant in areas of moderate
cultivation than in grassland (Schmutz 1989). Schmutz (1984, 1989) further showed that
Swainson’s hawks did not decline with extensive cultivation but probably shifted to other prey
where ground squirrels were scarce. Focused surveys are warranted to identify regionally
important wintering concentrations.
ALTERNATIVE 2
Similar to Alternative 1, the Swainson’s hawk is considered conserved under Alternative 2.
ALTERNATIVE 3
Similar to Alternative 1, the Swainson’s hawk is considered conserved under Alternative 3.

B-14 Campylorhynchus brunneicapillus couesi – coastal cactus
wren
Federal: Cleveland National Forest Sensitive
ALTERNATIVE 1
RATIONALE: The coastal cactus wren could be adequately conserved under

Alternative 1.
The coastal cactus wren is an obligate, nonmigratory resident of the coastal sage scrub plant
community (Westman 1983, O’Leary 1990). It frequents deserts and other arid terrain with
thickets, patches, or tracts of larger, branching cacti, stiff-twigged, thorny shrubs, and small
trees (Grinnell and Miller 1944). It is closely associated with three species of cacti and occurs
almost exclusively in thickets of cholla (Opuntia prolifera) and prickly pear (Opuntia littoralis
and Opuntia oricola) dominated stands of coastal sage scrub below 457 meters in elevation
on mesas and lower slopes of the coast ranges. The coastal cactus wren is found at few
locations within the planning area. Due to the small, disjunct populations, sedentary behavior,
low dispersal capabilities, and limited protection of cactus-dominated coastal sage scrub, all
existing coastal cactus wrens in the planning area are presumed to be critical as key
populations to reduce the likelihood of local extirpations of remaining metapopulations. It has
been recorded along the eastern flank of the Santa Ana Mountains from the vicinity of Corona
to Alberhill and Lake Mathews. It also occurs from the city of Riverside east to the Box
Springs Mountains and the Badlands, and south along the western flank of the San Jacinto
Mountains to the city of San Jacinto. Small populations also occur in the Moreno Valley and
Bernasconi Hills near Lake Perris and in the Lakeview Mountains north of Homeland. Anza
(near Vail Lake), Temecula area, and Sage Valley appear to be additional remaining
strongholds for low to moderate numbers of the coastal cactus wrens.
The coastal cactus wren is considered conserved under Alternative 1 because areas of
population concentrations are conserved and habitat linkages are provided within native
habitat, although the habitat may not necessarily be composed of suitable habitat for
occupation. Important habitat areas conserved under Alternative 1 include the flanks of the
Santa Ana Mountains and San Jacinto Mountains within the Cleveland National Forest and
San Bernardino National Forest, the Lake Perris area, a portion of the Lakeview Mountains,
Anza, Vail Lake, Temecula and Sage Valley areas, Lake Mathews, Interstate 15 corridor from
the Santa Ana River to Alberhill, Gavilan Plateau, Box Springs Mountains, and the Badlands.

Conservation would depend on preserving the function of the habitat connections and on
conducting focused surveys to identify cactus patches that may required additional protection
as described in the conservation considerations below.
in January of 2002 (California Biodiversity News 2000). The Forest Plan for the Cleveland
National Forest and San Bernardino National Forest will address potential impacts to the
coastal cactus wren, including recreation, fire management, and land exchanges.
coastal cactus wren, the Forest Plans would also need to address the effects of forest
activities on this species and associated habitats. In addition, the coastal cactus wren may
also be present within private inholdings in the MSHCP planning area of the Cleveland
National Forest and San Bernardino National Forest. Activities within these private inholdings
would need to be reviewed by the County for compatibility with MSHCP goals and objectives
for this species.
Continued threats to the coastal cactus wren include habitat loss and fragmentation from
urbanization and agricultural development. Due to the apparent disjunct spatial arrangement
of known occurrences in western Riverside county, it may be necessary to protect isolated
areas to reduce the decline of the long-term viability and avoid local extirpations of remaining
populations. Surveys will be required to identify cactus patches that are occupied by the
cactus wren and additional protection and management of identified nesting areas may be
required in order to considered this species to be conserved.

ALTERNATIVE 2
Similar to Alternative 1, the coastal cactus wren is considered conserved under Alternative
2.
ALTERNATIVE 3
The coastal cactus wren is not considered conserved under Alternative 3 due to the lack of
conserved potential and known occupation areas in the Lakeview Mountains and in the area
east of Vail Lake to the Sage/Aguanga area.
B-15 Cathartes aura – turkey vulture - breeding

State: None
Federal: San Bernardino National Forest Sensitive
ALTERNATIVE 1
RATIONALE: The turkey vulture could be adequately conserved under Alternative 1.
The turkey vulture occurs in open stages of most habitats that provide adequate cliffs or large
trees for nesting, roosting, and resting (Garrett and Dunn 1981). There is no recent nesting
location information and there are no documented key population areas. The one nest record
from approximately 1900 is located within the central portion of the planning area near the
Lakeview Mountains, which may be a likely location for a current nesting location. There are
concentrations of observation locations within the southwestern portion of the planning area
from Lake Elsinore to the Santa Rosa Plateau, east to the Wilson Valley and Lake Skinner.
There are also a number of locations within the Moreno Valley, into the Badlands and to
Beaumont. There are scattered observation locations throughout the central part of the
planning area which may constitute spring and fall transient/migrant individuals which pass
through the area as well. Although not recorded in the database, due to its listing as a San
Bernardino National Forest Sensitive species, it may occur there and could nest within the
forest service lands.
The turkey vulture is considered conserved under Alternative 1 due to the inclusion of the
historic nest site location in the Lakeview Mountains and current observation locations within
the Badlands, Potrero, Lake Elsinore to the Santa Rosa Plateau, Wilson Valley and Lake
Skinner, and because the San Bernardino Forest Service lands are included under the

Alternative. However, conservation of this species will depend on additional conservation
Bernardino National Forest will address potential impacts to the turkey vulture, including
recreation and land exchanges.
turkey vulture, the Forest Plans would also need to address the effects of forest activities on
this species and associated habitats, especially nesting sites. In addition, the turkey vulture
Bernardino National Forest. Activities within these private inholdings would need to be
reviewed by the County for compatibility with MSHCP goals and objectives for this species.
Human disturbance and canid predation may be significant causes of nest failure (Coleman
and Fraser 1989a). Other threats include shooting, trapping, and poisoning; pesticide and
other contaminants or toxics including DDT, DDE, lead poisoning, and mercury contamination;
collisions with stationary or moving structures or objects (Kirk and Mossman 1998). The
population size and nest densities are difficult to assess because of the wide daily range, the
clumped distribution around the communal roosts, unknown geographic area covered by birds
at the roosts, and unknown proportions of local populations breeding (Kirk and Mossman
1998). The identification of nest sites by conducting surveys in potential nest areas and the
resulting establishment of a buffer distance in order to protect the nest site from human

disturbance is a conservation consideration. The required buffer distance is unknown at this
time.
ALTERNATIVE 2
Similar to Alternative 1, the turkey vulture is considered conserved under Alternative 2.
ALTERNATIVE 3
The turkey vulture is not considered conserved under Alternative 3 due to the lack of
conservation of the historic and likely current nest site in the Lakeview Mountains and the
potential breeding habitat in the Badlands.
B-16 Catharus ustulatus – Swainson’s thrush - breeding

State: None
Sensitive
ALTERNATIVE 1
RATIONALE: The Swainson’s thrush could be adequately conserved under Alternative

1.
The Swainson’s thrush nests and forages near water in wooded riparian habitats (Johnston
1949). It frequents riparian woodlands, especially with dense understory; and often forages
in nearby forest or woodland. Although the general literature indicates it could occur anywhere
within the planning area, there are few records that are widely scattered within the central and
eastern portions of the planning area. The Swainson’s thrush has been recorded for the
riparian habitat of the Santa Margarita River and Prado Basin along the Santa Ana River,
likely breeding records, however the exact location is unknown. There appears to be no key
population areas based on the records within the planning area but it has been recorded near
Lake Mathews, Temecula Creek and Wilson Creek. Although not recorded in the database,
due to its listing as a San Bernardino National Forest Sensitive species, it may occur there
and could nest within the forest service lands.
The Swainson’s thrush is considered conserved under Alternative 1 due to the inclusion of the
potential nest locations in the Santa Margarita River, Prado Basin area, and Santa Ana River.

Possible nesting locations are also conserved in the Lake Mathews, Temecula Creek and
Wilson Creek areas. It is also considered conserved under Alternative 1 because the San
Bernardino Forest Service lands are included under the Alternative. However, conservation
of this species will depend on additional conservation considerations described below.
Bernardino National Forest will address potential impacts to the Swainson’s thrush, including
logging, road construction, recreation and land exchanges.
Swainson’s thrush, the Forest Plans would also need to address the effects of forest activities
on this species and associated habitats, especially nesting sites. In addition, the Swainson’s
thrush may also be present within private inholdings in the MSHCP planning area of the San
Riparian forest strips are usually protected from logging for their buffer effect on aquatic
habitats. A 20 meter and 40 meter strip had the highest mean bird densities for the first year
after clear cutting the adjacent forest but also the fastest decreases thereafter. By the third
year after clear-cutting, the forest dwelling species, including the Swainson’s thrush, were
virtually absent in these narrow strips of riparian habitat. There is evidence that 60-meter wide
strips are required for forest-dwelling birds and that bird populations may continue to decline
in strips before regeneration of adjacent clear-cuts provides suitable habitat for the forest
dwelling species (Darveau, et al. 1995). Playback trials were used to determine whether

birds will cross treeless gaps. In this study, forest specialists, such as the Swainson’s thrush,
showed that the probability of crossing gaps decreased sharply with forest gaps that were 25
to 40 meters wide. In contrast, control trials showed no significant decrease in their probability
of response up to 100 meters through continuous stands (Rail, et al. 1997). Consequently,
logging practices should avoid creating gaps in forested areas along riparian habitat.
Additionally, protection of lowland riparian habitat through Best Management Practices and
exotics control will continue to provide suitable breeding habitat.
ALTERNATIVE 2
Similar to Alternative 1, the Swainson’s thrush is considered conserved under Alternative 2.
ALTERNATIVE 3
Similar to Alternative 1, the Swainson’s thrush is considered conserved under Alternative 3.
B-17 Chaetura vauxi – Vaux’s swift

Federal: Partners in Flight Priority Bird Species; Fish and Wildlife Service
Migratory Nongame Birds of Management
ALTERNATIVE 1
RATIONALE: The Vaux’s swift could be adequately conserved under Alternative 1.
Studies in the Oregon Cascades show Vaux’s swift is associated only with old growth stands
of Douglas-fir (Gilbert and Allwine 1991). Population numbers of Vaux’s swift correlated most
strongly with live trees greater than 100 centimeters in diameter at breast height and also with
density of snags greater than 50 centimeters in diameter at breast height (Lundquist and
Mariani 1991). It roosts and nests in hollow trees and snags, and occasionally in chimneys
and buildings; often in large flocks (Bent 1940). Nesting locations have been confirmed for
locations within the San Bernardino Mountains (Garrett and Dunn 1981) and it is recorded
within the San Bernardino National Forest, near Lake Hemet and near Lake Fulmor, and may
breed there, although this has not been confirmed. It also likely occurs as a migrating species
along the Santa Ana River, Lake Mathews, Santa Rosa Plateau, Temecula Creek, Badlands,
and Mystic Lake.

The Vaux’s swift is considered conserved under Alternative 1 because the breeding area
within the San Bernardino Forest Service lands are included under the alternative.
Additionally, the migration areas within the Santa Ana River area, Lake Mathews, Santa Rosa
Plateau, Temecula Creek, Badlands, and Mystic lake also are conserved. However,
conservation of this species will depend on additional conservation considerations described
below.
Bernardino National Forest will address potential impacts to the Vaux’s swift including logging
practices.
Vaux’s swift, the Forest Plans would also need to address the effects of forest activities on this
species and associated habitats, especially snags and hollow trees. In addition, Vaux’s swift
Cavity nesters, such as the Vaux’s swift, may suffer drastic declines in intensively managed
monocultures (Manuwal 1991). These bird populations may be most affected by changes in
forest structure and fragmentation in the nesting range and by winter habitat availability
(Manuwal 1991). Spotted owl management prescriptions may accommodate the needs of the
Vaux’s swift and other old-growth associated species such as Myotis bats, other cavity-
nesting birds, conifer seed-eating birds, stream dwelling amphibians, and the flying squirrel

(Carey 1989; Gilbert and Allwine 1991). In designing snag-retention areas for snag nesting
species, managers should provide adequate snag distribution over large areas, live-tree
replacement, and patches of older stands (Lundquist and Mariani 1991).
ALTERNATIVE 2
Similar to Alternative 1, the Vaux’s swift is considered conserved under Alternative 2.
ALTERNATIVE 3
Similar to Alternative 1, the Vaux’s swift is considered conserved under Alternative 3.
B-18 Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus – western snowy plover

(nesting)
Federal: Migratory Nongame Birds of Management Concern (full species);
Partners in Flight Watch List
Other: None
ALTERNATIVE 1
RATIONALE: The western snowy plover could be adequately conserved under

Alternative 1.
The inland population breeds up to 3,048 meters on barren to sparsely vegetated ground at
alkaline or saline lakes, reservoirs, and ponds; on riverine sand bars; and at sewage, salt-
evaporation, and agricultural wastewater ponds (Page, et al. 1995). The western snowy
plover has been documented to occur in three locations within western Riverside county: Lake
Elsinore, along the Santa Ana River, and within the Morena Valley area. It is unknown if these
locations include nest sites or more than a few individuals. The largest number recorded in
the literature is for 10 individuals wintering in the Lake Elsinore area (Shuford, et al. 1995).
In depth surveys of breeding populations have been conducted for both the coastal and inland
populations and no breeding locations have been documented for the planning area (Page,
et al. 1991).
The western snowy plover is considered conserved under Alternative 1 because the areas
documented to be used by the snowy plover are conserved. Although no areas are known to

be used by the snowy plover for nesting, it may use the various alkaline lakes present including
Mystic Lake or the San Jacinto Wildlife Area. Although Lake Elsinore has been identified as
a wintering area, it could be used for breeding and is considered conserved under Alternative
1. The locations observed at the Santa Ana River and in Morena Valley are likely wintering
observations due to lack of suitable nesting habitat. Conservation would depend on predator
control and management of potential nesting areas within the conserved areas of the
alternative, as noted below.
Degradation of habitat appears to be the primary threat to the western snowy plover for both
the coastal and inland populations (Page et al. 1995). Predation, nest abandonment, and
weather have been identified as the primary causes of nest failure for the snowy plover.
Habitat creation for nesting for the coastal population of the snowy plover has been attempted
and monitored at a site at Batiquitos Lagoon, San Diego County, California. Two
management methods to increase nesting success of the interior population of the snowy
plover have been evaluated. One method was to prevent sheet flooding of the nest sites by
building nesting platforms or ridges. This method was not successful in avoiding flooding of
nest sites. The second method was to prevent predation which has also has been a
significant problem for these ground nesting shorebirds. Electric fences did not significantly
reduce annual egg predation due to shifting locations of colonies, neutralizing of the electric
field due to weather and debris, some predators jump easily over the fences, other predators
are avian and are not affected by the electric fences, and the chicks may leave the fenced
area and thus are no longer protected (Koenen et al. 1996). These two management
methods do not seem to be useful at present. If breeding takes place at the conserved areas
at Mystic Lake/San Jacinto wildlife Area or Lake Elsinore, and predation appears to cause
repeated losses of the birds, additional protection may be needed in the form of predator
control or nest site management.
ALTERNATIVE 2
Similar to Alternative 1, the western snowy plover is considered conserved under Alternative
2.
ALTERNATIVE 3

Similar to Alternative 1, the western snowy plover is considered conserved under Alternative
3.
B-19 Charadrius montanus – mountain plover

Federal: Proposed for Listing as Threatened (Federal Register 64:7587),
February 16, 1999). Also recognized as a Fish and Wildlife Service
Region 1 Species of Management Concern and Partners in Flight
Priority Bird Species. Listed as Vulnerable by the International Union of
Nature and Natural Resources (IUCN)
ALTERNATIVE 1
RATIONALE: The mountain plover could be adequately conserved under Alternative

1.
Within California, the mountain plover frequents open plains with low, herbaceous or scattered
shrub vegetation; it may occur in areas with sparse shrub cover but avoids high and dense
cover (Zeiner, et al. 1990). Within southern California, the largest numbers of birds occur in
grasslands and agricultural areas in the interior only during the wintering season (Garrett and
Dunn 1981). Mountain plovers have occurred recently in western Riverside County in
appropriate habitat bounded by Perris, the Mystic Lake area, and Nuevo; in the Domenigoni
Valley; and in the vicinity of Winchester between Highways 79 and Interstate 215 (Michael
Patten, pers. comm., 1998). The Perris/Nuevo/Mystic Lake area is one of few locales in
California where mountain plovers have been regularly recorded in recent years (Garrett and
Dunn 1981).
The mountain plover is considered conserved under Alternative 1 because the potential winter
foraging area is conserved. The conserved area potentially used by this nomadic and
irregularly occurring species includes upper Salt Creek/San Jacinto Valley, Mystic Lake, the
lower elevations of the Lakeview Mountains, the San Jacinto River, and the lower elevations
of the area around Double Butte. However, conservation of this species will depend on
additional conservation considerations described below.

In the proposed rule to list the mountain plover as threatened, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (1999) concluded that the conversion of grassland habitat, agricultural practices,
management of domestic livestock, and decline of native herbivores likely primarily led to the
recent, documented decline of mountain plovers. Although the population decline in the
coastal plains of the region is attributable to the destruction of suitable open habitats (Garrett
and Dunn 1981), impacts to breeding habitats and birds are occurring on the breeding
grounds and likely have contributed to the observed local declines. In winter habitats, birds
prefer alkali flats which are presently rare, and although cultivated fields are used, birds may
be dependent on core areas of native habitat in October and November especially (Knopf and
Rupert 1995). Plovers forage and roost in loose flocks of 2 to 1,100 birds with the average
flock size increasing late in the year (Knopf and Rupert 1995). The average distance the flock
moves each day is 1.17 km/day with the movements of the flock and individuals being highly
variable. Site fidelity of the wintering flocks appears to be poorly developed. Mountain
plovers appear to be using the cultivated fields for wintering out of force rather than choice
(Knopf and Rupert 1995). If some of the conserved areas that contain cattle appear to be
used regularly, cattle may need to be removed in order to provide suitable foraging habitat.
Additionally, focused surveys within the central portion of the planning area are warranted to
identify regionally important wintering concentrations.
ALTERNATIVE 2
Similar to Alternative 1, the mountain plover is considered conserved under Alternative 2.
ALTERNATIVE 3
Similar to Alternative 1, the mountain plover is considered conserved under Alternative 3.

B-20 Circus cyaneus – northern harrier - breeding
Federal: Partners in Flight Priority Bird Species
ALTERNATIVE 1
RATIONALE: The northern harrier could be adequately conserved under Alternative 1.
The northern harrier frequents open wetlands, wet and lightly grazed pastures, old fields, dry
uplands, upland prairies, mesic grasslands, drained marshlands, croplands, shrub-steppe,
meadows, grasslands, open rangelands, desert sinks, and fresh and saltwater emergent
wetlands (Bent 1937; MacWhirter and Bildstein 1996). The northern harrier is widespread
throughout the planning area but is absent from the forested areas of Cleveland National
Forest and the San Bernardino National Forest. It is concentrated along the Interstate 15
corridor, within the central portion of the planning area and through the Badlands area to
Beaumont. It is considered a common winter resident throughout the planning area but
breeding locations are not documented and it has been documented as a scarce and local
breeding bird (Garrett and Dunn 1981). Key population areas, probably for winter residents
and possibly for breeding birds, appear to be in the Lake Mathews area, in the vicinity of Lake
Elsinore, in the Temecula/Murrieta region, near Lake Skinner, within the Sage and Wilson
Valley area, at Mystic lake/San Jacinto Wildlife Area and within the Badlands.
The northern harrier is considered conserved under Alternative 1 because areas of suitable
habitat within which observed locations are present are conserved which includes: the
Interstate 15 corridor inclusive of Lake Mathews and south to the Temecula Creek area, Santa
Rosa Plateau, Antelope Valley, Lake Skinner, within the Sage and Wilson Valley area, at
Mystic Lake/San Jacinto Wildlife Area and within the Badlands. Conservation would depend,
however, on conducting surveys within potential habitat and conserving identified nest
locations, as noted in the conservation considerations below.
The destruction of wetland habitat, native grassland, and moist meadows, and burning and
plowing of nesting areas during early stages of the breeding cycle, are major reasons for the
decline (Remsen 1978). Population estimates and estimates of reproductive success may
be difficult to make for the northern harrier. This is due to its ground-nesting behavior which
makes it difficult to census. In comparative studies of nesting use of managed versus non-

managed grasslands, northern harriers were found to locate their nests in fields not disturbed
by recent management activities (within the previous 12 months) which would provide
additional protection for the northern harrier within the planning area (Herkert, et al. 1999).
Overall, northern harrier nest placement was not influenced by whether fields were dominated
by native or nonnative grasses (Herkert, et al. 1999). Wetland preservation for waterfowl and
habitat management practices for upland game birds are beneficial. Management
recommendations include the protection of undisturbed habitat in which annual vegetation and
successional plants can grow and dead vegetation is not removed. In other areas, there is
recommended active maintenance of old fields and shrubby habitats through prescribed
burning and grazing to prevent reforestation. Also, in other areas, it has been recommended
to eliminate winter livestock grazing from wetland and grassland ecosystems to improve the
winter habitat (MacWhirter and Bildstein 1996). Surveys in potential nesting areas where
northern harriers are observed should be conducted. If nest sites are found, these areas
should be avoided during the nesting season.
ALTERNATIVE 2
The northern harrier would not be considered conserved under Alternative 2 due to the lack
of conservation of potential nesting areas in the Badlands, Wilson Valley, Sage area, and
Anza Valley.
ALTERNATIVE 3
The northern harrier would not be considered conserved under Alternative 3 due to the lack
of conservation of potential nesting areas in the Badlands, Wilson Valley, Sage area, and
Anza Valley.
B-21 Coccyzus americanus occidentalis – western yellow-billed

cuckoo
State: Endangered
Region 1 Species of Management Concern; San Bernardino National
Forest Sensitive; Cleveland National Forest Sensitive
ALTERNATIVE 1

RATIONALE: The western yellow-billed cuckoo could be adequately conserved under
Alternative 1.
The western yellow-billed cuckoo in California requires dense, wide riparian woodlands with
well-developed understories for breeding (Garrett and Dunn 1981). It is restricted when
breeding to river bottoms and other mesic habitats where humidity is high and where the
dense understory abuts slow-moving watercourses, backwaters or seeps (Zeiner, et al. 1990).
Up to five cuckoo territories have been documented in the western Riverside County area
in recent years; all of these were located in the Prado Basin or adjacent, Riverside County
reach of the Santa Ana River (Fish and Wildlife Service, Carlsbad, California, unpublished
data). The Prado Basin birds may represent the only summering “population” in southern
California away from the Colorado River. Breeding of yellow-billed cuckoos has been
confirmed only once in the Prado Basin during 14 years of observations there (Fish and
Wildlife Service, unpublished data).
The western yellow-billed cuckoo is considered conserved under Alternative 1 because the
only known potential breeding area or area occupied by the species is conserved. This
includes the Prado Basin and the adjacent Santa Ana River area. Conservation
considerations are required, however, and include exotic control or habitat management
through Best Management Practices, as noted below.
Although the major continuing threat to yellow-billed cuckoos in southern California is almost
certainly habitat destruction (Garrett and Dunn 1981), there may be other as yet unidentified
threats or impacts that are operative on the breeding grounds, wintering grounds, or both. The
species occurs where riparian vegetation exceeds 300 m in length and 100 m in width, water
is present within 100 m and there is a dense understory (Gaines 1974). Hughes (1999)
identifies restoration of riparian habitats and elimination of pesticide spraying in orchards
adjacent to riparian areas as key management measures. Restoration of riparian habitats
have been shown to succeed in establishment of breeding pairs in southern California
(Hughes 1999). Protection of lowland riparian habitat through Best Management Practices
and exotic control or removal will continue to provide suitable breeding habitat.
ALTERNATIVE 2
Similar to Alternative 1, the western yellow-billed cuckoo is considered conserved under

Alternative 2.

ALTERNATIVE 3
Similar to Alternative 1, the western yellow-billed cuckoo is considered conserved under

Alternative 3.
B-22 Cypseloides niger – black swift (breeding)

Federal: Partners in Flight Watch List; Fish and Wildlife Service Migratory
Nongame Birds of Management; San Bernardino National Forest
Sensitive
ALTERNATIVE 1
RATIONALE: The black swift could be adequately conserved under Alternative 1.
The black swift nests in moist crevices or caves on sea cliffs above the surf, or on cliffs behind,
or adjacent to, waterfalls in deep canyons (Lack 1956). Five ecological features seem to be
of importance for the presence of black swifts within an area within their range: the presence
of water, high relief as regards the configuration of the terrain, inaccessibility, darkness, and
the lack of flyway obstructions (Knorr 1961). The black swift is present within western
Riverside County as a breeding bird in the San Bernardino and San Jacinto Mountains
(Zeiner, et al. 1990). It is documented as breeding at Tahquitz Creek and probably the north
fork of the San Jacinto River in the San Jacinto Mountains (Garrett and Dunn 1981). It may
occur in other parts of the planning area as an irregular transient (Garrett and Dunn 1981).
The black swift is considered conserved under Alternative 1 because the San Bernardino
Forest Service lands are included under the alternative. However, conservation of this
species will depend on additional conservation considerations described below.

Bernardino National Forest will address potential impacts to the black swift, including logging,
road construction, recreation, fire management, and land exchanges.
black swift, the Forest Plans would also need to address the effects of forest activities on this
species and associated habitats. In addition, the black swift may also be present within
private inholdings in the MSHCP planning area of the San Bernardino National Forest.
Potential threats to the species may be related to the relatively narrow requirements for the
nesting location (see below) and the relatively few situations available within the range of the
species that satisfy these requirements. Protection of the conditions which meet their habitat
requirements is essential.
ALTERNATIVE 2
Similar to Alternative 1, the black swift is considered conserved under Alternative 2.

ALTERNATIVE 3
Similar to Alternative 1, the black swift is considered conserved under Alternative 3.
B-23 Dendroica petechia – yellow warbler

Sensitive
Other: Audubon Society Special Concern
RATIONALE: The yellow warbler could be adequately conserved under Alternative 1.
Yellow warblers in southern California breed in lowland and foothill riparian woodlands
dominated by cottonwoods, alders, or willows and other small trees and shrubs typical of low,
open-canopy riparian woodland (Garrett and Dunn 1981). During migration, they occur in
lowland and foothill woodland habitats such as desert oases, riparian woodlands, oak
woodlands, mixed deciduous-coniferous woodlands, suburban and urban gardens and parks,
groves of exotic trees, farmyard windbreaks, and orchards (Small 1994). It also breeds in
montane chaparral, open ponderosa pine and mixed conifer habitats with substantial amounts
of brush (Zeiner, et al. 1990). Locations in the northern portion of the planning area are widely
scattered from the eastern to western boundaries. The species is also widely scattered along
the Interstate 15 corridor from the north to south and then along the southern portion from the
Santa Rosa Plateau to Aguanga. Significant breeding populations remain in the Prado Basin
(L. R. Hays, pers. obs.); along San Timoteo, Temecula, Wilson, and Alberhill Creeks and
tributaries; the San Jacinto River; and along the western escarpment of the San Jacinto
mountains (Michael Patten, pers. comm., 1998). Additional localities include Potrero Creek,
Santa Margarita River, Tucalota Creek, Lake Perris, Lake Mathews Reserve and Motte
Rimrock Reserve.
The yellow warbler is considered conserved under Alternative 1 because the key population
located along the I-15 corridor, the drainages that are located in the southwestern portion of
the planning area, as well as the more isolated and scattered breeding locations in the
eastern portions of the planning area including but not limited to Potrero, San Timoteo Creek,
Santa Margarita River, Tucalota Creek, Lake Perris, Lake Mathews, Motte-Rimrock Reserve,
Bautista Creek, Wilson Creek, Vail Lake, and San Jacinto River. The yellow warbler is also
considered conserved under Alternative 1 because the San Bernardino Forest Service lands

are included under the alternative. Conservation of this species would depend, however, on
preserving upland habitat adjacent to riparian habitat, control of exotics, maintaining the
habitat linkages for the species, maintaining the quality of the riparian vegetation through Best
Management Practices, and providing brown-headed cowbird management as noted in the
Bernardino National Forest will address potential impacts to the yellow warbler, including
logging, road construction, recreation, fire management, and land exchanges.
yellow warbler, the Forest Plans would also need to address the effects of forest activities on
this species and associated riparian habitats. In addition, the yellow warbler may also be
Major continuing threats to the species include habitat destruction and fragmentation and
brood-parasitism by brown-headed cowbirds (Molothrus ater) (Garrett and Dunn 1981). This
species has increased dramatically within the Prado Basin during the course of 14 years of
cowbird management and habitat conservation efforts there (Hays, pers. obs., 1986-1998).
Yellow warblers were more numerous on transects with abundant willow and little or no cattle
than on transects with heavy cattle use and low shrub volume. The yellow warbler population
increases coincide with a dramatic decrease in cattle and the elimination of willow cutting and

spraying. Elimination of grazing within riparian areas will improve the habitat and is an
important management tool. Protection of lowland riparian habitat through Best Management
Practices and exotic control or removal will continue to provide suitable breeding habitat.
ALTERNATIVE 2
Similar to Alternative 1, the yellow warbler is considered conserved under Alternative 2.
ALTERNATIVE 3
Similar to Alternative 1, the yellow warbler is considered conserved under Alternative 3.
B-24 Elanus leucurus - white-tailed kite

State: Rare; Fully-Protected Species
Migratory Nongame Birds of Management; San Bernardino National
Forest Sensitive
ALTERNATIVE 1
RATIONALE: The white-tailed kite could be adequately conserved under Alternative

1.
The white-tailed kite inhabits low elevation, open grasslands, savannah-like habitats,
agricultural areas, wetlands, and oak woodlands. Riparian areas adjacent to open areas are
also used (Dunk 1995). The white-tailed kite uses trees with dense canopies for cover and
the specific plant associations seem to be unimportant while the vegetation structure and prey
abundance are apparently more important (Dunk 1995). The white-tailed kite is recorded as
scattered throughout western Riverside County as a year-round resident, east of the San
Bernardino National Forest and the eastern foothills area. Records are very sparsely
distributed in the western portion of the planning area within the Cleveland National Forest.
The species is generally located within the central portion of the planning area and could likely
be observed within any suitable habitat from the Interstate 15 corridor east to the foothills of
the San Jacinto Mountains. Key population areas of the white-tailed kite appear to be
concentrated along the Interstate 15 corridor from Lake Mathews to Temecula. Other
population areas are concentrated along the Santa Ana River, Lake Perris, Calimesa,
Homeland, Lake Skinner and Vail Lake. Concentrations of winter roosting white-tailed kites

occur along San Timoteo Creek and in the Murrieta area of French Valley (G. Black, pers.
comm.).
The white-tailed kite is considered conserved under Alternative 1 because areas of suitable
habitat within which observed locations are present are conserved which includes: the
Interstate 15 corridor inclusive of Lake Mathews and south to the Temecula Creek area, Santa
Rosa Plateau, Antelope Valley, along drainages in French Valley, Lake Skinner, Lake Perris,
Double Butte, Upper Salt Creek/San Jacinto Valley, within the Sage and Wilson Valley area,
at Mystic Lake/San Jacinto Wildlife Area and within the Badlands. Conservation would
depend, however, on managing grazing practices within the conserved areas, as noted in the
Most of the changes in population numbers appear to be related to changes in the population
sizes of the prey base, however, currently, the breeding bird survey indicates that the
population numbers are declining in some areas. This may be due to the conversion of natural
or agricultural lands to urban or commercial property; clean farming techniques that leave few
residual vegetation areas for the prey; increased competition for nest-sites with other raptors
and corvids; a relatively long-term drought throughout California during much of the time from
1982 to 1991; and increased disturbances at the nest (Dunk 1995). In northern California, the
California Department of Fish and Game purchased previously grazed grasslands and largely
removed them from grazing. These areas now support large populations of voles and high
densities of wintering white-tailed kites, approximately 10 times the raptor density they
supported prior to the purchase (Dunk 1995). Management of cattle grazing may provide
additional habitat and foraging opportunities for the white-tailed kite. Surveys may also be
required to identify and protect nest sites.

ALTERNATIVE 2
The white-tailed kite would not be considered conserved under Alternative 2 due to the narrow
nature of the conserved habitat in the I-15 corridor north of Alberhill and the lack of
conservation east of Vail Lake, in conjunction with the need for relatively large territories.
ALTERNATIVE 3
The white-tailed kite would not be considered conserved under Alternative 3 due to the narrow
nature of the conserved habitat in the I-15 corridor north of Alberhill and the lack of
conservation east of Vail Lake, and in the Sage and Anza Valley areas, in conjunction with the
need for relatively large territories.
B-25 Empidonax traillii extimus - southwestern willow flycatcher

State: Endangered (all subspecies)
Federal: Endangered (Federal Register 60:10715, February 27, 1995); Partners
in Flight Priority Bird Species; Cleveland National Forest Sensitive
ALTERNATIVE 1
RATIONALE: The southwestern willow flycatcher could be adequately conserved under

Alternative 1.
The southwestern willow flycatcher is restricted to riparian woodlands along streams and
rivers with mature, dense stands of willows (Salix spp.), cottonwoods (Populus spp.) or
smaller spring fed or boggy areas with willows or alders (Alnus spp.). Riparian habitat
provides both breeding and foraging habitat for the species. The southwestern willow
flycatcher nests from zero to 13 feet above ground in thickets of trees and shrubs
approximately 13 to 23 feet tall with a high percentage of canopy cover and dense foliage.
The nest site plant community is typically even-aged, structurally homogeneous and dense
(Brown 1988; Whitfield 1990; Sedgewick and Knopf 1992). The southwestern willow
flycatcher is sparsely located from the Prado Basin southeast to the Vail Lake region. The key
population areas for the southwestern willow flycatcher are within the Prado Basin area and
adjoining Santa Ana River and along Murrieta and Temecula Creeks. The three locations
recorded in the database for the Diamond Valley Reservoir area are also considered key
population areas due to the overall low population within the planning area. Due to the

extremely specialized habitat requirements exhibited by this species, all known populations
or locations should be considered critical to the survival of this species (Hays, 11/10/98, pers.
comm.). Additional geographic locations recorded within the database include Temescal
Creek, Bautista Creek, and Vail Lake. Hemet Lake, Lake Elsinore, Santa Rosa Plateau, Lake
Mathews, Lake Skinner, and Lake Perris. These other locations have not been confirmed
as breeding locations.
The southwestern willow flycatcher is considered conserved under Alternative 1 because the
key population within the Prado Basin, Santa Ana River, Temecula Creek, Murrieta Creek,
and Diamond Valley Reservoir are included. It is also conserved due to the conservation of
potential locations along the I-15 corridor, the drainages that are located in the southwestern
portion of the planning area, as well as the more isolated and scattered potential breeding
locations at Bautista Creek, Vail Lake, Santa Rosa Plateau, Lake Mathews, Lake Skinner,
and Lake Perris. Conservation of this species would depend, however, on preserving upland
habitat adjacent to riparian habitat, maintaining the habitat linkages for the species, protecting
riparian habitat, and providing brown-headed cowbird management as noted in the
The major threats to the species can be summarized as: the current or future destruction,
modification, or curtailment of its habitat and the nest parasitism by the brown-headed
cowbird that affects its productivity (USFWS 1995). Loss and modification of southwestern
riparian habitats have occurred from urban and agricultural development, water diversion and
impoundment, channelization, livestock grazing, off-road vehicle and other recreational uses,
and hydrological changes resulting from these and other land uses (USFWS 1995). Although
nesting willow flycatchers of all subspecies prefer areas with surface water nearby (Harris et
al. 1986), the southwestern willow flycatchers in Prado Basin virtually always nest near surface
water or saturated soil (The Nature Conservancy 1994). Adequate corridors and widespread
brown-headed cowbird control is necessary for management. Additionally, removal of cattle
grazing from riparian systems is a necessary conservation consideration. Willow flycatchers
were found in high numbers only on transects with high shrub volume and which were either
undisturbed or rarely used by cattle. They were in low numbers or absent on transects with
heavy cattle use and low shrub volume. Protection of lowland riparian habitat through Best
Management Practices and exotic control or removal will continue to provide suitable
breeding habitat.

ALTERNATIVE 2
Similar to Alternative 1, the southwestern willow flycatcher could be considered conserved

under Alternative 2.
ALTERNATIVE 3
Similar to Alternative 1, the southwestern willow flycatcher could be considered conserved

B-26 Eremophila alpestris actia - California horned lark

Federal: None
ALTERNATIVE 1
RATIONALE: The California horned lark could be adequately conserved under

Alternative 1.
Range-wide, California horned larks breed in level or gently sloping shortgrass prairie,
montane meadows, “bald” hills, open coastal plains, fallow grain fields, and alkali flats (Grinnell
and Miller 1944). Within southern California, California horned larks breed primarily in open
fields, (short) grasslands, and rangelands (Garrett and Dunn 1981; Hamilton and Willick
1996). The species apparently occurs throughout much of western Riverside County in
suitable habitat. It is broadly scattered throughout the central portion of the planning area. The
numbers of horned larks in southern California are greatly augmented in winter by birds from
outside the region (Garrett and Dunn 1981). California horned larks are apparently most
heavily concentrated in the Prado Basin, Murrieta, Domenigoni Valley, Rawson Canyon, and
Lakeview areas (L. R. Hays, pers. obs.; Michael Patten, pers. comm., 1998). Additional
localities include the Anza Valley area, Temecula, and March Air Reserve Base, Hemet, Lake
Elsinore, Menifee, Reche Canyon, Temecula/Rancho California, Valle Vista, Wildomar,
Bautista Creek, San Timoteo Creek, Wilson Creek and Wilson Valley, Lake Mathews
Reserve, Lake Perris, Lake Skinner Reserve, San Jacinto Wildlife Area, and the Santa Rosa
Plateau Reserve. Although it cannot be determined if these are key population locations, it
is likely that the species breeds in relatively substantial numbers within those areas of suitable
habitat where they have been recorded.

The California horned lark is considered conserved under Alternative 1 because areas of
suitable habitat within which observed locations and breeding locations are present are
conserved which includes: the Interstate 15 corridor inclusive of Prado Basin, Lake Mathews
and south to the Temecula Creek area, Santa Rosa Plateau, Antelope Valley, Lake Skinner,
within the Anza Valley area, Wilson Valley area, at Mystic Lake/San Jacinto Wildlife Area,
upper Salt Creek, San Jacinto Valley, Lakeview Mountains, San Timoteo Creek, and Bautista
Creek as well as the other existing reserve areas. Other conservation considerations have
not been identified other than for maintaining the food resources within the conserved areas
as noted in the conservation considerations.
Continuing threats to the species include habitat destruction and fragmentation. In nearby
Orange County, habitat destruction has significantly reduced the county’s nesting and
wintering numbers (Hamilton and Willick 1996). The Prado Basin population apparently has
remained stable over the course of 14 years of monitoring efforts at that locale (Hays, pers.
obs., 1998). In the winter, horned larks form large, gregarious, somewhat nomadic groups
and may undertake movements to exploit non-uniformly distributed food resources.
ALTERNATIVE 2
The California horned lark is not considered conserved under Alternative 2 due to the lack of
conservation of potential and known occupied habitat in the area north of Vail Lake, east of
Vail Lake along Wilson Creek, south of Lake Riverside, the greater Wilson Valley area, and
Badlands.
ALTERNATIVE 3
The California horned lark is not considered conserved under Alternative 3 due to the lack of
conservation of potential and known occupied habitat in the area north of Vail Lake, east of
Vail Lake to the Anza Valley area, greater Wilson Valley area, Lakeview Mountains, and
Badlands.

B-27 Falco columbarius - merlin
State: Species of Special Concern, Fully-Protected Species
Federal: None
ALTERNATIVE 1
RATIONALE: The merlin could be adequately conserved under Alternative 1.
Range-wide, merlin breed in open country (e.g., open coniferous woodland, prairie) and winter
in open woodland, grasslands, cultivated fields, marshes, estuaries and sea coasts (AOU
1998). Although the merlin is considered a rare wintering species and fall/spring migrant
(Garrett and Dunn 1981) and nowhere common, the species may turn up virtually anywhere
within the study area. However, habitat that is apparently important to the species is present
in and around the Mystic Lake/San Jacinto Wildlife Area. A total of four birds have been
recently observed wintering in this area (Michael Patten, 1998), which represents an unusual,
if not extraordinary, concentration anywhere in the migratory/winter range of the species.
Additional observations have been made in the Jurupa Hills. The species appears to be
sparsely and erratically located within the central portion of the planning area. Other locations
that are recorded but may not constitute key population areas include: Prado Park, Santa Ana
River, Lakeview Mountains, Diamond Valley Reservoir, and Wilson Valley. Recently, a merlin
was observed in December in the vicinity of Skunk Hollow (Hayworth, pers. obs.).
The merlin is considered conserved under Alternative 1 because large areas of suitable winter
foraging habitat are conserved. These foraging areas, which constitute areas of open habitat
where the bird has been observed include Mystic Lake/San Jacinto Wildlife Area, Badlands,
upper Salt Creek/San Jacinto Valley area, Lakeview Mountains, Double Butte, the existing
reserves at the reservoirs, Antelope Valley, Anza Valley area, and Wilson Valley. Although
some of these areas conserved under Alternative 1 have not be expressly identified as having
been used in the past by the merlin, they provide suitable habitat and due to the nomadic and
unpredictable movements of the few birds that may winter or move through the area, could
provide foraging habitat. Additional conservation considerations have not been identified
however, reducing use of pesticides within conserved areas may be warranted as noted in
the conservation considerations.

Although a population decline may have been partially the result of the alteration of suitable
open habitats, the expressed effects of environmental contaminants on a raptor species
cannot be dismissed as a causative factor. Because it feeds mostly on birds, the population
numbers may have been reduced by pesticides (Remsen 1978). Although the species is
uncommon in its winter occurrence, it can occur almost anywhere and thus it is difficult to
predict suitable location and habitat preference.
ALTERNATIVE 2
Similar to Alternative 1, the merlin could be considered conserved under Alternative 2.
ALTERNATIVE 3
The merlin is not considered conserved under Alternative 3 due to the lack of conservation in
the Lakeview Mountains area and the area between Vail Lake and Anza Valley area.
B-28 Falco mexicanus - prairie falcon (breeding)

Sensitive
ALTERNATIVE 1
RATIONALE: The prairie falcon could be adequately conserved under Alternative 1.
Habitat use of the prairie falcon includes annual grasslands to alpine meadows, but they are
also associated primarily with perennial grasslands, savannahs, rangeland, some agricultural
fields, and desert scrub areas, typically dry environments of western North American where
there are cliffs or bluffs for nest sites (Brown and Amadon 1968). Key population areas of
the prairie falcon appear to be within the central part of the planning area. This includes a
predominance of location records in the Mystic Lake and San Jacinto Wildlife Area, Moreno
Valley and Beaumont/Banning area, Gavilan Plateau, Lake Perris, Lake Skinner, French
Valley, and Sage areas. Other location records are scattered along the Interstate 15 corridor.
All of these locations are likely wintering observations although this has not been confirmed.

A breeding record is documented for the Hemet and Vail Lake areas. If other breeding
activity occurs within the planning area, it is very rare and locations are unknown for
determining key population areas.
The prairie falcon is considered conserved under Alternative 1 because large areas of
suitable winter foraging habitat are conserved. Additionally, potential nesting locations are
also conserved under Alternative 1. These foraging areas, which constitute areas of open
habitat where the bird has been observed include the Interstate 15 corridor from Prado Basin
to the Temecula area, Mystic Lake/San Jacinto Wildlife Area, Badlands, upper Salt
Creek/San Jacinto Valley area, Lakeview Mountains, Double Butte, the existing reserves at
the reservoirs, Antelope Valley, Anza Valley area, and Wilson Valley. Although some of these
areas conserved under Alternative 1 have not be expressly identified as having been used in
the past by the prairie falcon, they provide suitable habitat and potential nesting areas. Little
is known about the detailed location of the two nest sites. The Hemet locations could be in
the Double Butte or Cactus Valley area, both of which are conserved under this alternative,
and the Vail Lake nest location is included in this alternative. Additional conservation
considerations include protection of the nest sites by providing a buffer from human
interference as noted below.
Populations levels of the prairie falcon, especially because the numbers are relatively small,
are vulnerable to habitat change that could reduce their prey populations (Kirk and Hyslop
1998). They are susceptible to habitat loss on breeding areas because the nesting
distribution is closely tied to cliffs. Because the number of nest sites is finite and
nonrenewable, pairs cannot move to other undisturbed areas when nest sites or foraging
habitats adjacent to cliffs are destroyed (Steenhof 1998). Based on this study, to maintain
prairie falcon populations, managers should suppress wildfires, restore native plant
communities and regulate potentially incompatible land uses at known nest sites (Steenhof,
et al. 1999). Management of the species has involved four general strategies including
maintaining and enhancing availability of nest sites; managing foraging areas to provide
habitat for prey; providing protection from human disturbance; and restoring populations in
areas where the species has been reduced or extirpated. Construction of artificial nest sites
has been effective in cliff areas where nest sites are limited. Limiting the types and levels of
human activity near nests has been a common management strategy throughout the prairie
falcon’s range, including restricting activities within one kilometer of the nest site although
some activities, such as blasting are apparently acceptable within 125 meters of a nest
(Steenhof 1998). Surveys should be conducted of potentially suitable nesting areas to

determine locations of nest sites.
ALTERNATIVE 2
The prairie falcon is not considered conserved under Alternative 2 due to the lack of
information on locations of nest sites and the limited conservation of habitat in the Badlands,
Vail Lake, Sage, Wilson Valley, and Anza area.
ALTERNATIVE 3
The prairie falcon is not considered conserved under Alternative 3 due to the lack of
information on locations of nest sites and the limited or lack of conservation of habitat in the
Lakeview Mountains, Double Butte, Badlands, Vail Lake, Sage, Wilson Valley, and Anza
area.
B-29 Falco peregrinus - peregrine falcon

State: Endangered; Fully-Protected Species; California Department of
Forestry and Fire Prevention Sensitive (nesting)
Federal: Delisted from Endangered; Partners in Flight Priority Bird Species. This
species was considered endangered throughout its range, Federal
Register, June 2, 1970; October 13, 1970; March 20, 1984.
ALTERNATIVE 1
RATIONALE: The peregrine falcon could be adequately conserved under Alternative

1.
The species breeds mostly in woodland, forest, and coastal habitats (Brown 1999). Riparian
areas and coastal and inland wetlands are important habitats year-round, especially in non-
breeding seasons. During migration, the peregrine falcon may be found near marshes, lakes,
and ponds with high concentrations of water fowl, shorebirds, and other birds (Garrett and
Dunn 1981). Although peregrines were observed on at least two occasions in the Prado
Basin in 1998 (James Pike, Fish and Wildlife Service Volunteer Field Biologist, pers. comm.,
1998), the species remains quite scarce elsewhere within the study area and has not been
documented to breed (Michael Patten, pers. comm., 1998). Potential breeding locations have
been identified for the San Jacinto Mountains. The key population areas for the peregrine
falcon include the Prado Basin and Santa Ana River area. Other geographic locations

recorded for the species within the database include: San Jacinto Wildlife Area, Lake Perris,
Lake Skinner, and Hemet Lake, all of which would concentrate waterfowl or shorebirds and
constitute foraging areas during the winter or during transient movements through the area.
All of these locations are likely to be visited by the species with some regularity for wintering
and during transient movements through the planning area.
The peregrine falcon is considered conserved under Alternative 1 because the Prado
Basin/Santa Ana River area, where it has been observed, is conserved as well as the areas
that may provide foraging opportunities for the species. These foraging areas include the
reservoirs such as Lake Mathews, Lake Perris, Diamond Valley Reservoir, Lake Skinner,
Lake Elsinore and other potential foraging areas including the San Jacinto wildlife area and
Mystic Lake. Potential nesting locations are located within the San Bernardino National
Forest and and considered conserved due to their inclusion in Alternative 1. Additional
conservation considerations include identification of potential nest site and protection of the
nest sites by providing a buffer from human interference as noted below.
The decline of the population of the peregrine falcon appears to be associated mostly with
DDE contamination. Protective measures have been outlined within the peregrine falcon
Recovery Plan (USFWS 1984) and include: prohibit land-use practices and/or development
that will adversely alter or eliminate existing habitat within one mile of the nesting cliff or site;
prohibit all human activities within one-half mile distance of the nesting cliff between February
1 and September 1 of each year; retain suitable nesting habitats in public ownership; prohibit
land-use practices and/or developments which could alter or eliminate the character of the
hunting habitat or food source; and prohibit the use of harmful pesticides and other detrimental
environmental pollutants which would accumulate in the peregrine or its food source. Sites
suitable for nesting within the San Bernardino National Forest should be identified by surveys
and protected and managed accordingly to ensure that the quality of the habitat is not altered
or eliminated.

Bernardino National Forest will address potential impacts to the peregrine falcon, including
logging activities, road construction, recreation, fire management, and land exchanges in the
vicinity of potential nest sites.
In addition, the peregrine falcon may also be present within private inholdings in the MSHCP
planning area of the San Bernardino National Forest. Activities within these private inholdings
for this species.
ALTERNATIVE 2
Similar to Alternative 1, the peregrine falcon could be considered conserved under Alternative
2.
ALTERNATIVE 3
Similar to Alternative 1, the peregrine falcon could be considered conserved under Alternative
3.
B-30 Glaucidium gnoma - northern pygmy-owl

State: None
Federal: None
ALTERNATIVE 1
RATIONALE: The northern pygmy-owl could be adequately conserved under

Alternative 1.
The northern pygmy-owl is primarily found in montane, coniferous woodlands although all types
of forest habitats may be inhabited including, deciduous hardwood, conifer, wooded canyons,
and riparian (Terres 1980; Zeiner, et al. 1990). Individuals seem to prefer the edges of
streams, meadows, lakes in sparse to intermediate canopy cover (Zeiner, et al. 1990).

Nesting occurs in tree cavities and snags within deciduous or coniferous woodlands (Zeiner,
et al. 1990). Within the western Riverside County area the species is documented within the
ornithological literature as being found in the San Bernardino National Forest and the
Cleveland National Forest (Zeiner, et al. 1990). This has not been confirmed by the U.S.
Forest Service or the UCR database.
The northern pygmy-owl is considered conserved under Alternative 1 because the San
Bernardino National Forest and Cleveland National Forest lands are included under the
alternative. However, conservation of the species will depend on additional conservation
northern pygmy-owl.
northern pygmy-owl, the Forest Plans would also need to address the effects of forest
activities on this species and associated habitats. In addition, the northern pygmy-owl may
national Forest and San Bernardino National Forest. Activities within these private inholdings
for this species.
Occurrence of the northern pygmy-owl has been documented to be absent from previously

occupied forests in Kings Canyon National Park where pines and undergrowth were removed
and snags eliminated from the mixture of old and second-growth sequoias (Marshall 1988).
Thus, habitat changes appear to be one form of threat to the species and forest management
to maintain undergrowth and snags and trees containing potential nest cavities is required.
ALTERNATIVE 2
Similar to Alternative 1, the northern pygmy-owl is considered conserved under Alternative 2.
ALTERNATIVE 3
Similar to Alternative 1, the northern pygmy-owl is considered conserved under Alternative

3.
B-31 Haliaeetus leucocephalus - bald eagle

State: Endangered; Fully-Protected Species; California Department of
Forestry and Fire Prevention Sensitive
Federal: Threatened (Federal Register 60:36010, July 12, 1995); Partners in
Flight Priority Bird Species; proposed for delisting
ALTERNATIVE 1
RATIONALE: The bald eagle could be adequately conserved under Alternative 1.
Range-wide, bald eagles occur primarily in or near seacoasts, rivers, swamps, and large
lakes (AOU 1998). It is considered a bird of aquatic ecosystems but within such areas, it must
have an adequate food base, perching areas, and nesting sites to support them (Gerrard and
Bortolotti 1988). Perching sites need to be composed of large trees or snags with heavy
limbs or broken tops (USFS pers. comm. 1999). The bald eagle is primarily a migrant and
wintering species within western Riverside County. Although the species remains nowhere
common and is generally rare and local in southern California (Garrett and Dunn 1981), the
species could turn up virtually anywhere within western Riverside County in suitable habitats
and may, in fact, attempt to nest. Birds have been detected in recent years at the Prado Basin,
Lake Skinner, Lake Mathews, and Lake Perris, Lake Elsinore (where the species may have
bred in the past), Lake Hemet, and Vail Lake.

The bald eagle is considered conserved under Alternative 1 because the potential and known
foraging areas at Prado Basin, Lake Mathews, Lake Perris, Diamond Valley Reservoir, Lake
Skinner, Lake Elsinore, and Vail Lake are conserved. Potential or historic nesting locations
are located at Lake Elsinore and are conserved under this alternative. Additional conservation
considerations include protection of the potential nest sites by providing a buffer from human
interference as noted below.
Habitat loss, the expressed effects of select pesticides on reproductive success, and
persecution of the species necessitated the listing of the bald eagle. The use of DDT after
World War II led to eggshell thinning which drastically reduced reproductive success and the
species’ populations (USFWS 1995). To avoid impacts to nesting locations from human
interference, it has been recommended that recreational activity during the breeding season
be restricted during the first five hours of sunlight where bald eagles are present (Stalmaster
and Kaiser 1998). One study suggests a minimum, generic, primary zone of approximately
600 m around breeding bald eagles (Grubb and King 1991). A 1,200-m secondary buffer
zone would accommodate most of the distant responses from vehicle, noise, and airecraft
disturbance. Typically, no human activity is permitted at any time within a primary protection
zone. Within a secondary buffer zone, limited, nonpermanent activity may be allowed during
the nonbreeding season. This study has provided additional specific distances based on the
general category of the disturbance. These values will be useful for management purposed
in the event that the bald eagles located within the western Riverside County area attempt to
breed. The management recommendations from Grubb and King (1991) for buffer distances
for specific activities in association with breeding bald eagles are as follows: Pedestrian
disturbance - complete restriction at 543 m; aquatic disturbance - restriction at 200 m; vehicle
disturbance - complete restriction at 450 m and limited vehicular control at 850 m; noise
disturbance (includes gunshot and sonic booms) - restrictions within 1,000 m but may need
extending up to 2,000 m; aircraft disturbance - exclusion within 625 m and limited flights within
1,100 meter buffer zones for wintering raptors also could be effective if placed around
sensitive foraging areas.
ALTERNATIVE 2
Similar to Alternative 1, the bald eagle could be considered conserved under Alternative 2.
ALTERNATIVE 3

Similar to Alternative 1, the bald eagle could be considered conserved under Alternative 3.
B-32 Icteria virens - yellow-breasted chat

Sensitive
ALTERNATIVE 1
RATIONALE: The yellow-breasted chat could be adequately conserved under

Alternative 1.
Yellow-breasted chats in southern California and the study area are primarily found in dense,
relatively wide riparian woodlands and thickets of willows, vine tangles, and dense brush with
well-developed understories. Nesting areas are associated with streams, swampy ground,
and the borders of small ponds (Grinnell and Miller 1944). The yellow-breasted chat
apparently is found nearly throughout the planning area in appropriate riparian habitats in the
lowlands and lower foothill regions (Garrett and Dunn 1981). The species is generally located
within the western portion of the planning area from the northwest corner, south along the
Interstate 15 corridor to Temecula. Important populations include the large concentration in the
Prado Basin and contiguous reaches of the Santa Ana River. Other known localities include
San Timoteo Creek, San Jacinto River, Temecula Creek, Tucalota Creek, and Santa
Margarita River including many of their tributaries, as well as the Motte-Rimrock Reserve,
Bautista Creek, Wilson Creek and Potrero Creek.
The yellow-breasted chat is considered conserved under Alternative 1 because the key
population within the Prado Basin and Santa Ana River is conserved as well as the
populations that are located along the I-15 corridor, the drainages that are located in the
southwestern portion of the planning area, as well as the more isolated and scattered
breeding locations in the eastern portions of the planning area including but not limited to:
Potrero Creek, San Timoteo Creek, Santa Margarita River, Tucalota Creek, Motte-Rimrock
Reserve, Bautista Creek, Wilson Creek, Vail Lake, and San Jacinto River. The yellow-
breasted chat is also considered conserved under Alternative 1 because the San Bernardino
Forest Service lands, within which this species is also located, are included under the
alternative. Conservation of this species would depend, however, on preserving and
improving riparian habitat through Best Management Practices and providing brown-headed
cowbird management as noted in the conservation considerations below.

The loss of riparian woodlands in the coastal lowland as a result of development, agriculture,
and channeling rivers has led to the decline of this species. Garrett and Dunn (1981)
concluded that the clearing of dense riparian thickets and brush tangles has caused a
noticeable decline in the number of breeding birds; cowbird parasitism may have played an
additional role in their decline. Cowbird management will be necessary to provide
conservation consideration of this species as well as grazing management within riparian
ecosystems which may improve the quality of the riparian habitat. Protection of lowland
riparian habitat through Best Management Practices and exotic control or removal will
continue to provide suitable breeding habitat.
Bernardino National Forest will address potential impacts to the yellow-breasted chat,
including logging, road construction, recreation, fire management, and land exchanges.
yellow-breasted chat, the Forest Plans would also need to address the effects of forest
activities on this species and associated riparian habitats. In addition, the yellow-breasted
chat may also be present within private inholdings in the MSHCP planning area of the San
ALTERNATIVE 2
Similar to Alternative 1, the yellow-breasted chat could be considered conserved under

Alternative 2.
ALTERNATIVE 3
Similar to Alternative 1, the yellow-breasted chat could be considered conserved under

Alternative 3.
B-33 Ixobrychus exilis hesperis - western least bittern

Federal: Federal Special Concern species; Fish and Wildlife Service Migratory
Nongame Birds of Management
ALTERNATIVE 1
RATIONALE: The western least bittern could be adequately conserved under

Alternative 1.
The western least bittern rests, roosts, nests, and hides in dense, emergent vegetation. The
emergent vegetation may be interspersed with clumps of woody vegetation and open water
(Gibbs et al. 1992). The least bittern is reported to occur as a year-round resident in the
Mystic Lake and San Jacinto Wildlife area within western Riverside County (Zeiner et al.
1990). Other locations shown within the database include the Santa Ana River where it
probably is present year-round but is not commonly observed.
The western least bittern is considered conserved under Alternative 1 because the nesting
and foraging areas at Mystic Lake, San Jacinto Wildlife Area, Prado Basin/Santa Ana River
area are conserved. Conservation would depend, however, on protecting the water quality
within the conserved areas and preserving the emergent vegetation within these areas and
on removing invasive exotics plants species if they appear to be impacting the emergent
community, as noted below.
The destruction of wetland habitat is likely the greatest threat to the species (Gibbs, et al.
1992). Siltation resulting from erosion of farmlands and runoff containing insecticides may
degrade the nesting habitats and reduce the food supplies in agricultural areas (Gibbs, et al.
1992). Preservation, protection, and improvement of wetland habitats for least bitterns,

particularly large (greater than 10 hectares) shallow wetlands with dense growths of robust,
emergent vegetation, is the most urgent conservation need. Wetlands also need to be
protected from chemical contamination, siltation, eutrophication, and other forms of pollution
(Gibbs et al. 1992). In some cases, creation of emergent vegetation communities may
provide additional habitat within the conserved areas. This occupation of created habitat has
been documented for other areas where the species occurs (Post 1998). Similarly, mine-
associated emergent wetlands in southern Illinois, have also been documented as being used
by least bitterns. These mine-associated wetlands have persistent hydrology and large
expanses of emergent vegetation and provide habitat that could potentially compensate for
the loss of natural wetlands in the area (Horstman et al. 1998).
ALTERNATIVE 2
Similar to Alternative 1, the western least bittern could be considered conserved under
Alternative 2.
ALTERNATIVE 3
Similar to Alternative 1, the western least bittern could be considered conserved under
Alternative 3.
B-34 Lanius ludovicianus - loggerhead shrike

Federal: Federal Special Concern species; Fish and Wildlife Service Migratory
Nongame Birds of Management (subspecies mearnsi Endangered)
ALTERNATIVE 1
RATIONALE: The loggerhead shrike could be adequately conserved under Alternative

1.
The loggerhead shrike is known to forage over open ground within areas of short vegetation,
pastures with fence rows, old orchards, mowed roadsides, cemeteries, golf courses, riparian
areas, open woodland, agricultural fields, desert washes, desert scrub, grassland, broken
chaparral and beach habitat with scattered shrubs (Unitt 1984; Yosef 1996). Individuals like
to perch on posts, utility lines and often use the edges of denser habitats (Zeiner, et al. 1990).

The loggerhead shrike occurs relatively frequently within the central portion of the planning
area with few records in the montane areas. Key population areas occur along the Interstate
15 corridor and between Interstate 15 and 215 from the Prado Basin to Temecula, on the
Gavilan Plateau, along the south central area to Aguanga, within the Badlands and in the
Moreno Valley.
The loggerhead shrike is considered conserved under Alternative 1 because areas of suitable
habitat are conserved including the Interstate 15 corridor from Prado Basin, inclusive of Lake
Mathews, south to the Temecula Creek area, Gavilan Hills, Gavilan Plateau, Santa Ana River,
Potrero, Antelope Valley, along drainages in French Valley, Lake Skinner, Lake Perris, Upper
Salt Creek/San Jacinto Valley, within the Sage and Wilson Valley area, Vail Lake and Aguana
area, Anza Valley, at Mystic Lake/San Jacinto Wildlife Area and within the Badlands.
Conservation would depend, however, on preserving the function of habitat corridors, as noted
in the conservation considerations below.
Displacement of habitat through urban development, the spraying of biocides, and

competition with species that are more tolerant of human-induced changes may be resulting
in population declines (Yosef 1996). Sites used by loggerhead shrikes did not differ with
respect to military training disturbance, hay harvest, or the number of years since a site was
last burned (Michaels and Cully 1998). Movement patterns of the shrike indicate that they
disperse preferentially along connecting corridors of vegetation than between equally sized
isolated patches of habitat (Haas 1995). Management for resident shrikes should include a
patchwork of grassy habitats and sparsely vegetated bare areas at the scale of individual
shrike territories (Gawlik and Bildstein 1993). It is also desirable to maintain brush along
fence lines, scattered trees in pastures and fields and hedges as potential nest sites (Yosef
1996).
ALTERNATIVE 2
The loggerhead shrike is not considered conserved under Alternative 2 due to the lack of
conserved habitat where they are known to occur in the Badlands, the Sage area, the area
east of Vail Lake, and the area along Wilson Creek. Additionally, although the corridor along
Interstate 15 north of Alberhill is conserved, its very narrow configuration may not provide
suitable habitat for foraging or to support a territory for the loggerhead shrike.
ALTERNATIVE 3

The loggerhead shrike is not considered conserved under Alternative 3 due to the lack of
conserved habitat where they are known to occur in the Badlands, the Sage area, the area
east of Vail Lake, the linkage from Vail Lake to Aguanga, and the area along Wilson Creek.
Additionally, although the corridor along Interstate 15 north of Alberhill is conserved, its very
narrow configuration may not provide suitable habitat for foraging or to support a territory for
the loggerhead shrike.
B-35 Melospiza lincolnii - Lincoln’s sparrow

State: None
Federal: None
ALTERNATIVE 1
RATIONALE: The Lincoln’s sparrow could be adequately conserved under Alternative

1.
Lincoln’s sparrow is known to prefer dense, low underbrush often in disturbed edges with
grasses and weeds mixed with shrubs (Bent 1968). The species occurs in a variety of
habitats including willow-sedge swamp, scrub-meadow and flat land aspen (Salt 1957).
Breeding in southern California occurs in wet montane meadows of corn lily, sedges and low
willows (Garrett and Dunn 1984). It occurs within the western Riverside County area as a
migrant and winter visitor throughout the lowland areas and is fairly common to locally common
in overgrown fields and brush thickets and channels (Garrett and Dunn 1981). It is a summer
breeding bird within the San Bernardino Mountains and San Jacinto Mountains in Tahquitz
and Round valleys (Zeiner, et al. 1990; Garrett and Dunn 1981). Key population areas for
breeding are probably within the San Bernardino National Forest and San Jacinto Mountains
area. Other locations within the planning area are either migrant or wintering individuals which
appear to use the following areas within the central portion of the planning area: Santa Ana
River, Canyon Lake, Lake Elsinore, Temecula/Murrieta area, Wilson Valley, Lake Perris, and
Mystic Lake/San Jacinto Wildlife Area.
The Lincoln’s sparrow is considered conserved under Alternative 1 because the breeding
areas within the San Bernardino National Forest are included under the alternative.
Additionally, the suitable habitat for wintering and migration areas located within the central
part of the planning area are conserved. These winter areas include the Interstate 15 corridor
from the Santa Ana River to Temecula Creek, Lake Perris, Wilson Valley, and Mystic
Lake/San Jacinto Wildlife Area. However, conservation of this species will depend on

Bernardino National Forest will address potential impacts to the Lincoln’s sparrow, including
Lincoln’s sparrow, the Forest Plans would also need to address the effects of forest activities
on this species and associated habitats. In addition, the Lincoln’s sparrow may also be
present within private inholdings in the MSHCP planning area of the San Bernardino national
Lincoln’s sparrows breeding in montane meadows are potentially vulnerable to local

extirpation because of their insular distribution, low population density, and fluctuating habitat
conditions and heavy damage from livestock grazing drastically increases the probability of
local extirpation (Cicero 1997). Management should primarily target habitat preservation on
both breeding and wintering grounds. Detrimental impacts of habitat alteration on the
breeding populations from activities such as livestock grazing probably are related to the
species’ habitat specialization (Ammon 1995; Knopf et al. 1988; Schulz and Leininger 1991).
ALTERNATIVE 2
Similar to Alternative 1, the Lincoln’s sparrow could be considered conserved under

Alternative 2.

ALTERNATIVE 3
Similar to Alternative 1, the Lincoln’s sparrow could be considered conserved under

Alternative 3.
B-36 Nycticorax nycticorax - black-crowned night-heron (breeding

rookeries)
State: None
Federal: None
ALTERNATIVE 1
RATIONALE: The black-crowned night-heron could be adequately conserved under

Alternative 1.
Black-crowned night-herons require marshes, ponds, reservoirs, and estuaries for foraging
and also occur along the margins of lacustrine, large riverine, and fresh and saline emergent
habitats and, rarely, in kelp beds in marine subtidal habitats (Garrett and Dunn 1981;
Gallagher 1997). It nests and roosts in dense-foliaged trees, not always near water, and in
dense, fresh or brackish emergent wetlands (Grinnell and Miller 1944). Although the species
may breed at Lake Elsinore and Mystic Lake (the species formerly bred at the latter locale
[Garrett and Dunn 1981]); the only known active rookery in west Riverside County is in the
Prado Basin (L.R. Hays, pers. obs.; Michael Patten, pers. comm., 1998). Additional potential
localities include Lake Mathews, Vail Lake, Lake Perris, and Lake Skinner.
The black-crowned night-heron is considered conserved under Alternative 1 because the

known and likely breeding locations are conserved. These areas which are included within
Alternative 1 are the Prado Basin (an active rookery), Mystic Lake/ San Jacinto Wildlife Area,
Lake Elsinore, Lake Mathews, Vail Lake, Lake Perris, and Lake Skinner. Conservation would
depend, however, on maintenance of suitable nesting trees within the known and potential
nesting areas, as noted in the conservation considerations below.
Although habitat destruction and persecution (Gallagher 1997) are implicated in the species’
decline, environmental contaminants and disease may also be problematical, as is evidenced
by recent, massive die-offs of water-associated species at the Salton Sea (Fish and Wildlife

Service, unpublished data). Most populations are stabilized or increasing, and thus
management has not been a major focus. Dredged islands, created by U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers activities have become widely used by nesting herons (Davis 1993). Essential
habitat feature for the night-heron include a suitable nesting area that is located near a
foraging area. Nest sites typically include dense-foliaged trees. These nest sites and the
known rookery locations should be protected within the conserved areas by protecting the
trees used by the species.
ALTERNATIVE 2
Similar to Alternative 1, the black-crowned night-heron could be considered conserved under

Alternative 2.

ALTERNATIVE 3
Similar to Alternative 1, the black-crowned night-heron could be considered conserved under

Alternative 3.
B-37 Oporonis tolmiei - MacGillivray’s warbler

State: None
Federal: None
ALTERNATIVE 1
RATIONALE: The MacGillivray’s warbler could be adequately conserved under

Alternative 1.
Throughout California the MacGillivray’s warbler inhabits Valley foothill riparian, coastal
Douglas-fir, redwood, montane riparian and desert riparian habitats. Breeding pairs typically
are found in moist brushy areas within coniferous forests between 2,000-2,800m but may also
be found in clear-cuts or mixed deciduous forests up to 3,000 meters (Pitocchelli 1995).
There are no documented key population areas, however, it is assumed, based on available
habitat and database records that the species breeds in the montane areas and migrates
through lowland areas. The species has been recorded sparsely in several locations: in the
San Bernardino National Forest, probably as a breeding bird, and at other locations as a
migrant during either spring or fall, including Canyon Lake, Lake Elsinore, Lake Skinner,
Wilson Valley, and Lake Mathews.
The MacGillivray’s warbler is considered conserved under Alternative 1 because the breeding
areas within the San Bernardino National Forest are included under the alternative.
Additionally, the suitable habitat for wintering and migration areas located within the central
part of the planning area are conserved. These winter areas include the Interstate 15 corridor
from the Santa Ana River to Temecula Creek, Wilson Valley, Lake Skinner, and Lake
Mathews. However, conservation of this species will depend on additional conservation

Bernardino National Forest will address potential impacts to the MacGillivray’s warbler,
including logging activities, road construction, recreation, fire management, and land
exchanges.
MacGillivray’s warbler, the Forest Plans would also need to address the effects of forest
activities on this species and associated habitats. In addition, MacGillivray’s warbler may
also be present within private inholdings in the MSHCP planning area of the San Bernardino
national Forest. Activities within these private inholdings would need to be reviewed by the
County for compatibility with MSHCP goals and objectives for this species.
Ranching activities destroy the habitat at migratory stopovers and on the wintering and
breeding grounds, however, some human activities, such as selection-cut logging, which may
increase shrub habitats, may benefit the species (Pitocchelli 1995).
ALTERNATIVE 2
Similar to Alternative 1, the MacGillivray’s warbler could be considered conserved under

Alternative 2.
ALTERNATIVE 3
Similar to Alternative 1, the MacGillivray’s warbler could be considered conserved under

Alternative 3.

B-38 Oreortyx pictus - mountain quail
State: None
Federal: None
ALTERNATIVE 1
RATIONALE: The mountain quail could be adequately conserved under Alternative 1.
The mountain quail is found in dense montane chaparral and brushy areas within coniferous
forests, locally on lower slopes, in pinon-juniper-yucca associations, also sometimes locally
in dense arborescent coastal chaparral dominated by Ceanothus spp., manzanita, and scrub
oak. A total of 97% of mountain quail observations are in mixed evergreen forest and
chaparral cover types (Brennan et al. 1997). Key population areas include Cleveland
National Forest and San Bernardino National Forest for breeding areas, and possibly Wilson
Valley, Temecula, Santa Rosa Plateau, and Lake Elsinore/Canyon Lake for wintering areas.
The mountain quail is considered conserved under Alternative 1 because the breeding areas
within the San Bernardino National Forest and Cleveland National Forest are included under
the alternative. Additionally, the suitable habitat for wintering and migration areas located
within the central part of the planning area are conserved. These winter areas include the
Lake Elsinore area which is provided habitat linkage connections to the Cleveland National
Forest, the Santa Rosa Plateau which is linked to the Temecula area, and Wilson Valley which
is also provided habitat linkages to the San Bernardino National Forest. However,
conservation of this species will depend on additional conservation considerations described
below.

mountain quail, including logging, road construction, recreation, fire management, and land
exchanges.
mountain quail, the Forest Plans would also need to address the effects of forest activities on
this species and associated habitats. In addition, the mountain quail may also be present
within private inholdings in the MSHCP planning area of the Cleveland National Forest and
San Bernardino National Forest. Activities within these private inholdings would need to be
Loss of habitat due to human developments may be a threat and heavy grazing in the
breeding areas can destroy habitat (Zeiner, et al. 1990). This quail migrates from high
elevation areas where breeding occurs to lower protected valleys and, therefore, must have
unrestricted access to migratory corridors.
ALTERNATIVE 2
Similar to Alternative 1, the mountain quail could be considered conserved under Alternative
2.
ALTERNATIVE 3
Similar to Alternative 1, the mountain quail could be considered conserved under Alternative
3.

B-39 Otus flammeolus - flammulated owl
State: None
Federal: None
ALTERNATIVE 1
RATIONALE: The flammulated owl could be adequately conserved under Alternative

1.
The flammulated owl is likely a common summer resident locally in a variety of coniferous
habitats from ponderosa pine to red fir forests (Winter 1974; Garrett and Dunn 1981). Winter
(1974) observed nesting preference in Pinus ponderosa and Pinus jeffreyi within yellow pine
belt habitats. Common features of reported flammulated owl habitat include cool, semi-arid
climate, high abundance or diversity of nocturnal arthropod prey, open physiognomy, and
some dense foliage that is used for roosting (McCallum 1994). The wintering migration habits
are poorly understood, although the species was originally assumed to be nonmigratory. The
species occurs in the Tahquitz Valley of the San Jacinto Mountains and Little Round Valley,
one mile south of Mt. San Jacinto State Park (Winter 1978). One other record is within the
database for the Santa Rosa Plateau. Although there are no known key population areas,
there is likely a breeding population within the San Bernardino National Forest and there may
also be a population in the Santa Rosa Plateau area.
The flammulated owl is considered conserved under Alternative 1 because the potential
breeding areas within the San Bernardino National Forest and Santa Rosa Plateau are
included under the alternative. However, conservation of this species will depend on

Bernardino National Forest will address potential impacts to the flammulated owl, including
flammulated owl, the Forest Plans would also need to address the effects of forest activities
on this species and associated habitats. In addition, the flammulated owl may also be present
within private inholdings in the MSHCP planning area of the San Bernardino National Forest.
Fire suppression and timber harvest activity in ponderosa pine forests represent the two main
threats to the species persistence (Groves et al. 1997). At present, the most immediate threat
to the species may be cutting of dead trees for firewood. The recruitment of snags and the
health of woodpecker populations may be essential to the conservation of all cavity nesting
owls (McCallum 1994). Banded owls have been shown to return to the same territory for four
consecutive nesting seasons showing site tenacity which may have important management
implications for forests within harvested areas (Powers et al. 1996).
ALTERNATIVE 2
Similar to Alternative 1, the flammulated owl could be considered conserved under Alternative
2.
ALTERNATIVE 3
Similar to Alternative 1, the flammulated owl could be considered conserved under Alternative
3.

B-40 Pandion haliaetus - osprey
State: Species of Special Concern; California Department of Forestry and
Fire Prevention Sensitive
Sensitive
Other: Audubon Society Local Concern
ALTERNATIVE 1
RATIONALE: The osprey could be adequately conserved under Alternative 1.
This species is strictly restricted to large waters supporting fish with surrounding or nearby
forest habitats, which are typically ponderosa pine or mixed conifer forests (Zeiner et al.
1990). Osprey often use rivers, lakes, and reservoirs for foraging and rocky pinnacles, large
trees, and snags in open forest for cover and nesting (Zeiner et al. 1990; Call 1978). As a
transient species and potential nesting bird, the osprey has been recorded near water bodies
including the Santa Ana River, Lake Mathews, Lake Elsinore, Canyon Lake, Lake Skinner,
Lake Perris, San Jacinto Reservoir, Hemet Lake, and Mystic Lake/San Jacinto Wildlife Area.
Other observations not associated with a water body may reflect an observation of the bird
flying overhead. Breeding locations or attempts are unknown and have not been documented.
The osprey is considered conserved under Alternative 1 because the potential and known
foraging areas at the Santa Ana River, Lake Mathews, Lake Perris, Diamond Valley
Reservoir, Lake Skinner, Lake Elsinore, Mystic Lake/San Jacinto Wildlife Area, and Vail Lake
are conserved. Potential or historic nesting locations are located at Lake Elsinore and are
conserved under this alternative. Additional conservation considerations include protection
of the potential nest sites by providing a buffer from human interference as noted below.
Studies and review by Ewins (1997) provides a summary of past and current threats including
timber extraction and shoreline development, widespread use of persistent organochlorine
pesticides, and potentially human disturbance at the nest site. The influence of human
disturbance of ospreys at their nest seems to vary according to whether the birds are already
used to human presence or not, whether the disturbance is regular from the onset of the
nesting season or if it commences during a sensitive stage such as the incubation or small
chick stage (Ewins 1997). Management guidelines have been developed to provide buffers

for nesting ospreys: absolute buffer zone within a 40 to 200 m radius of an occupied nest tree
where access is restricted year-round and limited activities within the buffer include nest site
protection; seasonal buffer zone within a 100-800 m radius of an occupied nest or up to 600
m beyond the periphery of the absolute buffer zone and for the duration of the breeding
season within which activities such as logging, road or pipeline construction, mining, and
some recreation are banned; riparian/lacustrine buffer zone for distances of 70-350 back
from the water’s edge where there may be no cutting and the retention of up to 5 snags and
5 clumps of tall trees (Ewins 1997). In the event that nesting attempts are made at one of the
locations, a buffer system should be developed to provide protection.
ALTERNATIVE 2
Similar to Alternative 1, the osprey could be considered conserved under Alternative 2.
ALTERNATIVE 3
Similar to Alternative 1, the osprey could be considered conserved under Alternative 3.
B-41 Phalacrocorax auritus - double-crested cormorant

Federal: None
ALTERNATIVE 1
RATIONALE: The double-crested cormorant could be adequately conserved under

Alternative 1.
The double-crested cormorant requires lakes, rivers, reservoirs, estuaries, or uses the ocean
for foraging. Double-crested cormorants nest on the mainland in tall trees, wide rock ledges
on cliffs, or rugged slopes near (or in) the aquatic environments. The only known rookery in
western Riverside County is in the Prado Basin (L.R. Hays, pers. obs.; Michael Patten, pers.
comm., 1998). Other localities where the species is regularly observed include Lake Mathews,
Lake Perris, Lake Skinner, and Lake Elsinore. These occurrences are likely to be foraging
or wintering individuals and they probably use these locations, as well as other
lakes/reservoirs, on a regular basis.

The double-crested cormorant is considered conserved under Alternative 1 because the only
known breeding location, at Prado Basin and Santa Ana River, is conserved. Areas where
foraging may occur and where the species has been observed also are included in Alternative
1. These foraging areas include Lake Mathews, Lake Perris, Lake Skinner, and Lake
Elsinore.
Conservation would depend, however, on preserving the existing nest site conditions, as
noted in the conservation considerations below.
Although habitat destruction and persecution are implicated in the species’ decline,
environmental contaminants (such as persistent pesticides) and disease are also
problematical, as is evidenced by a recent, massive die-off of the species at the Salton Sea
(Fish and Wildlife Service, unpublished data). Increased populations sizes in the Great Lakes
ecosystem have been attributed to reduction in levels of organochlorine contaminants,
reduction in human persecution and an increase in the availability of “forage-base fish”
(Weseloh and Ewins 1994). Construction of irrigation reservoirs in Wyoming accounted for
large, recent breeding population increases (Findholt 1988). However, these populations may
not be sustainable if nest trees or nesting islands either decay or are eliminated by
excessively high or low water levels (Findholt 1988). Maintenance of suitable nesting sites is
an important conservation consideration and suitable nesting trees should be retained within
the breeding locations even if the trees are dead.
ALTERNATIVE 2
Similar to Alternative 1, the double-crested cormorant could be considered conserved under

Alternative 2.
ALTERNATIVE 3
Similar to Alternative 1, the double-crested cormorant could be considered conserved under

Alternative 3.
B-42 Picoides pubescens - downy woodpecker

State: None
Federal: None

ALTERNATIVE 1
RATIONALE: The downy woodpecker could be adequately conserved under

Alternative 1.
Within southern California, the downy woodpecker generally nests in deciduous (often willow)
woodlands, oak woodlands, orchards, suburban plantings, and occasionally in conifers
(Garrett and Dunn 1981). Downy woodpeckers are primarily confined to the northwestern and
southwestern portions of the study area according to Garrett and Dunn (1981). Important
populations include the large concentration in the Prado Basin and contiguous reaches of the
Santa Ana River. The downy woodpecker is also present at San Timoteo, Murrieta, and
Temecula Creeks and at Railroad Canyon (Michael Patten, pers. comm., 1998). Other
localities include Lake Mathews, Lake Elsinore, Lake Skinner, Lake Perris, Potrero Creek,
Temescal Wash, Wilson Creek, the Santa Margarita River and their tributaries.
The downy woodpecker is considered conserved under Alternative 1 because the primary
breeding area, Prado Basin and Santa Ana River, is conserved. Additionally, foraging areas
and other areas where they have been observed and are likely to breed also will be
conserved. These include Temescal Wash, San Timoteo Creek, Lake Elsinore, Temecula
and Murrieta creeks, Lake Skinner, Wilson Creek, Potrero Creek, Lake Perris, Box Canyon,
Lake Mathews, and the Santa Margarita River. Conservation would depend, however, on
preserving and enhancing the breeding opportunities by maintaining the quality of the riparian
vegetation through Best Management Practices, and through preservation of existing snags
and hollow trees as noted in the conservation considerations below.
Loss of riparian woodlands and snags has caused a decline in numbers in recent decades
(Grinnell and Miller 1944). Abandoned snag and tree cavities are used by many other
species, thus there is potential for a shortage of snags and tree cavities and resulting
competition between species. Management of areas where breeding occurs should include
preservation of existing snags and hollow trees. Protection of lowland riparian habitat through
Best Management Practices and exotic control or removal will continue to provide suitable
breeding habitat.
ALTERNATIVE 2

Similar to Alternative 1, the downy woodpecker could be considered conserved under
Alternative 2.
ALTERNATIVE 3
Similar to Alternative 1, the downy woodpecker could be considered conserved under

Alternative 3.
B-43 Plegadis chihi - white-faced ibis

State: California Species of Special Concern
Federal: Federal Special Concern species; Fish and Wildlife Service Region 1
Species of Management Concern
ALTERNATIVE 1
RATIONALE: The white-faced ibis could be adequately conserved under Alternative

1.
In southern California, the white-faced ibis requires extensive marshes for nesting (Garrett and
Dunn 1981). Ibis wintering in California forage in managed wetlands or agricultural fields with
private lands providing the majority of foraging habitat in all of the state’s main wintering areas
(Shuford et al. 1996). Although white-faced ibis have been repeatedly recorded in the Mystic
Lake area and previously bred there (Garrett and Dunn 1981), there currently is only one
confirmed breeding colony in western Riverside County which is located within the Prado
Basin (L.R. Hays, pers. obs.; Michael Patten, pers. comm., 1998). White-faced ibis have also
been recorded wintering in Prado Basin, Corona duck clubs, and San Jacinto Valley with
likely wintering areas at the Mystic Lake/ San Jacinto Wildlife Area (Shuford et al. 1996).

The white-faced ibis is considered conserved under Alternative 1 because the known and
likely breeding locations and an additional likely wintering area are conserved. These areas
which are included within Alternative 1 are the Prado Basin, Mystic Lake/ San Jacinto Wildlife
Area, San Jacinto River, and the upper Salt Creek drainage/San Jacinto Valley.
Conservation would depend, however, on control of exotic vegetation at the breeding
locations, as noted in the conservation considerations below.
Destruction of marsh habitat, especially along the southern coast and in the San Joaquin
Valley, is perhaps the main factor responsible for the decline (Remsen 1978). The area
where the species breeds is should be managed to minimize human disturbance and to
maximize bulrush concentrations, which provide for the support and concealment of nests.
Earnst, et al. (1998) suggest that the species would benefit from a landscape mosaic of well-
distributed peripheral wetlands and persistent colony sites. Control of exotics at Prado Basin
will provide for persistence of the emergent vegetation required by the white-face ibis.
ALTERNATIVE 2
Similar to Alternative 1, the white-faced ibis could be considered conserved under Alternative
2.
ALTERNATIVE 3
Similar to Alternative 1, the white-faced ibis could be considered conserved under Alternative
3.
B-44 Polioptila californica californica - coastal California

gnatcatcher
State: Species of Special Concern (full species)
Federal: Threatened
ALTERNATIVE 1
RATIONALE: The coastal California gnatcatcher could be adequately conserved


The gnatcatcher typically occurs in or near sage scrub habitat, which is a broad category of
vegetation that includes the following plant communities: Venturan 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. Gnatcatchers
also use chaparral, grassland, and riparian habitats where they occur adjacent to sage scrub
(Bontrager 1991). The use of these habitats appears to be most frequent during late summer,
autumn, and winter, with smaller numbers of birds using such areas during the breeding
season. Although existing quantitative data may reveal relatively little about gnatcatcher use
of these other habitats, these areas may be critical during certain times of the year for
dispersal or as foraging areas during drought conditions (Campbell et al. 1998). The high
density areas of the California gnatcatcher are found in the western portion of the county along
the I-15 corridor continuing east within the southern portion of the planning area to Lake
Skinner. The distribution of gnatcatchers in the County does not appear to be uniform along
this strip; instead, high density patches of several core populations exist in generally two
locations within the planning area, one in the northwestern portion of the planning area east
of Interstate 15 in the City of Lake Elsinore. The other area is in the Temecula area including
the south side of the Lake Skinner reservoir and west to Winchester Rd. From north to south,
key population areas occur at the proposed El Sobrante Landfill area, Alberhill area, the
proposed North Peak Conservation Bank, Gavilan Plateau, south to Kabian Park and the area
surrounding Canyon Lake. In the southern area the highest densities of birds reside on the
Southwestern Multiple Species Reserve and west through the proposed Johnson Ranch
Specific Plan, proposed Rancho Bella Vista Specific plan and the proposed SilverHawk
Specific Plan.
The coastal California gnatcatcher is considered conserved under Alternative 1 because

areas of suitable habitat are conserved and the key populations are conserved. Additionally,
habitat linkages are provided between the key populations areas as well as a duplicity of
habitat linkages to provide connectivity in the case of habitat disruption due to fire. The
linkages have been provided in a wide enough design to provide use of the linkage for
occupation and breeding. The key population areas conserved under Alternative 1 include
the area from north of El Cerrito south along the Interstate 15 corridor, including the El
Sobrante Landfill area, Alberhill area, North Peak Area, Gavilan Plateau, Canyon Lake area,
connecting via the Sedco Hills to Antelope Valley and linking to the Lake Skinner area via
multiple drainages. Additional conservation areas are provided south of the Like Skinner
preserve areas with connections to Sage, through Wilson Valley and to Vail Lake. Stepping
stone connections have been conserved under this alternative from the Lake Mathews and El
Cerrito area north to the Santa Ana River drainage and north to Orange County. Connections
also have been conserved along drainages and within the Badlands to San Bernardino

County. Conservation would depend, however, on preserving the function of the habitat
connections and on managing for edge effects, fire, and grazing, as noted below. Due to the
wider habitat area conserved in the Interstate 15 corridor north of Alberhill and the very large
block of habitat conserved in the Vail Lake/Sage/Wilson Valley/Aguanga area, less
management for edge effects will be required within these areas.
Although observed declines in numbers and distribution of the gnatcatcher resulted from
numerous factors, habitat destruction, fragmentation and adverse modification are the
principal reasons for the gnatcatcher's current threatened status (USFWS 1993). Structure
of the perennial vegetation within coastal sage scrub seems to be an important component
leading to successful gnatcatcher reproduction (Braden, 1997). Any disturbance that affects
perennial structure and homogeneity within gnatcatcher territories, such as fire or grazing, also
may affect gnatcatcher fitness (Braden, 1997). Other factors that will be relevant for a
designing a reserve system for the gnatcatcher will be the dispersal distance and average
territory size. In western Riverside County, the average dispersal distance for juvenile
gnatcatchers has been documented as 1.14 km. The average territory size for gnatcatchers
is 8.42 acres during the breeding season and can expand to 60 acres during the non-
breeding season (Braden and Powell, 1994b). A reserve design for this species will need to
maintain connections of breeding habitat such that dispersal between areas can be
accomplished and that are large enough to accommodate the largest territory sizes. The width
of a linkage is recommended to be approximately 1,200 feet. This would provide a linkage
wide enough to support a gnatcatcher territory. Other forms of edge management may still
be required. Management may include fencing areas occupied by gnatcatchers to protect
birds from human and other intruders. Management may include exotic plant removal along
edges of development or planting with native shrubs.
ALTERNATIVE 2
Similar to Alternative 1, the coastal California gnatcatcher could be considered conserved

under Alternative 2. Due to the narrower habitat area conserved in the Interstate 15 corridor
north of Alberhill and the small blocks of habitat conserved in the Vail Lake/Sage/Wilson
Valley/Aguanga area, a greater degree of management for edge effects, fire, grazing and
other habitat quality management activities will be required within these areas.
ALTERNATIVE 3
Similar to Alternative 1, the coastal California gnatcatcher could be considered conserved

under Alternative 3. Due to the narrower habitat area conserved in the Interstate 15 corridor
north of Alberhill and the smaller fragmented blocks of habitat conserved in the Vail
Lake/Sage/Wilson Valley/Aguanga area, a greater degree of management for edge effects,
fire, grazing and other habitat quality management activities will be required within these
areas Surveys will likely be required to establish whether populations in these areas are able
to be maintained under this configuration.
B-45 Progne subis - purple martin

Sensitive
Other: Audubon Society Special Concern
ALTERNATIVE 1
RATIONALE: The purple martin could be adequately conserved under Alternative 1.
The species frequents old-growth, multi-layered, open forest and woodland with snags in
breeding season. It forages over riparian areas, forest, and woodland. The purple martin is
currently a rare migrant and breeder in southern California (including the planning area)
predominantly within the woodlands of the foothill portions of the planning area and within the
montane areas (Garrett and Dunn 1981). Breeding colonies of purple martins apparently
persist in the Thomas Mountain and Dripping Springs areas (Michael Patten, pers. comm.,
1998). The current status of the breeding colony or colonies reported above Lake Hemet in
the San Jacinto Mountains (Garrett and Dunn 1981) is unknown. Additional observations
have been made in the Sage area and may be either historical or non-breeding observations.
The purple martin is considered conserved under Alternative 1 because the San Bernardino
Forest Service lands are included under the alternative. However, conservation of this
species will depend on additional conservation considerations described below.

Bernardino National Forest will address potential impacts to the purple martin, including
purple martin, the Forest Plans would also need to address the effects of forest activities on
this species and associated habitats. In addition, the purple martin may also be present within
private inholdings in the MSHCP planning area of the San Bernardino National Forest.
compatibility with MSHCP goals and objectives for this species. Numbers of the purple martin
have declined markedly in recent decades because of the loss of riparian habitat, removal of
snags, and competition for nest cavities (Remsen 1978). Snag management and
preservation is likely to be important as a conservation consideration for this species.
ALTERNATIVE 2
Similar to Alternative 1, the purple martin could be considered conserved under Alternative
2.
ALTERNATIVE 3
Similar to Alternative 1, the purple martin could be considered conserved under Alternative
3.
B-46 Speotyto cunicularia hypugaea - western burrowing owl

Species; Fish and Wildlife Service Species of Management Concern
ALTERNATIVE 1

RATIONALE: The western burrowing owl could be adequately conserved under
Alternative 1.
The burrowing owl occurs in shortgrass prairies, grasslands, lowland scrub, agricultural lands
(particularly rangelands), prairies, coastal dunes, desert floors, and some artificial, open areas
as a year-long resident (Haug, et al. 1993). They may also use golf courses, cemeteries, road
allowances within cities, airports, vacant lots in residential areas and university campuses,
fairgrounds, abandoned buildings, and irrigation ditches (Haug, et al. 1993; Hayworth pers.
obs.). They require large open expanses of sparsely vegetated areas on gently rolling or level
terrain with an abundance of active small mammal burrows. Within western Riverside County,
the burrowing owl has a sparsely scattered distribution throughout the planning area outside
of the montane areas. Breeding and burrow locations have not been identified within the
database, although most observations that have been recorded are probably located near a
burrow due to the relatively sedentary habits of the species. The species has been detected
east of I-215 on March ARB, the Gavilan Plateau, Lake Perris, east of the Lake Skinner
Reservoir, the upper Menifee Valley, west of the San Jacinto reservoir, along Santa Gertrudis
Creek, and within the cities of Corona, Riverside, and Banning (Fish and Wildlife Service,
unpublished data; California Science and Engineering Associates 1996). It has also been
reported to occur in the Lake Skinner-Domenigoni Valley reserve, Lake Mathews Reserve
and the Sycamore Canyon-March ARB Reserve.
The burrowing owl is considered conserved by Alternative 1 because areas of suitable habitat
within which observed locations are present are conserved which includes: Lake Skinner,
Diamond Valley Reservoir, Lake Mathews, March ARB, Lake Perris, Santa Gertrudis Creek,
Double Butte, Potrero Valley, and portions of the Lakeview Mountains. Conservation would
depend, however, on conducting surveys within potential habitat and conserving identified
burrow locations or on relocating burrowing owls as required by the currently acceptable
protocol for relocation, as noted in the conservation considerations below.
The threats to the burrowing owl include loss of habitat, reduced burrow availability due to
rodent control, and pesticides (James and Espie 1997). Because of the intense pressure for
urban development within suitable burrowing owl nesting and foraging habitat in California,
conflicts between owls and development projects often occur. Owl survival can be adversely
affected by disturbance and foraging habitat loss even when impacts to individual birds and
nest/burrows are avoided (CDFG 1995). The Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation

(CDFG 1995) outlined the protocol for determining impact assessment. The project site and
a 150-meter buffer should be surveyed according to the survey protocol and impacts to the
owl should be considered to occur if there is disturbance within 50 meters of a burrow, or there
is destruction of natural or artificial burrows, or there is destruction of foraging habitat within
100 meters of a burrow. Mitigation measures should include the provision of 6.5 acres of
foraging habitat per pair, provision of two burrows for each burrow impacted, relocation of
owls (Trulio 1995), and avoidance of the nesting season and possibly avoidance of the
burrow. Focused surveys are needed to determine the present distribution (and abundance)
of the species within western Riverside County.
ALTERNATIVE 2
Similar to Alternative 1, the western burrowing owl could be considered conserved under
Alternative 2. Rigorous management of locations identified during surveys may be required
for those locations located in unprotected or fragmented areas. Similar to Alternative 1,
relocation may be required for owl burrows that may be impacted.
ALTERNATIVE 3
The western burrowing owl would not be considered conserved under Alternative 3 due to the
lack of conservation in the Double Butte area, lower slopes of Lakeview Mountains, Badlands
and lack of connectivity in the Wilson Valley/Anza Valley area.

B-47 Sphyrapicus thyroideus - Williamson’s sapsucker
State: None
Federal: None
ALTERNATIVE 1
RATIONALE: The Williamson’s sapsucker could be adequately conserved under

Alternative 1.
Throughout its range, the Williamson’s sapsucker breeds at middle to high elevations in
montane spruce-fir, Douglas fir, lodgepole pine, and ponderosa pine forests and also may
occur in mixed deciduous-coniferous forest with quaking aspen (Dobbs et al. 1997). In
southern California it is found in the San Gabriel, San Bernardino and San Jacinto Mountains
between 1,650 and 3,000 meters (Zeiner et al. 1990). There are no documented key
population areas with western Riverside County. Within the planning area, one record is
located within the San Bernardino National Forest near the Mt. San Jacinto State Park.
The Williamson’s sapsucker is considered conserved under Alternative 1 because the San
Bernardino forest Service lands are included under the Alternative. However, conservation
of this species will depend on additional conservation considerations described below.
Bernardino National Forest will address potential impacts to the Williamson’s sapsucker,
including logging, road construction, recreation, fire management, and land exchanges.

Williamson’s sapsucker, the Forest Plans would also need to address the effects of forest
activities on this species and associated habitats. In addition, the Williamson’s sapsucker
Williamson’s sapsuckers have narrow habitat requirements and are sensitive indicators of
change in intensively managed forest habitats of western North America (Conway and Martin
1993). Although the species may be tolerant of humans in close proximity and to a relatively
high level of disturbance, they exhibit significant forest area (size) effects, that is, in the Pacific
Northwest, 371 snags of at least 30.5 cm dbh per 100 hectares are necessary to support a
maximum population (Thomas et al. 1979). Forest management plans should emphasize
conservation of groups of large snags, rather than random assortments of variable sized
snags. Patches of snags and areas of high snag density should be preserved, especially
those in drainage bottoms or other low-lying areas.
ALTERNATIVE 2
Similar to Alternative 1, the Williamson’s sapsucker could be considered conserved under

Alternative 2.
ALTERNATIVE 3
Similar to Alternative 1, the Williamson’s sapsucker is considered conserved under

Alternative 3.
B-48 Strix occidentalis occidentalis - California spotted owl

Federal: Federal Special Concern species; San Bernardino National Forest
Sensitive; Cleveland National Forest Sensitive; Species of Management
Concern
ALTERNATIVE 1
RATIONALE: The California spotted owl could be adequately conserved under

Alternative 1.
In southern California, the California spotted owl occurs at low elevations (sea level to 1,000
m), and occupies habitats dominated by hardwoods, primarily oak and oak-conifer woodlands
(Garrett and Dunn 1981). At higher elevations, they inhabit areas dominated by conifers
(Gutiérrez, et al. 1995). California spotted owls in western Riverside County are found within
high-elevation coniferous areas primarily within Forest Service lands in the San Jacinto
Mountains and Palomar Range. It also occurs in the San Bernardino Mountains and the Santa
Ana Mountains (Garrett and Dunn 1981). Key population areas include the Santa Ana and
San Jacinto mountains.
The California spotted owl is considered conserved under Alternative 1 because the San
Bernardino National Forest and Cleveland National Forest Service lands are included under
this alternative. However, conservation of this subspecies will depend on additional
conservation considerations described below.
in January of 2002 (California Biodiversity News 2000). The Forest Plans for the Cleveland
California spotted owl, including logging, road construction, recreation, fire management, and
land exchanges.
California spotted owl, the Forest Plans would also need to address the effects of forest
activities on this species and associated habitats. In addition, the California spotted owl may

National Forest and San Bernardino National Forest. Activities within these private inholdings
for this species.
The loss of habitat due to clear felling of forests, and degradation of habitat due to even-aged
tree management have been the primary threats to the spotted owl. Secondary losses of
habitat include urban and suburban expansion, water development in riparian corridors,
agricultural development, fuel wood/oak harvest, reservoir development and mining
(Gutiérrez, et al. 1995). The USFS (pers. comm. 1999) identified a major threat to the
species as the loss of habitat by wildfire. The species requires blocks of 100 to 600 acres
of mature forest with permanent water and suitable nesting trees and snags (Forsman 1976).
The California spotted owl requires mature forest stands with large trees and snags.
Evidence exists that forests selectively logged in the past can be reoccupied by owls relatively
soon (40 to 100 years) if residual forest elements (e.g., snags, coarse woody debris, large
trees with cavities) are present (Gutiérrez, et al. 1995). The California spotted owl on Mt. San
Jacinto appear to be well distributed above 1,000 m in forested habitats and has been
described as follows (Gutierrez and Pritchard 1990). The current owl protection plan in
southern California includes the protection of all known owl sites on federal forest land
(Gutiérrez, et al. 1995).
ALTERNATIVE 2
Similar to Alternative 1, the California spotted owl could be considered conserved under
Alternative 2.
ALTERNATIVE 3
Similar to Alternative 1, the California spotted owl could be considered conserved under
Alternative 3.

B-49 Tachycineta bicolor- tree swallow
State: None
Sensitive
ALTERNATIVE 1
RATIONALE: The tree swallow could be adequately conserved under Alternative 1.
Although tree swallows may be found virtually anywhere in aerial habitat during migration and
winter (e.g., AOU 1998), birds forage primarily over and around ponds, marshes, rivers, lakes,
and estuaries (Garrett and Dunn 1981). Tree swallows nest almost exclusively in cavity-
containing trees or snags with cavities that are near, or preferably in, water (Grinnell and Miller
1944). Suitable habitat is provided by riparian forest and woodland up through lodgepole pine
belt for breeding habitats. In winter, it inhabits lowlands near estuaries, rivers, lakes, and
emergent wetlands. The tree swallow is a rare and very local breeder in the study area and
southern California as a whole (Garrett and Dunn (1981). The only known breeding population
within the study area is located in the Prado Basin and adjacent Santa Ana River. (L. R. Hays,
pers. obs.; Michael Patten, pers. comm., 1998). Other locations that are recorded within the
database include: Lake Elsinore, Canyon Lake, Temecula, Lake Skinner, Wilson Valley, San
Jacinto Wildlife Area, Lake Perris, Riverside East, Lake Mathews, Sage, Santa Rosa Plateau
West, and Valle Vista. These locations do not document breeding activity and thus cannot be
determined as being key population areas. They may reflect observations of the species in
flight over an area or during winter or migration movements.
The tree swallow is considered conserved under Alternative 1 because the only known
breeding area, Prado Basin and Santa Ana River is conserved. Additionally, foraging areas
and other areas where they have been observed also will be conserved. These include Lake
Elsinore, Temecula, Lake Skinner, Wilson Valley, San Jacinto Wildlife Area, Lake Perris, Box
Canyon, Lake Mathews, Sage, and Santa Rosa Plateau. Conservation would depend,
however, on maintaining the quality of the riparian vegetation through Best Management
Practices, preserving and enhancing the breeding opportunities by provision of nest boxes
or preservation of snags as noted in the conservation considerations below.

Garrett and Dunn (1981) concluded that the decline of this species as a breeder in southern
California was likely a result of the destruction of riparian groves, removal of snags, and
competition with the introduced European starling (Sturnus vulgaris) for nesting cavities
(Robertson, et al. 1992). Individuals will use nest boxes, have been shown to preferentially
select them, and the clutch size is higher in nest boxes (Robertson and Rendell 1990).
Because tree swallows apparently are amenable locally to using nest boxes (Richard Purvis,
Fish and Wildlife Service Volunteer, pers. comm., 1998), management of the species in some
areas may be relatively successful in establishing breeding colonies and increasing breeding
productivity. Protection of lowland riparian habitat through Best Management Practices and
exotic control or removal will continue to provide suitable breeding habitat.
ALTERNATIVE 2
Similar to Alternative 1, the tree swallow could be considered conserved under Alternative 2.
ALTERNATIVE 3
Similar to Alternative 1, the tree swallow could be considered conserved under Alternative 3.
B-50 Toxostoma lecontei - Le Conte’s thrasher

Federal: Partners in Flight Watch List; San Bernardino National Forest Sensitive
ALTERNATIVE 1
RATIONALE: The Le Conte’s thrasher could be adequately conserved under

Alternative 1.
This desert inhabitant is uncommon to rare and occurs in open desert wash, desert scrub
(creosote bush scrub), alkali desert scrub and desert succulent shrub habitats on sandy and
often alkaline soils (Sheppard 1970). This species often inhabits areas where soil is fine
alluvium or sandy and topography is flat and open, including dunes and gently rolling hills
(Sheppard 1996; Miller and Stebbins 1964). In Riverside county, the species occurs east of

the San Bernardino National Forest as a permanent resident but is not recorded within the
western Riverside County area within the general ornithological literature (Zeiner, et al. 1990).
It has been recorded near Moreno within Riverside County as an unusual occurrence but the
specific location and current status of this location is unknown (McCaskie 1988). There are
no known key population areas with the western Riverside County area. The Le Conte’s
thrasher may occur in the southeastern corner of the planning area as a year-round resident
or as an occasional occurrence. It has been recorded as an isolated observation within
Wilson Valley (Paul Principe, pers. comm.).
The Le Conte’s thrasher is considered conserved under Alternative 1 because large areas
of potentially suitable habitat are conserved in the Wilson Valley area and within the Aguanga
area and east where the species may be present. The conservation may depend on providing
protection of conserved areas as noted below.
Due to the extremely low population size within the planning area, the fact that it is most likely
a transient or accidental occurrence, and the large amount of potential habitat conserved with
this alternative, the need for additional conservation considerations is unlikely. Habitat loss
due to degradation, fragmentation, loss to agriculture, irrigation, urbanization, oil and gas
development, fire and over-grazing are the primary reasons for the decline of the species
(Brown, 1996). Effects of protective fencing were found to result in higher abundance and
species richness of birds (Brooks 1999). If a sizable population concentration is found within
the planning area, protective fencing may be deemed to be appropriate.
ALTERNATIVE 2
Similar to Alternative 1, the LeConte’s thrasher could be considered conserved under

Alternative 2.

ALTERNATIVE 3
Similar to Alternative 1, the LeConte’s thrasher could be considered conserved under

Alternative 3.
B-51 Vermivora ruficapilla - Nashville warbler

State: None
Federal: None
ALTERNATIVE 1
RATIONALE: The Nashville warbler could be adequately conserved under Alternative

1.
The Nashville warbler most commonly breeds in pine, hardwood and conifer forests in the
Sierras and in montane chaparral habitats in southern California, and in general, this includes
second growth, open deciduous, or mixed species forests, with high levels of light penetration
and shrubby undergrowth (Williams 1996;). The wintering habitat is primarily low deciduous
open forests and suburban gardens but may also include a wide variety of habitats such as
cloud forest, tropical deciduous forest, disturbed deciduous forest, thorn forest and pine-oak-
fir forest (Williams 1996). A breeding population may be present in northern Riverside county
within the San Bernardino Mountains or within the San Jacinto Mountains (Zeiner, et al. 1990).
The species occurs within the planning area commonly as a spring migrant or transient and
less commonly as fall migrant or transient (Garrett and Dunn 1984). Geographic locations
recorded within the database include: Santa Ana River, Moreno Valley, Lake Matthews,
Sedco Hills, Temecula Creek, Wilson Creek, Tucalota Creek, and Banning for nonbreeding
locations, and San Bernardino National Forest for presumed breeding locations.
The Nashville warbler is considered conserved under Alternative 1 because the San
Bernardino Forest Service lands, which are the likely breeding locations, and large areas of
suitable wintering habitat are included in this alternative. Conservation of this species will
depend on additional conservation considerations described below.

Bernardino National Forest will address potential impacts to the Nashville warbler, including
logging activities.
Nashville warbler, the Forest Plans would also need to address the effects of forest activities
on this species and associated habitats. In addition, the Nashville warbler may also be
compatibility with MSHCP goals and objectives for this species. Both the long-term and short-
term continent-wide Breeding Bird Survey trends show no clear pattern of population increase
or decrease, however in the western population and especially in British Columbia there may
be a slight increase in the population which may be resulting from newly available habitat in
regenerating clear cuts (Williams 1996). Thus, some logging activities in the forest may
benefit the species by opening the forest for regenerating growth.
ALTERNATIVE 2
Similar to Alternative 1, the Nashville warbler could be considered conserved under

Alternative 2.

ALTERNATIVE 3
Similar to Alternative 1, the Nashville warbler could be considered conserved under

Alternative 3.
B-52 Vireo bellii pusillus - least Bell’s vireo

State: Endangered
Federal: Endangered (Federal Register 51:16482, May 2, 1986); Partners in
Flight Priority Bird Species; Species of Management Concern
ALTERNATIVE 1
RATIONALE: The least Bell’s vireo could be adequately conserved under Alternative
1.
The least Bell’s vireo primarily occupies riverine riparian habitats that typically feature dense
cover within 1-2 meters of the ground and a dense, stratified canopy (USFWS 1986). It
inhabits low, dense riparian growth along water or along dry parts of intermittent streams.
Typically it is associated with southern willow scrub, cottonwood forest, mule fat scrub,
sycamore alluvial woodland, coast live oak riparian forest, arroyo willow riparian forest, wild
blackberry, or mesquite in desert localities. The birds forage in riparian and adjoining
chaparral habitat (Salata 1983). The least Bell’s vireo population in the Prado Basin and
contiguous (upstream and downstream) reaches of the Santa Ana River is the second largest
population in the United States (Pike, et al. 1996). Other observations of the species in the
study area and environs have occurred along Chino Creek, Temescal Wash, San Timoteo
Creek, Alberhill Creek, Tucalota Creek, Murrieta and Temecula Creeks, Bautista Creek, San
Jacinto River, Lake Elsinore, Lake Skinner Reserve, Lake Mathews, Vail Lake, Santa
Margarita River, Potrero Creek, along Wilson Creek, March Air Force Base, and in the vicinity
of De Luz (USFWS 1998; USFWS unpublished data).
The least Bell’s vireo is considered conserved under Alternative 1 because the key population
located along the I-15 corridor, the drainages that are located in the southwestern portion of
the planning area, as well as the more isolated and scattered breeding locations in the
eastern portions of the planning area including but not limited to Potrero, San Timoteo Creek,
Bautista Creek, Wilson Creek, Vail Lake, and San Jacinto River. Conservation of this
species would depend, however, on preserving upland habitat adjacent to riparian habitat,

maintaining the quality of the riparian vegetation through Best Management Practices,
maintaining the habitat linkages for the species, and providing brown-headed cowbird
management as noted in the conservation considerations below.
The least Bell’s vireo has been impacted by the loss and degradation of riparian habitats, loss
and modification of hydrological and fluvial processes, sand mining, flood control activities
(mowing, channelization), ground water withdrawal, mosquito control, infestation of non-native
plant species (i.e., giant reed), widespread cowbird parasitism, loss of native habitat buffers,
and edge effects from upland development (Brown 1993). Two features appear to be
essential for a vireo territory: the presence of dense cover within 1 to 2 meters of the ground
and a dense, stratified canopy for foraging. Native upland buffers are particularly important
in narrow drainages. Those pairs that select areas bordered by coastal sage scrub and
grasslands tended to be more successful than those bordered by agricultural and urban areas.
Those territories adjoining golf courses, campgrounds, and sand mines had significantly fewer
successful pairs than those next to chaparral, coastal scrub oak or grasslands (Franzreb
1987). Least Bell’s vireo is known to forage in upland vegetation up to 300 yards from the
nest (USFWS 1986). Adequate corridors and widespread brown-headed cowbird control is
necessary for management. Rangewide management of riparian systems (largely to control
cowbird parasitism) has resulted in a much reduced parasitism rate, and an increase in the
population numbers (Brown 1993). Protection of lowland riparian habitat through Best
Management Practices and exotic control or removal will continue to provide suitable
breeding habitat. Preserving upland habitat adjacent to riparian habitat will provide foraging
opportunities for all seasons.
ALTERNATIVE 2
Similar to Alternative 1, the least Bell’s vireo could be considered conserved under Alternative
2.
ALTERNATIVE 3
Similar to Alternative 1, the least Bell’s vireo could be considered conserved under Alternative
3.

B-53 Wilsonia pusilla - Wilson’s warbler
State: None
Sensitive
ALTERNATIVE 1
RATIONALE: The Wilson’s warbler could be adequately conserved under Alternative

1.
Breeding habitats for the Wilson’s warbler include montane meadows and low, dense willow
thickets often on steep slopes (Garrett and Dunn 1981). Outside of the breeding season,
during migration, these birds can be seen passing through woodlands and forests within shrub
understories as well as in chaparral habitats, and it also may occur in well-grown woodlands,
city parks, and gardens (Terres 1980). Within western Riverside County, the Wilson’s warbler
is a common transient throughout the spring and less common during the fall (Garrett and
Dunn 1981). There are no records extending through the winter (Garrett and Dunn 1981). The
species currently breeds around montane meadows within the San Bernardino Mountains and
the San Jacinto Mountains within the eastern portion of western Riverside County (Garrett and
Dunn 1981). Geographic locations recorded within the database include: Cleveland National
Forest and San Bernardino National Forest for breeding locations, Prado Basin, Santa Ana
River, Temescal Wash, Murrieta Creek, Temecula Creek, Wilson Creek, Lake Skinner,
Wildomar, Santa Rosa Plateau, Lake Matthews, Lake Perris, March ARB, Badlands, and San
Timoteo Creek for wintering or transient migrant locations.
The Wilson’s warbler is considered conserved under Alternative 1 because the San
Bernardino Forest Service lands, the breeding location, are included under this alternative.
However, conservation of this species will depend on additional conservation considerations
described below. The transient locations, which are located at lower elevation are also
conserved in large enough areas to consider this species conserved.

Bernardino National Forest will address potential impacts to the Wilson’s warbler, including
parasitism by Brown-headed cowbirds, which may be partially responsible for extirpation from
some areas (Garrett and Dunn 1981) and preservation of habitat in both small, disjunct
riparian patches and extensive riverine tracts (Skagen et al. 1998).
Wilson’s warbler, the Forest Plans would also need to address the effects of forest activities
on this species and associated habitats which are predominantly montane riparian habitat.
In addition, Wilson’s warbler may also be present within private inholdings in the MSHCP
planning area of the San Bernardino National Forest. Activities within these private inholdings
for this species.
ALTERNATIVE 2
Similar to Alternative 1, the Wilson’s warbler could be considered conserved under Alternative
2.
ALTERNATIVE 3
Similar to Alternative 1, the Wilson’s warbler could be considered conserved under Alternative
3.

5.2.2 MAMMALS
M-1 Canis latrans – coyote

State: None
Federal: None
ALTERNATIVE 1
RATIONALE: The coyote could be adequately conserved under Alternative 1.
Coyotes are still very common and widespread in the planning area and, according to the
MSHCP database, occurs in virtually all natural habitat types in the planning area, as well as
in agricultural fields, groves and orchards, and urban areas. Except where predator controls
are implemented (e.g., trapping), this species adapts well to human presence. It would only
be absent from smaller habitat areas (< 2.5 hectares [6 acres]; Crooks, unpublished
manuscript) and in the most urbanized areas that do not contain cover for movement and
refuge during the day. This species is an omnivore and probably is not limited by a lack of
prey or other food items (e.g., Gier 1975). They also appear to shift their diets seasonally in
relation to availability (Smith 1990). Although the coyote has thrived in proximity to humans,
their use of breeding dens may be affected by human disturbance (Harrison and Gilbert
1985). However, Alternative 1 should provide adequate undisturbed habitat for coyote dens.
Because this species is so widespread and adapts well to human presence, the coyote is
considered conserved under Alternative 1.
Rangewide the coyote is not threatened with extinction and this species will persist in western
Riverside County under any reserve scenario. No additional conservation considerations are
necessary for coverage of this species.
ALTERNATIVE 2
The coyote could be adequately conserved under Alternative 2. Because this species is so
widespread and common in the planning area, and because it adapts well to urbanized and
rural landscapes, the rationale statement for Alternative 1 applies to Alternative 2.

ALTERNATIVE 3
The coyote could be adequately conserved under Alternative 3. Because this species is so
widespread and common in the planning area, and because it adapts well to urbanized and
rural landscapes, the rationale statement for Alternative 1 applies to Alternative 3.
M-2 Chaetodipus californicus femoralis – Dulzura California

pocket mouse
Federal: None
ALTERNATIVE 1
RATIONALE: The Dulzura California pocket mouse could be adequately conserved

Main populations of the Dulzura California pocket mouse probably are limited to the
southwestern and southern portions of the planning area in coastal sage scrub, chaparral, and
riparian habitats. It is important to note, however, that the subspecific taxonomic assignments
have not been reviewed systematically and there may be errors (Williams et al. 1993). Also,
field misidentifications may occur between this subspecies and the sympatric northwestern
San Diego pocket mouse (Chaetodipus fallax fallax) because of their physical similarity. Its
actual distribution in the planning area is unknown. (In preparing this rationale statement, the
author [P. Behrends] found a personal trapping record of the Dulzura California pocket mouse
from the southern edge of Double Butte east of the Menifee Valley in 1993. Although this
record was submitted to the CNDDB in 1993, it apparently was not entered into the database.
This record is not reflected in the species account.) Nonetheless, potential key habitat areas
for the Dulzura California pocket mouse would be conserved under Alternative 1, including:
the San Mateo Canyon Wilderness, Santa Rosa Plateau, the northern foothills of the Santa
Ana Mountain Range; the northern foothills of the Agua Tibia Mountains; and possibly the Anza
Valley. In contiguous northern San Diego County, there is substantial habitat for this species
in the Cleveland National Forest in the Santa Ana, Agua Tibia, Palomar, Volcan, and Laguna
Mountain ranges. Based on trapping studies conducted in chaparral and coastal sage scrub
in northern San Diego County, this species is still common in shrubby habitats (Behrends,
pers. obs.).

Although the Dulzura California pocket mouse is most often associated with rocky substrates,
it probably is not dependent on specific microhabitats; i.e., where it occurs, its ecological
niche probably is relatively broad. As a granivore, this species should not be food-limited.
There is no direct information about its need for exogenous (free) water, but it likely could
meet water needs with herbaceous vegetation.
Because this species still common where suitable habitat is present and much of its habitat
is within Alternative 1, the Dulzura California pocket mouse is considered conserved, with
additional conservation considerations noted below.
The taxonomy of the California pocket mouse is relatively unknown and subspecific
assignments may be in error. As part of any adaptive management programs that include
rodent trapping, an effort should be made to document the presence/absence of the California
pocket mouse in the planning area through careful field identification and, ideally, collection
of genetic material to support biochemical genetic studies of the species.
The Dulzura California pocket mouse probably also is vulnerable edge effects including
impacts by mesopredators (especially domestic cats) and lighting. Lighting and fencing along
the urban development-reserve interface should be controlled to the extent possible to
minimize these potential edge effects.
ALTERNATIVE 2
The Dulzura California pocket mouse could be adequately conserved under Alternative 2.
With the exception of a few patches of conserved habitat along Tenaja Road on the Santa
Rosa Plateau, conservation of the mostly likely suitable habitat areas would be identical under
Alternatives 1 and 2, and potential habitat in the Vail Lake and Sage/Aguanga areas would
also be conserved. Therefore, the rationale statement and conservation considerations for
Alternative 1 are the same for Alternative 2.
ALTERNATIVE 3
The Dulzura California pocket mouse could be adequately conserved under Alternative 3. The
key differences between Alternatives 1 and 3 that may affect this subspecies is the
unspecified amount of conservation of potential habitat in the Vail Lake, Sage/Wilson Valley

and Tule Creek areas. However, most of potential habitat for the pocket mouse in the
planning area would be conserved under Alternative 3. Therefore, the rationale statement and
conservation considerations for Alternative 1 are the same for Alternative 2.
M-3 Chaetodipus fallax fallax – northwestern San Diego pocket

mouse
Federal: None
ALTERNATIVE 1
RATIONALE: The northwestern San Diego pocket mouse could be adequately

conserved under Alternative 1.
This species is still relatively common and widespread in the planning area in coastal sage
scrub, chaparral, grassland, and the sage scrub-grassland ecotone. Main localities for this
species that would be conserved under Alternative 1 include the existing Stephens’ kangaroo
rat core reserves: Lake Mathews-Estelle Mountain; Lake Skinner-Diamond Valley Lake; San
Jacinto Wildlife Area-Lake Perris; Sycamore Canyon Park; Steele Peak; and Motte-Rimrock
Reserve. According to the Habitat Conservation Plan for the Stephens’ Kangaroo Rat in
Western Riverside County (RCHCA 1996), these reserves alone contain approximately
34,000 acres of coastal sage scrub, chaparral, and grassland. Under a conservative density
estimate of about one individual/acre, the population estimate for the northwestern San Diego
pocket mouse in these core reserves would be 30,000-40,000 animals. Other key large
areas that would be conserved under Alternative 1 include the Santa Rosa Plateau, the
northern foothills of the Agua Tibia Mountains and the Santa Ana Mountains, the western
foothills of the San Jacinto Mountains, Kabian Park, Sedco Hills, Santa Margarita Ecological
Reserve, Sage/Aguanga, Vail Lake, Anza Valley, Potrero Valley, and the Badlands.
The northwestern San Diego pocket mouse is widespread in its preferred habitat and it is not
limited by microhabitat constraints such as specific foraging areas, proximity to water, or
burrow sites. Although it shows a strong affinity to moderately gravelly and rocky substrates
(Bleich 1973; Price and Waser 1995), it also is common in sandy loam and loam soils (S.
Montgomery, pers. comm. 1998). These soils types are common in western Riverside County
(Knecht 1971) and are not a constraint on its distribution. As a granivore, this species is not
food-limited and it does not require exogenous (free) water to survive.

While this species is expected to persist in the large reserve areas, it probably will disappear
from small and fragmented habitat patches less than 200 acres because of demographic
instability and mesopredator pressure (Bolger et al. 1997).
Because this species is still widespread and relatively common in suitable habitats, and
because substantial areas of suitable habitat would be conserved under Alternative 1, the
northwestern San Diego pocket mouse is considered conserved. Additional conservation
considerations are described below.
Adaptive management programs for the reserve system should include periodic live-trapping
studies to the extent possible to monitor this species. In particular, care should be taken by
biologists to correctly identify this species in the field to avoid confusion with the sympatric and
physically similar Dulzura California pocket mouse (Chaetodipus californicus femoralis).
The San Diego pocket mouse probably also is vulnerable edge effects including impacts by
mesopredators (especially domestic cats) and lighting. Lighting and fencing along the urban
development-reserve interface should be controlled to the extent possible to minimize these
potential edge effects.
ALTERNATIVE 2
The northwestern San Diego pocket mouse could be adequately conserved under Alternative
2. The main differences between Alternatives 1 and 2 relevant to the San Diego pocket
mouse are that less suitable habitat would be conserved under Alternative 2 in the Jurupa
Mountains, the Badlands, in the hills between Estelle Mountain and Lake Elsinore, Vail Lake,
Sage, Aguanga and Anza Valley compared to Alternative 1. However, as described in the
rationale statement for Alternative 1, this species is still relatively widespread in the planning
area, and the existing Stephens’ kangaroo rat core reserves contain about 34,000 acres of
suitable habitat for the species. It probably is also common in existing public ownership in the
foothills of the San Jacinto, Agua Tibia, and Santa Ana Mountains. The additional, but
unspecified, habitat in Reche Canyon, Potrero Valley, Vail Lake, Sage, Aguanga, and Anza
Valley areas probably would add several thousand acres of suitable habitat to the core
reserves under Alternative 2. Therefore, the rationale statement and conservation
considerations for Alternative 1 apply to Alternative 2.

ALTERNATIVE 3
The northwestern San Diego pocket mouse could be adequately conserved under Alternative
3 for the same reasons that Alternative 2 could adequately conserve this species. The only
difference is that conservation of potential habitat in the Reche Canyon, Lakeview Mountains,
Tule Creek and Anza Valley areas would be less than Alternative 2. The existing conserved
habitat in the Stephens’ kangaroo rat core reserves and other existing public ownerships
should be adequate for the northwestern San Diego pocket mouse.
M-4 Dipodomys merriami parvus – San Bernardino kangaroo rat

Federal: None
ALTERNATIVE 1
RATIONALE: The San Bernardino kangaroo rat could be adequately conserved under
Alternative 1.
The two main populations of the San Bernardino kangaroo rat would be conserved in the San
Jacinto River and Bautista Creek. The USFWS (1998) estimated the San Jacinto River
population at approximately 350 acres and the extent of the Bautista Creek population is
unknown. Although the San Bernardino kangaroo rat is known from other scattered locations
in the planning area (e.g., Moreno Valley, Menifee, Eden Hot Springs, Homeland, and Perris),
it is unlikely that these areas support extant populations or would continue to support
populations in the foreseeable future. Two exceptions may be small populations in Reche
Canyon and the Jurupa Hills/Bloomington area where enough habitat may be conserved to
support populations. The status of these historic populations is unknown.
Because the two key habitat areas for the San Bernardino kangaroo rat are within Alternative
1, this subspecies is considered conserved, with additional conservation considerations as
noted below.
Additional study of the distribution of the San Bernardino kangaroo rat and habitat
management probably will be important for conserving this subspecies in the planning area.

Focused studies of the San Jacinto River and Bautista Creek should be conducted to assess
current occupation, population densities and habitat quality. The extent and health of the
Baustista Creek population is unknown.
The subspecific boundary between D. m. parvus and the Aguanga kangaroo rat (D. m.
collinus) to the south is unclear, as is the boundary between D. m. parvus and D. m. simiolus
that occurs in Coachella Valley. Biochemical genetic studies would be helpful in elucidating
the subspecific assignments of this species.
Habitat management probably will be crucial for conserving the San Bernardino kangaroo rat
in the planning area. The estimate of 350 acres of occupied habitat in the San Jacinto River,
and certainly less in Bautista Creek, indicates that this subspecies’ viability in the planning
area is tenuous. (Compare with the delisting to threatened status criterion of 16,500 acres of
occupied Stephens’ kangaroo rat habitat in a minimum of five reserves in western Riverside
County and two ecosystem based reserves in San Diego County [USFWS 1997]).
Unmanaged habitat is prone to invasion by exotic species such as mustards (Brassica nigra
and Hirschfeldia incana) and brome grasses (Bromus diandrus and B. madritensis). Mature
Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub is most prone to invasion by exotics because, by
definition, it has not been flooded for a long period of time.
Restoring and maintaining habitat connections along the San Jacinto River also will be crucial
for sustaining viable populations. At present sand and gravel mining and spreading basins in
the San Jacinto River may be interfering with occupation and dispersal along the river.
Uncontrolled off-road vehicles use also is severely degrading habitat (Behrends, pers. obs.).
The southerly population near Valle Vista appears to be in relatively abundant, but the
population density declines to the north and is only trace in apparently suitable habitat near
Main Street in the City of San Jacinto (P. Behrends, pers. obs.). Loss of and disruptions in
the continuity of the alluvial fan sage scrub may result in isolation of local populations and
preclude or limit the amount of genetic exchange between populations. In addition, increased
urban runoff into the drainages may alter the habitat such that it would be unsuitable for the
San Bernardino kangaroo rat.
The San Bernardino kangaroo rat probably also is vulnerable edge effects including impacts
by mesopredators (especially domestic cats), lighting, and habitat destruction and
degradation. Lighting, fencing, and off-road vehicle use along the urban development-reserve
interface should be controlled to the extent possible to minimize these potential edge effects.
Because this species occurs adjacent to agricultural areas, adverse effects of pesticides also
should be considered.

ALTERNATIVE 2
The San Bernardino kangaroo rat could be adequately conserved under Alternative 2
because conservation of habitat for the subspecies would be the same as Alternative 1.
ALTERNATIVE 3
The San Bernardino kangaroo rat could be adequately conserved under Alternative 3
because conservation of habitat for the subspecies would be the same as Alternative 1.
M-5 Dipodomys stephensi – Stephens’ kangaroo rat

State: Threatened
Federal: Endangered
ALTERNATIVE 1
RATIONALE: The Stephens’ kangaroo rat could be adequately conserved under

Alternative 1.
The major populations of this species are already conserved in the core Stephens’ kangaroo
rat reserves: Lake Mathews-Estelle Mountain; Lake Skinner-Diamond Valley Lake; San
Jacinto Wildlife Area-Lake Perris; Steele Peak; Motte-Rimrock; and Sycamore Canyon-
March Air Reserve Base. These reserves contain approximately 12,400 acres of occupied
habitat (RCHCA 1996). Additional core habitat areas that would be conserved under
Alternative 1 include Potrero Valley and a portion of the Anza Valley (of which the Silverado
Ranch Mitigation Bank is a part). These two areas would add approximately 2,000+ acres
of occupied habitat to the reserve system. Conservation in the Sage/Aguanga, Vail Lake, and
Kabian Park areas probably would add an additional several hundred additional acres
(Behrends, per. obs.), but occupied habitat in these areas has not been thoroughly mapped.
According to the Draft Recovery Plan for Stephens’ [sic] Kangaroo Rat (USFWS 1997), a
minimum criterion of reclassification of the Stephens’ kangaroo rat to threatened status is
establishment of four reserves totally at least 15,000 acres of occupied habitat in western
Riverside County. This scenario likely would be achievable under Alternative 1. In addition,
habitat connections between core populations would be better conserved under Alternative
1 than currently exist with the existing core reserves. For example, connections would be
maintained between the populations in the San Jacinto Wildlife Area-Lake Perris and the

Badlands/Potrero Valley; between populations in Lake Mathews-Estelle Mountain and Steele
Peak; between populations in Lake Skinner-Diamond Valley Lake and Sage/Aguanga; and
potentially between Sage/Aguanga and the Anza Valley (relatively little is known of the
distribution of the Stephens’ kangaroo rat in this region of the planning area).
The Stephens’ kangaroo rat is considered conserved under Alternative 1 because the key
populations are contained within the existing core reserves and the additional core areas in
Potrero Valley and Anza Valley. Conservation of this species also is dependent on the
conservation considerations described below.
Habitat management is a key for sustaining viable populations of the Stephens’ kangaroo rat
(Goldengay and Price 1997; USFWS 1997). Growth of dense stands of non-native grasses
(Avena spp. and Bromus spp.) can result in extirpation of this species from large areas of
otherwise suitable habitat (USFWS 1997). Management through prescribed burning or
grazing will be important for maintaining populations. The appropriate type and intensity of
management will depend on the area and ongoing land uses. For example, prescribed
burning at the Lake Perris State Recreation Area may be the most appropriate management
technique, while limited cattle grazing on the Silverado Ranch Mitigation Bank may be most
appropriate. More benign management, where natural ecological cycles are allowed to occur
and populations fluctuate, may be appropriate in reserves that have adequate habitat. Some
areas may require balancing management for the Stephens’ kangaroo rat with management
for other covered species such as the California gnatcatcher. Each reserve area will require
its own adaptive management program.
Edge effects also will be important for the Stephens’ kangaroo rat. This species is vulnerable
to adjacent land uses and associated threats, including use of pesticides, mesopredators
(especially domestic cats), lighting, off-road vehicles, etc. which both directly and indirectly
impact individuals and degrade or destroy habitat. Potential adverse edge effects along the
urban development-reserve interface will be an important issue for conservation of this
species.
ALTERNATIVE 2
The Stephens’ kangaroo rat could be conserved under Alternative 2. The key issue for
conserving the Stephens’ kangaroo rat in the planning area is adding core habitat areas in

the Potrero and Anza valleys, which would occur under Alternative 2. In addition, smaller
patches of occupied habitat in the Vail Lake and Wilson Creek areas would be included under
Alternative 2, although potential habitat connections would be not conserved as well as under
Alternative 1 (e.g., between the Badlands and San Jacinto Wildlife Area-Lake Perris, between
Estelle Mountain and Steele Peak, and between Lake Skinner-Diamond Valley Lake and the
Wilson Creek and Vail Lake area).
ALTERNATIVE 3
The Stephens’ kangaroo rat could be conserved under Alternative 3 for the same reasons as
Alternative 2. The core populations in the Potrero and Anza Valleys would be conserved
M-6 Glaucomys sabrinus californicus – San Bernardino flying

squirrel
Federal: None
ALTERNATIVE 1
RATIONALE: The San Bernardino flying squirrel could be adequately conserved under
Alternative 1.
The critical assumption is that most, if not all, of the suitable habitat for the flying squirrel
occurs on U.S. Forest Service land in the San Jacinto Mountains and that the Forest Plan for
the San Bernardino National Forest under preparation will address this species. Information
for the occurrence and distribution of the flying squirrel is very poor and dated; the five
locations in the database are museum records from the period between 1908 and 1916 and
have imprecise locations in Idyllwild and Strawberry Creek. Also, very little is known about the
life history of this species in the disjunct southern portion of its range.
The San Bernardino flying squirrel is considered conserved under Alternative 1 because the
San Bernardino Forest Service lands are included under the alternative. However,
conservation of this subspecies will depend on additional conservation considerations
described below.

in January of 2002 (California Biodiversity News 2000).
San Bernardino flying squirrel in the San Jacinto Mountains, the Forest Plan would also need
to address the effects of forest activities on this species and its associated habitats, including,
but not limited to, road construction, recreation, fire management, and land exchanges.
Surveys also should be conducted for this species as part of the planning effort. In addition,
the flying squirrel may also be present within private inholdings in the MSHCP planning area.
compatibility with MSHCP goals and objectives for this species. Any activities that require
clearing of conifers, mixed coniferous-deciduous forest, or broad-leafed deciduous forest
should evaluate potential impacts on this species.
ALTERNATIVE 2
The San Bernardino flying squirrel could be adequately conserved under Alternative 2.
Conservation of potential habitat in the San Jacinto Mountains under Alternative 2 would be
the same as for Alternative 1 and therefore the rationale and conservation considerations
would be the same.
ALTERNATIVE 3
The San Bernardino flying squirrel could be adequately conserved under Alternative 3.
Conservation of potential habitat in the San Jacinto Mountains under Alternative 3 would be
the same as for Alternative 1 and therefore the rationale and conservation considerations
would be the same.

M-7 Lepus californicus bennettii – San Diego black-tailed

jackrabbit
Federal: None
ALTERNATIVE 1
RATIONALE: The San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit could be adequately conserved

This San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit is widespread and still relatively common throughout
the planning area. The jackrabbit is found in most areas that support annual grassland,
Riversidean sage scrub, alluvial fan sage scrub, Great Basin sagebrush, chaparral, disturbed
habitat, and agriculture. Based on the clusters of records in the MSHCP database and field
observations (P. Behrends), key population areas that would be conserved under Alternative
1 include the Santa Rosa Plateau, Lake-Skinner-Diamond Valley Lake, Lake Mathews-Estelle
Mountain, San Jacinto Wildlife Area-Lake Perris, Sycamore Canyon Regional Park, Lakeview
Mountains, San Jacinto River, the Badlands, Sage/Aguanga, Anza Valley, Sedco Hills,
Kabian Park, the Badlands, Potrero Valley, Santa Ana River and the Jurupa Mountains. Most
of the key population areas are connected by habitat linkages. However, a few locations such
as the Jurupa Mountains, Sycamore Canyon Park, and the Lakeview Mountains may become
completely isolated in the future as surrounding areas are built out. Areas that remain in
agriculture or rural also may support black-tailed jackrabbits in the future, but the ultimate land
uses in these areas are uncertain. It is assumed for this analysis that these areas would not
support jackrabbits in the future.
The San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit is considered conserved under Alternative 1 because
key population and habitat areas are within the alternative. Additional conservation
Black-tailed jackrabbit populations in the planning area should be monitored. Monitoring

population trends in the black-tailed jackrabbit, however, will be difficult because this species’
productivity appears to be density-dependent (French et al. 1965) and is subject to extreme
population cycles on seven to 10 year cycles (Smith 1990; Wagner and Stoddart 1972).

Reserve managers will need to develop systematic monitoring programs for this species that
include sufficiently frequent monitoring periods to catch the rises and falls of the populations.
This species also requires open habitats and commonly occurs in grazed and low-intensity
agricultural habitats. Habitat management in reserves for the Stephens’ kangaroo rat that
maintain open, sparsely vegetated habitats will serve the jackrabbit well. Habitat connections
between core habitat areas also will need to be monitored to ensure that the habitat is suitable
for dispersal. Open channels and areas supporting pioneer and intermediate phase alluvial
fan sage scrub and other sparse scrub habitats along major drainages such as the Santa Ana
River, San Jacinto River, Temecula Creek, Temescal Wash, San Timoteo Creek, and
Murrieta Creek will be important dispersal habitat for this species (e.g., see French et al.
1965 for observations of dispersal behavior).
ALTERNATIVE 2
Without additional information regarding the minimum habitat areas required to support self-
sustaining populations of the San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit, this species could not be
considered conserved under Alternative 2. While some large habitat blocks supporting the
species would be conserved under Alternative 2 (e.g., Lake Mathews-Estelle Mountain, San
Jacinto Wildlife Area-Lake Perris, and Lake Skinner-Diamond Valley Lake), some key habitat
areas would not be conserved: a large portion of the Badlands; contiguous habitat in the Vail
Lake and Sage/Aguanga areas; and the Jurupa Mountains. Perhaps more importantly,
potentially important habitat connections between the existing habitat blocks would not be
conserved or would be of marginal value for the species, including the upland connection
between Estelle Mountain and Steele Peak, between Lake Skinner-Diamond Valley Lake and
the Vail Lake and Sage/Aguanga areas, between Lake Skinner-Diamond Valley Lake and
the Antelope Valley, and between Potrero Valley and the San Jacinto Wildlife Area-Lake
Perris. Some of these connections probably are only functioning today because jackrabbits
use pasture and low intensity agricultural areas. It is assumed that future use of these areas
would be diminished with increasing urbanization. Without adequate habitat connections, the
black-tailed jackrabbit may be at high risk of local extirpation in isolated habitat area because
it experiences large population fluctuations (Smith 1990; Wagner and Stoddart 1972) and
small, fragmented habitat patches may be more prone to emigration (e.g., see example with
rodents by Diffendorfer et al. 1999). Generally, conservation biology theory predicts that small
patches support fewer individuals and that small populations are at more risk of local
extinction (e.g., Lefkovitch and Fahrig 1985). Adequate connections that allow immigration
to suitable, but unoccupied habitat may be crucial for this species. If studies of relatively small,

isolated habitat patches could demonstrate long-term persistence of jackrabbits, perhaps this
species could be covered under Alternative 2 in the future.
ALTERNATIVE 3
The San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit could not be considered conserved under Alternative
3 for the same reasons provided above for Alternative 2.
M-8 Felis rufus – bobcat

State: None
Federal: None
ALTERNATIVE 1
RATIONALE: The bobcat could be adequately conserved under Alternative 1.
The bobcat is still relatively widespread in the planning area and thrives well where rocky and
brushy areas are maintained. Areas that appear to support the greatest densities of the
bobcat, such as the Santa Rosa Plateau, Lake Skinner-Diamond Valley Lake area, and the
Badlands would be conserved under Alternative 1. Other potentially important habitat areas
would be conserved under Alternative 1, including the Santa Ana Mountains and the Agua
Tibia Mountains of the Cleveland National Forest, the San Jacinto Mountains of the San
Bernardino National Forest, Vail Lake, Sage/Aguanga, Anza Valley, and the Santa Ana River.
Key habitat linkages also would be conserved, including the continuous habitat linkage along
the Badlands and San Jacinto Mountains, along the Santa Ana River, across the Santa Rosa
Plateau, between Lake Mathews-Estelle Mountain and the Cleveland National Forest, and
between Lake Skinner, Vail Lake, Sage/Aguanga, the Agua Tibia Mountains, and Anza
Valley.

The bobcat is considered conserved under Alternative 1 because large areas of suitable
habitat would be conserved and key habitat connections would be maintained within the
alternative. Conservation would depend, however, on preserving the function of habitat
connections, as noted in the conservation considerations below.
While Alternative 1 contains adequate habitat to conserve the bobcat in the planning area, an
important consideration for conservation of the bobcat is the preservation of suitable habitat
linkages/corridors in potential movement bottleneck areas. Bobcats are capable of moving
long distances, and there is evidence of young males moving as far as 182 km (Larivière and
Walton 1997). Such long-distance dispersal movements may be important for genetic
exchange and supplying new individuals to local populations to replace animals that have
died. Under the assumption that bobcat densities in California are about one individual per
0.9 sq. km (222 acres) (Larivière and Walton 1997), it seems unlikely that even the largest
interior reserve areas such as Lake Mathews-Estelle Mountain (11,000+ acres) or Lake
Skinner-Diamond Valley Lake (13,000+ acres) are large enough to sustain viable populations
of the bobcats without immigration from other areas. Some potential bottleneck points under
Alternative 1 include the linkages between the Santa Ana Mountains and the Lake Mathews-
Estelle Mountain area across Interstate 15 at Indian Canyon, between the Santa Ana
Mountains and the Agua Tibia Mountains and Palomar Range across Interstate 15 at the
Santa Margarita River and Pechanga Creek and near Rainbow (San Diego County), along
the Badlands across State Highway 60 and Highway 79, and between Lake Skinner-Diamond
Valley Lake and the Sage/Aguanga area along Tucalota Creek and Mica Butte. In addition,
a linkage between the MSHCP planning area and the San Bernardino Mountains appears to
be tenuous, although some of the less encumbered drainages east of the planning area may
be more suitable (e.g., Hathaway Creek, San Gorgonio River). Crossings of major roadways
will require adequate underpasses and cover leading to the crossings. As part of the
management of the reserve system, studies of the key crossing areas should be conducted
to determine whether bobcats are using the crossings, and if not, what remedial measures
would be required to improve the function of the crossing (e.g., additional cover, fencing to
direct animals, etc.). Improvements to existing roads or construction of new roads should
carefully consider the requirements of bobcats, as well as other large mammals such as mule
deer and mountain lions, in the design of culverts and bridges over drainages.

ALTERNATIVE 2
The bobcat could not be considered conserved under Alternative 2, although it probably will
persist in the more remote back country in the eastern and southern portions of the planning
area. Adequate habitat connections would not be conserved for two of three key habitat areas
described above in the rationale statement for Alternative 1: the Badlands and Lake Skinner-
Diamond Valley Lake. Also, the Vail Lake, Sage/Wilson Creek/Aguanga area may become
much more fragmented under Alternative 2 with no assurances of adequate habitat
connections. Bobcats may continue to use the Lake Mathews-Estelle Mountain core reserve
if the Indian Canyon connection is maintained.
ALTERNATIVE 3
The bobcat could not be considered conserved under Alternative 3 for the same reasons
given above for Alternative 2.
M-9 Mustela frenata latirostra – long-tailed weasel

State: None
Federal: None
ALTERNATIVE 1
RATIONALE: The long-tailed weasel could be adequately conserved under Alternative

1.
Although there are little occurrence data for the long-tailed weasel in the MSHCP planning
area (only 22 records in the database), this species occurs in low population densities
throughout the planning area. They would be expected to occur anywhere where there is
sufficient prey (mostly rodents and other small animals) and the habitat is near water (Gamble
1981; Polderboer et al. 1941). Their prey base includes many species that are common to
abundant in the planning area, including deer mice, house mice, ground squirrels and pocket
gophers, so prey probably will not be a limiting factor for this species. The weasel is the
widest ranging of any mustelid and, except for deserts, occurs in most life zones from alpine
to tropical. Current and historic occurrences in areas that would be conserved under
Alternative 1 include the San Jacinto Wildlife Area-Lake Perris, the Badlands, San Timoteo
Creek, San Jacinto River, Santa Ana River, Temescal Wash, and Lake Skinner-Diamond
Valley Lake. In addition, this species is highly likely to occur in the San Jacinto, Agua Tibia,

and Santa Ana Mountains and foothills. Whether these areas support “core” populations of
the weasel is unknown, but under Alternative 1 they would provide relatively large habitat areas
connected by riparian and upland habitats. These connections would allow for dispersal
through areas that are otherwise unsuitable. Alternative 1 does not appear to exclude any
areas that would be obviously important for this species.
The long-tailed weasel is considered conserved under Alternative 1 because large areas of
suitable habitat are conserved and key habitat connections would be maintained within the
alternative. Conservation considerations for this species are described below.
Systematically surveying for and/or monitoring populations of weasels in the reserve system
would be difficult because of their low densities and because they may experience population
fluctuations in relation to prey availability. However, reserve managers should record
anecdotal observations of the species so that over time a more substantial database can be
developed. Also, microhabitats that provide refuge and dens for weasels, such as brushy
areas, rock outcrops and piles, and logs should be preserved. Artificial lighting adjacent to
preserves should be controlled so that nocturnal foraging activities are not disrupted.
ALTERNATIVE 2
The long-tailed weasel could not be considered conserved under Alternative 2. Although they
are widespread and likely to occur in reasonable population numbers in habitat blocks
conserved under Alternative 2, the importance of habitat connections for this species is not
known. However, this species reproductive output is not high, with only one litter of 3-9
offspring produced per year, and males show very high turnover rates (Sheffield and Thomas
1997). Their dispersal behavior is unknown, but home ranges may be as large as 400 acres.
Observed population densities range from 0.0002 weasels/acre in Colorado to 0.16/acre in
Pennsylvania, so it is extremely difficult to estimate typical population densities in a reserve
area based on previous studies in other parts of their range. For example, using these
densities as the potential range of individuals that could occur in a 13,000-acre reserve such
as Lake Skinner-Diamond Valley Lake yields an estimate of three to 2,000 individuals. Given
that observations of weasels are uncommon in western Riverside County (the MSHCP
database only has 22 occurrences), it is likely that the populations in the planning area are on
the low side of the continuum. With low population numbers and relatively low reproductive
output, and high turnover of males, this species may be at high risk of local population

extinctions in small, fragmented habitats. Several potentially important habitat connections
between large habitat blocks would not be conserved under Alternative 2, including
connections linking the Lake Skinner-Diamond Valley Lake area with Vail Lake, Sage/Wilson
Creek/Aguanga areas; and the Badlands. Weasels currently would be expected to use
agricultural areas for foraging and movement, but as these areas are built out in the future,
less of this potential habitat will be available.
ALTERNATIVE 3
The long-tailed weasel could not be considered conserved under Alternative 3 for the same
reasons given above for Alternative 2.
M-10 Neotoma lepida intermedia – San Diego desert woodrat

Federal: None
ALTERNATIVE 1
RATIONALE: The San Diego desert woodrat could be adequately conserved under
Alternative 1.
Desert woodrats occur throughout the planning area in suitable habitat, including Riversidean
sage scrub, coastal sage scrub, alluvial fan sage scrub, chaparral, and grassland. They
usually are associated with rock outcrops, cacti, or areas of dense undergrowth (e.g., Bleich
1973; Bleich and Schwartz 1973; Montgomery, pers. comm. 1998), but Bleich (1973)
considers the desert woodrats in the coastal region to be habitat generalists because of the
region’s mesic climate and abundant shelter and food availability. Under Alternative 1,
important population and habitat areas probably are Lake Mathews-Estelle Mountain, Lake
Skinner-Diamond Valley Lake, the Santa Rosa Plateau, the Badlands, Sage/Aguanga, Vail
Lake, San Jacinto Wildlife Area-Lake Perris, Kabian Park, Santa Ana River, Jurupa
Mountains and the foothills of the San Jacinto, Agua Tibia and Santa Ana Mountains.
Additional areas with suitable habitat that would be conserved under Alternative 1 include the
Sedco Hills, Lakeview Mountains, and Double Butte. The desert woodrat is sympatric with
the Stephens’ kangaroo rat in western Riverside County, although their preferred habitat is
different because of their reliance on rocks, cacti and heavy shrub cover. Nonetheless, the
Stephens’ kangaroo rat core reserve provides substantial habitat for the desert woodrat.
These core reserves (i.e., Lake Mathews-Estelle Mountain, Lake Skinner-Diamond Valley

Lake, San Jacinto Wildlife Area-Lake Perris, Sycamore Canyon Park, Steele Peak, and
Motte-Rimrock Reserve), contain approximately 34,000 acres of coastal sage scrub,
chaparral, and grassland (RCHCA 1996). With these reserve areas, combined with the other
conserved areas listed above, Alternative 1 should contain adequate habitat to conserve the
San Diego desert woodrat.
There are little data on dispersal by desert woodrats. However, this species appears to be
relatively sedentary in its daily activities, with small home ranges determined by habitat
structure (Thompson 1982). It seems likely that this species is philopatric (i.e., non- or limited
dispersal with offspring sharing home ranges with parents or moving no more than 10 home
ranges away from the natal den [e.g., Shields 1982]). Adequate habitat connections for
dispersal may require continuously occupied or occupiable habitat. Habitat areas separated
by non-habitat landscapes (e.g., large areas without rock outcrops, cactus patches of clumps
of shrubs) would be physically and genetically isolated for this species. Alternative 1 provides
several connections between habitat blocks that probably would allow for genetic exchange.
A continuous habitat block is present along the Badlands and connects to the Jacinto River
and San Jacinto Wildlife Area-Lake Perris and to the foothills of the San Jacinto Mountains.
Lake Mathews-Estelle Mountain connects directly to Temescal Wash and the Steele Peak
area and potentially to sage scrub and chaparral at the base of the Santa Ana Mountains via
Indian Canyon. Lake Skinner-Diamond Valley Lake is interconnected with Sage/Aguanga,
Vail Lake, Agua Tibia Wilderness Area, the foothills of the San Jacinto Mountains and the
Anza Valley.
The San Diego desert woodrat is considered conserved under Alternative 1 because large
areas of suitable habitat and connections between large habitat are conserved. Additional
conservation considerations for the woodrat are described below.
Microhabitat features are crucial for the San Diego desert woodrat. Dense shrub cover, cacti
and rock outcrops are necessary for woodrat dens. Loss of shrub habitat may interfere with
the ability of woodrats to move between microhabitats. Habitat management in reserve areas
should include a census of desert woodrat dens (live-trapping may be required in some areas
to distinguish the desert woodrat from the sympatric dusky-footed woodrat [Neotoma
fuscipes]) by surveying for dens and middens. Because this species requires cover, activities
that degrade or isolate occupied microhabitats should be avoided, including heavy grazing
and discing. Avenues with adequate cover or microhabitat features for movement and

dispersal between potential den sites also should be conserved.
Edge effects will be important for the San Diego desert woodrat. This species is vulnerable
to adjacent land uses and associated threats, including mesopredators (especially domestic
cats), lighting, off-road vehicles, etc. which both directly and indirectly impact individuals and
degrade or destroy habitat. Potential adverse edge effects along the urban development-
reserve interface will be an important issue for conservation of this species.
ALTERNATIVE 2
The San Diego desert woodrat could not be considered covered under Alternative 2. The lack
of habitat connections under Alternative 2 compared to Alternative 1 may prevent woodrats
from dispersing between the large habitat blocks. As described above, this sedentary
species probably does not disperse long distances and may require continuous suitable
habitat (i.e., closely spaced microhabitat patches) for effective genetic exchange.
ALTERNATIVE 3
The San Diego desert woodrat could not be considered covered under Alternative 3 for the
same reasons given above for Alternative 2.
M-11 Perognathus longimembris brevinasus – Los Angeles

pocket mouse
Federal: None
ALTERNATIVE 1
RATIONALE: The Los Angeles pocket mouse could be adequately conserved under
Alternative 1.
The Los Angeles pocket mouse is widespread in the planning area, although the MSHCP
database contains relatively few and imprecise occurrence records. It is found in lower
elevation coastal sage scrub and grasslands underlain by sandy soils in drainages (including
intermittent and ephemeral washes) or of aeolian (windblown) origin. Alternative 1 would
conserve key known or potential population localities for this species, including the San
Jacinto River, San Jacinto Wildlife Area-Lake Perris, the Badlands, Sycamore Canyon Park,

Potrero Valley, Cactus Valley, Anza Valley, Temecula Creek, Murrieta Creek, San Timoteo
Creek, Wilson Creek, Vail Lake, Reche Canyon, Double Butte, habitat along State Highway
243 in the Banning area, the Santa Ana River, and possibly Temescal Wash (no occurrence
records but suitable habitat). The only known extant populations that may be at risk under
Alternative 1 would at the eastern segment of Murrieta Hot Springs Road.
The Los Angeles pocket mouse is considered conserved under Alterative 1 because the
majority of the probable key habitat areas would be conserved. However, additional
conservation considerations as described below would be required.
Little is known about the status of Los Angeles pocket mouse in the planning area. However,
the most important populations probably occur along major drainages such as the San Jacinto
River, Temecula Creek, and the Santa Ana River. Sand and gravel mining operations and
flood control projects within drainages and agriculture along the boundaries of the drainages
are a threat to this species. Loss of and disruptions in the continuity of drainages and alluvial
fan sage scrub that support patchy populations of the species may result in isolation of local
populations and preclude or limit the amount of genetic exchange between populations.
Similar effects can occur along smaller drainages that are impacted by urbanization,
agriculture, and flood control projects (e.g., channelization). In addition, increased urban runoff
into drainages may alter the habitat such that it becomes unsuitable for the Los Angeles
pocket mouse. The County should review existing activities within major drainages, including
the San Jacinto River, Temecula Creek, Temescal Wash, San Timoteo Creek, Murrieta
Creek, and the Santa Ana River to determine whether habitat supporting alluvial fan sage
scrub, Riversidean sage scrub, coastal sage scrub, and grassland connections are precluded
(e.g., is the activity disturbing most or the entire breadth of drainage?). Because little
population data are available for this species, any new projects or uses planned for areas
within or adjacent to these drainages should include a focused assessment of potential
impacts on the Los Angeles pocket mouse. Such assessments should consider onsite
impacts as well as impacts to potential dispersal habitat. Live-trapping studies on such sites
should be required because diagnostic surface sign (e.g., scat, burrows, tracks) for this
species is inconclusive for presence/absence determinations. Habitat and live-trapping
assessments should also be conducted on upland sites located in Alternative 1 with suitable
habitat; e.g., areas supporting sparse sage scrub or grasslands underlain by sandy soils such
as the Delhi soil series in the northwestern portion of the planning area.
Edge effects also will be important for the Los Angeles pocket mouse. This species is

vulnerable to adjacent land uses and associated threats, including use of pesticides,
mesopredators (especially domestic cats), lighting, off-road vehicles, etc. which both directly
and indirectly impact individuals and degrade or destroy habitat. Potential adverse edge
effects along the urban development-reserve interface will be an important issue for
conservation of this species.
ALTERNATIVE 2
The Los Angeles pocket mouse could be conserved under Alternative 2. The probable key
population areas described above for Alternative 1 would be conserved under Alternative 2,
including the Santa Ana River, San Jacinto River, San Jacinto Wildlife Area-Lake Perris,
Sycamore Canyon Park, and Temecula Creek. Other potentially important areas also would
also be conserved: San Timoteo Creek, Temescal Wash, Murrieta Creek, Wilson Creek, Tule
Creek, Anza Valley, and Reche Canyon.
ALTERNATIVE 3
The Los Angeles pocket mouse could not be considered conserved under Alternative 3.
Some of the key population areas would be conserved, such as San Jacinto River, San
Jacinto Wildlife Area-Lake Perris, Santa Ana River, Sycamore Canyon Park, the western
portion of Temecula Creek, Murrieta Creek and Temescal Wash. However, Alternative 3
would not conserve several potentially important areas compared to Alternatives 1 and 2. The
segment of Temecula Creek between Vail Lake and Aguanga would not be conserved, nor
would Tule Creek between Aguanga and the Anza Valley, Reche Canyon, and Double Butte.
The incremental loss of these areas may substantially increase the risk or extirpation of the
Los Angeles pocket mouse from the planning area.

M-12 Puma concolor – mountain lion
State: Protected Species
Federal: None
ALTERNATIVE 1
RATIONALE: The mountain lion could be adequately conserved under Alternative 1.
Occurrence records for the mountain lion in the planning area are spotty, but probably provide
a reasonable portrayal of the species distribution. Mountain lions are habitat generalists, but
require adequate cover within woodlands, forests, chaparral and riparian areas. For bedding,
they appear to require both vertical and horizontal cover components such as rock and
downed logs (Akenson et al. 1996). Geographic locations for the mountain lion in the planning
area are mostly limited to southwestern portion, including the Santa Rosa Plateau, Lake
Mathews, El Cerrito, Gavilan Hills, Sedco Hills, and Wildomar, but records also exist for the
Sage area and one from Box Springs Mountain (a 1981 record). The key population areas
in the planning area are the mountain regions: San Jacinto, Santa Ana, and Agua
Tibia/Palomar ranges. The Badlands probably provides an important use area and
movement connection for mountain lions. Alternative 1 would adequately conserve the main
habitat areas for the mountain lion. However, conservation considerations described below
will be crucial for conserving this species in the planning area.
The greatest threat to the mountain lion in the planning area, and southern California in
general, is habitat fragmentation and isolation. For example, a single lion requires an
extraordinarily large range of 32 to 87 sq. miles (20,480 to 55,680 acres) in the Santa Ana
Mountains (Padley 1989, 1996). Even an area as large as the Santa Ana Mountain range
(about 800,000 acres) in isolation may not be large enough to support a population without
immigration from the Agua Tibia/Palomar Mountains (Beier 1993). In addition, mountain lions
are at great risk of vehicle collisions in the planning area, thus exacerbating the problem of
small, insular populations. Finally, female lions show substantial variation in reproductive
success (Sweanor et al. 1996) and male reproductive success probably also is highly
variable. Consequently, the effective breeding population size (the actual number of
individuals in a population that reproduce and contribute genes to the next generation)
probably is smaller than the actual population, resulting in even greater risk of small
populations losing highly productive individuals and greater vulnerability to breeding

depression and local extinction. Conservation or enhancement of movement corridors will be
the critical issue for maintaining mountain lions in the planning area. The risk of losing the
Santa Ana Mountain population is high unless the connection to the Agua Tibia/Palomar
Mountain ranges is conserved. The only existing connection across Interstate 15 via the Santa
Margarita River and Pechanga Creek is highly constrained by the existing urban landscape
and lions that try to move through the area are at great risk (Beier 1993). A potential crossing
of Interstate 15 near Rainbow in San Diego County has been under consideration, but
probably would require an artificial wildlife overpass to safely convey animals (R. Fisher, pers.
comm. 1999). Crossing of Interstate 15 at Indian Canyon should allow access by lions to the
Lake Mathews-Estelle Mountain area, but there is only a limited amount of habitat north of
Interstate 15 to maintain a population of the mountain lion. Continued use of this area
probably is not critical to the species’ overall persistence in the planning area, but may provide
dispersal habitat for juveniles. The habitat connection between Riverside and San Bernardino
counties within the planning area is tenuous. The potential existing connections from the
Badlands to Cherry Valley and the Banning Bench do not provide much cover along Interstate
10. Potentially more viable connections exist between the San Bernardino Mountains and
San Jacinto Mountains east of the planning area near Cabazon along San Gorgonio and
Hathaway creeks. (Interestingly, the black bear [Ursus americanus] has managed to cross
between the two mountain ranges in the past, but presumably this is a rare event because of
the general absence of black bears in the San Jacinto Mountains.
Under Alternative 1, the mountain lion should persist in the eastern and southern portions of
the planning area because habitat in the San Jacinto, Agua Tibia, and Santa Rosa Mountains
would remain intact. In addition, this habitat is contiguous with the northern San Diego County
peninsular ranges, including the Palomars, the San Ysidros, the Volcans, the Sawtooths, and
the Lagunas.
The mountain lion also may be limited by availability of mule deer, its most important prey
(e.g., Hemker et al. 1984). The County should coordinate with the California Department of
Fish and Game to monitor and ensure that an adequate prey base is maintained in the
planning area.
Finally, human uses and construction and improvement of roads within Alternative 1 will need
to carefully analyze potential effects on the mountain lion. There have been apparently
increasing encounters between humans and lions, with the result that lions have been
destroyed. Van Dyke et al. (1986) demonstrated direct effects of human presence on
mountain lion habitat use and activity patterns and that juvenile lions, in particular, were at

relatively high risk of encounters with humans. Lions in this study tended to avoid roads and
human residences. Improvements of highways such as the Ortega Highway (State Highway
74 in the Santa Ana Mountains), Highway 74 between Valle Vista and Garner Valley, and
State Highway 79 generally between Vail Lake and Aguanga may affect the movement of
mountain lions. Adequate wildlife crossings ( e.g., large culverts and bridge crossings) should
be planned with any improvements to these roads, as well as any other roads in lion habitat
that would support high traffic volumes. Human recreational activities should be controlled
in lion habitat as well. The siting of campgrounds, RV parks (including ORV parks), and
equestrian, mountain bike and hiking trails should include assessments of impacts on
mountain lions.
ALTERNATIVE 2
The mountain lion could not be considered conserved under Alternative 2. Areas considered
important for this species in the planning would not be conserved, including large areas of the
Badlands and the large block of habitat comprised of the Vail Lake/Sage/Aguanga areas.
Mountain lions may persist in the Santa Ana Mountains if the habitat connection problem is
solved and they probably will persist in the back country in the Agua Tibia and San Jacinto
Mountains.
ALTERNATIVE 3
The mountain lion could not be considered conserved under Alternative 3 for the same
reasons given above for Alternative 2.
M-13 Sylvilagus bachmani – brush rabbit

State: None
Federal: None
ALTERNATIVE 1
RATIONALE: The brush rabbit could be adequately conserved under Alternative 1.
The brush rabbit occurs in suitable habitat throughout western Riverside County. Suitable
habitat includes dense chaparral and coastal sage scrub and early successional stages of
oak and conifer habitats (Zeiner et al. 1990), although Connell (1954) suggested that the

“brush-herb” ecotone is better habitat than continuous chaparral. There probably are no
specific “key” populations in the planning area, although the MSHCP database includes
populations clustered around Sage, the Santa Rosa Plateau, and the foothills of the San
Jacinto Mountains. These records probably reflect a bias in survey effort more than distinct
clusters of populations. Conservation of the species will depend on inclusion of several large
blocks of suitable habitat in the reserve system. Under Alternative 1, conserved areas with
known populations or highly suitable habitat include Sage/Aguanga, Vail Lake, Santa Rosa
Plateau, Lake Skinner-Diamond Valley Lake, Harford Springs Park, Potrero Valley, Lakeview
Mountains, the Badlands, Reche Canyon, and Garner Valley. This species would also be
expected to occur in the San Bernardino National Forest in the San Jacinto Mountains and
in the Cleveland National Forest in the Agua Tibia and Santa Ana Mountains.
The brush rabbit is considered adequately conserved under Alternative 1 because several
large habitat areas and habitat connections would be conserved. Additional conservation
Maintaining adequate cover in potential habitat connections is a key issue for conservation
of this species. Brush rabbits move along runways that directly connect brush habitats and
they choose the shortest distance between clumps of suitable habitat (Chapman 1971). They
are very unlikely to cross long distances without adequate cover to provide protection.
Chapman also observed that they were reluctant to cross roads. Habitat management within
the reserve that maintains suitable habitat connections likely will be important for this species.
For example, a computer population viability analysis of a similar species, the New England
cottontail, in response to habitat loss demonstrated a rapid decline or extinction of populations
(Livaitus and Villafuerte 1996). These field observations and the computer simulation indicate
that brush rabbits are unlikely to persist in small, isolated habitat patches and they may
gradually disappear from some areas of the planning area. However, the key blocks of habitat
and connections conserved, along with proper management, should be adequate to conserve
this species.

ALTERNATIVE 2
The brush rabbit could be conserved under Alternative 2. The probable key population areas
would be conserved. The main consideration that distinguishes between Alternatives 1 and
2 for this species is habitat connectivity. Brush rabbits require cover and may only move short
distances through unsuitable habitat between clumps. Therefore, continuous suitable habitat
may be important for this species. Some potentially important habitat connections that would
not be conserved under Alternative 2 include linkages between the Vail Lake, Sage/Wilson
Creek, Aguanga areas and Lake Skinner-Diamond Valley Lake. Likewise the Badlands
would be fragmented under Alternative 2. However, large connected blocks of suitable habitat
would remain in the Lake Mathews-Estelle Mountain and Gavilan Hills areas. Also, large
habitat blocks would be conserved in the Santa Ana, Agua Tibia and San Jacinto Mountains.
Conservation of these large habitat areas are considered adequate for the brush rabbit.
ALTERNATIVE 3
The brush rabbit could be conserved under Alternative 3 for the same reasons given above
for Alternative 2. Although, some additional habitat connections would not be conserved
under Alternative 3 compared to Alternative 2 (e.g., the segment of Temecula Creek
connecting Vail Lake and Aguanga and Tule Creek between Aguanga and the Anza Valley),
the key large blocks of habitat in the planning area would be conserved under Alternative 3
and should be adequate for this species.
REFERENCES
Akenson, J. , M. Henjum, and T. Craddock. 1996. Diurnal bedding habitat of mountain lions
in northeast Oregon. [Abstract]. Fifth Mountain Lion Workshop. Organized by the
California Department of Fish and Game and the Southern California Chapter of the
Wildlife Society, San Diego, California, February 27 - March 1, 1996.
Beier, P. 1993. Determining minimum habitat areas and habitat corridors for cougars.
Conservation Biology. 7:94-108.
Bleich, V.C. 1973. Ecology of rodents at the United States Naval Weapons Station Seal
Beach, Fallbrook Annex, San Diego County, California. M.A. Thesis, California State
University, Long Beach, 102 pp.
Bleich, V.C. and O.A. Schwartz. 1975. Observations on the home range of the desert

woodrat. Journal of Mammalogy 56:518-519.
Bolger, D.T., A.C. Alberts, R.M. Sauvajot, P. Potenza, C. McCalvin, D. Tran, S. Mazzoni, and
M.E. Soulé. 1997. Responses of rodents to habitat fragmentation in coastal southern
California. Ecological Applications 7:552-563.
California Biodiversity News. 2000. USFS Southern California conservation strategy.

California Biodiversity News 7:15-16.
Chapman, J.A. 1971. Orientation and homing of the brush rabbit (Sylvilagus bachmani).
Journal of Mammalogy 52:686-699.
Connell, J.H. 1954. Home range and mobility of brush rabbits in California chaparral. Journal
of Mammalogy 35:392-405.
Crooks, K.R. unpublished manuscript. Relative sensitivities of mammalian carnivores to

habitat fragmentation. 28 pp.
Diffendorfer, J.E., M.S. Gaines, and R.D. Holt. 1999. Patterns and impacts of movements at
different scales in small mammals. In G.W. Barrett and J.D. Peles (eds.) Landscape
Ecology of Small Mammals, Springer-Verlag, pp. 63-88.
Fisher, Robert. 9 June 1999. Personal communication regarding wildlife distribution and
planning issues.
French, N.R., R. McBride, and J. Detmer. 1965. Fertility and population density of the black-
tailed-jackrabbit. Journal of Wildlife Management 29:14-26.
Gamble, R. L. 1981. Distribution in Manitoba of Mustela frenata longicauda, the long-tailed

weasel, and the interrelation of distribution and habitat selection in Manitoba,
Saskatchewan, and Alberta. Canadian Journal of Zoology 59:1036-1039.
Gier, H.T. 1975. Ecology and behavior of the coyote (Canis latrans). In The Wild Canids,
M.W. Fox (ed.), Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, pp. 247-262.
Goldingay, R.L. and M.V. Price. 1997. Influence of season and a sympatric cogener on
habitat use by Stephens’ kangaroo rat. Conservation Biology, 11:708-717.

Harrison, D.J. and J.R. Gilbert. 1985. Denning ecology and movement of coyote (Canis
latrans) in Maine during pup rearing. Journal of Mammalogy 66:712-719.
Hemker, T.P., F.G. Lindzey, and B.B. Ackerman. 1984. Population characteristics and
movement patterns of cougars in southern Utah. Journal of Wildlife Management,
48:1275-1284.
Knecht, A. A. 1971. Soil Survey of Western Riverside Area, California. U.S. Department of
Agriculture, Washington, D.C.
Larivière, S. and L.R. Walton. 1997. Lynx rufus. In Mammalian Species No. 564:1-8.
Published by the American Society of Mammalogists.
Lefkovitch, L.P. and L. Fahrig. 1985. Spatial characteristics of habitat patches and
population survival. Ecological Monographs 30:297-308.
Litvaitis, J.A. and R. Villafuerte. 1996. Factors affecting the persistence of New England
cottontail metapopulations: the role of habitat management. Wildlife Society Bulletin
24:686-693.
Montgomery, Steve. 31 August 1998. Personal fax communication to the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service.
Padley, W.D. 1996. Female mountain lion (Felis concolor) home ranges in the southern
Santa Ana Mountains, California. [Abstract]. Fifth Mountain Lion Workshop.
Organized by the California Department of Fish and Game and the Southern California
Chapter of the Wildlife Society, San Diego, California, February 27 - March 1, 1996.
Padley, W.D. 1989. Mountain lion ecology in the southern Santa Ana Mountains, California.
Prepared for the California Department of Fish and Game, Final Report Contract No.
87-M-6250, 27 pages.
Polderboer, E.B., L.W. Kuhn, and G.O. Hendrickson. 1941. Winter and spring habits of
weasels in central Iowa. Journal of Wildlife Management 5:115-119.
Price, M.V. and N.M. Waser. 1984. On the relative abundance of species: postfire changes
in a coastal sage scrub rodent community. Ecology 65:1161-1169.

Riverside County Habitat Conservation Agency (RCHCA). 1996. Habitat Conservation Plan
for the Stephens’ kangaroo rat in western Riverside County, California. 204 pp +
appendices.
Sheffield, S.R. and H. H. Thomas. 1997. Mustela frenata. In: Mammalian Species 570:1-9,
published by the American Society of Mammalogists.
Shields, W.M. 1982. Philopatry, Inbreeding, and the Evolution of Sex. Albany, State
University of New York Press.
Smith, G.W. 1990. Home range and activity patterns of black-tailed jackrabbits. Great Basin
Naturalist 50:249-256.
Smith, J.R. 1990. Coyotes diets associated with seasonal mule deer activities in California.
California Fish and Game 76:78-82.
Sweanor, L.L., K.A. Logan, and M.G. Hornocker. 1996a. Reproductive biology of female
cougars (Felis concolor) in the San Andres Mountains, New Mexico. [Abstract]. Fifth
Mountain Lion Workshop. Organized by the California Department of Fish and Game
and the Southern California Chapter of the Wildlife Society, San Diego, California,
February 27 - March 1, 1996.
Thompson, S.D. 1982. Spatial utilization and foraging behavior of the desert woodrat,
Neotoma lepida lepida. Journal of Mammalogy 63:570-581.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 1998 (USFWS). Endangered and threatened wildlife
and plants; emergency rule to list the San Bernardino kangaroo rat as endangered.
50 CFR Part 17. Department of the Interior.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 1997 (USFWS). Draft recovery plan for the
Stephens’ [sic] kangaroo rat. Prepared by Region 1, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Portland, OR, 71 pp.
Van Dyke, F.G., Brocke R.H, H.G. Shaw, B.B. Ackerman, T.P. Hemker, and F.G. Lindzey.
1986. Reactions of mountain lions to logging and human activity. Journal of Wildlife
Management, 50:95-102.

Wagner, F.H. and L.C. Stoddart. 1972. Influence of coyote predation on black-tailed
jackrabbit populations in Utah. Journal of Wildlife Management 36:329-342.
Williams, D.F., H.H. Genoways, and J.K. Braun. 1993. Taxonomy. In H.H. Genoways and J.H.
Brown (eds.) Biology of the Heteromyidae, Special Publication No. 10 of the
American Society of Mammalogists, pages 38-196.
Zeiner, D.C., W.F. Laudenslayer, Jr., K.E. Mayer, and M. White. 1990. California Wildlife,
Volume III, Mammals. California Statewide Wildlife Habitat Relationships System.
Department of Fish and Game, Sacramento, California.

5.2.3 AMPHIBIANS
A-1 Bufo californicus – arroyo toad

Federal: Endangered
ALTERNATIVE 1
RATIONALE: The arroyo toad could be adequately conserved under Alternative 1.
The arroyo toad is known from a few drainages within the planning area. Within the MSHCP
planning area, the known population includes the Vail Lake area, San Jacinto River system,
Tenaja Creek, and Bautista Creek. The species relies on 3rd to 5th order streams with
persistent water from March to mid-June. These streams must have shallow, sandy, gravelly
pools that are less than 18 inches deep. Sunny pools with algal mats are often preferred.
Adjacent sandy terraces are used by juveniles and adults, with adults ranging up to 1 or 2km
into adjacent upland habitats to estivate. Arroyo toads apparently are not constrained by
elevational gradients. The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service proposed a Recovery Plan in 1999
which describes key areas within the toads’ range. Within the MSHCP planning area, the
Recovery Plan designates a Recovery unit which includes the Santa Ana River Basin,
primarily within the San Jacinto River and Bautista Creek (San Bernardino National Forest);
the San Juan Creek River Basin, at the Upper San Juan Campground area (Cleveland
National Forest; the San Mateo Creek Basin, within headwaters in the Cleveland National
Forest; and the Santa Margarita River Basin, which includes Sandia Creek and Temecula
Creek from Vail Lake to Aguanga, and Arroyo Seco Creek from Vail Lake to Dripping
Springs Campground (Half of the Arroyo Seco creek drainage occurs in the Cleveland
National Forest, the rest is under private ownership). While the Upper San Juan and San
Mateo Creek recovery areas lie almost exclusively in other counties, their supporting
watersheds and tributaries begin within the Planning Area. While most of the USFWS-defined
key recovery areas lie within Forest Service lands, some do not. These areas appear to be
included as blocks or linkages within Alternative 1. Additionally, most of the linkages have
been provided 1 to 2km buffers. The Forest Plan for the Cleveland National Forest and San
Bernardino National Forest under preparation, will address this species. Information for the
known occurrences of arroyo toads are relatively current. Little is known regarding sex-
specific movement ecology and yearly activities.
The arroyo toad is considered conserved under Alternative 1 because: 1) most of the

federally-designated Recovery Unit occurs within the San Bernardino and Cleveland National
Forests; 2) those areas which are within the Recovery unit and are not within a National
Forest, are included in Alternative 1; 3) nearly all of the potential recovery areas (i.e., those
areas which support suitable habitat characteristics) are included in Alternative 1; 4) many
potential habitat areas were given a large buffer of up to 1km; or 5) existing U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers regulations pursuant to the federal Clean Water Act and California Department
of Fish and Game regulations pursuant to the State Clean Water Act will afford protection to
the arroyo toad’s most crucial habitat feature: stream courses. However, conservation of the
species will depend on additional conservation considerations as described below.
in January of 2002 (California Biodiversity News 2000). Management plans for the San
Bernardino National Forest, Cleveland National Forest, infill properties, and the Reserve will
address potential impacts to the arroyo toad, including exotic species, connectivity between
suitable stretches of habitat, dispersal barriers, water diversion/manipulation, water quality,
development, road construction, recreation, grazing, and land exchanges. In addition, surveys
should be conducted for this species.
It is our understanding that the current National Forest planning effort is focused on
addressing the impacts of forest activities on federally-listed threatened and endangered
species. As such, it will address the federally-endangered arroyo toad. The Forest Plan
would need to address the effects of forest activities on this species and associated suitable
aquatic habitat and associated upland habitats. In addition, arroyo toad may be present within
private inholdings in the MSHCP Reserve area in the San Jacinto River area and Vail Lake
area. Activities within these private inholdings would need to be reviewed by the County for
compatibility with MSHCP goals and objectives for this species. Surveys should be required

when projects affect suitable upland or wetland habitats for this species within the Reserve.
Outside the Reserve, surveys should be required if the Recovery Goals are determined to be
at risk or if there are long periods of drought. In this circumstance, all discovered populations
should be considered critical. Throughout the Alternative 1 preserve area, water quality should
be maintained to the highest practicable standards; control of non-native exotic pest species
such as non-native introduced fishes and bullfrogs should be a priority; maintenance of
connections between suitable aquatic habitat should be facilitated; and systematic surveys
of preserve areas should occur.
ALTERNATIVE 2
Conservation of arroyo toad under Alternative 2 is the same as for Alternative 1.
ALTERNATIVE 3
Conservation of arroyo toad under Alternative 3 is the same as for Alternative 1.
A-2 Ensatina eschscholtzii klauberi – large-blotched salamander

Federal: None
ALTERNATIVE 1
RATIONALE: The large-blotched salamander could be adequately conserved under

Alternative 1.
This subspecies occurs along the Peninsular Ranges in southern California. Within the
MSHCP planning area, the known range occurs along the San Jacinto Mountains. This
subspecies appears to be ecologically generalized (Jennings and Hayes 1994), and occurs
in a variety of hardwood and conifer woodland and forest habitats between 518m and 1,646m
in elevation. However, coast live oak and black oak assemblages or north-facing conifer
woodlands or forests may be preferred. The ground-dwelling subspecies is dependant on
surficial debris and is most often found in upland habitats as opposed to wetland habitats.
The MSHCP database reveals few datapoints for the subspecies; these points mostly occur
in the vicinity of the San Jacinto Mountains with two points on the Santa Rosa Plateau and the
Santa Ana Mountains. The later two points are outside the known range for the large-blotched

salamander and are likely to be misidentified individuals of another species. Therefore, they
were not considered for this analysis. There is little information in the literature regarding
dispersal and daily activity and no information available regarding survivorship.
The large-blotched salamander is considered conserved under Alternative 1 because the San
Jacinto Mountains portion of the San Bernardino National Forest Service lands are included
under the Alternative. In addition, the subspecies is known to be somewhat of an ecological
generalist, has a relatively small territory (120m and 60m for males and females respectively),
and is thought to be more common than current data would suggest (Jennings and Hayes
1994; Holland and Goodman 1998). However, conservation of the species will depend on
additional conservation considerations as described below.
Bernardino National Forest will address potential impacts to the large-blotched salamander,
including development, road construction, recreation, and land exchanges. In addition,
surveys should be conducted for this species within the forest.
large-blotched salamander, the Forest Plans would also need to address the effects of forest
activities on this species and associated habitats including conifer and hardwood forest and
woodlands in general, but more specifically, the ground debris, leaf cover, downed wood, and
detritus at ground level within these habitats. In addition, large-blotched salamander may also
be present within private inholdings in the MSHCP planning area in the San Bernardino
National Forest. Activities within these private inholdings would need to be reviewed by the

County for compatibility with MSHCP goals and objectives for this species. In general,
removal of ground debris including logs, leaf litter, and rocks should be kept to a minimum
within the forest and inholdings. Surveys of natural debris during the winter, spring, or fall, may
provide additional distributional records for the species or may assist in relocation of
individuals on proposed development sites, but are not anticipated to be mandatory.
ALTERNATIVE 2
Conservation of the large-blotched salamander under Alternative 2 is the same as for

Alternative 1.
ALTERNATIVE 3
Conservation of the large-blotched salamander under Alternative 3 is the same as for

Alternative 1.
A-3 Rana aurora draytoni – California red-legged frog

State: Species of Special Concern, California Protected Species
Federal: Threatened
ALTERNATIVE 1
RATIONALE: The California red-legged frog could be adequately conserved under

Alternative 1, however the subspecies may be extirpated from the
planning area at this time.
This subspecies occurs along Pacific slope drainages throughout California and into northern
Baja California. Within the MSHCP planning area, the known population is confined to four
individuals (three males and one female, however the female has not been detected since
1998) on the Santa Rosa Ecological Reserve within Cole Creek. The species can occur in
any man-made or natural freshwater body or stream. However, they are more likely to be
found in small watersheds (<300km2), with 94% of them located in 4th or lesser-order streams
and 42% in 1st order streams (Hayes and Jennings 1988), presumably because these
systems are unlikely to support predatory introduced fishes and bullfrogs. Suitable breeding
habitat must support a minimum of 20cm of water depth from at least March through July, and
there must be two or more suitable sites within 2km of one another. Large reservoirs, roads,
and developments are considered barriers to movement between suitable breeding sites

(USFWS 2000). Historical or suspected locations include the vicinity of Glen Ivy, Kolb Creek,
Temescal Wash, Vail Lake, and the Santa Ana River near Pedley. The U. S. Fish and Wildlife
Service issued a proposal on September 11, 2000 to designate critical habitat over an area
which includes the Santa Rosa Ecological Reserve, portions of the Santa Rosa Plateau, and
portions of the southern extent of the Santa Ana Mountains including portions of De Luz Creek,
Murrieta, and San Mateo Canyon watersheds. However, portions of the proposed critical
habitat between the Ecological Preserve and the Cleveland National Forest occur on private
land holdings and are not included within Alternative 1. Most, of the habitat for the California
red-legged frog occurs on the Ecological Reserve or within the Santa Ana Mountains portion
of the Cleveland National Forest. Additionally, most of the potential recovery areas lie within
Forest Service lands in the Cleveland and San Bernardino National Forests or proposed
Cores or Linkages within Alternative 1. The Forest Plan for the Cleveland National Forest
under preparation, will address this species. Information for the known occurrences of red-
legged frogs are relatively current. Little is known regarding movement ecology and
recolonization capabilities, survivorship, and socio-spatial behavior.
The California red-legged frog is considered conserved under Alternative 1 because: 1) most
of the federally-proposed critical habitat occurs on the Santa Rosa Ecological Reserve or
State and federal lands; 2) most of the historical or suspected locations are included in
Alternative 1; 3) nearly all of the potential recovery areas (i.e., those areas which support
suitable habitat characteristics as defined by USFWS [2000]) are included in Alternative 1;
or 4) existing U.S. Army Corps of Engineers regulations pursuant to the federal Clean Water
Act and California Department of Fish and Game regulations pursuant to the State Clean
Water Act will afford protection to the red-legged frog’s most crucial habitat feature: stream
courses and water bodies. However, conservation of the species will depend on additional
conservation considerations as described below.

in January of 2002 (California Biodiversity News 2000). Management plans for the Santa
Rosa Plateau, infill properties, and the Forest Plan for the Cleveland National Forest will
address potential impacts to the California red-legged frog, including exotic species,
connectivity between suitable stretches of habitat, dispersal barriers, water quality,
development, road construction, recreation, grazing, and land exchanges. In addition, surveys
should be conducted for this species.
It is our understanding that the current National Forest planning effort is focused on
addressing the impacts of forest activities on federally-listed threatened and endangered
species. As such, it will address the federally-threatened California red-legged frog. The
Forest Plan would need to address the effects of forest activities on this species and
associated suitable aquatic habitat, associated upland habitats, and suitable dispersal habitat
connecting suitable aquatic habitat as defined by USFWS (2000). In addition, California red-
legged frog may be present within private inholdings in the MSHCP planning area in the Santa
Rosa Plateau, Glen Ivy, and Vail Lake area. Activities within these private inholdings would
need to be reviewed by the County for compatibility with MSHCP goals and objectives for this
species. Surveys should be required when projects affect USFWS (2000)-defined critical
habitat features and all discovered populations should be considered critical. Throughout the
Alternative 1 preserve area, water quality should be maintained to the highest practicable
standards; control of non-native exotic pest species such as non-native introduced fishes and
bullfrogs should be a priority; maintenance of connections between suitable aquatic habitat,
as defined by USFWS (2000), should occur; and systematic surveys of preserve areas should
occur.
ALTERNATIVE 2
Conservation of the California red-legged frog under Alternative 2 is the same as for
Alternative 1.

ALTERNATIVE 3
Conservation of the California red-legged frog under Alternative 3 is the same as for
Alternative 1.
A-4 Rana muscosa – mountain yellow-legged frog

Federal: Proposed Endangered
ALTERNATIVE 1
RATIONALE: The mountain yellow-legged frog could be adequately conserved under

Alternative 1.
This species is a near California endemic which is restricted in the MSHCP planning area to
four small tributaries of the upper reaches of the San Jacinto River system, with historical
sightings along Poppet Creek, Bautista Creek, and Potrero Creek. The species is extremely
reliant on perennial water with non-native predatory species absent. Larvae must have
permanent water, which is at least 1 meter deep and lasts for over two years, in order to
successfully develop and metamorphose (Bradford 1989; Jennings and Hayes 1994). Most,
if not all of the habitat for the mountain yellow-legged frog occurs on U.S. Forest Service land
in the San Jacinto Mountains. The Forest Plan for the San Bernardino National Forest under
preparation, will address this species. Information for the occurrence of the frog is dated while
information on distribution is relatively precise. Thirty-four of the 47 MSHCP database
records are precise enough to garner locations within watersheds in the San Jacinto
Mountains. Little is known regarding movement ecology and recolonization capabilities, clutch
size, embrionic development, survivorship, and longevity.
The mountain yellow-legged frog is considered conserved under Alternative 1 because the
San Jacinto Mountains portion of the San Bernardino National Forest Service lands are
included under the Alternative. In addition, existing U.S. Army Corps of Engineers regulations
pursuant to the federal Clean Water Act and California Department of Fish and Game
regulations pursuant to the State Clean Water Act will afford protection to the mountain yellow-
legged frog’s most crucial habitat feature: stream courses and water bodies. However,
conservation of the species will depend on additional conservation considerations as
described below.

Bernardino National Forest will address potential impacts to the mountain yellow-legged frog,
including exotic species, connectivity between suitable stretches of habitat, water quality,
development, road construction, recreation, and land exchanges. In addition, surveys should
be conducted for this species within the forest.
of forest activities on federally-listed threatened and endangered species. As such, it should
address the federally-proposed endangered mountain yellow-legged frog. The Forest Plans
would need to address the effects of forest activities on this species and associated habitats
which are restricted to streams and small pools within ponderosa pine, montane hardwood-
conifer, and montane riparian habitats in southern California. In addition, mountain yellow-
legged frog may be present within private inholdings in the MSHCP planning area in the San
Surveys should be required when projects affect perennial water resources. Water quality
should be maintained to the highest practicable standards. Control of non-native exotic pest
species such as non-native introduced fishes and bullfrogs should be a priority. Finally,
monitoring of existing populations should be implemented and disease outbreaks, such as
“red-leg” should be monitored and remedied if feasible.

ALTERNATIVE 2
Conservation of the mountain yellow-legged frog under Alternative 2 is the same as for
Alternative 1.
ALTERNATIVE 3
Conservation of the mountain yellow-legged frog under Alternative 3 is the same as for
Alternative 1.
A-5 Scaphiopus hammondii – western spadefoot toad

State: Special of Special Concern
Federal: None
ALTERNATIVE 1
RATIONALE: The western spadefoot toad could be adequately conserved under

Alternative 1.
The spadefoot toad is widespread throughout the MSHCP planning area within temporary
(vernal) pool impoundments and ruts, mostly within grassland or mixed grassland/coastal sage
scrub habitats. These areas are generally restricted to the portions of the study area between
the Santa Ana Mountains, the San Bernardino Mountains, and the San Jacinto Mountains. It
is important that pools persist for over three weeks and a devoid of non-native exotic
predators, in order for successful metamorphosis of tadpoles to occur. Over half of the data
points within the MSHCP database provide accurate locations, however very few of those can
be considered recent. Areas which appear to currently support spadefoot toad populations,
including the Lee Lake/Alberhill/Elsinore area, Antelope Valley area, good Hope area,
Badlands area, and Tule Valley area, will be preserved under Alternative 1. Important habitat
areas which will be conserved under Alternative 1, include areas in the vicinity of Aguanga,
Sage, Eastside Reservoir, Juniper Flats, Badlands, Lake Mathews area, and many other
potential areas. Suitable linkages also connect these occupied or potentially occupied habitat
areas, so that some genetic transmission may occur. Little is known regarding post-
metamorphic survivorship, movement patterns, population structure, however it is unlikely that
these can be studied due to the species’ subterranean and nocturnal habits.
The western spadefoot toad is considered conserved under Alternative 1 because most of

the known populations are conserved within large habitat blocks and linkage areas which are
distributed throughout the planning area. Also, large block of suitable habitat are also
preserved throughout the planning area. Additional protection of vernal pool habitat, which
is regulated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers pursuant to the federal Clean Water Act, will
provide further conservation benefits to the species. However, conservation of the species
will depend on additional conservation measures as described below.
While Alternative 1 includes adequate habitat to conserve the western spadefoot toad in the
planning area, an important consideration for the conservation of the western spadefoot toad
is the protection of breeding habitat and surrounding areas. Spadefoot toads depend on
temporary pools as breeding sites. However, they spend approximately 9 to 10 months of the
year estivating under ground. It is hypothesized that they spend their entire lives near their
breeding pools. Therefore it will be important to preserve buffers around large vernal pool
complexes within, and outside the preserve as feasible. These areas are regulated by the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and will typically be preserved. For projects or activities within
the preserve, surveys should be conducted prior to authorizing the activity and buffers around
pool complexes should be maintained as practically feasible. Studies should be completed
within the reserve system regarding survivorship, movement patterns, and dispersal in order
to more accurately define an appropriate vernal pool buffer. Water quality should be
maintained to the highest practicable standards. Finally, control of exotic predatory species
including fishes and crayfish should be implemented.
ALTERNATIVE 2
The western spadefoot toad could not be considered to be adequately conserved under
Alternative 2. The removal of the Badlands, Banning, and south Hemet habitat blocks, and
a large portion of the Anza Valley/Sage/Vail Lake habitat block from Alternative 1, would
probably not provide enough potential habitat and would only cover a small proportion of the
known locations.

ALTERNATIVE 3
The western spadefoot toad could not be considered to be adequately conserved under
Alternative 3. This is based on the same rationale as stated for Alternative 2, in addition more
habitat blocks such as the Juniper Flats are removed.
A-6 Taricha tarosa tarosa – coast range newt

Federal: None
ALTERNATIVE 1
RATIONALE: The Coast Range newt could be adequately conserved under Alternative
1.
The subspecies is almost entirely restricted within the MSHCP planning area, to the Santa
Ana Mountains and the Santa Rosa Plateau, with a few other imprecise locations from
lowlands and foothills just east of the mountains. Coast Range newts use a variety of upland
habitats. However, they are reliant on slow moving streams and pools for breeding. In
addition, the breeding sites must be free of introduced predatory fish and crayfish for newts
to be successful (Gamradt and Kats 1996). Newts will move relatively long distances (>1km)
between non-breeding areas and breeding sites, with some returning to the same area, yearly
(Gamradt and Kats 1997). Most of the remaining habitat for the Coast Range newt occurs on
U.S. Forest Service land in the Santa Ana Mountains or on the Santa Rosa Plateau. The
Forest Plan for the Cleveland National Forest under preparation, will address this species.
Information for the occurrence and distribution of Coast Range newt within the planning area
is poor and mostly dated. However, there is a moderate amount of literature regarding the
subspecies that adequately covers its requirements and habits.
The Coast Range newt is considered conserved under Alternative 1 because the Santa Ana
Mountains portion of the Cleveland National Forest Service lands, the Santa Rosa Ecological
Reserve, and historical locations around Lake Elsinore and Sedco hills are included under the
Alternative. In addition, existing U.S. Army Corps of Engineers regulations pursuant to the
federal Clean Water Act and California Department of Fish and Game regulations pursuant
to the state Clean Water Act will afford protection to the newt’s most crucial habitat feature:
ponds and streams. However, conservation of the species will depend on additional

National Forest will address potential impacts to the Coast Range newt, including exotic
species, connectivity between upland and breeding habitats, water quality, fire, collecting,
development, road construction, recreation, and land exchanges. In addition, surveys should
be conducted for breeding populations of this species within the forest.
newt, the Forest Plans would also need to address the effects of forest activities on this
species and associated habitats, particularly breeding habitat and ground debris. In addition,
newts may also be present within private inholdings in the MSHCP planning area in the
Cleveland National Forest and areas between the Forest and the Reserve. Activities within
these private inholdings and non-included areas would need to be reviewed by the County for
compatibility with MSHCP goals and objectives for this species. In general, protection of
breeding sites with suitable buffering and water quality considerations, control of exotic
predators, and protection of ground debris should be paramount. Surveys of potential
breeding sites may provide additional distributional records for the species or may assist in
relocation of individuals on proposed impacted sites, but are not anticipated to be mandatory.

ALTERNATIVE 2
Conservation of the Coast Range newt under Alternative 2 is the same as for Alternative 1.
ALTERNATIVE 3
Conservation of the Coast Range newt under Alternative 3 is the same as for Alternative 1.

5.2.4 REPTILES
R-1 Anniella pulchra pulchra – silvery (California) legless lizard

State: None
Federal: None
ALTERNATIVE 1
RATIONALE: The Silvery legless lizard could be adequately conserved under

Alternative 1.
The legless lizard is primarily found in areas with sandy soils, loose organic soils, or in
abundant leaf litter. Usually these areas are associated with washes, loose soil near the base
of slopes, near permanent or temporary streams, or with woodlands. Legless lizards have
been found in a variety of habitats including scrub, chaparral, oak woodland, conifer forests,
alluvial habitats, vineyards, and agricultural areas. The species is surficially fossorial,
meaning that it burrows near the surface, making it vulnerable to discing or plowing.
Information for the occurrence and distribution of the legless lizard is mostly imprecise and
dated. Scattered known locations are distributed throughout the MSHCP Planning area,
generally within the basin between the San Bernardino and Cleveland National Forests.
These areas include Temecula, City of Riverside, Santa Ana Mountain foothills, Banning,
Beaumont, Moreno valley, Santa Ana River vicinity, and Gilman Hot Springs. Little information
is known regarding survivorship and socio-spatial behavior, however that should not preclude
coverage.
The silvery legless lizard is considered conserved under Alternative 1 because most of the
known populations are conserved within large habitat blocks, linkages, or creek and stream
preserve areas. In addition, large blocks of suitable habitat, with areas of friable soils, are
preserved in the Sage/Vail Lake/Wilson Valley area, Lake Skinner/ Eastside Lake area,
Juniper Flats area, Lake Perris area, Lee Lake area, Lake Mathews area, Home gardens
area, Mira Loma area, Badlands, Banning/Beaumont area, and the Winchester area. Also,
protection of various creeks and streams including the Santa Ana River, San Jacinto River,
Bautista Creek, Temecula Creek, Murrieta Creek, Temescal Wash, and numerous others
provide suitable alluvial and streamside habitat. Conservation of the species will mainly be
dependant on the protection of these areas. However, some additional conservation
measures may be needed as described below.

While Alternative 1 includes adequate habitat to conserve the silvery legless lizard in the
planning area, it will be important to design a management and implementation plan which
takes into account the species’ life history. Activities within the reserve should not adversely
affect the species. Sand mining operations should be reviewed and measures taken to
reduce impacts to this fossorial reptile. Measures may include installing a silt fence around
the work area, which is keyed into the soil, with one-way funnels designed to allow trapped
animals to escape. Similarly, agricultural areas appear to be wonderful places for a
dispersing legless lizard to occupy; it has loose soils, usually some moisture, and plenty of
prey species. Unfortunately, loose soil agricultural areas are disced once or twice a year.
Within the reserve, agricultural areas should be condensed or situated such that they are
bordered by paved roads or are surrounded by keyed in silt fences. The general health of the
reptile population may be monitored by implementing a region-wide trapping program
distributed throughout the planning area and within all habitats. Focused surveys for this
species are impractical and therefore should not be required.
ALTERNATIVE 2
Conservation of the silvery legless lizard under Alternative 2 is generally the same as for
Alternative 1. However, the loss of some drainages and the shrinking of the Badlands,
Sage/Vail Lake/Wilson Creek, and El Cerrito to Alberhill blocks from Alternative 1 will place
an additional strain on the population. This should require more stringent condensation of
agricultural areas and severely limit development within the reserve. In addition, more species
-specific trapping studies should be completed within the reserve to monitor the population.
ALTERNATIVE 3
The silvery legless lizard could not be considered to be adequately conserved under
Alternative 3. The reduction in potential habitat caused by the shrinking of the previously
mentioned habitat blocks and removal of drainages from Alternative 1, is exacerbated by
additional shrinking of the Sage/Vail Lake/Wilson Valley habitat block and the removal of the
Juniper Flats, Murrieta, Winchester habitat blocks and the remaining Badlands habitat block
from Alternative 2. The result of these combined reductions, is that the remaining area
probably would not provide enough potential habitat for the silvery legless lizard.
R-2 Arizona elegans occidentalis – coastal (California) glossy

snake
State: None
Federal: None
ALTERNATIVE 1
RATIONALE: The glossy snake could be adequately conserved under Alternative 1.
The glossy snake is often found in substrates that are sandy or loamy, but may also appear
in rocky areas with patches of loose soil. The species can be found in a variety of habitats
including shrubby to barren desert, open scrub, grasslands, chaparral, valley-foothill
hardwood, juniper woodland, sparse oak woodland habitat. However, Klauber (1946) found
that they preferred grasslands, cultivated fields, and open sage scrub most within an area
which was disproportionately densely vegetated. The species takes refuge within burrows,
rock outcrops, and to a lesser extent, under surface objects such as flat rocks and vegetative
debris. Information for the occurrence and distribution of the legless lizard is mostly imprecise
and dated; likely due to the species secretive nature. Scattered known locations are
distributed throughout the MSHCP Planning area, generally within the basin between the San
Bernardino and Cleveland National Forests. This species is though to be widespread within
the planning area within suitable habitats. These areas include Anza, Mira Loma, Rubidoux,
Riverside, Lake Mathews, Calimesa, Perris, Lakeview Mountains, Wildomar, Murrieta,
Temecula, and the Santa Ana River. Little information is known regarding reproductive
ecology, movement and dispersal ecology, and survivorship.
The glossy snake is considered conserved under Alternative 1 because most of the known
populations are conserved within large habitat blocks, linkages, or creek and stream preserve
areas. In addition, large blocks of suitable habitat with areas of friable soils and suitable
habitats (open canopied), are preserved in the Sage/Vail Lake/Wilson Valley area, Lake
Skinner/ Eastside Lake area, Juniper Flats area, Lake Perris area, Lee Lake area, Lake
Mathews area, Home Gardens area, Mira Loma area, Badlands, Banning/Beaumont area,
and the Winchester area. Also, protection of various creeks and streams including the Santa
Ana River, San Jacinto River, Bautista Creek, Temecula Creek, Murrieta Creek, Temescal
Wash, and numerous others provide suitable alluvial and streamside habitat. Conservation
of the species will mainly be dependant on the protection of these areas. However, some
additional conservation measures may be needed as described below.

While Alternative 1 includes adequate habitat to conserve the glossy snake in the planning
area, it will be important to design a management and implementation plan which takes into
account the species’ life history. Monitoring of habitat quality should occur within the reserve.
Sand mining operations should be reviewed and measures taken to reduce impacts to this
species. Methods should be employed within agricultural areas to reduce machine-induced
mortality. Plowing of new fields or fallow fields within the reserve should not occur, particularly
in the summer when eggs are present just below the surface. Control of off-road vehicles
within the reserve should be important. The general health of the reptile population may be
monitored by implementing a region-wide trapping program distributed throughout the
planning area and within all habitats. Focused surveys for this species are impractical and
therefore should not be required, however newly discovered population clusters within the
reserve should be monitored and given extra protection.
ALTERNATIVE 2
Conservation of the coastal glossy snake under Alternative 2 is generally the same as for
Alternative 1. However, the loss of some drainages and the shrinking of the Badlands,
Sage/Vail Lake/Wilson Creek, and El Cerrito to Alberhill blocks from Alternative 1 will place
an additional strain on the population. This should require more stringent condensation of
agricultural areas and severely limit development within the reserve. In addition, more
species-specific trapping studies should be completed within the reserve to monitor the
population.
ALTERNATIVE 3
The coastal glossy snake could not be considered to be adequately conserved under
Alternative 3. The reduction in potential habitat caused by the shrinking of the previously
mentioned habitat blocks and removal of drainages from Alternative 1, is exacerbated by
additional shrinking of the Sage/Vail Lake/Wilson Valley habitat block and the removal of the
Juniper Flats, Murrieta, Winchester habitat blocks and the remaining Badlands habitat block
from Alternative 2. The result of these combined reductions, is that the remaining area
probably would not provide enough potential habitat for the glossy snake.

R-3 Charina bottae umbratica – southern rubber boa
State: Threatened
Federal: Sensitive
ALTERNATIVE 1
RATIONALE: The southern rubber boa should be adequately conserved under

Alternative 1.
This subspecies occurs within the San Gabriel, San Bernardino, and San Jacinto Mountains
in southern California. Within the MSHCP planning area, the known range only occurs within
the San Jacinto Mountains. The southern rubber boa can typically be found in wooded or
forested areas with openings and abundant ground debris. Rocky areas with a southern
exposure are utilized in the winter as hibernacula and during the spring. Cooler and moister
areas are sought out during the warmer months. It occurs at elevations between 1540m and
2460m in the planning area. The MSHCP database reveals only four datapoints for the
subspecies; these mostly occur in the vicinity of Idyllwild. Other known locations include
Humber Park and Sage. There is little information in the literature regarding movement,
dispersal, home range, migration, and microhabitat preferences.
The southern rubber boa is considered conserved under Alternative 1 because the San
Jacinto Mountains portion of the San Bernardino National Forest Service lands are included
under the Alternative. In addition, the subspecies is known to depend on woodland and
forested habitats and rocky areas. However, conservation of the species will depend on

Bernardino National Forest will address potential impacts to the southern rubber boa,
including development, road construction, recreation, wood collecting, fern collecting, off-road
vehicle use, and land exchanges. In addition, surveys should be conducted for this species
within the forest.
southern rubber boa, the Forest Plans would also need to address the effects of forest
woodlands in general; also the effects on rock outcrops, ground debris, and riparian areas.
In addition, southern rubber boas may also be present within private inholdings in the MSHCP
planning area in the San Bernardino National Forest. Activities within these private inholdings
for this species. In general, removal of ground debris including logs, leaf litter, and rocks
should be kept to a minimum within the forest and inholdings. Surveys of potential habitat
areas should be conducted in the spring within inholdings and areas to be affected by
development. This would provide additional distributional records for the species, assist in
minimizing project impacts, or may assist in relocation of individuals on proposed
development sites.
ALTERNATIVE 2
Conservation of the southern rubber boa under Alternative 2 is the same as for Alternative 1.
ALTERNATIVE 3
Conservation of the southern rubber boa under Alternative 3 is the same as for Alternative 1.

R-4 Charina [Lichanura] trivirgata rosefusca – coastal rosy boa
Federal: None
ALTERNATIVE 1
RATIONALE: The coastal rosy boa could be adequately conserved under Alternative
1.
The coastal rosy boa occurs on rocky chaparral-covered hillsides and canyons and a variety
of desert and semidesert habitats, though grasslands are not preferred. Oak woodlands and
riparian areas will be used provided they interdigitate with scrub or chaparral habitats. Rock
and boulder piles appear to be important resources within vegetative habitats. Information
for the occurrence and distribution of the rosy boa within the MSHCP database is relatively
precise and recent. Locations are distributed throughout the MSHCP Planning area, generally
within the basin between the San Bernardino and Cleveland National Forests. This species
is though to be widespread within the planning area within suitable habitats. Known
populations from within the planning area includes aggregations south of Highgrove,
Allesandro Heights, Sage, Corn Springs, Hemet, Lakeview Mountains, Gavilan Hills, Eastside
Reservoir, Santa Ana Mountain foothills, and Aguanga. A high elevational point from the San
Jacinto Mountain is likely to be a ruber boa. Little information is known regarding reproductive
ecology and dispersal ecology.
The rosy boa is considered conserved under Alternative 1 because most of the known
populations are conserved within large habitat blocks and linkages. In addition, large blocks
of suitable rocky scrub and chaparral habitat are preserved in the Sage/Vail Lake/Wilson
Valley area, Lake Skinner/ Eastside Lake area, Juniper Flats area, Lake Perris area, Lee
Lake area, Lake Mathews area, Gavilan Hills area, Highgrove area, Rubidoux area,
Badlands, Banning/Beaumont area, and the Winchester area. Conservation of the species
will mainly be dependant on the protection of these areas. However, some additional
conservation measures may be needed as described below.
While Alternative 1 includes adequate habitat to conserve the rosy boa in the planning area,
it will be important to design a management and implementation plan which takes into account

the species’ habitat requirements. Monitoring of habitat quality should occur within the
reserve. Protection of suitable rock outcrop microhabitats within densely vegetated habitat
blocks will be important. Development of a fire management plan which is sensitive to the
species will be important. Non-scientific collection of reptiles should not be permitted within
the reserve. The general health of the reptile population may be monitored by implementing
a region-wide trapping program distributed throughout the planning area and within all
habitats. Focused surveys for this species are impractical and therefore should not be
required, however newly discovered population clusters within the reserve should be
monitored and given extra protection.
ALTERNATIVE 2
Conservation of the coastal rosy boa under Alternative 2 is generally the same as for
Alternative 1. However, the reduction of the Badlands, Sage/Vail Lake/Wilson Creek, and El
Cerrito to Alberhill blocks from Alternative 1 will place an additional strain on the population.
This should require more stringent limits on development and adjacency guidelines within the
reserve and place more importance on developing an appropriate fire management plan. In
addition, more species-specific trapping studies should be completed within the reserve to
monitor the population.
ALTERNATIVE 3
The coastal rosy boa could not be considered to be adequately conserved under Alternative
3. The reduction in potential habitat caused by the reduction of the previously mentioned
habitat blocks from Alternative 1, is exacerbated by additional reduction of the Sage/Vail
Lake/Wilson Valley habitat block and the removal of the Juniper Flats, Murrieta, Aguanga,
Badlands, and Winchester habitat blocks from Alternative 2. The result of these combined
reductions, is that the remaining area probably would not provide enough potential habitat for
the rosy boa.

R-5 Clemmys marmorata – southwestern pond turtle
Federal: None
ALTERNATIVE 1
RATIONALE: The pond turtle could be adequately conserved under Alternative 1.
The pond turtle is known from a number of drainages within the planning area. Within the
MSHCP planning area, known populations include the vicinity of Vail Lake, Canyon Lake,
Long Canyon, Murrieta Creek, Temecula Creek, Arroyo Seco Creek, Cajalco Creek, San
Jacinto River, Santa Ana River, Santa Margarita River, Temescal Wash, Tucalota Creek,
Wilson Creek, Lake Skinner, and the Elsinore Mountains. The species relies on a variety of
slow moving permanent or intermittent streams, ponds, small lakes, reservoirs, shallow
wetlands, stock ponds, and sewage treatment lagoons. Within these areas, logs, rocks,
submerged vegetation, mud, undercut banks, and ledges are habitat components, as well as
a water depth greater than two meters. Emergent basking sites, emergent vegetation, and
the availability of suitable terrestrial shelter and nesting sites are important. Adults generally
move less than 1km. However, they have been known to move approximately 2km over land
to other suitable water habitat. Uplands are utilized for estivation and nesting purposes.
Information for the known occurrences of pond turtles are relatively current and precise. Little
is known regarding dispersal.
The pond turtle is considered conserved under Alternative 1 because: 1) most of the known
population occurs within areas included in Alternative 1; 2) approximately half of the areas
included in Alternative 1, also have extensive upland buffers; 3) most of the preserved areas
are connected to other preserved areas of value to the species; or 4) existing U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers regulations pursuant to the federal Clean Water Act and California
Department of Fish and Game regulations pursuant to the State Clean Water Act will afford
protection to the pond turtle’s most crucial habitat feature: water bodies. However,
conservation of the species will depend on additional conservation considerations as
described below.
While Alternative 1 includes adequate habitat to conserve pond turtle in the planning area, an
important consideration for the conservation of the pond turtle is the protection of aquatic

habitat and associated upland habitats. Pond turtles spend most of their time within or
adjacent to aquatic habitat and estivate or nest within adjacent upland habitats. Inside the
reserve, continued monitoring of the turtle population should be implemented. When projects
potentially affect aquatic habitat or adjacent upland habitats within the reserve, surveys should
be conducted and measures taken to protect populations. Water quality and hydrology should
be maintained. When feasible, isolated or impacted turtles should be relocated to suitable
unoccupied habitat. Adjacency guidelines should be designed for projects outside the
reserve, yet adjacent to riparian or aquatic areas. Control of non-native exotic pest species
such as non-native introduced fishes and bullfrogs should be a priority. Finally, maintenance
of connections between suitable aquatic habitat should be facilitated.
ALTERNATIVE 2
Conservation of the southwestern pond turtle under Alternative 2 is generally the same as for
Alternative 1. However, the removal of numerous drainages within the planning area and
reducing the Sage/Vail Lake/Wilson Creek and El Cerrito to Alberhill blocks from Alternative
1 will potentially place a serious strain on the population. This should require more stringent
adjacency guidelines within the reserve. Also, focused surveys should occur in conjunction
with wetland delineations outside the reserve to determine presence of the species.
Discovered populations should be avoided with buffering or translocated to suitable
unoccupied or marginal populations within the reserve. In addition, more species-specific
surveys or trapping studies should be completed within the reserve to monitor the population.
ALTERNATIVE 3
Conservation of the Southwestern pond turtle under Alternative 3 is generally the same as
Alternative 2. Little additional habitat is removed under Alternative 3.
R-6 Cnemidophorus tigris multiscutatus – coastal western

whiptail
Federal: None
ALTERNATIVE 1
RATIONALE: The western whiptail could be adequately conserved under Alternative
1.

Western whiptail occurs throughout the MSHCP Planning area in a wide variety of habitats.
The species has been found in nearly every type of habitat present within the planning area
except for yellow pine forest, however, it is likely that it also uses this habitat type. Within
these habitats, it seeks open, and often rocky, sunny areas. Western whiptails primarily dig
for fossorial prey, and are generally active from April through September. Between 2 to 4
eggs are laid in the late spring/early summer. Average home ranges for males and females
are fairly large, 1 hectare and 0.34 hectare respectively. Known population clusters within the
MSHCP Planning area include, but are not limited to, areas south and east of Lake Skinner,
around the Eastside Reservoir, east of Lake Mathews, Temecula, Murrieta, Cactus Valley,
Crown Valley, and Potrero. The species also occurs within the Santa Ana Mountains, Aqua
Tibia Mountains, and San Jacinto Mountains within the San Bernardino and Cleveland
National Forests. Nothing is known of the species dispersal requirements.
The coastal western whiptail is considered conserved under Alternative 1 because: 1) it is a

habitat generalist as long as openings exist within the habitat; 2) it is widely distributed
throughout the planning area; 3) it does not appear to be dependant on a single prey item; 4)
abundant suitable habitat is conserved under Alternative 1 along with a combination of large
and small linkages for the long-term exchange of genetic information; and 6) some of its
habitat is within the National Forests where the forest plan is under preparation. However, to
ensure coverage, some additional conservation considerations should be addressed.
The species can be conserved by a combination of the blocks of habitat and linkages
proposed under Alternative 1, and the existing preserves and National Forests. Forests in the
Pacific Southwest include the Los Padres, Angeles, San Bernardino, and Cleveland National
Forests. These forests are the subject of a Southern California Conservation Strategy that
addresses ecosystem processes and conservation of forest species while allowing
appropriate recreation and other activities on Forest Service lands. The goal of this program
is to develop Forest Plans which “restore, recover, and maintain species and continue to
provide for various uses of the forest.” (California Biodiversity News 2000). The Forest Plans
will provide guidance for resource management and will establish goals, objectives and
management requirements. The Forest Plans will be prepared in accordance with the
National Forest Management Act and National Environmental Policy Act which require
Environmental Assessments of proposed actions and public review. An Environmental
Impact Statement for all four forests is scheduled for release for public review in January of
2002 (California Biodiversity News 2000). The Forest Plan for the San Bernardino and
Cleveland National Forests will address potential impacts to the coastal western whiptail,

including connectivity, fire, recreation, and land exchanges.
western whiptail, the Forest Plans would also need to address the effects of forest activities
on this species and associated habitats, primarily grasslands and scrub, chaparral, oak
woodlands, riparian areas, and potentially forests with openings and sunny rock areas. In
addition, western whiptails may also be present within private inholdings in the MSHCP
planning area in the National Forests. Activities within these private inholdings would need
to be reviewed by the County for compatibility with MSHCP goals and objectives for this
species.
Focused surveys for this species, in or out of the reserve, should not be necessary. The
general health of the reptile population may be monitored by implementing a region-wide
trapping program distributed throughout the planning area and within all habitats.
ALTERNATIVE 2
Conservation of the coastal western whiptail under Alternative 2 is generally the same as for
Alternative 1. While, the reduction of the Badlands, Sage/Vail Lake/Wilson Creek, and El
Cerrito to Alberhill blocks from Alternative 1 will place an additional strain on the population,
there is still abundant habitat left for this generalist species. However, under this Alternative,
more stringent limits on development and adjacency guidelines should be placed on the
reserve. In addition, more species-specific trapping studies should be completed within the
reserve to monitor the population.
ALTERNATIVE 3
Conservation of the coastal western whiptail under Alternative 3 is the same as Alternative 2.
The further reduction in potential habitat caused by the reduction of the previously mentioned
habitat blocks from Alternative 1 and exacerbated by additional reduction of the Sage/Vail
Lake/Wilson Valley habitat block and the removal of the Juniper Flats, Murrieta, Aguanga,
Badlands, Aguanga, and Winchester habitat blocks from Alternative 2, should still leave
enough habitat for this generalist.
R-7 Cnemidophorus hyperythrus beldingi – Belding’s orange-
throated whiptail
State: Species of Special Concern, State Protected Species

Federal: None
ALTERNATIVE 1
RATIONALE: The orange-throated whiptail could be adequately conserved under

Alternative 1.
Western whiptail occurs throughout the central basin within the MSHCP Planning area,
generally delimited by the National Forests. The species has been found in a variety of
habitats, including sage scrub, chaparral, oak woodland, juniper woodland, and grassland.
Apparently the species requires 10 to 40 percent bare groundcover for foraging and
thermoregulation (McGurty 1981). The range of the whiptail is limited by the distribution of its
primary prey item, the subterranean termite, Reticulitermes hesperus, typically not utilizing
apparently suitable habitat which is not occupied buy the termite. Orange-throated whiptails
appear to be less tolerant of urban, suburban, and agricultural development than other similar
reptile species (e.g., western whiptail). Orange-throated whiptails are generally active from
March through September and lay between 2 to 3 eggs are laid in the June and/or July.
Known home ranges extend from 0.1 acre to 1 acre in size with the females range almost 2.1
times the size of the males. The eastern range of the subspecies extends to the base of the
San Jacinto Mountains with known population clusters within the MSHCP Planning area
including, the Sage and Aguanga area, Lake Skinner area, Lake Mathews area, Lake Perris
area, Badlands area, Murrieta Hot Springs area, Santa Ana Mountain foothills area, and Vail
Lake area. It appears that they are generally restricted to areas of large intact habitat blocks
or scrub, woodlands, and grasslands adjacent to flood plains or terraces. Little is known of
the species’ dispersal requirements or survivorship.
The coastal western whiptail is considered conserved under Alternative 1 primarily because
most of the remaining large habitat blocks will be preserved under Alternative 1 along with a
number of large and small linkages. However, conservation of the species will depend on

While Alternative 1 includes adequate habitat to conserve the orange-throated whiptail in the
takes into account the species’ habitat requirements. These should include: maintenance of
large habitat blocks without major development or agricultural encroachment; monitoring of
habitat quality to maintain quality habitat with the appropriate microhabitat features (e.g., 10
to 40% bare ground cover); control of exotic pest species which may affect the local
invertebrate fauna (e.g., non-native ants); maintenance of long-term movement linkages to
provide all the habitat requirements of the species; studies to determine the habitat
requirements, ecology, and biology of the prey species, Reticulitermes hesperus; and
additional studies on the dispersal ecology of the orange-throated whiptail. The general health
of the reptile population may be monitored by implementing a region-wide trapping program
or time-constrained searches, distributed throughout the planning area and within all habitats.
Likewise, the general health of the termite population can be monitored by conducting
periodic surveys of termite sign (casts).
ALTERNATIVE 2
Conservation of the orange-throated whiptail under Alternative 2 is generally the same as for
Cerrito to Alberhill blocks from Alternative 1 will place an additional strain on the population
and the favored prey species. This should require more stringent limits on development and
adjacency guidelines within the reserve and place more importance on developing an
appropriate pest management plan. In addition, more species-specific trapping studies
should be completed within the reserve to monitor the population.
ALTERNATIVE 3
The orange-throated whiptail could not be considered to be adequately conserved under

Alternative 3. The reduction in potential habitat caused by the reduction of the previously
mentioned habitat blocks from Alternative 1, is exacerbated by additional reduction of the
Sage/Vail Lake/Wilson Valley habitat block and the removal of the Juniper Flats, Murrieta,
Aguanga, Badlands, Aguanga, and Winchester habitat blocks from Alternative 2. The result
of these combined reductions, is that the remaining area probably would not provide enough
potential habitat for the orange-throated whiptail.

R-8 Coleonyx variegatus abbottii – San Diego banded gecko
Federal: None
ALTERNATIVE 1
RATIONALE: The San Diego banded gecko could be adequately conserved under
Alternative 1.
San Diego banded gecko occurs throughout the central basin of the MSHCP Planning area,
generally delimited by the National Forests, however they also swing to the north between the
San Jacinto Mountains and the San Bernardino Mountains. The species is found in a variety
of habitats including sage scrub, chaparral, desert scrub, and woodlands, preferring granite
and rock outcrops within these habitats. The nocturnal species lays approximately two eggs
between May and June. Known populations within the MSHCP Planning area include the
Santa Margarita River south of Temecula, Vail Lake, Lake Skinner area, Eastside Reservoir,
Winchester, Lake Elsinore, Lake Mathews, Santa Ana Mountain foothills, Pigeon Pass,
Moreno Valley, Beaumont, and Banning. Somewhere east of Banning, the population likely
coexists with the desert banded gecko. It appears that they prefer granite and rock outcrops
within various habitats and are patchily distributed. Little is known of the species’ dispersal
requirements and there is little sub-specific information available.
The San Diego banded gecko is considered conserved under Alternative 1 primarily because
a number of large habitat blocks which include large areas of granitic and boulder outcrops
will be preserved under Alternative 1 along with a number of large and small linkages. The
extent and distribution of granitic outcrops and boulder fields within the reserve will be
evaluated using false-color infrared aerial photography. However, conservation of the species
will depend on additional conservation considerations as described below.
While Alternative 1 includes adequate habitat to conserve the San Diego banded gecko in
the planning area, it will be important to design a management and implementation plan which
large habitat blocks without major development or agricultural encroachment; monitoring of
habitat quality to maintain granite outcrops and boulder fields; and protection of outcrops and
boulder fields. Additional studies regarding dispersal are probably not required as they are

likely isolated at rocky sites throughout the region. Projects within the reserve should be
required to conduct focused surveys for the species or avoid rock outcrops and provide a
buffer. The general health of the reptile population may be monitored by implementing a
region-wide trapping program or time-constrained searches, distributed throughout the
planning area and within all habitats.
ALTERNATIVE 2
Conservation of the San Diego banded gecko under Alternative 2 is generally the same as
for Alternative 1. However, the reduction of the Sage/Vail Lake/Wilson Creek, and El Cerrito
to Alberhill blocks from Alternative 1 will place an additional strain on the population. This
should require more stringent limits on development and adjacency guidelines within the
reserve and place more importance on developing an appropriate fire management plan.
Focused nocturnal or orthoscopic surveys should be conducted for projects outside the
reserve which plan on developing near or on a rock outcrop of sufficient size. Buffers should
be provided around occupied outcrops and connections provided to adjacent outcrops to the
maximum extent feasible.
ALTERNATIVE 3
The San Diego banded gecko could not be considered to be adequately conserved under
Aguanga, and Winchester habitat blocks from Alternative 2. Based on the limited information
available for the species, the combined reductions probably would not provide enough
potential habitat for the banded gecko.
R-9 Crotalus ruber ruber – northern red-diamond rattlesnake

Federal: None
ALTERNATIVE 1
RATIONALE: The northern red-diamond rattlesnake would be conserved under
Alternative 1.

The red-diamond rattlesnake occurs throughout the MSHCP Planning area in a wide variety
of habitats, absent only from the higher elevations. The species has been found in nearly
every type of habitat present within the planning area below 1,520m. However, it is more
commonly associated with heavy brush with large rocks or boulders. Suitable sites for
hiberaculum and gravid females is also important. The rattlesnake is a lie-in-wait predator,
waiting by game trails for prey to come within striking distance. Females give birth to live
young after a gestation period of 140 to 150 days. Red-diamond rattlesnakes usually move
around 45m per day. However, treks over 150m are known. Known population clusters within
the MSHCP Planning area include, but are not limited to, areas within the Badlands, between
Lake Skinner and Eastside Reservoir, Lake Mathews, Vail Lake/Wilson Valley, Highgrove,
and south of the Santa Rosa Plateau. The species also occurs within the Santa Ana
Mountains, Aqua Tibia Mountains, and San Jacinto Mountains up to around 1,520m within the
San Bernardino and Cleveland National Forests. Gene flow problems do not exist within the
range of the red-diamond rattlesnake (Murphey et al 1995). Little specific information is
available with regard to the red-diamond rattlesnake.
The red-diamond rattlesnake is considered conserved under Alternative 1 because: 1) it may

occur in a variety of habitats, although it is more commonly associated with dense brush and
large rocks; 2) it is widely distributed throughout the planning area; 3) it is not dependant on
a single prey item; 4) abundant suitable habitat is conserved under Alternative 1 along with
a combination of large and small linkages; 6) the subspecies does not appear to have
suffered from genetic isolation; and 7) some of its habitat is within the National Forests where
the forest plan is under preparation. However, to ensure coverage, some additional
conservation considerations should be addressed.
The species can be conserved by a combination of preserving blocks of habitat and linkages

Cleveland National Forests will address potential impacts to the red-diamond, including
persecution, fire, recreation, and land exchanges.
red-diamond rattlesnake, the Forest Plans would also need to address the effects of forest
activities on this species and associated habitats, primarily dense brushy areas with large
rocks and boulders. In addition, rattlesnakes may also be present within private inholdings
in the MSHCP planning area in the National Forests. Activities within these private inholdings
for this species.
trapping program, or time-constrained survey, distributed throughout the planning area and
within all habitats.
ALTERNATIVE 2
Conservation of the northern red-diamond rattlesnake under Alternative 2 is generally the

same as for Alternative 1. However, the reduction of the Badlands, Sage/Vail Lake/Wilson
Creek, and El Cerrito to Alberhill blocks from Alternative 1 will place an additional strain on
the population. This should require more stringent limits on development and adjacency
guidelines within the reserve and place more importance on developing an appropriate fire
and habitat management plan.
ALTERNATIVE 3
Conservation of the red-diamond rattlesnake could still potentially be adequately conserved

under Alternative 3. While reductions in potential habitat caused by the reduction of the
previously mentioned habitat blocks from Alternative 1, are exacerbated by additional
reduction of the Sage/Vail Lake/Wilson Valley habitat block and the removal of the Juniper
Flats, Murrieta, Aguanga, Badlands, and Winchester habitat blocks from Alternative 2,
abundant lands are still present on the National Forests.

R-10 Diadophis punctatus – ringneck snake
Federal: None
ALTERNATIVE 1
RATIONALE: The ringneck snake could be adequately conserved under Alternative 1.
The MSHCP Planning area is generally thought to be outside of the range for the San Diego
ringneck snake (D. P. similis) but within the range of the San Bernardino ringneck snake (D.
P. modestus). Ringneck snakes occur throughout the MSHCP Planning area in a wide variety
of habitats. The species can be found in most habitats, including coastal sage scrub,
chaparral, oak woodland, riparian areas, forests, grasslands. Within these habitats, it
requires some soil moisture, abundant cover in the form of ground debris, and a relatively
open canopy for thermoregulation. It appears to be most common in relatively open and rocky
habitats. It appears that the ringneck snake is limited by its primary food source, slender
salamanders. An average of 4 eggs are laid from May through July, in loose aerated soil in
talus or rotting logs. Communal nests may occur. Home ranges can have long axes of up to
140m however most never move more than 10m. Ringneck snakes have been known to move
and average of 120m between hibernacula and summer range (Fitch 1975). A population in
Kansas was estimated at 1266 individuals per hectare. Known population areas within the
MSHCP Planning area include Santa Ana River, area, City of Riverside, Badlands, south of
Hemet near Cactus Valley, the Hogbacks, Glen Ivy, Temecula along Murrieta Creek, near Vail
Lake, at Lake Mathews, north of Cherry Valley, Banning, Lake Skinner, and near Idyllwild.
The species also occurs within the Santa Ana Mountains, Aqua Tibia Mountains, and San
Jacinto Mountains, up to 2,150m, within the San Bernardino and Cleveland National Forests.
Nothing is known of the species dispersal requirements.
The ringneck snake is considered conserved under Alternative 1 because: 1) it is a habitat

generalist so long as ground debris, suitable rocky hibernacula, nesting microhabitat, and
openings exist within the habitat; 2) it is widely distributed throughout the planning area; 3)
abundant suitable habitat is conserved under Alternative 1 along with a combination of large
and small linkages for the long-term exchange of genetic information; and 4) some of its
habitat is within the National Forests where the forest plan is under preparation. However, to
ensure coverage, some additional conservation considerations should be addressed.

The species can be conserved by a combination of the blocks of habitat and linkages
Cleveland National Forests will address potential impacts to the ringneck snake, including
connectivity, habitat, recreation, and land exchanges.
ringneck snake, the Forest Plans would also need to address the effects of forest activities
on this species and associated habitats. In addition, ringneck snakes may also be present
within private inholdings in the MSHCP planning area in the Cleveland National Forest.
compatibility with MSHCP goals and objectives for this species. Impacts within the reserve
would need to be strictly regulated according to the goals and objectives.
trapping program, or time-dependant searches, distributed throughout the planning area and
within all habitats. In addition, monitoring of slender salamanders may assist in conservation
efforts for this species.

ALTERNATIVE 2
Conservation of the ringneck snake under Alternative 2 is generally the same as for Alternative
1. However, the reduction of the Badlands, Sage/Vail Lake/Wilson Creek, and El Cerrito to
Alberhill blocks from Alternative 1 will place an additional strain on the population. These
reductions are somewhat mitigated by the inclusion of the National Forests. This Alternative
should require more stringent limits on development and adjacency guidelines within the
reserve and place more importance on developing an appropriate habitat management plan.
In addition, more species-specific trapping studies should be completed within the reserve
to monitor the population.
ALTERNATIVE 3
The ringneck snake could not be considered to be adequately conserved under Alternative
3. Despite the inclusion of National Forests in this Alternative, the reduction of the previously
mentioned habitat blocks from Alternative 1, exacerbated by additional reduction of the
Aguanga, Badlands, and Winchester habitat blocks from Alternative 2, removes too much
suitable habitat. The result of these combined reductions, is that the remaining area probably
would not provide enough potential habitat for the ringneck snake.
R-11 Gambelia wislizenii – long-nosed leopard lizard

Federal: None
ALTERNATIVE 1
RATIONALE: The long-nosed leopard lizard may be adequately conserved under

Alternative 1.
The long-nosed leopard lizard is found in desert habitats including naive grasslands and sage
brush as long as it is open and open plains. It requires open sandy or gravelly flats, plains,
and hardpans, avoiding dense vegetation and rocky areas. Information for the occurrence and
distribution of the legless lizard is poor, however it is generally thought that the species has
been extirpated from the western portion of the study area and is now confined to the
northeastern and southeastern portions of the planning area. Locations include the Vail
Lake/Aguanga area, Banning/Beaumont area, and scattered historical locations near the

Santa Ana River, Glen Ivy area, Gavilan Hills area, Hemet area, Lake Perris area, and Lake
Skinner area. Little information is known regarding the extant population in the Planning area
and dispersal behavior.
The long-nosed leopard lizard may be considered conserved under Alternative 1 because the
large block of habitat in the Vail Lake/Cactus Valley/Aguanga/Sage area, preserved land in
the Banning/Beaumont area, a large block of potential habitat within the Badlands, and
preservation of wide sandy creeks and rivers including the Santa Ana River, San Jacinto
River, and other smaller creeks. However, conservation of the species will depend on
additional conservation considerations.
While Alternative 1 includes large blocks of land that is known to support long-nosed leopard
lizard, and large areas which might support them based on habitat characteristics, it will be
important to design a management and implementation plan which takes into account the
species’ ecological requirements. Monitoring of habitat quality and maintenance should occur
within the reserve to remove exotic plant infestations. Sand mining operations should be
reviewed and measures taken to reduce impacts to this species. Control of off-road vehicles
within the reserve should be important. Focused surveys within the reserve should be
completed to monitor populations and determine strongholds. Dispersal needs should be
studied to provide land managers with management tools. Outside the reserve, surveys
should occur in suitable habitat east of the Badlands and east of the Vail Lake/Sage/Aguanga
habitat block. Discovered population clusters should be afforded a degree of protection.
ALTERNATIVE 2
The long-nosed leopard lizard could not be considered adequately conserved under
Alternative 2. The reduction of the Badlands, Banning/Beaumont, and Sage/Vail Lake/Wilson
Creek blocks from Alternative 1, would probably not provide enough potential habitat for the
species. In addition, too little is known about the species to determine coverage at this level
of land conservation.
ALTERNATIVE 3
The long-nosed leopard lizard could not be adequately conserved under Alternative 3.

R-12 Lampropeltis zonata pulchra – San Diego Mountain
kingsnake Lampropeltis zonata parvirubra – San Bernardino
Mountain kingsnake
Federal: None
ALTERNATIVE 1
RATIONALE: The San Diego mountain kingsnake and the San Bernardino mountain
kingsnake could be adequately conserved under Alternative 1. Both
subspecies are treated here together because 1) little is known about
each separately, 2) they utilize similar habitats, 3) generally occur at
similar elevations within the Planning area, 4) conservation will be
achieved in the same manner, and 5) they are geographically isolated.
Both subspecies occur within the MSHCP Planning area. Within the Planning area, the San
Diego mountain kingsnake is generally restricted to the Santa Ana Mountains, while the San
Bernardino mountain kingsnake is generally restricted to the San Jacinto Mountains. Both
mountain kingsnakes occur in conifer and hardwood forests, chaparral, and riparian areas.
Both subspecies utilize rock outcrops and talus for foraging, thermoregulation, and
hibernation. Though little is known of their dispersal characteristics, It is known that they
exhibit strong site tenacity or even microsite tenacity, having been found at the same rock
outcrop or same rock for multiple years. It is possible that they never leave the natal rock
outcrop (McGurty 1988). The MSHCP database reveals few datapoints for the San
Bernardino mountain kingsnake; these mostly occur within the San Jacinto Mountains. A
couple odd points attributed to the San Bernardino mountain kingsnake occur in the Santa
Ana Mountains near the Santa Rosa Plateau Ecological Reserve; these are likely to be
misidentified San Diego mountain kingsnakes.
The mountain kingsnakes are considered conserved under Alternative 1 because the San
Jacinto Mountains and Santa Ana Mountains portion of the San Bernardino National Forest
and Cleveland National Forest Service lands are included under the Alternative. In addition,
the San Diego mountain kingsnake is also conserved within the Santa Rosa Plateau Reserve.
However, conservation of the species will depend on additional conservation considerations
as described below.

Bernardino National Forest and Cleveland National Forest will address potential impacts to
the mountain kingsnakes, including collecting, destruction of habitat by poachers, firewood
harvesting, logging, development, and land exchanges.
mountain kingsnakes, the Forest Plans would also need to address the effects of forest
woodlands in general, but more specifically, ground debris, leaf cover, logs, rock outcrops and
talus, and detritus at ground level within these habitats. In addition, mountain kingsnakes may
be present within private inholdings in the MSHCP planning area in the San Bernardino and
Cleveland National Forests. Activities within these private inholdings would need to be
In general, removal of ground debris including logs, leaf litter, and rocks should be kept to a
minimum within the forest and inholdings. Surveys of rock outcrops, may provide valuable
information for the species’.
ALTERNATIVE 2
Conservation of the San Diego Mountain kingsnake and the San Bernardino Mountain
kingsnake under Alternative 2 is the same as for Alternative 1.

ALTERNATIVE 3
Conservation of the San Diego mountain kingsnake and the San Bernardino mountain
kingsnake under Alternative 3 is the same as for Alternative 1.
R-13 Phrynosoma coronatum blainvillei – San Diego horned lizard

State: Species of Special Concern, State Protected Species
Federal: None
ALTERNATIVE 1
RATIONALE: The San Diego horned lizard could be adequately conserved under
Alternative 1.
Horned lizards occur throughout the MSHCP Planning area in a wide variety of habitats. The
species has been found in nearly every type of habitat present within the planning area. Within
these habitats, it seeks open areas which are caused by disturbance, such as fire, floods,
roads, and fire breaks. Horned lizards primarily forage on native ants (Pogonomyrmex ssp.)
at the surface, are relatively fecund, and move an average of 47 m per day. No population
clustering is apparent in the MSHCP database, instead they are evenly dispersed throughout
the Planning area except for areas with extensive development or agriculture. The species
is known from most of the existing public lands, and conserved blocks and linkages under
Alternative 1. They also occur within the Santa Ana Mountains, Aqua Tibia Mountains, and
San Jacinto Mountains within the San Bernardino and Cleveland National Forests. Little is
known of the species dispersal requirements, or hibernation site requirements.
The horned lizard is considered conserved under Alternative 1 because: 1) it is a habitat

generalist as long as openings exist within the habitat; 2) it is widely distributed throughout the
planning area; 3) abundant suitable habitat is conserved under Alternative 1 along with a
combination of large and small linkages for the long-term exchange of genetic information;
and 4) some of its habitat is within the National Forests where the forest plan is under
preparation. However, to ensure coverage, some additional conservation considerations
should be addressed.

The species can be conserved by a combination of preserving the blocks of habitat and
linkages proposed under Alternative 1, the existing preserves, and National Forests. Forests
in the Pacific Southwest include the Los Padres, Angeles, San Bernardino, and Cleveland
National Forests. These forests are the subject of a Southern California Conservation
Strategy that addresses ecosystem processes and conservation of forest species while
allowing appropriate recreation and other activities on Forest Service lands. The goal of this
program is to develop Forest Plans which “restore, recover, and maintain species and
continue to provide for various uses of the forest.” (California Biodiversity News 2000). The
Forest Plans will provide guidance for resource management and will establish goals,
objectives and management requirements. The Forest Plans will be prepared in accordance
with the National Forest Management Act and National Environmental Policy Act which require
Cleveland National Forests will address potential impacts to the San Diego horned lizard,
including exotic ants, connectivity, fire, recreation, and land exchanges.
horned lizard, the Forest Plans would also need to address the effects of forest activities on
this species, associated habitats, and preferred prey. In addition, horned lizards may also be
present within private inholdings in the MSHCP planning area in the National Forests.
trapping program distributed throughout the planning area and within all habitats. Monitoring
of native ant species and control of non-native ants should be a priority.
ALTERNATIVE 2
Conservation of the San Diego horned lizard under Alternative 2 is generally the same as for
Cerrito to Alberhill blocks from Alternative 1 will place an additional strain on the population
and the favored prey species. Fortunately this would be somewhat mitigated by inclusion of

the National Forests. This should require more stringent limits on development and adjacency
guidelines within the reserve and place more importance on developing an appropriate pest
management plan. In addition, more species-specific time-constrained surveys or trapping
studies should be completed within the reserve to monitor the population.
ALTERNATIVE 3
The San Diego horned lizard could not be considered to be adequately conserved under
Aguanga, Badlands, Aguanga, and Winchester habitat blocks from Alternative 2. Even with
the inclusion of the National Forests, the result of the combined reductions is that the
remaining area probably would not provide enough potential habitat for the horned lizard.
R-14 Salvadora hexalepis virgultea – coast patch-nosed snake
Federal: None
ALTERNATIVE 1
RATIONALE: The coast patch-nosed snake could be adequately conserved under

Alternative 1.
The patch-nosed snake is abroad generalist and occupies desert scrub, chaparral, washes,
sandy flats, and rocky areas. Information for the occurrence and distribution of the patch-
nosed snake within the MSHCP database is relatively precise and recent. Locations are
distributed throughout the MSHCP Planning area at all elevations. Known populations from
within the planning area include Sage, Lake Skinner, Anza, San Jacinto Mountain, Santa Ana
Mountains, Alberhill, Badlands, Lake Mathews, Banning, and Beaumont. Little information is
known regarding dispersal ecology and home range.
The patch-nosed snake is considered conserved under Alternative 1 because nearly all of the
known populations are conserved within large habitat blocks, linkages, existing reserves, and
National Forests. In addition, large blocks of suitable habitat are preserved in the Sage/Vail
Lake/Wilson Valley area, Lake Skinner/ Eastside Lake area, Juniper Flats area, Lake Perris
area, Lee Lake area, Lake Mathews area, Gavilan Hills area, Highgrove area, Rubidoux area,
Badlands, Banning/Beaumont area, and the Winchester area. Conservation of the species

will be dependant on the protection, maintenance, and management of these areas.
While Alternative 2 includes adequate habitat to conserve the patch-nosed snake in the
takes into account the species habitat requirements. Monitoring of habitat quality should
occur within the reserve. Protection of suitable rocky and sandy areas within suitably
vegetated habitat blocks will be important. Development of a fire management plan which is
sensitive to the species will be important. Non-scientific collection of reptiles should not be
permitted within the reserve. The general health of the reptile population may be monitored
by implementing a region-wide trapping program distributed throughout the planning area and
within all habitats. Focused surveys for this species are impractical and therefore should not
be required, however newly discovered population clusters within the reserve should be
monitored and given extra protection.
ALTERNATIVE 2
Conservation of the coast patch-nosed snake under Alternative 2 is generally the same as for
Cerrito to Alberhill blocks from Alternative 1 will begin to stress the population and will
necessitate conservation considerations.
ALTERNATIVE 3
The patch-nosed snake could still probably be considered adequately covered under
Alternative 3 despite the additional reduction of potential habitat. The reduction of the
previously mentioned habitat blocks from Alternative 1, is exacerbated by additional reduction
of the Sage/Vail Lake/Wilson Valley habitat block and the removal of the Juniper Flats,
Murrieta, Aguanga, Badlands, and Winchester habitat blocks from Alternative 2. At this
point, focused surveys would probably be required for the patch-nosed snake within the
reserve area and if populations were determined to be declining then focused surveys would
be required outside the preserve and populations protected.
R-15 Sceloporus graciosus vandenburgianus – southern

sagebrush lizard

Federal: None
ALTERNATIVE 1
RATIONALE: The southern sagebrush lizard could be adequately conserved under

Alternative 1.
The sagebrush lizard is widely distributed in suitable habitats within the MSHCP Planning
area. Suitable habitats include higher elevation sage scrub, chaparral, hardwood, and conifer,
where the preferred microhabitat includes widely-spaced bushes with open ground and
occasional rocks. Heavily exposed land and roots due to overgrazing and soil erosion is
preferred when occurring in woodlands or forests. Within the Planning area, the sagebrush
lizard is restricted to elevations between 900m and 3200m. Known locations are primarily
situated within the San Jacinto Mountains (San Bernardino National Forest), banning area,
and Vail Lake Cactus Valley area. However, Glaser (1970) indicates that suitable habitat is
present around the Cleveland National Forest and Anza.
The southern sagebrush lizard is considered conserved under Alternative 1 because the San
Bernardino and Cleveland National Forests are included under the Alternative. In addition,
a large block of suitable habitat will be preserved in the Vail Lake/Aguanga/Anza Valley/Sage
area. Within these areas most of the known locations are conserved and most, it not all of the
suitable habitat will be conserved. However, conservation of the species will depend on

Bernardino and Cleveland National Forests will address potential impacts to the southern
sagebrush lizard, including fire, off-road vehicular activity, isolation, road construction, habitat
conversion, and land exchanges.
sagebrush lizard, the Forest Plans would also need to address the effects of forest activities
on this species and associated habitats including sage, chaparral, conifer and hardwood
woodlands with sparse open canopies and little ground cover. In addition, southern
sagebrush lizards may be present within private inholdings in the MSHCP planning area in the
San Bernardino and Cleveland National Forests. Activities within these private inholdings
for this species. Surveys should not be required for this species and grazing activities should
be a compatible land use.
The general health of the reptile population may be monitored by implementing a region-wide
trapping program distributed throughout the planning area and within all habitats.
ALTERNATIVE 2
Conservation of the southern sagebrush lizard under Alternative 2 is the same as for
Alternative 1.
ALTERNATIVE 3
Conservation of the southern sagebrush lizard under Alternative 3 is the same as for
Alternative 1.

R-16 Sceloporus orcuttii – granite spiny lizard
State: None
Federal: None
ALTERNATIVE 1
RATIONALE: The granite spiny lizard could be adequately conserved under

Alternative 1.
The granite spiny lizard is distributed throughout the MSHCP Planning area, generally east
of the Santa Ana Mountains. The species is found almost exclusively on massive rock
outcrops, boulder piles, talus, and rocky canyon within a variety of habitats. Habitats include
chaparral, sage scrub, conifer forest, juniper woodland, oak woodlands, riparian, and even
alluvial fans. The diurnal species is variable in its dispersal, with movement ranging from 1
m to 44 m. Movement is apparently limited by dense vegetation. The largest home range is
17m in diameter. Known populations within the MSHCP Planning area include Box Springs,
Mount Rubidoux, Santa Ana Mountains, Mockingbird Canyon, Reche Canyon, Moreno,
Woodcrest, Gavilan Peaks, Perris, Elsinore, Eastside Reservoir, Vail Lake area, Potrero
Valley, Aguanga, Cactus Valley, Crown Valley, Harford Springs, Motte Reserve, San Jacinto
Mountain, and Santa Rosa Plateau.
The granite spiny lizard is considered conserved under Alternative 1 primarily because a
number of large habitat blocks which include large areas of granitic and boulder outcrops will
be preserved under Alternative 1 along with a number of large and small linkages. The extent
and distribution of granitic outcrops and boulder fields within the reserve will be evaluated
using false-color infrared aerial photography. Additional coverage is provided by the inclusion
of the National Forests. However, conservation of the species will depend on additional
While Alternative 1 includes adequate habitat to conserve the granite spiny lizard in the
large habitat blocks; monitoring of habitat quality to maintain granite outcrops and boulder
fields; protection of outcrops and boulder fields; and devising a fire management plan which

allows for fire to occur in some of the rocky areas. Dispersal of the species is limited by
dense vegetation and they are able to find refuge from fires within crevices and fissures within
rock piles. Projects within the reserve should be required to conduct focused surveys for the
species or avoid rock outcrops and provide a buffer. The general health of the reptile
population may be monitored by implementing region-wide time-constrained searches,
distributed throughout the planning area and within all habitats.
ALTERNATIVE 2
Conservation of the granite spiny lizard under Alternative 2 is generally the same as for
Alternative 1. However, the reduction of the Sage/Vail Lake/Wilson Creek and El Cerrito to
Alberhill blocks from Alternative 1 will place an additional strain on the population. This should
require more stringent limits on development and adjacency guidelines within the reserve and
place more importance on developing an appropriate fire management plan. Focused
surveys should be conducted for projects outside the reserve which plan on developing near
or on a rock outcrop of sufficient size. Buffers should be provided around occupied outcrops
and connections provided to adjacent outcrops to the maximum extent feasible.
ALTERNATIVE 3
The granite spiny lizard could not be considered to be adequately conserved under Alternative
habitat blocks from Alternative 1, is exacerbated by additional reduction of the Sage/Vail
Lake/Wilson Valley habitat block and the removal of the Juniper Flats, Murrieta, Aguanga, and
Winchester habitat blocks from Alternative 2. The result of these combined reductions, is that
the remaining area probably would not provide enough potential habitat for the spiny lizard or
the increased adjacent development would lead to over-collecting and damage to rock
outcrops.
R-17 Thamnophis hammondii – two-striped garter snake

Federal: None
ALTERNATIVE 1
RATIONALE: The two-striped garter snake could be adequately conserved under
Alternative 1.

The two-striped garter snake is known from a number of wetlands, riparian areas, vernal
pools, and drainages within the planning area. Within the MSHCP planning area, known
populations include the San Jacinto Mountains, Santa Ana Mountains, Lake Elsinore, Lake
Skinner, Mockingbird Canyon, Temecula Creek, San Jacinto River, Tahquitz Valley, Hemet
Lake, Hall Creek, and near Cabazon. The species is associated with wetland habitats such
as streams, creeks, pools, lakes, ponds, and vernal pools, within mixed oak woodlands,
chaparral, riparian areas, and other upland habitats. Uplands are utilized for estivation
purposes.
The two-striped garter snake is considered conserved under Alternative 1 because: 1) most
of the known population occurs within areas included in Alternative 1; 2) approximately half of
the stream and other wetland areas included in Alternative 1, also have extensive upland
buffers; 3) most of the preserved areas are connected to other preserved areas of value to the
species; or 4) existing U.S. Army Corps of Engineers regulations pursuant to the federal
Clean Water Act and California Department of Fish and Game regulations pursuant to the
State Clean Water Act will afford protection to the garter snake’s most crucial habitat feature:
water bodies. However, conservation of the species will depend on additional conservation
considerations as described below.
While Alternative 1 includes adequate habitat to conserve garter snakes in the planning area,
an important consideration for the conservation of the two-striped garter snake is the
protection of aquatic habitat and associated upland habitats. Garter snakes spend most of
their time within or adjacent to aquatic habitat and estivate or nest within adjacent upland
habitats. When projects potentially affect aquatic habitat or adjacent upland habitats within
the reserve, measures should be taken to protect populations. Water quality and hydrology
should be maintained. Adjacency guidelines should be designed for projects outside the
reserve which are adjacent to riparian or aquatic areas. Control of non-native exotic pest
species such as non-native introduced fishes and bullfrogs should be a priority. Finally,
maintenance of connections between suitable aquatic habitat should be facilitated.
ALTERNATIVE 2
Conservation of the two-striped garter snake under Alternative 2 is generally the same as for
Alternative 1. However, the removal of numerous drainages within the Planning area and
reducing the Sage/Vail Lake/Wilson Creek and El Cerrito to Alberhill blocks from Alternative
1 will potentially place a serious strain on the population. This should require more stringent

adjacency guidelines within the reserve. In addition, more species-specific surveys or
trapping studies should be completed within the reserve to monitor the population.
ALTERNATIVE 3
Conservation of the two-striped gartersnake under Alternative 3 is generally the same as

Alternative 2. Little additional habitat is removed under Alternative 3. However, focused
surveys should occur in conjunction with wetland delineations outside the reserve to determine
presence of the species. Discovered populations should be avoided with buffering or
translocated to suitable unoccupied or marginal populations within the reserve.
R-18 Thamnophis sirtalis infernalis – California red-sided garter

snake
Federal: None
ALTERNATIVE 1
RATIONALE: The red-sided garter snake could be adequately conserved under

Alternative 1.
The red-sided garter snake is known from only a few locations within the MSHCP planning
area. Of the garter snakes, this species is the most generalized in its ecology. It utilizes a
variety of habitats including marshes, woodlands, fields, meadows, sloughs, ponds, and slow-
moving water courses as long as substantial strips of vegetation surround the water body.
Within the MSHCP planning area, known populations include the Santa Ana River Lake
Elsinore, and Temecula Creek, with probable locations in the Santa Ana Mountains, San
Jacinto Mountains, Temescal Creek, and other perennial streams within the Planning area.
Uplands are utilized for estivation purposes.
The red-sided garter snake is considered conserved under Alternative 1 because: 1) most
of the known population and potential habitat occurs within areas included in Alternative 1; 2)
approximately half of the stream and other wetland areas included in Alternative 1, also have
extensive upland buffers; 3) most of the preserved areas are connected to other preserved
areas of value to the species; 4) existing U.S. Army Corps of Engineers regulations pursuant
to the federal Clean Water Act and California Department of Fish and Game regulations
pursuant to the State Clean Water Act will afford protection to the garter snake’s most crucial

habitat feature: water bodies; or 5) some of the potential habitat is covered by the Forest Plan.
However, conservation of the species will depend on additional conservation considerations
as described below.
While Alternative 1 includes adequate habitat to conserve garter snakes in the planning area,
an important consideration for the conservation of the red-sided garter snake is the protection
of aquatic habitat and associated upland habitats. Garter snakes spend most of their time
within or adjacent to aquatic habitat and estivate or nest within adjacent upland habitats.
When projects potentially affect aquatic habitat or adjacent upland habitats within the reserve,
measures should be taken to protect populations. Water quality and hydrology should be
maintained. Adjacency guidelines should be designed for projects outside the reserve which
are adjacent to riparian or aquatic areas. Control of nonnative exotic pest species such as
nonnative introduced fishes and bullfrogs should be a priority. Surveys should occur in areas
potentially supporting red-sided garter snake so that populations can be protected. Finally,
maintenance of connections between suitable aquatic habitat should be facilitated.
ALTERNATIVE 2
The red-sided garter snake could not be considered adequately conserved under Alternative
2. This is because: 1) removal of numerous drainages within the Planning area and reducing
the Sage/Vail Lake/Wilson Creek and El Cerrito to Alberhill blocks and removing the Elsinore
block from Alternative 1 will potentially remove too much habitat, and 2) too little information
is known about the species in general and locations specifically to know if the remaining
habitat would be suitable.
ALTERNATIVE 3
The red-sided garter snake could not be considered adequately conserved under Alternative
3 for the same reasons as stated above.

R-19 Xantusia henshawi henshawi – granite night lizard
Federal: None
ALTERNATIVE 1
RATIONALE: The granite night lizard could be adequately conserved under Alternative
1.
The granite night lizard is distributed along the eastern half of the MSHCP Planning area,
generally east of Lake Perris. The species is found exclusively on exfoliating, fissured, or
cracked granitic or metavolcanic massive rock outcrops, boulder piles, and talus within a
variety of desert, chaparral, and woodland habitats. The rock outcrop habitat generally used
by the lizards is primarily within chaparral and chaparral ecotonal areas (Lee 1975). The
species is generally active on the surface of rocks at night, however it they may be very active
during the day within cracks and crevices while foraging or thermoregulating. The species is
generally safe from predation and enjoys a high survivorship, and is unaffected by fire (Lee
1975). Within the MSHCP Planning area, a broad band of occupied habitat appears to start
around Banning, wrapping down across the San Jacinto mountains, through Pine Meadow,
to the west around Wilson Creek/Vail Lake/ Aguanga area, and also south into the Cleveland
National Forest. Populations also occur around cactus valley, Hemet, and Winchester.
The granite night lizard is considered conserved under Alternative 1 primarily because a
number of large habitat blocks which include large areas of granitic and boulder outcrops will
be preserved under Alternative 1 along with a number of large and small linkages. In addition,
occupied habitat within the national Forests will be included. The extent and distribution of
granitic outcrops and boulder fields within the reserve will be evaluated using false-color
infrared aerial photography. However, conservation of the species will depend on additional

Bernardino and Cleveland National Forests will address potential impacts to the granite night
lizard, including habitat management, fire management plans, collecting, and land exchanges.
granite night lizard, the Forest Plans would also need to address the effects of forest activities
on this species and associated habitats, particularly granitic outcrops in chaparral areas. In
addition, granite night lizards may be present within private inholdings in the MSHCP planning
area in the San Bernardino and Cleveland National Forests. Activities within these private
inholdings would need to be reviewed by the County for compatibility with MSHCP goals and
objectives for this species. Surveys should not be required for this species.
While Alternative 1 includes adequate habitat to conserve the granite night lizard in the
large habitat blocks; monitoring of habitat quality to maintain granite outcrops and boulder
fields; and protection of outcrops and boulder fields. Fires should not affect the species.
Projects within the reserve should be required to conduct nocturnal focused surveys for the
species or avoid rock outcrops and provide a buffer.
ALTERNATIVE 2
Conservation of the granite night lizard under Alternative 2 is generally the same as for
Alternative 1. However, the reduction of the Sage/Vail Lake/Wilson Creek block from
Alternative 1 will place an additional strain on the population. This should require more
stringent limits on development and adjacency guidelines within the reserve and place more
importance on developing an appropriate fire management plan. Focused nocturnal or
orthoscopic surveys should be conducted for projects outside the reserve which plan on
developing near or on a rock outcrop of sufficient size. Buffers should be provided around
occupied outcrops and connections provided to adjacent outcrops to the maximum extent

feasible.
ALTERNATIVE 3
The granite night lizard could not be considered to be adequately conserved under Alternative
habitat blocks from Alternative 1, is exacerbated by additional reduction of the Vail
Lake/Sage/Anza Valley habitat block and the removal of the Juniper Flats, Aguanga, and
Winchester habitat blocks from Alternative 2. Despite their occurrence on the National
Forests, the remaining area probably would not provide enough potential habitat for the night
lizard based on the limited information on the species. Increased adjacent development
would potentially lead to over-collecting and damage to rock outcrops, though predation and
fire is not anticipated to have an effect on the population.

5.2.5 INVERTEBRATES/CRUSTACEANS
C-1 Branchinecta lynchi – vernal pool fairy shrimp

State: None
Federal: Threatened
ALTERNATIVE 1
RATIONALE: The vernal pool fairy shrimp could be conserved under Alternative 1.
The vernal pool fairy shrimp is known from only three areas in the MSHCP planning area within
vernal pools and alkali vernal pools. These areas are located on the Santa Rosa Plateau, the
Salt Creek vernal pool complex, and at Skunk Hollow. This isolated population of a central
and northern Californian and Oregonian species requires short-lived cold water pools in order
for cysts to hatch, grow, and reproduce successfully. Dispersal of the species is thought to
occur by animal vectors, either by grazing animals or waterfowl. These animals may ingest
pregnant females and excrete the hardy cysts into a water body or soil depression at a later
time, or may catch cysts or pregnant females on their hooves, fur, or feathers and drop them
into pools or depressions. Two of the three known locations appear to be preserved under
Alternative 1. The Santa Rosa Plateau population is secure under the management of the
Santa Rosa Ecological Reserve and the Skunk Hollow population is protected from
development. Alternative 1 adds the upper Salt Creek vernal pool complex to the conserved
areas. Linkages are not necessary for this species. There are no mapped locations within
the MSHCP database. However, the USFWS appears to have an understanding of the
distribution of the species. Little is known regarding the vernal pool fairy shrimp’s biology.
However, this is not anticipated to be a limiting factor with regard to its conservation.
The vernal pool fairy shrimp is considered conserved under Alternative 1 because two of the
three known populations are already conserved through reserves, and the third will be
conserved under Alternative 1. Additional protection of vernal pool habitat, which is regulated
by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers pursuant to the federal Clean Water Act, will provide
further conservation benefits to the species. However, conservation of the species will
depend on additional conservation measures as described below.

While Alternative 1 includes adequate habitat to conserve the vernal pool fairy shrimp in the
planning area, an important consideration for the conservation of the fairy shrimp is the
protection and maintenance of habitat and watersheds. Fairy shrimps hatch, grow, and
reproduce within a single pool. These pools are often subjected to the adverse effects of
stormwater runoff, discing, development, utility construction, grazing, and alteration of
hydrology. Therefore, it will be important to preserve buffers around large vernal pool
complexes within the reserve as feasible. The actual pools are regulated by the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers and will typically be preserved. For projects or activities within the
preserve, surveys should be conducted prior to authorizing activities and buffers around pool
complexes should be maintained as practically feasible. Maintenance of watersheds and
hydrology should be paramount. Methods to control water quality may require the use of
BMP’s. Monitoring of populations within the reserve and surveys for new populations within
other areas of the reserve should occur. Guidelines should be developed which fully regulate
habitat management practices (e.g., discing, prescribed burns, flooding) which would have
an adverse effect on known vernal pool populations within the reserve. Control of exotic
predators is probably not required as suitable pools are often to short-lived to support them.
ALTERNATIVE 2
Conservation of vernal pool fairy shrimp under Alternative 2 is the same as for Alternative 1.
ALTERNATIVE 3
Conservation of vernal pool fairy shrimp under Alternative 3 is the same as for Alternative 1.
C-2 Linderiella santarosae – Santa Rosa Plateau fairy shrimp

State: None
Federal: None
ALTERNATIVE 1
RATIONALE: The Santa Rosa Plateau fairy shrimp could be conserved under
Alternative 1.
The Santa Rosa Plateau fairy shrimp is only known from the Santa Rosa Plateau Ecological

Reserve. This Riverside County endemic is found within southern basalt flow vernal pools.
This isolated population within the MSHCP planning area requires predictably filling, long-lived
cold water pools that are clear or milky, in order for cysts to hatch, grow, and reproduce
successfully. Dispersal of the species is thought to occur by animal vectors, either by grazing
animals or waterfowl. These animals may ingest pregnant females and excrete the hardy
cysts into a water body or soil depression at a later time, or may catch cysts or pregnant
females on their hooves, fur, or feathers and drop them into pools or depressions. The Santa
Rosa Plateau population is secure under the management of the Santa Rosa Ecological
Reserve. Linkages are not necessary for this species. Little is known regarding the Santa
Rosa Plateau fairy shrimp’s biology. However, this is not anticipated to be a limiting factor
with regard to its conservation.
The Santa Rosa Plateau fairy shrimp is considered conserved under Alternative 1 because
the only known population is already conserved through the Santa Rosa Ecological Reserve.
However, conservation of the species will depend on additional conservation measures as
described below.
While Alternative 1 includes adequate habitat to conserve the vernal pool fairy shrimp in the
planning area, an important consideration for the conservation of the fairy shrimp is the
protection and maintenance of habitat and watersheds. Fairy shrimps hatch, grow, and
reproduce within a single pool. These pools are often subjected to the adverse effects of
stormwater runoff, discing, development, utility construction, grazing, and alteration of
hydrology. Most of these issues are not expected to affect the Santa Rosa Plateau fairy
shrimp, because it is under the management of the Ecological Reserve. However, monitoring
of populations within the reserve and surveys for new populations within other areas of the
reserve should occur. Guidelines should be developed which fully regulate habitat
management practices (e.g., discing, prescribed burns, flooding) which would have an
adverse effect on known populations within the reserve. Control of exotic predators may be
necessary because the pools often are present for extended period of time. In addition,
potential developments adjacent to the Ecological Reserve should be reviewed by the County
to determine that they do not adversely affect the watershed or quality of proximal vernal pools.

ALTERNATIVE 2
Conservation of the Santa Rosa Plateau fairy shrimp under Alternative 2 is the same as for
Alternative 1.
ALTERNATIVE 3
Conservation of the Santa Rosa Plateau fairy shrimp under Alternative 3 is the same as for
Alternative 1.
C-3 Streptocephalus wootoni – Riverside fairy shrimp

State: None
Federal: Endangered
ALTERNATIVE 1
RATIONALE: The Riverside fairy shrimp may be adequately conserved under

Alternative 1.
The Riverside fairy shrimp is known from only six populations in the MSHCP planning area,
within vernal pools in grasslands which may be interspersed within coastal sage scrub or
chaparral. These areas are located on the Santa Rosa Plateau, Murrieta, Skunk Hollow,
Pechanga Indian Reservation, and two localities in Rancho California. Unfortunately, the two
Rancho California populations are thought to have been extirpated by development. This
species requires long-lived, deep, relatively warm water pools with low to moderate dissolved
solids in order for cysts to hatch, grow, and reproduce successfully. Pools do not need to fill
each year as the cysts can persist for many years and under extreme conditions. Dispersal
of the species is thought to occur by animal vectors, either by grazing animals or waterfowl.
These animals may ingest pregnant females and excrete the hardy cysts into a water body of
soil depression at a later time, or may catch cysts or pregnant females on their hooves, fur,
or feathers and drop them into pools or depressions. Mechanized equipment may also
disperse individuals and cysts. Three of the four known extant populations appear to be
mostly preserved under Alternative 1: the Skunk Hollow population is protected from
development through the implementation of the Rancho Bella Vista HCP; the Santa Rosa
Plateau population is within the Santa Rosa Ecological Reserve and is covered under
Alternative 1; and, the Murrieta location is mostly covered by Alternative 1. However, the

Pechanga population occurs within the Indian Reservation and therefore is not included in
Alternative 1.
The Riverside fairy shrimp is considered conserved under Alternative 1 because two of the
four known extant populations are already conserved through the Reserve or HCP, and the
third will be mostly conserved under Alternative 1. These three locations are discussed in
detail within the September 21, 2000 proposed critical habitat document published in the
Federal Register (USFWS 2000). Additional protection of vernal pool habitat, which is
regulated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers pursuant to the federal Clean Water Act, will
potentially provide further conservation benefits to the species. However, conservation of the
species will depend on additional conservation measures as described below.
While Alternative 1 includes adequate habitat, as proposed by the USFWS (USFWS 2000),
to conserve the Riverside fairy shrimp in the planning area, an important consideration for the
conservation of the fairy shrimp is the protection and maintenance of habitat and watersheds.
Fairy shrimp hatch, grow, and reproduce within a single pool. These pools are often subjected
to the adverse effects of stormwater runoff, discing, development, utility construction, grazing,
and alteration of hydrology. Therefore, it will be important to preserve buffers around large
vernal pool complexes within the reserve as feasible. For projects or activities within the
reserve, care should be taken to protect the hydrology, integrity, and chemical balance of the
pool complexes. Monitoring of populations should occur within the reserve. Maintenance of
watersheds and hydrology should be paramount. Methods to control water quality may require
the use of BMP’s. Guidelines should be developed which fully regulate habitat management
practices (e.g., discing, prescribed burns, flooding) which would have an adverse effect on
known vernal pool populations within the reserve. Control of exotic predators may be
necessary because suitable pools are often long-lived. Finally, surveys in the Murrieta area,
should be conducted where the proposed Critical Habitat is not covered by Alternative 1 and
discovered populations should be protected according to the reserve guidelines.
ALTERNATIVE 2
Conservation of the Riverside fairy shrimp under Alternative 2 is the same as for Alternative
1.
ALTERNATIVE 3

Conservation of the Riverside fairy shrimp under Alternative 3 is the same as for Alternative
1.
5.2.6 INVERTEBRATES/INSECTS
I-1 Euphydryas editha quino – quino checkerspot butterfly

State: None
Federal: Endangered
ALTERNATIVE 1
RATIONALE: The Quino checkerspot could be adequately conserved under

Alternative 1.
The Quino checkerspot occurs throughout the southern portion of the MSHCP planning area
roughly between the Santa Ana Mountains, Eastside Reservoir, Aqua Tibia Mountains, and
the San Jacinto Mountains. The subspecies is strongly associated with a few larval host plant
species within sparsely vegetated rounded hilltops, ridgelines, and rock outcrops in grassland,
sage scrub, chaparral, vernal pool, open woodlands and other habitats. The MSHCP
database revealed abundant and precise location data. These locations appeared to be
clustered around a few areas including the Murrieta Hot Springs area, Lake Skinner area,
Sage, Vail Lake, Tule Valley, Paloma Valley, Wilson Valley, and Temecula areas. There is
abundant information regarding the species, however, there is little information regarding the
subspecies. Since the subspecies listing by the USFWS in 1997, more studies have been
initiated on a variety of topics, but published accounts have yet to shed much light on its
biology.
The Quino checkerspot is considered conserved under Alternative 1, primarily because the
Tule Valley, Aguanga, Vail Lake, Sage, Lake Skinner, Paloma Valley, and Murrieta Hot
Springs, and Wilson Valley population clusters will be covered by Alternative 1 and
connections between the habitat blocks will be preserved. However, conservation of the
subspecies will depend on additional conservation considerations as described below.

The areas in which the Quino checkerspot is still found, are thought to be the largest
contiguous block of habitat left within the planning area. It has been hypothesized that Quino
populations which are separated by more than two miles are demographically isolated and
can no longer share genetic information (Mattoni et al. 1997). Maintenance of large blocks
and a network of linkages is thought to be vital to the population’s long-term persistence.
Under Alternative 1, the resulting reserve plan, at a minimum, should address a number of
issues including: maintenance of suitable habitat through weed control and habitat conversion
oversight or creation, maintenance of viable linkages, proper fire management, and
monitoring of population trends. Long term population studies should be paramount in
determining the health of the population, particularly during periods of drought or unusually cool
or wet years. Surveys of areas outside of the reserve should not be necessary.
ALTERNATIVE 2
Conservation of Quino checkerspot butterfly under Alternative 2 is the same as for Alternative
1.
ALTERNATIVE 3
Conservation of Quino checkerspot butterfly under Alternative 3 is the same as for Alternative
1.
I-2 Rhaphiomidas terminatus abdominalis – Delhi Sands flower-

loving fly
State: None
Federal: Endangered
ALTERNATIVE 1
RATIONALE: The Delhi Sands flower-loving fly may be conserved under Alternative 1.
The subspecies is endemic to the Riverside/San Bernardino area. The Delhi Sands flower-
loving fly it tied to fine, sandy soils, often with wholly or partly consolidated dunes, which are
referred to as the “Delhi” series. Within this soil type, it is often found in relatively intact, open,
sparse, native habitats with less than 50% vegetative cover. Known populations within the

MSHCP Planning area are restricted to the Colton Dunes (Delhi soil series), which once
covered over 40 square miles in northwestern Riverside and southwestern San Bernardino
Counties. These known extant populations are all located within 8 to 11 miles of each other
with Riverside populations located in Prado/Mira Loma, Jurupa Hills, and the Aqua Mansa
area. Little is known of the fly’s food requirements, microhabitat needs, survivorship, dispersal
requirements, and effectiveness of habitat restoration efforts as a result of difficulties
associated with its life cycle and larval sub-surface activity pattern. The MSHCP database
holds only four records, all of which are considered accurate, precise, and recent.
The Delhi Sands flower-loving fly may be considered conserved under Alternative 1 with the
preservation of habitat blocks within the Ontario (Interstate 15/Interstate 10, Mira Loma, and
Prado/Mira Loma areas) and Jurupa (Sunny Slope/Rubidoux area) Recovery Units (USFWS
1997). Conservation is considered because most of the available remaining habitat for this
subspecies occurs in San Bernardino County, portions of two of the three Recovery Areas are
included in Alternative 1, and most of the Recovery Areas not included in Alternative 1 are
almost entirely surrounded by development or are developed. However, conservation of the
species will also require additional conservation considerations.
The Ontario Recovery Area is the largest in the Planning area. While inclusion of portions of
the Ontario and Jurupa Recovery Areas into Alternative 1 will provide protection for the fly and
its habitat, some areas are not protected. These areas primarily lie within the Ontario
Recovery Area. Surveys should occur outside of reserve areas within suitable habitat
between Interstate 15, the County line, and the Santa Ana River in order to afford additional
protection within the Ontario Recovery Area. New populations within the survey area should
be protected according to the Recovery Plan in an effort to meet the recovery goals. Within
the reserve, surveys should be required and restoration activities implemented according to
the Recovery Plan. Recovery goals should be outlined and the reserve management plan
should address restoration of habitat; protection of existing habitat from discing, alteration,
exotic species invasion, development, agriculture, off-road vehicular activity, sand mining, and
trash dumping. In addition, studies should be completed to more fully understand the biology
of the species.
ALTERNATIVE 2
Conservation of the Delhi Sands flower-loving fly under Alternative 2 will generally be that
same as for Alternative 1, except that surveys, and protection of discovered populations, will

also need to occur within suitable habitat north of Interstate 60, between Pedley Road and
State Route 91. This is needed because of the exclusion of the Rubidoux area under
Alternative 2.
ALTERNATIVE 3
Conservation of the Delhi Sands flower-loving fly under Alternative 3 will be the same as for
Alternative 2 for the same reason.

5.2.7 FISH
F-1 Gila orcutti – arroyo chub

Federal: None
ALTERNATIVE 1
RATIONALE: The arroyo chub could be adequately conserved under Alternative 1.
The arroyo chub is adapted to surviving in the warm fluctuating streams of the Los Angeles
Plain. They prefer slow moving or backwater sections of warm to cool streams with substrates
of sand or mud (Moyle 1976). The arroyo chub occurs in the planning area within the Santa
Ana River from Jurupa, downstream to Prado Basin, the Santa Margarita River near
Temecula, Temecula Creek, and Temescal Wash (NDDB, Swift et al. 1993).
The arroyo chub is considered conserved under Alternative 1 because the only known
breeding area or area occupied by the species is conserved. This includes the Santa Ana
River, Santa Margarita River, Temecula Creek, and Temescal Wash. Conservation would
depend, however, on preserving and/or improving the water quality within the drainages, as
noted in the conservation considerations below.
The species is threatened by impacts to rivers and streams, channelization, sand and gravel
mining, changes in the watershed that result in erosion and debris torrents, pollution, the
establishment of introduced or nonnative fishes, and flood control activities. Their native range
is largely coincident with the Los Angeles metropolitan area where most streams are
degraded and populations reduced and fragmented (Moyle et al. 1995). Urban development
also threatens the chub in the Santa Ana River basin. In addition to physically altering the
river, this urban development has resulted in changes in water quality and quantity, as well as
the hydrologic regime of the systems (USFWS 1999).
Cattle can have a devastating effect on fish populations. Increased ammonia and nitrate
levels caused by urine and feces dropped into the water by cattle result in an increase in
oxygen consumption by nitrifying bacteria (Taylor et al. 1989). In addition, cattle tend to
congregate in riparian areas, resulting in the degradation of these important areas which

provide cover, food, shade, and water for native fish and wildlife. Improved livestock
management could help to curb these impacts.
Arroyo chub are now considered scarce within their native range, because they prefer lower
gradient streams that have largely disappeared. The majority of the arroyo chub population
occurs within areas of large human populations and consequently should be monitored
closely. Management considerations should include preservation and management of key
stream sections, as well as the elimination of introduced predatory fishes such as the green
sunfish and largemouth bass (Moyle 1976).
ALTERNATIVE 2
Similar to Alternative 1, the arroyo chub would be considered conserved under Alternative 2;
however, due to the lessened conservation of Temescal Wash, which is one of the likely
breeding locations for the species, rigorous management of Temescal Wash would be
required in order to maintain water quality.
ALTERNATIVE 3
Similar to Alternative 1, the arroyo chub would be considered conserved under Alternative 3;
however, due to the lessened conservation of Temescal Wash, which is one of the likely
breeding locations for the species, rigorous management of Temescal Wash would be
required in order to maintain water quality.
F-2 Catostomus santaanae – Santa Ana sucker

State: Species of Species Concern
Federal: Threatened (Federal Register 65: 19686-19698, April 12, 2000;
Federal Register 64:3915, January 26, 1999)
ALTERNATIVE 1
RATIONALE: The Santa Ana sucker could be adequately conserved under Alternative
1.
The Santa Ana sucker generally lives in small, shallow, permanent streams, less than 7 meters
in width, with currents ranging from swift in the canyons to sluggish in the bottom lands. They
are found in streams with permanent water ranging in depth from a few centimeters to a meter

or more (Smith 1966). Preferred substrates are generally coarse and consist of gravel, rubble,
and boulder with growths of filamentous algae (Smith 1966; Moyle 1976), but occasionally
they are found on sand/mud substrates (Moyle et al. 1995). It appears to be most abundant
where the water is cool, clean, and clear, although the species can tolerate seasonally turbid
water. The Santa Ana sucker occurs within the planning area in the Santa Ana River from
approximately Mt. Rubidoux downstream to a few miles below Imperial Highway (Swift et al.
1993). The species is now apparently absent from the upper reach of the Santa Ana River
in the San Bernardino Mountains. The Santa Ana sucker breeds in the tributary streams of
the Santa Ana River. These include Temescal Wash and San Timoteo Creek (Robert Fisher,
pers. comm.). The species does not appear to breed in the Santa Ana River itself because
it is too swift and too contaminated (Robert Fisher, pers. comm.). Santa Ana suckers are
intolerant of polluted or highly modified streams, consequently, the water quality must be
maintained to provide breeding locations for this species.
The Santa Ana sucker is considered conserved under Alternative 1 because the only known
breeding area or area occupied by the species is conserved. This includes the Santa Ana
River, San Timoteo Creek, and Temescal Wash. Conservation would depend, however, on
preserving and/or improving the water quality within the drainages, as noted in the
Urbanization, water diversions, dams, pollution, heavy recreational use, gold mining wastes,
gravel extraction, and introduced competitors and/or predators may have contributed to the
decline of this species (see USFWS 1996). Predators include centrachids (sunfishes) and
bullheads, among others. Intensive urban development of the area has resulted in water
diversions, extreme alteration of stream channels, changes in the watershed that result in
erosion and debris torrents, pollution, and the establishment of introduced or nonnative fishes.
In addition to physically altering the river, this urban development has resulted in changes in
water quality and quantity, as well as the hydrologic regime of the systems. Cattle can have
a devastating effect on fish populations. Increased ammonia and nitrate levels caused by
urine and feces dropped into the water by cattle result in an increase in oxygen consumption
by nitrifying bacteria (Taylor et al. 1989). An increase in fish mortality and morbidity was found
to be associated with these cattle-related conditions. In addition, cattle tend to congregate
in riparian areas, resulting in the degradation of these important areas which provide cover,
food, shade, and water for native fish and wildlife. Improved livestock management could help
to curb these impacts. Management considerations should include preservation and
management of key stream sections, as well as the elimination of introduced predatory fishes

such as the green sunfish and largemouth bass (Moyle 1976).
ALTERNATIVE 2
Similar to Alternative 1, the Santa Ana sucker would be considered conserved under
Alternative 2; however, due to the lessened conservation of Temescal Wash, which is one of
the breeding locations for the species, rigorous management of Temescal Wash would be
required in order to maintain water quality and the breeding location.
ALTERNATIVE 3
Similar to Alternative 1, the Santa Ana sucker would be considered conserved under
Alternative 3; however, due to the lessened conservation of Temescal Wash, which is one of
the breeding locations for the species, rigorous management of Temescal Wash would be
required in order to maintain water quality and the breeding location.
F-3 Rhinichthys osculus – Santa Ana speckled dace

Federal: Forest Service Sensitive
ALTERNATIVE 1
RATIONALE: The Santa Ana speckled dace could be adequately conserved under
Alternative 1.
Permanent streams and rivers with cool, flowing rocky-bottomed washes are the primary
habitats of the speckled dace. Shallow cobble, runs and gravel riffles are preferred (Wells and
Diana 1975). Rocks and riffles are preferred within stream habitats; and rocky or sandy
bottoms, usually less than 1 meter deep, are preferred within lakes. Although the database
does not have location records for any drainages other than the Santa Ana River, there are
documented locations in other drainages including the San Jacinto River. These water-
holding drainages would be considered part of the key population area due to the low number
of such drainages and few records for the species.

The Santa Ana speckled dace is considered conserved under Alternative 1 because the
known breeding areas or areas occupied by the species are conserved. This includes the
Santa Ana River and San Jacinto River. Conservation would depend, however, on preserving
and/or improving the water quality within the drainages, as noted in the conservation
considerations below.
Reduction in the range of suitable habitat has resulted in the decline of dace populations in
southern California. Many factors contribute to the range reduction that the dace is
experiencing, including urbanization of watersheds, quarries, water diversions, introduction
of non-native species (e.g., red shiners (Cyprinella lutrensis), droughts, and degradation of
water quality from pollutants, among other factors. Cattle can have a devastating effect on fish
populations. Increased ammonia and nitrate levels caused by urine and feces dropped into
the water by cattle result in an increase in oxygen consumption by nitrifying bacteria (Taylor
et al. 1989). An increase in fish mortality and morbidity was found to be associated with these
cattle-related conditions. In addition, cattle tend to congregate in riparian areas, resulting in
the degradation of these important areas which provide cover, food, shade, and water for
native fish and wildlife. Improved livestock management could help to curb these impacts.
Conservation measures should involve thorough surveys, rehabilitation of potential habitats,
reintroductions, and the creation of refuges to protect dace as well as other native fishes.
Management considerations should include preservation and management of key stream
sections, as well as the elimination of introduced predatory fishes such as the green sunfish
and largemouth bass (Moyle 1976).
ALTERNATIVE 2
Similar to Alternative 1, the Santa Ana speckled dace could be adequately conserved under
Alternative 2.
ALTERNATIVE 3
Similar to Alternative 1, the Santa Ana speckled dace could be adequately conserved under
Alternative 3.

5.2.8 PLANTS
P-1 Allium munzii – Munz’s onion

State: Threatened
Federal: Endangered
CNPS: List 1B (RED Code 3-3-3)
ALTERNATIVE 1
RATIONALE: Munz’s onion would be conserved under Alternative 1.
Munz’s onion occurs in coastal sage scrub, chaparral, juniper woodland and valley and foothill
grasslands in clay soils (Boyd 1986; Skinner and Pavlik 1994). This species is typically found
on mesic exposures or seasonally moist microsites, although at least one population
(Bachelor Mountain) is reported to be associated with pyroxenite outcrops instead of clay
(Roberts 1993; D. Bramlet, in litt., October 1992). Munz’s onion is endemic to southwestern
Riverside County. This species is restricted to heavy clay soils which are scattered in a band
several miles wide and extending some 40 miles southeast from Corona through Temescal
Canyon and along the Elsinore Fault Zone to the southwestern foothills of the San Jacinto
Mountains from 300 to 1,000 m (Boyd 1988; Munz 1974; McNeal 1993). Within western
Riverside County, Munz’s onion is known from 13 extant populations distributed primarily in
the western and southern areas of the western Riverside County (Roberts 1993; U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service 1998; CNDDB 2000). Munz’s onion occurs in widely-scattered populations
from Estelle Mountain and the Gavilan Plateau at Harford Springs Park, southeast through the
hills north of Lake Elsinore (North Peak), to the Paloma Valley (Briggs and Scott Roads),
Skunk Hollow, and Lake Skinner area (Bachelor Mountain). There is also a significant
population at Elsinore Mountain and other populations occur in the North Domenigoni Hills,
Alberhill and in Temescal Canyon (Boyd and Mistretta 1991; Winter 1991; CNDDB 2000).
Munz’s onion has several key populations that have been identified within the planning area.
As identified by priority based on size of the population, quality of the site, and defensibility
of the site, a workshop hosted in 1993 by the California Department of Fish and Game
identified the following sites (in order of importance) as critical populations: Elsinore Peak
in the Santa Ana Mountains, Harford Springs in the Gavilan Hills, Bachelor Mountain,
Temescal Terrace, North Peak and the North Domenigoni Hills (Orland Mistretta, Rancho
Santa Ana Botanical Garden, in litt., February 21, 1993). More than half of the populations are
on, wholly or in part, private lands. Populations that are currently on public lands, or within
preservation areas include about half the population at Harford Springs Park, Estelle
Mountain, the North Domenigoni Hills, Bachelor Mountain, about half of the Elsinore Peak

population and the North Peak population. The Elsinore Mountain population is managed, in
part, by the Cleveland National Forest. All of the known key populations described above and
the majority of the remaining known populations are included in Alternative 1. Therefore, this
species is considered conserved under Alternative 1 with additional considerations as noted
below.
Conservation of Munz’s onion would require a combination of adaptive management

measures and surveys. Conservation of the Elsinore Peak (key) population would depend on
actions taking place within the Cleveland National Forest and on private inholdings with
suitable habitat within the Cleveland National Forest.
For those populations and potential habitat within public lands in the Cleveland National
Forest, conservation would depend on actions taking place within the Cleveland National
Forest. Forests in the Pacific Southwest include the Los Padres, Angeles, San Bernardino,
and Cleveland National Forests. These forests are the subject of a Southern California
National Forest will address potential impacts to Munz’s onion, including habitat alteration,
fragmentation, destruction and degradation from urban development, as well as fire regime
alteration.
In addition, Munz’s onion may also be present within private inholdings in the MSHCP planning
area in the Cleveland National Forest. Activities within these private inholdings would need
species. The County would need to consider requiring surveys on appropriate habitat (i.e.,
coastal sage scrub, chaparral, juniper woodland and valley and foothill grasslands in clay
soils) within the private inholdings and incorporate appropriate mitigation measures in

individual projects should major new populations be discovered.
Conservation of the Bachelor Mountain population near Lake Skinner is consistent with the
mission statement of the Southwest Riverside County Multi-Species Reserve. Conservation
of the population at Harford Springs Park is consistent with the mission statement of the
Harford Springs Reserve. Conservation of the North Domenigoni Hills population at the
Eastside Reservoir is consistent with the mission statement of the Southwest Riverside
County Multi-Species Reserve.
Conservation of the Estelle Mountain population at the Lake Mathews/Estelle Mountain

Reserve is consistent with the Reserve’s mission statement and adaptive management plan.
The Reserve Management Committee is currently working to develop a recreational use plan
and corresponding management plan (Baxter, pers. comm. March 2000). If recreational uses
are proposed at the location of the Estelle Mountain population, the recreational management
plan should include additional adaptive management measures to prevent impacts to this
species.
In addition, the County would need to consider requiring surveys on appropriate habitat (i.e.,
soils) within private lands and incorporate appropriate mitigation measures in individual
projects should major new populations be discovered. Adaptive management measures
would need to address threats to this species, including urbanization, dry land farming
activities, off-road vehicle activity and clay mining (Roberts 1993; U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service 1998;CNDDB 2000). Munz’s onion is also threatened by competition with nonnative
plants.
ALTERNATIVE 2
Alternative 2 is consistent with the conservation of Munz’s onion. However, because the
habitat link along Temescal Canyon would be narrower than in Alternative 1, the County would
need to require additional surveys in this area within appropriate habitat (i.e., coastal sage
scrub, chaparral, juniper woodland and valley and foothill grasslands in clay soils) within
private lands along Temescal Canyon and incorporate appropriate mitigation measures in
individual projects should major new populations be discovered. Adaptive management
measures would need to address threats to this species in this area, including urbanization,
dry land farming activities, off-road vehicle activity and clay mining (Roberts 1993; U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service 1998;CNDDB 2000).

ALTERNATIVE 3
Conservation of Munz’s onion under Alternative 3 is the same as for Alternative 2.
P-2 Ambrosia pumila – San Diego ambrosia

State: None
Federal: Petitioned for listing as Threatened or Endangered
ALTERNATIVE 1
RATIONALE: San Diego ambrosia would be conserved under Alternative 1.
San Diego ambrosia occurs in open habitats in coarse substrates near drainages, and in
upland areas on clay slopes or on the dry margins of vernal pools. This species occurs in a
variety of associations that are dominated by sparse grasslands or marginal wetland habitats
such as river terraces, pools, and alkali playas (Munz 1974; Reiser 1996). In Riverside
County, this species is associated with open, gently-sloped grasslands and is generally
associated with alkaline soils of the Willows series (Knecht 1971). Three populations of San
Diego ambrosia have been mapped in Riverside County. One population is known from
Skunk Hollow, and a second population was mapped at Nichols Road north of Lake Elsinore
(Burrascano 1997; CNDDB 2000). The Skunk Hollow population is relatively small but the
Nichols Road population is one of the largest in the United States. A third historic (1941)
population was recorded in the City of Riverside. The current status of this population is
unknown but it is likely extirpated. The Nichols Road and Skunk Hollow populations are
considered the key populations for San Diego ambrosia in the planning area. The Skunk
Hollow population is located within a conservation bank. Because the two key populations
and most of the potential habitat (Willows soils) are included in Alternative 1, this species is
considered conserved under Alternative 1 with additional considerations as noted below.
Conservation of San Diego ambrosia would require a combination of adaptive management

measures and surveys. Adaptive management measures would need to address threats to
this species. The primary threat to San Diego ambrosia is habitat loss due to urbanization,
fragmentation, isolation and associated impacts from nonnative species competition.
Although the Skunk Hollow population occurs within a conservation bank, the Nichols Road

population is threatened by road construction and development. Moreover, San Diego
ambrosia appears to be primarily a clonal species that does not, under normal conditions,
favor sexual reproduction (Payne 1993). Management is probably required to enhance the
genetic diversity and long-term survival of the species. In addition, the County would need to
consider requiring surveys on appropriate habitat (i.e., open, gently-sloped grasslands
generally associated with alkaline soils of the Willows series) within private lands and
incorporate appropriate mitigation measures in individual projects should major new
populations be discovered.
ALTERNATIVE 2
Conservation of San Diego ambrosia under Alternative 2 is the same as for Alternative 1.
ALTERNATIVE 3
Conservation of San Diego ambrosia under Alternative 3 is the same as for Alternative 1.
P-3 Arabis johnstoni – Johnston’s rock cress

State: None
Federal: None
ALTERNATIVE 1
RATIONALE: Johnston’s rock cress would be conserved under Alternative 1.
Johnston’s rock cress occurs in chaparral and pine forest at elevations of 1,400 to 2,150
meters (Skinner and Pavlik 1994; U.S. Fish and Wildlife service 1995; U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service 1998). This species is endemic to the San Jacinto Mountains of western Riverside
County (Munz 1974; Rollins 1941; Rollins 1993). Approximately 20 populations of Johnston’s
rock cress occur in two distinct clusters: one in Garner Valley, and one along the Desert
Divide approximately four miles east of Garner Valley. The populations occur on both forest
service lands (San Bernardino National Forest) and on private lands, although most of the
potential habitat is on forest service lands. The San Bernardino National Forest lands are
included in Alternative 1. Therefore, this species is considered conserved under Alternative
1 with additional considerations as noted below. A disjunct occurrence dated 1994 has also
been mapped along Portola Road (UC Riverside Database); this occurrence should be

verified.
This species is endemic to the San Jacinto Mountains (San Bernardino National Forest) and
conservation would depend on actions taking place within the San Bernardino National Forest
and on private inholdings with suitable habitat within the San Bernardino National Forest.
The goal of this program is to develop Forest Plans which restore, recover, and maintain
species and continue to provide for various uses of the forest (California Biodiversity News
of forest activities on federally-listed threatened and endangered species. To address
Johnston’s rock cress, the Forest Plans would also need to address the effects of forest
activities on this species and associated habitats (i.e., chaparral, pine forest). In addition,
Johnston’s rock cress may also be present within private inholdings in the MSHCP planning
area in the San Bernardino National Forest. Activities within these private inholdings would
species. In addition, the County would need to consider requiring surveys on appropriate
habitat (i.e., chaparral, pine forest) within the private inholdings and incorporate appropriate
mitigation measures in individual projects should major new populations be discovered.

ALTERNATIVE 2
Conservation of Johnston’s rock cress under Alternative 2 is the same as for Alternative 1.
ALTERNATIVE 3
Conservation of Johnston’s rock cress under Alternative 3 is the same as for Alternative 1.
P-4 Arctostaphylos rainbowensis – rainbow manzanita

State: None
Federal: None
ALTERNATIVE 1
RATIONALE: Rainbow manzanita would be conserved under Alternative 1.
Rainbow manzanita is restricted to ultramafic southern mixed chaparral, principally on gabbro

soils or related soils rich in ferro-magnesian minerals (Boyd and Banks 1995). Rainbow
manzanita is limited to southwestern Riverside County, south of Pauba Valley, and
northwestern San Diego County, north of the San Luis Rey River, between 300 and 600 m
(Keeley and Massihi 1994). This species is known from the San Mateo Canyon Wilderness
Area, Gavilan Mountain, Santa Margarita Ecological Preserve, Santa Rosa Plateau (both
within and outside of the Santa Rosa Nature Preserve) and the Temecula, Wildomar,
Margarita Peak and Pechanga areas (Boyd, et al. 1995; Keeley and Massihi 1994; CNDDB
1998). Within the Agua Tibia Wilderness Area of the Cleveland National forest, only two
plants were observed in southern mixed chaparral (Boyd and Banks 1995), although Boyd and
Banks (1995) suspect that Rainbow manzanita may be more common in the chaparral of the
western and southwestern portions of the Wilderness. No key populations have been
identified for this species in the planning area. Approximately half of the known populations
and the majority of the potential habitat are included in Alternative 1, this species is

Conservation of Rainbow manzanita would require a combination of adaptive management

this species, including residential and commercial development; agricultural conversion to
avocado groves (Skinner and Pavlik 1994); alteration of natural fire regime, fire-fighting and
fire clearance activities (Boyd and Banks 1995). Infestation by boring insects is a potential
threat. In addition, the County would need to consider requiring surveys on appropriate habitat
(i.e., ultramafic southern mixed chaparral) within private lands and incorporate appropriate
Conservation of the Rainbow manzanita population and potential habitat at the Santa
Margarita Ecological Preserve is consistent with the mission statement of the Preserve.
Conservation of this species is consistent with the mission statement of the Santa Rosa
Plateau Nature Preserve.
For those populations and potential habitat within public lands in the Agua Tibia Wilderness
Area and the San Mateo Wilderness Area (Cleveland National Forest), conservation would
depend on actions taking place within the Cleveland National Forest. Forests in the Pacific
Southwest include the Los Padres, Angeles, San Bernardino, and Cleveland National Forests.
These forests are the subject of a Southern California Conservation Strategy that addresses
ecosystem processes and conservation of forest species while allowing appropriate
recreation and other activities on Forest Service lands. The goal of this program is to develop
Forest Plans which “restore, recover, and maintain species and continue to provide for various
uses of the forest” (California Biodiversity News 2000). The Forest Plans will provide
guidance for resource management and will establish goals, objectives and management
requirements. The Forest Plans will be prepared in accordance with the National Forest
Management Act and National Environmental Policy Act which require Environmental
Assessments of proposed actions and public review. An Environmental Impact Statement for
all four forests is scheduled for release for public review in January of 2002 (California
Biodiversity News 2000).
Rainbow manzanita, the Forest Plans would also need to address the effects of forest
activities on this species and associated habitats (i.e., ultramafic southern mixed chaparral).
In addition, Rainbow manzanita may also be present within private inholdings in the MSHCP
planning area in the Cleveland National Forest. Activities within these private inholdings

for this species. In addition, the County would need to consider requiring surveys on
appropriate habitat (i.e., ultramafic southern mixed chaparral) within the private inholdings and
ALTERNATIVE 2
Conservation of Rainbow manzanita under Alternative 2 is the same as for Alternative 1.
ALTERNATIVE 3
Conservation of Rainbow manzanita under Alternative 3 is the same as for Alternative 1.
P-5 Astragalus pachypus var. jaegeri – Jaeger’s milk-vetch

State: None
Federal: None
ALTERNATIVE 1
RATIONALE: Jaeger’s milk-vetch would be conserved under Alternative 1.
Jaeger’s milk-vetch is a Riverside County endemic that occurs on dry ridges and valleys on
open sandy or rocky slopes in coastal sage scrub, chaparral, valley and foothill grassland, and
cismontane woodland habitats at elevations of 365 to 915 m (CNDDB 2000; Skinner and
Pavlik 1994). Eight populations have been identified in the CNDDB (2000) from Vail Lake
near Kolb Creek, on the south side of Aguanga Valley, in the vicinity of Sage, Temecula
Canyon, in the vicinity of Castile Canyon, in a canyon west of Portrero Creek, and at the base
of Agua Tibia Mountain (CNDDB 2000). No key populations of Jaeger’s milk-vetch have
been identified within the planning area. The majority of the known occurrences are included
within Alternative 1; however, because this species has such a wide spread distribution and
widely occurring potential habitats, Jaeger’s milk-vetch can only be considered conserved
under Alternative 1 with additional considerations as noted below.

Conservation of Jaeger’s milk-vetch would require a combination of adaptive management
measures and surveys. Adaptive management would need to address threats to this species,
including urbanization, agricultural conversion, and grazing (CNDDB 2000). In addition, the
County would need to require surveys on appropriate habitat (i.e., coastal sage scrub,
chaparral, valley and foothill grassland, and cismontane woodland habitats at elevations of
365 to 915 m) within private lands. If major new populations are discovered, the County would
then need to require appropriate mitigation measures.
For populations and potential habitat within public lands in the Agua Tibia Wilderness Area
of the Cleveland National Forest, conservation would depend on actions taking place within
the Cleveland National Forest. Forests in the Pacific Southwest include the Los Padres,
Angeles, San Bernardino, and Cleveland National Forests. These forests are the subject of
a Southern California Conservation Strategy that addresses ecosystem processes and
conservation of forest species while allowing appropriate recreation and other activities on
Forest Service lands. The goal of this program is to develop Forest Plans which “restore,
recover, and maintain species and continue to provide for various uses of the forest”
(California Biodiversity News 2000). The Forest Plans will provide guidance for resource
management and will establish goals, objectives and management requirements. The Forest
Plans will be prepared in accordance with the National Forest Management Act and National
Environmental Policy Act which require Environmental Assessments of proposed actions and
public review. An Environmental Impact Statement for all four forests is scheduled for release
for public review in January of 2002 (California Biodiversity News 2000).
Jaeger’s milk-vetch, the Forest Plans would also need to address the effects of forest
activities on this species and associated habitats (i.e.,coastal sage scrub, chaparral, valley
and foothill grassland, and cismontane woodland habitats at elevations of 365 to 915 m). In
addition, Jaeger’s milk-vetch may also be present within private inholdings in the MSHCP
appropriate habitat (i.e., coastal sage scrub, chaparral, valley and foothill grassland, and
cismontane woodland habitats at elevations of 365 to 915 m) within the private inholdings and

ALTERNATIVE 2
Conservation of Jaeger’s milk-vetch under Alternative 2 is the same as for Alternative 1.
ALTERNATIVE 3
Conservation of Jaeger’s milk-vetch under Alternative 3 is the same as for Alternative 1.
P-6 Atriplex coronata var. notatior – San Jacinto Valley

crownscale
State: None
Federal: Endangered
ALTERNATIVE 1
RATIONALE: San Jacinto Valley crownscale would be conserved under Alternative 1.

San Jacinto Valley crownscale occurs primarily in floodplains (seasonal wetlands) dominated
by alkali scrub, alkali playas, vernal pools, and, to a lesser extent, alkali grasslands (Bramlet
1993; Roberts 1993). San Jacinto Valley crownscale is restricted to highly alkaline, silty-clay
soils in association with the Traver-Domino-Willows soil association; the majority
(approximately 80%) of the populations being associated with the Willows soil series (Roberts
and McMillan 1997; Bramlet 1993). San Jacinto Valley crownscale is endemic to western
Riverside County and is restricted to the San Jacinto, Perris, Menifee and Elsinore Valleys
(Munz 1974; Taylor and Wilken 1993; Roberts and McMillan 1997). In western Riverside
County, San Jacinto Valley crownscale occurs as 11 loosely-defined populations that are
primarily associated with Mystic Lake, the San Jacinto River and Salt Creek tributary
drainages (Roberts 1993; Roberts and McMillan 1997; CNDDB 2000), although one small,
isolated population has recently been discovered on Willows soils at Alberhill Creek near
Lake Elsinore (Roberts and McMillan 1997). The majority of the populations of this species
are located on privately owned lands. Three populations are on State land (San Jacinto
Wildlife Area), one population is partially on County lands (Riverside County Habitat
Conservation Agency along the San Jacinto River), and one population is on a private
preserve managed by Metropolitan Water District. The key populations of San Jacinto Valley
crownscale are located along the San Jacinto River from the vicinity of Mystic Lake southwest
to the vicinity of Perris, and in the upper Salt Creek drainage west of Hemet. The key

populations of this species and the majority of the known populations and potential habitat will
be conserved in Alternative 1. Therefore, this species is considered conserved under
Alternative 1 with additional considerations as noted below.
Conservation of San Jacinto Valley crownscale would require a combination of adaptive

management measures and surveys. Adaptive management measures would need to
address threats to this species, including habitat destruction and fragmentation from urban
and agricultural development, pipeline construction, alteration of hydrology and flood plain
dynamics, excessive flooding, channelization, off-road vehicle activity, trampling by cattle and
sheep, weed abatement, fire suppression practices (including discing and plowing), and
competition from alien plant species (Bramlet 1993; Roberts and McMillan 1997; U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service 1998). San Jacinto Valley crownscale has a patchy distribution within
suitable habitat and its spatial distribution shifts over time as conditions and seed banks
change (U.S. Fish and Wildlife service 1998). Hence, this species likely requires significantly
more habitat than is occupied during any one season to maintain population dynamics within
the watershed and the microhabitat diversity upon which this taxon depends. San Jacinto
Valley crownscale depends on specific hydrology and sporadic flooding in combination with
slow drainage in alkaline soils.
alkali scrub, alkali playas, vernal pools, and, to a lesser extent, alkali grasslands in association
with Traver-Domino-Willows soils) within private lands and incorporate appropriate mitigation
measures in individual projects should major new populations be discovered.
Conservation of the San Jacinto Valley crownscale along the San Jacinto River within State
lands at the San Jacinto Wildlife Area is consistent with the mission statement and
management plans of the California Department of Fish and Game. Conservation of this
species on County lands along the San Jacinto River within the 100-acre Riverside County
Habitat Conservation Agency parcel is possible but this land is not being managed for the
benefit of any particular species or habitat (Loew, pers. comm. March 2000). Conservation
of the one population within a Metropolitan Water District private preserve is consistent with
the management practices of the District. This private preserve contains alkali play and vernal
pools and is managed for the perpetuity of those systems (Picht, pers. comm. March 2000).
ALTERNATIVE 2

Conservation of San Jacinto Valley crownscale under Alternative 2 is the same as for
Alternative 1.
ALTERNATIVE 3
Conservation of San Jacinto Valley crownscale under Alternative 3 is the same as for
Alternative 1.
P-7 Atriplex coulteri – Coulter’s saltbush

State: None
Federal: None
ALTERNATIVE 1
RATIONALE: Coulter’s saltbush would be conserved under Alternative 1.
Coulter’s saltbush occurs along coastal bluffs in coastal bluff scrub; on coastal dunes; and on
ridge tops, clay soils and alkaline low places in coastal scrub and valley and foothill grassland
at elevations between 10 and 440 m (CNDDB 2000; Taylor and Wilken 1993). Although
potential habitat, resembling habitat in southern Orange and San Diego counties occurs in
western Riverside County, Coulter’s saltbush has not been verified anywhere within Riverside
County. One unverified locality has been reported in the vicinity of Murrieta (A. Sanders, pers.
comm. 2000). Reports from Salt Creek and Mystic Lake in the UC Riverside Database
probably represent misidentifications or errors in data recording. Because none of the
recorded localities of this species have been verified, no key populations of Coulter’s saltbush
have been identified. If Coulter’s saltbush does occur within western Riverside County, the
localities at Salt Creek and Mystic Lake would be conserved within Alternative 1; therefore,
conservation of this species is considered conserved under Alternative 1 with additional
considerations as noted below.
Conservation of Coulter’s saltbush would require a combination of adaptive management

this species, including urban development and probably feral herbivores (Skinner and Pavlik

1994). In addition, the County would need to consider requiring surveys on appropriate
habitat (i.e., on ridge tops, clay soils and alkaline low places in coastal scrub and valley and
foothill grassland at elevations between 10 and 440 m) within private lands and incorporate
appropriate mitigation measures in individual projects should major new populations be
discovered. The recorded occurrences of this species should be verified. This species is
similar in appearance to Davidson’s saltbush (Atriplex serenana var. davidsonii) and Pacific
saltbush (A. pacifica). Identification should be checked carefully (Reiser 1996).
ALTERNATIVE 2
Conservation of Coulter’s saltbush under Alternative 2 is the same as for Alternative 1.
ALTERNATIVE 3
Conservation of Coulter’s saltbush under Alternative 3 is the same as for Alternative 1.
P-8 Atriplex parishii – Parish’s brittlescale

State: None
Federal: None
ALTERNATIVE 1
RATIONALE: Parish’s brittlescale would be conserved under Alternative 1.
Currently, Parish’s brittlescale is known only from western Riverside County (CNDDB 2000),
although this species has been reported from northwestern Baja California, Mexico by
Wiggins (1980) as occurring from Tijuana south to the eastern Sierra Juarez but these reports
are unconfirmed. In western Riverside County, Parish’s brittlescale is found within the
Domino-Willows-Traver soils series in association with the alkali vernal pools, alkali annual
grassland, alkali playa, and alkali scrub components of alkali vernal plains (Munz 1974;
Bramlet 1993; Skinner and Pavlik 1994; Ogden 1996; Ferren and Fielder 1993). Salt Creek
west of Hemet and the Winchester Valley support the only known populations of this plant; the
Salt Creek population is a key population. Appropriate habitat occurs along the San Jacinto
River between Mystic Lake and Railroad Canyon (including the San Jacinto Wildlife Area),
localities along Salt Creek, isolated patches of alkaline habitat southeast of Mystic Lake,
Nichols Road and possibly the lake bed of Lake Elsinore. All known populations of this

species and the majority of the potential habitat will be conserved within Alternative 1.
Therefore, this species is considered conserved under Alternative 1 with additional
Conservation of Parish’s brittlescale would require a combination of adaptive management

measures and surveys. Until 1995, this species had not been seen since 1974 and was
considered potentially extinct. Adaptive management measures would need to address
threats to this species, including habitat destruction and fragmentation from urban and
agricultural development, pipeline construction, alteration of hydrology and flood plain
dynamics, excessive flooding, channelization, off-road vehicle activity, trampling by cattle and
sheep, weed abatement, fire suppression practices (including discing and plowing), and
competition from alien plant species (Bramlet 1993; Roberts and McMillan 1997; U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service 1998). This species has a patchy distribution within suitable habitat and
its spatial distribution shifts over time as conditions and seed banks change (U.S. Fish and
Wildlife service 1998). Hence, this species likely requires significantly more habitat than is
occupied during any one season to maintain population dynamics within the watershed and
the microhabitat diversity upon which this taxon depends.
Much of the remaining suitable habitat for his species has been impacted by discing for fuel
modification and dry land farming activities. Therefore, de facto conservation of habitat may
not be enough to assure long-term conservation and it will also be necessary to restore habitat
within these areas to allow Parish’s brittlescale to recolonize or reintroduce the species to
these areas.
alkali scrub, alkali playas, vernal pools, and alkali grasslands in association with Traver-
Domino-Willows soils) within private lands and incorporate appropriate mitigation measures
in individual projects should major new populations be discovered.

Conservation of the Parish’s brittlescale along the San Jacinto River within State lands at the
San Jacinto Wildlife Area is consistent with the mission statement and management plans of
the California Department of Fish and Game. Conservation of this species on County lands
along the San Jacinto River within the 100-acre Riverside County Habitat Conservation
Agency parcel is possible but this land is not being managed for the benefit of any particular
species or habitat (Loew, pers. comm. March 2000).
ALTERNATIVE 2
Conservation of Parish’s brittlescale under Alternative 2 is the same as for Alternative 1.
ALTERNATIVE 3
Conservation of Parish’s brittlescale under Alternative 3 is the same as for Alternative 1.
P-9 Atriplex serenana var. davidsonii – Davidson’s saltbush

State: None
Federal: None
ALTERNATIVE 1
RATIONALE: Davidson’s saltbush would be conserved under Alternative 1.
In Riverside County, Davidson’s saltbush is found in the Domino-Willows-Traver soils series

in association with the alkali vernal pools, alkali annual grassland, alkali playa, and alkali scrub
components of alkali vernal plains (Munz 1974; Bramlet 1993; Skinner and Pavlik 1994;
Ogden 1996; Ferren and Fielder 1993). Within the planning area, Davidson’s saltbush is
known to occur in the Upper Salt Creek drainage area west of Hemet and along the San
Jacinto River floodplain from Mystic Lake south to the Ramona Expressway where it occurs
in small, patchy populations (Bramlet 1993; CNDDB 2000; Ogden 1996). Currently known
key populations of Davidson’s saltbush include Salt Creek west of Hemet, the middle segment
of the San Jacinto River and the San Jacinto Wildlife Area. The Salt Creek populations
appear to represent the largest remaining concentrations of this species known to exist. The
lower segment of the San Jacinto River (Perris to Canyon Lake) and the Nichols Road
wetlands near Alberhill may also prove to be key population areas when better understood.
Suitable habitat along the San Jacinto River extends south at least to the I-215 and possibly

Perris Airport; however, these areas have not been surveyed. This species may also occur
in the vicinity of the Nichols Road wetlands at Alberhill and Murrieta Hot Springs. All known
populations of this species and the majority of the potential habitat will be conserved within
Alternative 1. Therefore, this species is considered conserved under Alternative 1 with
additional considerations as noted below.
Conservation of Davidson’s saltbush would require a combination of adaptive management

this species, including habitat destruction and fragmentation from urban and agricultural
development, pipeline construction, alteration of hydrology and flood plain dynamics,
excessive flooding, channelization, off-road vehicle activity, trampling by cattle and sheep,
weed abatement, fire suppression practices (including discing and plowing), and competition
from alien plant species (Bramlet 1993; Roberts and McMillan 1997; U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service 1998). The spatial distribution of this species shifts over time as conditions and seed
banks change (U.S. Fish and Wildlife service 1998). Hence, this species likely requires
significantly more habitat than is occupied during any one season to maintain population
dynamics within the watershed and the microhabitat diversity upon which this taxon depends.
Davidson’s saltbush depends on specific hydrology; sporadic flooding in combination with
slow drainage in alkaline soils.
Much of the remaining suitable habitat for his species has been impacted by discing for fuel
modification and dry land farming activities. Therefore, de facto conservation of habitat may
not be enough to assure long-term conservation and it will also be necessary to restore habitat
within these areas to allow Davidson’s saltbush to recolonize or reintroduce the species to
these areas.
alkali scrub, alkali playas, vernal pools, and alkali grasslands in association with Traver-
Domino-Willows soils) within private lands and incorporate appropriate mitigation measures
Conservation of the Davidson’s saltbush along the San Jacinto River within State lands at the

The identification of this form of saltbush in Riverside County is somewhat problematic and
uncertain. Local botanists were unable to place it positively when rediscovered in 1990.
Dean Taylor indicated that it was closely affiliated with or conspecific with Atriplex pacifica
in 1992. More recently, it has been determined to be A. davidsonii (A. serenana var.
davidsonii). However, it is possible that the Riverside material represents a distinct
undescribed species that would be endemic to western Riverside County. Regardless of its
taxonomic status, it is an extremely rare saltbush.
ALTERNATIVE 2
Conservation of Davidson’s saltbush under Alternative 2 is the same as for Alternative 1.
ALTERNATIVE 3
Conservation of Davidson’s saltbush under Alternative 3 is the same as for Alternative 1.
P-10 Berberis nevinii – Nevin's barberry

State: Endangered
Federal: Threatened
ALTERNATIVE 1
RATIONALE: Nevin's barberry would be conserved under Alternative 1.
Nevin’s barberry is found in coarse soils and rocky slopes in chaparral and gravelly wash
margins in alluvial scrub (Niehaus 1977; Boyd 1987). This species is endemic to
southwestern cismontane southern California. Nevin’s barberry is known in only four areas
in western Riverside County. The largest population complex is known from the vicinity of the
Vail Lake/Oak Mountain area along the north slope of the Agua Tibia Mountains (Boyd,
Arnseth and Ross 1991; Boyd and Banks 1995). The Vail Lake complex constitutes the key
population of this species and includes about 16 populations. Most of these populations are
on private lands, although a few individuals occur on Bureau of Land Management lands north

of Vail Lake and in the Agua Tibia Wilderness Area (Cleveland National Forest) southeast of
Vail Lake (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1998). One mapped occurrence in near Aguanga
is historic (dated 1927) and should be verified; one occurrence is mapped in Temecula and
should be verified; and the other disjunct location consists of a lone individual in the vicinity of
the City of Riverside (CNDDB 2000; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1998). Although the
populations and potential habitat occur on both public lands (Agua Tibia Wilderness Area,
Cleveland National Forest) and on private lands, the key population and most of the potential
habitat for this species are included within Alternative 1. Therefore, Nevin’s barberry is
Adaptive management measures would need to address threats to this species, including
urban development, competition by annual (non-native) grasses, off-road vehicle activity,
emergency flood control activities (vegetation stripping), alteration of the natural fire regime,
fire fighting and control activities (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1998). As with chaparral
species in general, fire frequency is an important factor to species persistence. Infrequent
burns with the accompanying buildup of high fuel loads in chaparral communities result in
unnaturally hot fires that may kill plants and destroy the seed banks of some species. A too
frequent occurrence of fires can burn young or resprouting shrubs before they become
reproductively mature, thus depleting or exhausting the seed bank (Zedler, Gautier and
McMaster 1983). In addition, the County would need to consider requiring surveys on
appropriate habitat (i.e., coarse soils and rocky slopes in chaparral and gravelly wash margins
in alluvial scrub) within private lands in the vicinity of Vail Lake and along the north flank of the
Agua Tibia Mountains, and incorporate appropriate mitigation measures in individual projects
should major new populations be discovered.
Area (Cleveland National Forest), conservation would depend on actions taking place within

for public review in January of 2002 (California Biodiversity News 2000). The Forest Plan for
the Cleveland National Forest will address potential impacts to the Nevin’s barberry, including
off-road vehicle activity, alteration of the natural fire regime, and fire fighting and control
activities.
In addition, Nevin’s barberry may also be present within private inholdings in the MSHCP
appropriate habitat (i.e., coarse soils and rocky slopes in chaparral and gravelly wash margins
in alluvial scrub) within the private inholdings and incorporate appropriate mitigation measures
ALTERNATIVE 2
Conservation of Nevin’s barberry under Alternative 2 is the same as for Alternative 1.
ALTERNATIVE 3
Conservation of Nevin’s barberry under Alternative 3 is the same as for Alternative 1.
P-11 Brodiaea filifolia – thread-leaved brodiaea

State: Endangered
Federal: Threatened
ALTERNATIVE 1
RATIONALE: Thread-leaved brodiaea would be conserved under Alternative 1.

Thread-leaved brodiaea is endemic to southwestern cismontane California where it occurs
on gentle hillsides, valleys, and floodplains in semi-alkaline habitats, vernal pool complexes,
mesic southern needlegrass grassland, mixed native-non-native grassland, and alkali
grassland plant communities in association with clay, loamy sand, and alkaline silty clay soils
(Swinney 1991; Bramlet 1993; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1998). Thread-leaved brodiaea
is a geophyte (originating from a corm) and as a result can only be detected in spring and
early summer when fresh foliage is above ground. The total number of individuals within a
population is difficult to estimate. The size and extent of populations of brodiaea within
suitable habitat also vary in response to the timing and amount of rainfall, as well as
temperature patterns. Typically, in any given year, only a fraction of the plants will develop to
maturity. Thread-leaved brodiaea is known to hybridize with other species of Brodiaea which
may affect identification and possibly management considerations in areas of overlap.
Twelve populations of thread-leaved brodiaea are known from western Riverside County.
These occur along the San Jacinto River in Nuevo, Perris, and the San Jacinto Wildlife Area;
the Salt Creek area; on the Santa Rosa Plateau, and the Cleveland National Forest just west
of the Santa Rosa Plateau. These populations can be approximately clustered into two
complexes: one along the San Jacinto River near Perris and Lakeview and the other on the
Santa Rosa Plateau. Key populations of thread-leaved brodiaea are located on the Santa
Rosa Plateau and along the San Jacinto River just southwest of Mystic Lake and between
Perris and Canyon Lake. The San Jacinto River population of thread-leaved brodiaea occurs
as five sub-populations, varying in size from 25 to 2,500 individuals (CNDDB 1998; Roberts
and Vanderwier 1997). The San Jacinto River floodplain supports about half of the remaining
western Riverside County populations and over 40 percent of the potential habitat for this
species in Riverside County. It is likely that all five sub-populations are relics of one large
population complex that once extended from Mystic Lake south to Railroad Canyon (Bramlet
1995; Roberts and Vanderwier 1997). About 5,200 acres of alkali habitats along the San
Jacinto River are on land managed by the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG)
within the San Jacinto Wildlife Area. Thread-leaved brodiaea is known to occupy about 22
acres between two sub-populations (Bramlet 1995). South of the San Jacinto Wildlife Area
there is about 3,800 acres of potentially suitable habitat for thread-leaved brodiaea on private
lands along the San Jacinto River floodplain and in the upper reaches of Railroad Canyon.
However, this area has also been subject to extensive agricultural activities and related
disturbances over the last century. Regardless, this area has supported higher quality alkali
grassland and more potentially suitable brodiaea habitat than the San Jacinto Wildlife area
because of more appropriate hydrological factors (i.e., less intense and more periodic
flooding). Three populations of brodiaea have been found in this area. Only one population,
with 1,500 individuals on about one acre of land (Railroad Canyon) has been observed

recently (Tierra Madre Consultants 1991; CNDDB 2000; Roberts and Vanderwier 1997). The
other populations appear to have been extirpated primarily as a result of discing and plowing
in association with dryland farming activities. Increased dry land farming activities in the
1990's have resulted in an appreciable decline in alkali annual grasslands and recovering
areas along this segment of the San Jacinto River (F. Roberts, pers. comm. 2000). There are
six populations of thread-leaved brodiaea in the vicinity of the Santa Rosa Plateau. Four of
these populations are located in the Santa Rosa Plateau Nature Preserve, forming a complex
of over 30,000 individuals (Metropolitan Water District 1991; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
1994; Roberts and Vanderwier 1997). The other two populations are small and occur on
private lands at Squaw Mountain and on Redondo Mesa. Because the majority of the known
populations and potential habitat are included within Alternative 1, thread-leaved brodiaea is
Conservation of thread-leaved brodiaea would require a combination of adaptive

address threats to this species, including alteration of hydrology and floodplain dynamics,
excessive flooding, channelization, off-road vehicle activity, trampling by livestock, weed
abatement, fire suppression practices (e.g., discing and plowing), and competition from exotic
species (Skinner and Pavlik 1994; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1998).
Surveys would need to be required by the County in all areas of potentially suitable habitat for
private, inholdings in the Cleveland National Forest and identified core/linkage areas,
particularly along the San Jacinto River. Activities within these inholdings would need to be
Should major new populations be discovered as a result of these efforts, appropriate
mitigation measures would need to be incorporated into the conditions of approval for these
projects.
Conservation of known populations of thread-leaved brodiaea along the San Jacinto River
within State lands at the San Jacinto Wildlife Area and the Lake Perris Recreation area is
consistent with the mission statement and management plans of the California Department
of Fish and Game.
For the four populations which occur within the Santa Rosa Plateau Nature Reserve,
conservation of the species is consistent with the mission statements and management plan

for the three entities which manage the Santa Rosa Plateau Nature Preserve: The Nature
Conservancy, the California Department of Fish and Game, and the Couthy of Riverside.
Relinquishment of management duties from The Nature Conservancy to the Center for Natural
Lands Management is not anticipated to change the mission statement or management
strategy for the reserve.
For the population on public lands in the Cleveland National Forest, conservation of thread-
leaved brodiaea will depend on actions taking place within the Cleveland National Forest.
National Forest will address potential impacts to thread-leaved brodiaea, including habitat
alteration, fragmentation, destruction and degradation from urban development, as well as fire
regime alteration.
For unknown populations which may occur on suitable habitat within public lands in the
Cleveland National Forest, conservation would depend on actions taking place within the
Cleveland National Forest as discussed above. For populations which may be present within
private inholdings in the MSHCP planning area in the Cleveland National Forest, activities
within these inholdings would need to be reviewed by the County for compatibility with
MSHCP goals and objectives for this species. The County would need to consider requiring
surveys in suitable habitat (as described above).
ALTERNATIVE 2
Conservation of thread-leaved brodiaea under Alternative 2 is the same as for Alternative 1.

ALTERNATIVE 3
Conservation of thread-leaved brodiaea under Alternative 3 is the same as for Alternative 1.

P-12 Brodiaea orcuttii – Orcutt’s brodiaea

State: None
Federal: None
ALTERNATIVE 1
RATIONALE: Orcutt’s brodiaea would be conserved under Alternative 1.
Orcutt’s brodiaea occurs in mesic native grasslands on clay soils and is often associated with
vernal pools complexes, meadows, streams at higher elevations (Keator 1993; Reiser 1996).
It is distributed from southwestern Riverside County south through coastal and interior San
Diego County into northwestern Baja California from sea level to 1,600 m elevation (Keator
1993; Munz 1974; Reiser 1996). The CNDDB includes six occurrences for western Riverside
County and these can be grouped into two general locations. The first is at Miller Mountain
within the San Mateo Wilderness Area (Boyd, et. al. 1992) and is a hybrid swarm with thread-
leaved brodiaea (Brodiaea filifolia). The second is a complex of five populations on Mesa
de Burro, Mesa de Colorado, and Mesa de la Punta in the Santa Rosa Plateau Nature
Reserve (CNDDB 1998). This complex represents the single key population of Orcutt’s
brodiaea in the planning area. Because both population complexes of Orcutt’s brodiaea, and
the majority of potential habitat, occur within Alternative 1, this species is considered
conserved within Alternative 1 with additional considerations as noted below.
CONSERVATION CONSIDERATIONS:
For the populations that occur in the Santa Rosa Plateau Nature Reserve, conservation is
consistent with the mission statements and management plan for the three entities which
manage the Santa Rosa Plateau Nature Preserve: The Nature Conservancy, the California
Department of Fish and Game, and the County of Riverside. Relinquishment of management
duties from The Nature Conservancy to the Center for Natural Lands Management is not
anticipated to change the mission statement or management strategy for the reserve.
Conservation of the species where it occurs in the San Mateo Wilderness area of the
Cleveland National Forest, will depend on actions taking place within the Cleveland National

Orcutt’s brodiaea, the Forest Plans would also need to address the effects of forest activities
on this species and associated habitats (i.e., vernal pools complexes, meadows, streams at
higher elevations). In addition, Orcutt’s brodiaea may also be present within private inholdings
in the MSHCP planning area in the Cleveland National Forest. Activities within these private
objectives for this species. In addition, the County would need to consider requiring surveys
on appropriate habitat (i.e., vernal pools complexes, meadows, streams at higher elevations)
within the private inholdings and incorporate appropriate mitigation measures in individual
projects should major new populations be discovered.
Conservation of Orcutt’s brodiaea would require adaptive management measures that would
need to address threats to this species, including urban development, agricultural conversion,
competition of non-native plant species, road construction and alteration of vernal pool
watershed hydrology.
ALTERNATIVE 2
Conservation of Orcutt’s brodiaea under Alternative 2 is the same as for Alternative 1.
ALTERNATIVE 3
Conservation of Orcutt’s brodiaea under Alternative 3 is the same as for Alternative 1.

P-13 Calochortus palmeri var. munzii – Munz’s mariposa lily
Federal: None
ALTERNATIVE 1
RATIONALE: Munz’s mariposa lily would be conserved under Alternative 1.
Munz’s mariposa lily occurs on seasonally-moist, fine granitic loam on exposed knolls in the
shade of lower montane coniferous forest (yellow pine woodland), and on moist, sandy clay
in chaparral and meadows at elevations between 900 and 1,640 m (CNDDB 2000; Skinner
and Pavlik 1994; Fielder and Ness 1993). Munz’s mariposa lily is endemic to the San Jacinto
Mountains of western Riverside County (Skinner and Pavlik 1994). Populations are known
from Garner Valley north of Morris Creek, along both sides of Highway 74 and off Forbes
Ranch Road; and near Mountain center along both sides of Highway 74. Two historic
populations of Munz’s mariposa lily are known from near Pipe creek (1950) and a vacant lot
at Idyllwild (1967). The populations occur on both forest service lands (San Bernardino
National Forest) and on private lands, although most of the potential habitat is on forest
service lands. The San Bernardino National Forest lands are included in Alternative 1.

which require Environmental assessments of proposed actions and public review. An
of forest activities on federally-listed threatened and endangered species. To address Munz’s
mariposa lily, the Forest Plans would also need to address the effects of forest activities on
this species and associated habitats (i.e., seasonally-moist, fine granitic loam on exposed
knolls in the shade of lower montane coniferous forest, and on moist, sandy clay in chaparral
and meadows). In addition, Munz’s mariposa lily may also be present within private inholdings
in the MSHCP planning area in the San Bernardino National Forest. Activities within these
private inholdings would need to be reviewed by the County for compatibility with MSHCP
goals and objectives for this species. In addition, the County would need to consider requiring
surveys on appropriate habitat (i.e., seasonally-moist, fine granitic loam on exposed knolls in
the shade of lower montane coniferous forest, and on moist, sandy clay in chaparral and
meadows) within the private inholdings and incorporate appropriate mitigation measures in
ALTERNATIVE 2
Conservation of Munz’s mariposa lily under Alternative 2 is the same as for Alternative 1.
ALTERNATIVE 3
Conservation of Munz’s mariposa lily under Alternative 3 is the same as for Alternative 1.

P-14 Calochortus plummerae – Plummer’s mariposa lily
Federal: None
ALTERNATIVE 1
RATIONALE: Plummer’s mariposa lily would be conserved under Alternative 1.
Plummer’s mariposa lily occurs on rocky and sandy sites, typically of alluvial or granitic
material, in coastal scrub, chaparral, cismontane woodland, lower montane coniferous forest
and valley and foothill grasslands at elevations from 90 to 1,610 m (CNDDB 2000; Skinner
and Pavlik 1994). Within western Riverside County, Plummer’s mariposa lily is currently
limited to canyons in the San Jacinto Mountains. Historic occurrences are recorded along
May Valley Road, north of Highway 74 in the San Jacinto Mountains (1958); near Banning
(1926); two miles south of Calimesa (1978); in the Badlands southwest of Beaumont (1932);
at the head of Banning Canyon along the San Gorgonio River (1915). These five historic
occurrences should be verified (CNDDB). One population is reported from the San Ana
Mountains along the border between Riverside and Orange counties (Roberts 1997; Roberts
1998). All of the currently known populations and most of the potential habitat occur on forest
service lands (San Bernardino National Forest and potentially Cleveland National Forest).
The San Bernardino National Forest and Cleveland National Forest lands are included in
Alternative 1. Therefore, this species is considered conserved under Alternative 1 with
Conservation of Plummer’s mariposa lily would require a combination of adaptive

address threats to this species, including urban development (Skinner and Pavlik 1994).
Surveys should be conducted to verify the five historic occurrences to better understand the
distribution of this species. In addition, the County would need to consider requiring surveys
on appropriate habitat (i.e., rocky and sandy sites, typically of alluvial or granitic material, in
coastal scrub, chaparral, cismontane woodland, lower montane coniferous forest and valley
and foothill grasslands) within private lands and incorporate appropriate mitigation measures

Because most of the currently known populations occur within the San Jacinto Mountains (San
Bernardino National Forest), and potentially the Santa Ana Mountains (Cleveland National
Forest), conservation would depend on actions taking place within the San Bernardino
National Forest and Cleveland National Forest and on private inholdings within suitable
habitat within the San Bernardino National Forest and Cleveland National Forest.
Plummer’s mariposa lily, the Forest Plans would also need to address the effects of forest
activities on this species and associated habitats (i.e., rocky and sandy sites, typically of
alluvial or granitic material, in coastal scrub, chaparral, cismontane woodland, lower montane
coniferous forest and valley and foothill grasslands). In addition, Plummer’s mariposa lily may
also be present within private inholdings in the MSHCP planning area in the San Bernardino
National Forest and Cleveland National Forest. Activities within these private inholdings
for this species. The County would need to consider requiring surveys on appropriate habitat
(i.e., rocky and sandy sites, typically of alluvial or granitic material, in coastal scrub, chaparral,
cismontane woodland, lower montane coniferous forest and Valley and foothill grasslands)

ALTERNATIVE 2
Conservation of Plummer’s mariposa lily under Alternative 2 is the same as for Alternative 1.
ALTERNATIVE 3
Conservation of Plummer’s mariposa lily under Alternative 3 is the same as for Alternative 1.
P-15 Calochortus weedii var. intermedius – intermediate mariposa

lily
State: None
Federal: None
ALTERNATIVE 1
RATIONALE: Intermediate mariposa lily would be conserved under Alternative 1.
Intermediate mariposa lily occurs on dry, rocky open slopes and rock outcrops in coastal
scrub and chaparral at elevations from 120 to 850 m (CNDDB 2000; Skinner and Pavlik
1994). Intermediate mariposa lily occurs in valley and foothill grasslands only after burns (F.
Roberts, pers. comm. 2000). In western Riverside County, intermediate mariposa lily is
recorded from the foothills of the Santa Ana Mountains, northwest of the Santa Rosa Plateau
(UC Riverside Database), the hills west of Crown Valley and south of the Eastside Reservoir,
Sierra Peak in the Santa Ana Mountains (Cleveland National Forest) and west of Vail Lake
between Temecula Creek and Kolb Creek. The Sierra Peak population is located along the
border between Orange County and Riverside County and may not lie within the boundaries
of the planning are (CNDDB 2000). No key populations have been identified at this time.
Because this species has such a wide spread distribution and widely occurring potential
habitats, intermediate mariposa lily can only be considered conserved under Alternative 1 with
Conservation of intermediate mariposa lily would require a combination of adaptive

address threats to this species, including fire-suppression activities, urbanization and road

construction (Skinner and Pavlik 1994). In addition, the County would need to consider
requiring surveys on appropriate habitat (i.e., dry, rocky open slopes and rock outcrops in
coastal scrub and chaparral) within private lands and incorporate appropriate mitigation
Because a number of known populations and potential habitat occur within the Santa Ana
Mountains (Cleveland National Forest), conservation would depend on actions taking place
within the Cleveland National Forest and on private inholdings within suitable habitat within the
Cleveland National Forest.
intermediate mariposa lily, the Forest Plans would also need to address the effects of forest
activities on this species and associated habitats (i.e., dry, rocky open slopes and rock
outcrops in coastal scrub and chaparral). In addition, intermediate mariposa lily may also be
present within private inholdings in the MSHCP planning area in the Cleveland National
compatibility with MSHCP goals and objectives for this species. The County would need to
consider requiring surveys on appropriate habitat (i.e., dry, rocky open slopes and rock
outcrops in coastal scrub and chaparral) within the private inholdings and incorporate
discovered.

ALTERNATIVE 2
Conservation of intermediate mariposa lily under Alternative 2 is the same as for Alternative
1.
ALTERNATIVE 3
Conservation of intermediate mariposa lily under Alternative 3 is the same as for Alternative
1.
P-16 Caulanthus simulans – Payson’s jewelflower

State: None
Federal: None
CNPS: List 4 (RED Code 1-2-3)
ALTERNATIVE 1
RATIONALE: Payson’s jewelflower would be conserved under Alternative 1.
Payson’s jewelflower occurs in pinyon-juniper woodland, chaparral and coastal sage scrub,
typically on north-facing slopes and ridgelines on sandy-granitic soils (Munz 1974; Buck 1993;
Ogden 1993; Reiser 1994). The range of Payson’s jewelflower extends from the Santa Rosa
Mountains through central Riverside County to interior San Diego County, primarily along the
desert edge, 400 to 2,200 m (Munz 1974; Buck 1993). Within western Riverside County, this
species is known to occur in Anza Valley, Sage, Aguanga, Billy Goat Mountain, Santa Rosa
Indian Reservation, Lake Elsinore, March Air Reserve Base, Black Hills, French Valley, San
Jacinto Mountains, Santa Rosa Plateau, Lakeview Mountains, Perris, Reche Canyon, Portola
Road, Santa Ana Mountains, Lake Elsinore, Meadowbrook, Sedco Hills, Wildomar,
Beaumont, Banning, Moreno Valley, Woodcrest (UC Riverside Database) and the North Hills
of the Domenigoni Valley (Ogden 1993). No key populations have been identified within the
planning area. A number of the currently known populations are included within Alternative 1.
Because this species has such a wide spread distribution and a variety of potential habitats,
Payson’s jewelflower can only be considered conserved under Alternative 1 with additional

Conservation of Payson’s jewelflower would require a combination of adaptive management

this species, including grazing, urbanization and road construction (Skinner and Pavlik 1994).
pinyon-juniper woodland, chaparral and coastal sage scrub, typically on northfacing slopes
and ridgelines on sandy-granitic soils) within private lands and incorporate appropriate
Because a number of known populations and potential habitat occur within the San Jacinto
Mountains (San Bernardino National Forest), and potentially the Santa Ana Mountains
(Cleveland National Forest), conservation would depend on actions taking place within the
San Bernardino National Forest and Cleveland National Forest and on private inholdings
within suitable habitat within the San Bernardino National Forest and Cleveland National
Forest.
Payson’s jewelflower, the Forest Plans would also need to address the effects of forest
activities on this species and associated habitats (i.e., pinyon-juniper woodland, chaparral
and coastal sage scrub, typically on north-facing slopes and ridgelines on sandy-granitic
soils). In addition, Payson’s jewelflower may also be present within private inholdings in the
MSHCP planning area in the San Bernardino National Forest and Cleveland National Forest.

consider requiring surveys on appropriate habitat (i.e., pinyon-juniper woodland, chaparral and
coastal sage scrub, typically on north-facing slopes and ridgelines on sandy-granitic soils)
ALTERNATIVE 2
Conservation of Payson’s jewelflower under Alternative 2 is the same as for Alternative 1.
ALTERNATIVE 3
Alternative 3 is consistent with the conservation of Payson’s jewelflower. However, because

the Lakeview Mountains are not included in Alternative 3, the County would need to require
additional surveys in the Lakeview Mountains area within appropriate habitat (i.e., pinyon-
juniper woodland, chaparral and coastal sage scrub, typically on northfacing slopes and
ridgelines on sandy-granitic soils) within private lands and incorporate appropriate mitigation
P-17 Ceanothus ophiochilus – Vail Lake ceanothus

State: Endangered
Federal: Threatened
ALTERNATIVE 1
RATIONALE: Vail Lake ceanothus would be conserved under Alternative 1.
Vail Lake ceanothus occurs in dry habitats along ridge tops and north- to northeast-facing
slopes in chamise chaparral (Boyd, et al. 1991). This species is restricted to shallow soils
originating from ultra-basic parent rock and deeply weathered gabbro, which are both
phosphorous-deficient (Boyd, et al. 1991; Bauder 1998). Vail Lake ceanothus is endemic to
southwestern Riverside County, specifically Vail Lake and the Agua Tibia Wilderness of the
Cleveland national Forest (Boyd, et al. 1991; Schmidt 1993; US. Fish and Wildlife Service
1998). This species is restricted to three populations in the hills immediately west of Vail
Lake and on the north slope in the Agua Tibia Wilderness on lower, north-facing slopes of the
Agua Tibia Mountains (Boyd, et al. 1991; CNDDB 1998; US. Fish and Wildlife Service 1998).

About half of the individuals are within one population on private land (Vail Lake and the other
half are dispersed over two populations within the Agua Tibia Wilderness Area (U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service 1998). The majority of the populations are on private lands, although a portion
of the Bautista Creek population is within the San Bernardino National Forest and about one
quarter of the Vail Lake population is within the Cleveland National Forest (Boyd and Banks
1995). Although the populations and potential habitat occur on both public lands (Agua Tibia
Wilderness Area, Cleveland National Forest) and on private lands, all known populations and
potential habitat are included within Alternative 1. Therefore, this species is considered
conserved under Alternative 1 with additional considerations as noted below.
habitat alteration, fragmentation, destruction and degradation from urban development, as well
as fire regime alteration. The Vail Lake population is within an area that has been proposed
for development several times in recent years (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1998).
Development is expected to increase the frequency of wildfires which is a threat to this fire-
dependent species. A high frequency fire regime would first eliminate older plants and then
eliminate younger plants before they reach reproductive maturity, thus depleting the seed bank
and disrupting or germinating seedling establishment (Boyd, et al. 1991; California
Department of Fish and Game 1993; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1998). In addition, the
County would need to consider requiring surveys on appropriate habitat (i.e., in dry habitats
along ridgetops and north- to northeast-facing slopes in chamise chaparral) within private
lands in the vicinity of Vail Lake and along the north flank of the Agua Tibia Mountains, and
Area (Cleveland National Forest), conservation would depend on actions taking place within
Forest Service lands. The goal of this program is to develop Forest Plans which “estore,
recover, and maintain species and continue to provide for various uses of the
forest”(California Biodiversity News 2000). The Forest Plans will provide guidance for
resource management and will establish goals, objectives and management requirements.
The Forest Plans will be prepared in accordance with the National Forest Management Act

and National Environmental Policy Act which require Environmental assessments of proposed
actions and public review. An Environmental Impact Statement for all four forests is scheduled
for release for public review in January of 2002 (California Biodiversity News 2000). The
Forest Plan for the Cleveland National Forest will address potential impacts to the Vail Lake
ceanothus, including habitat alteration, fragmentation, destruction and degradation from urban
development, as well as fire regime alteration.
In addition, Vail Lake ceanothus may also be present within private inholdings in the MSHCP
appropriate habitat (i.e., dry habitats along ridge tops and north- to northeast-facing slopes
in chamise chaparral) within the private inholdings and incorporate appropriate mitigation
ALTERNATIVE 2
Conservation of Vail Lake ceanothus under Alternative 2 is the same as for Alternative 1.
ALTERNATIVE 3
Conservation of Vail Lake ceanothus under Alternative 3 is the same as for Alternative 1.
P-18 Chorizanthe leptotheca – Peninsular spineflower

State: None
Federal: None
ALTERNATIVE 1
RATIONALE: Peninsular spineflower would be conserved under Alternative 1.

Peninsular spineflower is found in open habitats, typically on granitic-derived or alluvial
surfaces. At higher elevations, this species appears to be associated with chaparral, sage
scrub and coniferous forest openings and at lower elevations it is typically associated with old
formation alluvial benches (Reveal and Hardham 1995). This species occurs in sandy and
gravelly places in the mountains at elevations of 300 to 1,900 m (Reveal and Hardham 1989;
Hickman 1993). In western Riverside County, Peninsular spineflower occurs in Temescal
Canyon; Aguanga Valley (Temecula River Valley); Garner Valley and Hemet Lake (San
Bernardino National Forest); Gavilan Plateau; and Hemet (UC Riverside Database); Agua
Tibia Wilderness Area (Cleveland National Forest); Kolb Creek at Highway 79 (Boyd and
Banks 1995); Vail Lake; Good Hope; Valle Vista and Cahuilla (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
unpublished data). No key populations of this species have been identified. The majority of
the occurrences are included within Alternative 1; however, because this species has such a
wide spread distribution and widely occurring potential habitats, peninsular spineflower can
only be considered conserved under Alternative 1 with additional considerations as noted
below.
Conservation of peninsular spineflower would require a combination of adaptive management

this species, including habitat loss and competitive exclusion with exotic annual grasses
(Skinner and Pavlik 1994). In addition, the County would need to consider requiring surveys
on appropriate habitat (i.e., chaparral, sage scrub and coniferous forest openings at higher
elevations and formation alluvial benches at lower elevations) within private lands and
Because a number of known populations and potential habitat occur within the San
Bernardino National Forest and the Agua Tibia Wilderness Area (Cleveland National Forest),
conservation would depend on actions taking place within the Cleveland National Forest and
San Bernardino National Forest and on private inholdings within suitable habitat within the
Cleveland National Forest and the San Bernardino National Forest.

peninsular spineflower, the Forest Plans would also need to address the effects of forest
activities on this species and associated habitats (i.e., chaparral, sage scrub and coniferous
forest openings at higher elevations and formation alluvial benches at lower elevations). In
addition, intermediate mariposa lily may also be present within private inholdings in the
MSHCP planning area in the Cleveland National Forest and the San Bernardino National
consider requiring surveys on appropriate habitat (i.e., chaparral, sage scrub and coniferous
forest openings at higher elevations and formation alluvial benches at lower elevations) within
the private inholdings and incorporate appropriate mitigation measures in individual projects
ALTERNATIVE 2
Conservation of peninsular spineflower under Alternative 2 is the same as for Alternative 1.
ALTERNATIVE 3
Conservation of peninsular spineflower under Alternative 3 is the same as for Alternative 1.

P-19 Chorizanthe parryi var. parryi – Parry’s spineflower
State: None
Federal: None
CNPS: List 3 (RED Code ?-2-3)
ALTERNATIVE 1
RATIONALE: Parry’s spineflower would be conserved under Alternative 1.
Parry’s spineflower occurs within the alluvial chaparral and scrub of the San Gabriel, San
Bernardino and San Jacinto Mountains, at elevations of 100 to 1,300 m (Reveal and Hardham
1989). This species is known from about 20 occurrences in Riverside County: Aguanga,
Anza Valley, Harford Springs Park, Cactus Valley, Gavilan Peak, Rawson Canyon, Lakeview
Mountains, Box Springs Mountain, Reche Canyon Summit, Gilman Hot Springs Road,
Banning, Crown Valley, Estelle Mountain, Murrieta Hot Springs, Potrero Valley, Vail Lake,
Valle Vista, Double Butte Park, Eastside Reservoir, Wilson Valley, Hogback Hills and Lake
Mathews Reserve (UCR Database; CNDDB 2000). No key populations of this species have
been identified. The majority of the known occurrences are included within Alternative 1;
however, because this species has such a wide spread distribution and widely occurring
potential habitats, peninsular spineflower can only be considered conserved under Alternative
1 with additional considerations as noted below.
Conservation of Parry’s spineflower would require a combination of adaptive management

this species, including habitat loss as a result of urbanization (Reveal and Hardham (1989;
Skinner and Pavlik 1994), mining, and flood control practices (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
unpublished data). In addition, the County would need to consider requiring surveys on
appropriate habitat (i.e., alluvial chaparral and scrub at elevations of 100 to 1,300 m) within
private lands and incorporate appropriate mitigation measures in individual projects should
major new populations be discovered.
Conservation of the population at Harford Springs Park is consistent with the mission
statement of the Harford Springs Reserve. Conservation of the Eastside Reservoir population
at the Eastside Reservoir is consistent with the mission statement of the Southwest Riverside
County Multi-Species Reserve. Conservation of the Estelle Mountain and Lake Mathews

populations at the Lake Mathews/Estelle Mountain Reserve is consistent with the Reserve’s
mission statement and adaptive management plan. The Reserve Management Committee
is currently working to develop a recreational use plan and corresponding management plan
(Baxter, pers. comm. March 2000). If recreational uses are proposed at the location of the
Estelle Mountain population, the recreational management plan should include additional
adaptive management measures to prevent impacts to this species.
ALTERNATIVE 2
Conservation of Parry’s spineflower under Alternative 2 is the same as for Alternative 1.
ALTERNATIVE 3
Alternative 3 is consistent with the conservation of Parry’s spineflower. However, because the
Lakeview Mountains are not included in Alternative 3, the County would need to require
additional surveys in the Lakeview Mountains area within appropriate habitat (i.e., alluvial
chaparral and scrub at elevations of 100 to 1,300 m) within private lands and incorporate
discovered.
P-20 Chorizanthe polygonoides var. longispina – long-spined

spineflower
State: None
Federal: None
ALTERNATIVE 1
RATIONALE: Long-spined spineflower would be conserved under Alternative 1.
Long-spined spineflower is associated primarily with heavy, often rocky, clay soils in southern
needlegrass grassland, and openings in coastal sage scrub and chaparral (Skinner and
Pavlik 1994; Reiser 1996; CNDDB 2000). Reveal and Hardham (1989) describe this
species as occurring on sand and gravelly soil but this appears to be infrequently the case.
The majority of populations are clearly associated with clay soils (F. Roberts, pers. comm.,
March 2000). Long-spined spineflower is found primarily within the western and southwestern
portions of the planning area, often in association with clay soils. Long-spined spineflower is

found in the Gavilan Hills, the Temescal Canyon area, Lake Mathews-Estelle Mountain
Reserve, Harford Springs Park and the Motte Rimrock Preserve (Reveal and Hardham 1989;
CNDDB 2000). In the Santa Ana Mountains, long-spined spineflower occurs within the San
Mateo Wilderness, Elsinore Peak and on the Redondo and Mesa de Burro areas of the Santa
Rosa Plateau (Lathrop and Thorne 1985; CNDDB 2000). Populations are also found in clay
soils at Skunk Hollow and the Paloma Valley (Briggs and Scott Road), Bachelor Mountain
(near Lake Skinner) and along the north slopes of the Palomar Mountains (Dripping Springs
Campground, Dorland Mountain, Woodchuck Road, Oak Mountain, and Arroyo Seco) (Boyd
and Banks 1995; CNDDB 2000). Ten occurrences are reported from El Sobrante Road,
Cajalco Road and the eastern and southern shores of Lake Mathews (CNDDB 2000). These
occurrences appear to represent a single extended population complex. Other scattered
populations are recorded from Garner Valley (San Bernardino National Forest) and southern
Alberhill (Reiser 1996; CNDDB 2000), and Sedco Hills and Riverside (UC Riverside
Database; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, unpublished data). The majority (89 percent) of a
population east of Winchester Road will be conserved by the Multiple Species Subarea
Habitat Conservation Plan (SHCP) that has been developed by the County of Riverside,
Rancho California Water District, the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California,
Murrieta Valley Unified School District, and nine individual property owners, in coordination
with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and California Department of Fish and Game. Key
populations include the two largest populations at Dorland Mountain and Woodchuck Road
near Agua Tibia Mountain. The population complex at Lake Mathews, although considerably
smaller in the number of individuals, indicates the presence of important habitat. The majority
of the known occurrences are included within Alternative 1; however, because this species
has such a wide spread distribution and widely occurring potential habitats, long-spined
spineflower can only be considered conserved under Alternative 1 with additional
Conservation of long-spined spineflower would require a combination of adaptive

address threats to this species, including habitat loss as a result of urban development and
competition with non-native grasses (Reiser 1996; Skinner and Pavlik 1994). In addition, the
County would need to consider requiring surveys on appropriate habitat (i.e., heavy, often
rocky, clay soils in southern needlegrass grassland, and openings in coastal sage scrub and
chaparral) within private lands and incorporate appropriate mitigation measures in individual

Because a number of known populations and potential habitat occur within the Cleveland
National Forest and the Agua Tibia Wilderness Area (Cleveland National Forest),
on private inholdings within suitable habitat within the Cleveland National Forest.
of forest activities on federally-listed threatened and endangered species. To address long-
spined spineflower, the Forest Plans would also need to address the effects of forest activities
on this species and associated habitats (i.e., heavy, often rocky, clay soils in southern
needlegrass grassland, and openings in coastal sage scrub and chaparral). In addition, long-
spined spineflower may also be present within private inholdings in the MSHCP planning area
in the Cleveland National Forest. Activities within these private inholdings would need to be
The County would need to consider requiring surveys on appropriate habitat (heavy, often
rocky, clay soils in southern needlegrass grassland, and openings in coastal sage scrub and
chaparral) within the private inholdings and incorporate appropriate mitigation measures in
Conservation of the population at the Motte Rimrock Preserve is consistent with the mission
statement of the Preserve. Conservation of the Bachelor Mountain population near Lake
Skinner is consistent with the mission statement of the Southwest Riverside County Multi-
Species Reserve. Conservation of the population at Harford Springs Park is consistent with
the mission statement of the Harford Springs Reserve. Conservation of the species at the
Santa Rosa Plateau Nature Preserve is consistent with the Preserve’s mission statement.

Conservation of the Estelle Mountain and Lake Mathews populations at the Lake
Mathews/Estelle Mountain Reserve is consistent with the Reserve’s mission statement and
adaptive management plan. The Reserve Management Committee is currently working to
develop a recreational use plan and corresponding management plan (Baxter, pers. comm.
March 2000). If recreational uses are proposed at the location of the Estelle Mountain
population, the recreational management plan should include additional adaptive
management measures to prevent impacts to this species.
ALTERNATIVE 2
Conservation of long-spined spineflower under Alternative 2 is the same as for Alternative 1.
ALTERNATIVE 3
Conservation of long-spined spineflower under Alternative 3 is the same as for Alternative 1.
P-21 Chorizanthe procumbens – prostrate spineflower

State: None
Federal: None
ALTERNATIVE 1
RATIONALE: Prostrate spineflower would be conserved under Alternative 1.
Prostrate spineflower is found in sandy soil, often in association with sandy barrens and sandy
openings in chamise chaparral, coastal sage scrub, and occasionally grasslands below 800
m (Munz 1973; Reiser 1994; Boyd and Banks 1995). This species is also known to tolerate
minimal soil disturbance and frequently is found along the margins of dirt roads or brushed
chaparral (Reiser 1996). The distribution of prostrate spineflower in western Riverside County
is spotty and poorly understood. It is known from five to ten locations within the planning area.
Most populations are concentrated in the Santa Ana Mountains or along the north slope of the
Palomar Mountains (Reveal and Hardham 1989; Boyd, et al. 1992; Boyd and Banks 1995).
One location has been reported from the vicinity of Winchester (Reiser 1996). Other
populations have been reported from Moreno Valley, the Sedco Hills and the vicinity of Anza
(UC Riverside Database). These last records appear to be outside the known range of this

species and should be verified. Large populations of prostrate spineflower occur in the
Dorland Mountain area at the northwest corner of the Agua Tibia Wilderness Area. Here it is
associated with heavy soils derived from weathered gabbro. The Dorland Mountain
population complex is considered the only key population within the planning area at this time.
The majority of the known populations, including the key population, occur within the Cleveland
National Forest and the Cleveland National Forest is included within Alternative 1. Prostrate
spineflower is therefore considered conserved under Alternative 1 with additional
Conservation of long-spined spineflower would require a combination of adaptive

address threats to this species, including habitat loss as a result of urban development and
competition with non-native grasses (Skinner and Pavlik 1994). In addition, the County would
need to consider requiring surveys on appropriate habitat (i.e., sandy soil, often in association
with sandy barrens and sandy openings in chamise chaparral, coastal sage scrub, and
occasionally grasslands below 800 m) within private lands and incorporate appropriate
Because a number of known populations and potential habitat occur within the Cleveland
National Forest and the Agua Tibia Wilderness Area (Cleveland National Forest),
on private inholdings within suitable habitat within the Cleveland National Forest.

prostrate spineflower, the Forest Plans would also need to address the effects of forest
activities on this species and associated habitats (i.e., sandy soil, often in association with
sandy barrens and sandy openings in chamise chaparral, coastal sage scrub, and
occasionally grasslands below 800 m). In addition, prostrate spineflower may also be present
consider requiring surveys on appropriate habitat (i.e., sandy soil, often in association with
sandy barrens and sandy openings in chamise chaparral, coastal sage scrub, and
occasionally grasslands below 800 m) within the private inholdings and incorporate
discovered.
ALTERNATIVE 2
Conservation of prostrate spineflower under Alternative 2 is the same as for Alternative 1.
ALTERNATIVE 3
Conservation of prostrate spineflower under Alternative 3 is the same as for Alternative 1.

P-22 Convolvulus simulans – small-flowered morning-glory
State: None
Federal: None
ALTERNATIVE 1
RATIONALE: Small-flowered morning-glory would be conserved under Alternative 1.
Small-flowered morning-glory is restricted to clay soils and serpentine seeps and ridges,
occurring below elevations of 700 m in southern valley needlegrass grassland, mixed native
and non-native grasslands and open Riversidian sage scrub (Munz 1974; Dempster 1993;
Skinner and Pavlik 1994). Twelve occurrences of small-flowered morning-glory have been
recorded in the following areas: Vail Lake, Temescal Canyon (Glen Ivy, Alberhill), Lake
Skinner Preserve, Paloma Valley, Little Valley and Murrieta (hill west of Skunk Hollow) (UC
Riverside Database). Six of those occurrences are in the vicinity of Vail Lake and two map
points lie along Temescal Canyon; the remaining data points occur singly. The majority of the
known populations and much of the potential habitat of this species are included within
Alternative 1; therefore, small-flowered morning-glory is considered conserved under
Conservation of small-flowered morning-glory would require surveys of appropriate habitat

(i.e., clay soils and serpentine seeps and ridges, occurring below elevations of 700 m in
southern valley needlegrass grassland, mixed native and non-native grasslands and open
Riversidian sage scrub) within private lands and incorporate appropriate mitigation measures
in individual projects should major new populations be discovered. Conservation of the Lake
Skinner population is consistent with the mission statement of the Lake Skinner Recreation
Area..
ALTERNATIVE 2
Alternative 2 is consistent with the conservation of small-flowered morning-glory. However,

because the habitat link along Temescal Canyon would be narrower than in Alternative 1, the
County would need to require additional surveys in this area within appropriate habitat (i.e.,

clay soils and serpentine seeps and ridges, occurring below elevations of 700 m in southern
valley needlegrass grassland, mixed native and non-native grasslands and open Riversidian
sage scrub) within private lands along Temescal Canyon and incorporate appropriate
ALTERNATIVE 3
Conservation of small-flowered morning-glory under Alternative 3 is the same as for

Alternative 2.
P-24 Dodecahema leptoceras – slender-horned spineflower

State: Endangered
Federal: Endangered
ALTERNATIVE 1
RATIONALE: Slender-horned spineflower would be conserved under Alternative 1.
Slender-horned spineflower is typically found in sandy soil in association with mature alluvial
scrub (Reveal and Hardham 1989; Rey-Vizgardes 1994). In the Vail Lake area this species
is also associated with gravel soils in association with open chamise chaparral (Boyd and
Banks 1995; Gordon-Reedy 1997). The ideal habitat appears to be a terrace or bench that
receives overbank deposits every 50 to 100 years (Prigge, et al. 1993). Cryptogamic crusts
are frequently resent in areas occupied by slender-horned spineflower (Boyd and Banks 1995;
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1996). Slender-horned spineflower is endemic to southwestern
cismontane California. Within western Riverside County, only four areas are known to support
this species. The key population of slender-horned spineflower occurs as a population
complex of five or six separate groups that occur in association with washes associated with
Arroyo Seco and Kolb Creek along the north flank of the Agua Tibia Mountains and at Vail
Lake (Rey-Vizgardes 1994; Gordon-Reedy 1997; CNDDB 2000). This population complex
is primarily located north of Highway 79 and is estimated to include over 10,000 individuals,
representing the largest population of this species known (Boyd and Banks 1995). A small
population is reported in Temescal Wash at Indian Creek (Prigge, et al. 1993). Two small
populations are known from the upper San Jacinto River near Valle Vista and Hemet (Prigge,
et al. 1993; CNDDB 2000): only the Valle Vista population remains extant although suitable

habitat remains near Hemet. Two small populations are found in central Bautista Creek
(Prigge, et al. 1993; CNDDB 2000). The majority of the populations are on private lands,
although a portion of the Bautista Creek population is within the San Bernardino National
Forest and about one quarter of the Vail Lake population is within the Cleveland National
Forest (Boyd and Banks 1995). Although the majority of the known occurrences are on private
lands, the known occurrences and potential habitat occur almost exclusively within Alternative
1. Therefore, this species is considered conserved under Alternative 1 with additional
Given the reliance of this species on flood plain dynamics, conservation of slender-horned
spineflower would require a combination of adaptive management and surveys. Adaptive
management measures would need to address threats to this species, including flood plain
modification for flood control purposes and development; flood control management (clearing
for channel maintenance and construction of flood control structures); off-road vehicle activity;
sand and gravel mining; loss of habitat and competition with aggressive nonnative plant
species (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1986; Prigge, et al. 1993). In addition, the County
would need to consider requiring surveys on appropriate habitat (i.e., mature alluvial scrub on
sandy soils or open chamise chaparral on gravelly soils) within private lands in the vicinity of
Vail Lake; along Bautista Creek; along the upper San Jacinto River near Valle Vista and
Hemet; and along the north flank of the Agua Tibia Mountains; and incorporate appropriate
For those populations and potential habitat within public lands in the San Bernardino National
Forest and the Agua Tibia Wilderness Area (Cleveland National Forest), conservation would
depend on actions taking place within the San Bernardino National Forest and the Cleveland
National Forest. Forests in the Pacific Southwest include the Los Padres, Angeles, San
Bernardino, and Cleveland National Forests. These forests are the subject of a Southern
California Conservation Strategy that addresses ecosystem processes and conservation of
forest species while allowing appropriate recreation and other activities on Forest Service
lands. The goal of this program is to develop Forest Plans which “restore, recover, and
maintain species and continue to provide for various uses of the forest” (California
Biodiversity News 2000). The Forest Plans will provide guidance for resource management
and will establish goals, objectives and management requirements. The Forest Plans will be
prepared in accordance with the National Forest Management Act and National
Environmental Policy Act which require Environmental assessments of proposed actions and

the Cleveland National Forest and San Bernardino National Forest will address potential
impacts to the slender-horned spineflower, including habitat alteration, fragmentation,
destruction and degradation from urban development, as well as fire regime alteration.
In addition, slender-horned spineflower may also be present within private inholdings in the
MSHCP planning area in the Cleveland National Forest and San Bernardino National Forest.
compatibility with MSHCP goals and objectives for this species. In addition, the County would
need to consider requiring surveys on appropriate habitat (i.e., mature alluvial scrub on sandy
soils or open chamise chaparral on gravelly soils) within the private inholdings and incorporate
discovered.
ALTERNATIVE 2
Conservation of slender-horned spineflower under Alternative 2 is the same as for Alternative

1.
ALTERNATIVE 3
Conservation of slender-horned spineflower under Alternative 3 is the same as for Alternative

1.
P-25 Dudleya multicaulis – many-stemmed dudleya

State: None
Federal: None
ALTERNATIVE 1
RATIONALE: Many-stemmed dudleya would be conserved under Alternative 1.

Many-stemmed dudleya occurs is often associated with clay soils in barrens, rocky places,
or thinly vegetated openings in chaparral, coastal sage scrub, and southern needlegrass
grasslands (Munz 1974; CNDDB 2000). Many-stemmed dudleya is endemic to southwestern
California from western Los Angeles County south through extreme southwestern San

Bernardino, Orange, and western Riverside Counties south to extreme northern San Diego
County. It ranges from near sea level to about 600m (1,970 ft) in elevation (Bartel 1993), with
the majority of populations are associated with coastal sage scrub or open coastal sage scrub
(Dodero 1997). In Riverside County, many-stemmed dudleya has been associated with
Palmer’s grappling-hook, Munz’s onion, chocolate lily, purple needlegrass, foothill
needlegrass, and California juniper (CNDDB 2000). About 10 populations of many-stemmed
dudleya have been reported in western Riverside County from the vicinity of Santa Ana
Canyon, the Temescal Valley, Estelle Mountain and Lake Mathews, Alberhill near Lake
Elsinore, Oak Flats in the San Mateo Wilderness, and at Vail Lake. Most individuals are
associated with a complex of six populations within the Temescal Valley and Gavilan Hills.
This complex is poorly delineated and almost certainly exceeds 10,000 individuals (CNDDB
2000; Roberts 1999). The population at Vail Lake is very small (fewer than 20 individuals
reported in 1993) (Sweetwater Environmental Biologists 1993) and represents a widely
disjunct population (Roberts 1999). Because the majority of known populations of many-
stemmed dudleya and the majority of potential habitat are included within Alternative 1, this
below.
Conservation of many-stemmed dudleya would require a combination of adaptive

address threats to this species, including urban and transportation development, landfill
expansion (Roberts 1999), and competition from non-native species (Dodero 1997). In
addition, the County would need to consider requiring surveys on appropriate habitat (i.e.,
soils) within private lands and incorporate appropriate mitigation measures in individual
For the one population on that occurs on public lands in the San Mateo Wilderness of the
Cleveland National Forest, conservation of many-stemmed dudleya will depend on actions
taking place within the Cleveland National Forest. Forests in the Pacific Southwest include
the Los Padres, Angeles, San Bernardino, and Cleveland National Forests. These forests
are the subject of a Southern California Conservation Strategy that addresses ecosystem
processes and conservation of forest species while allowing appropriate recreation and other
activities on Forest Service lands. The goal of this program is to develop Forest Plans which
“restore, recover, and maintain species and continue to provide for various uses of the forest”

the Cleveland National Forest will address potential impacts to many-stemmed dudleya,
including habitat alteration, fragmentation, destruction and degradation from urban
development, as well as fire regime alteration.
of forest activities on federally-listed threatened and endangered species. To address many-
stemmed dudleya, the Forest Plans would also need to address the effects of forest activities
on this species and associated habitats (i.e., clay soils in barrens, rocky places, or thinly
vegetated openings in chaparral, coastal sage scrub, and southern needlegrass grasslands).
In addition,’s many-stemmed dudleya may also be present within private inholdings in the
MSHCP planning area in the Cleveland National Forest. Activities within these private
on appropriate habitat (i.e., vernal pools complexes, meadows, streams at higher elevations)
Several populations in western Riverside are conserved in Lake Mathews-Estelle Mountain

preserve. Conservation of many-stemmed dudleya is consistent with the Reserve’s mission
statement and adaptive management plan developed by the four entities which manage this
reserve: Metropolitan Water District, the California Department of Fish and Game, Riverside
County Habitat Conservation Agency, and the Bureau of Land Management. Approximately
45 percent of the reserve receives active management, while the other 55 percent receives
minimal attention. The Reserve Management Committee is currently working to develop a
recreational use plan and corresponding management plan (Baxter, pers. comm. March
2000). If recreational uses are proposed at the location of the Estelle Mountain population,
the recreational management plan should include additional adaptive management measures
to prevent impacts to this species.
Many-stemmed dudleya is an ephemeral perennial originating from a corm and thus, like other
members of the Haseanthus group, may not be detectable from one year to the next (Dodero
1997). Population size varies considerably from year to year both in number of seedlings
produced and number of mature plants leafing out (Dodero 1997). Populations may not be

detectable in dry years and population boundaries may be difficult to delineate.
ALTERNATIVE 2
Alternative 2 is consistent with the conservation of many-stemmed dudleya. However,

because the habitat link along Temescal Canyon would be narrower than in Alternative 1, the
County would need to require additional surveys in this area within appropriate habitat (i.e.,
clay soils in barrens, rocky places, or thinly vegetated openings in chaparral, coastal sage
scrub, and southern needlegrass grasslands) within private lands along Temescal Canyon and
populations be discovered. Adaptive management measures would need to address threats
to this species in this area, including urban and transportation development, landfill expansion
(Roberts 1999), and competition from non-native species (Dodero 1997).
ALTERNATIVE 3
Conservation of many-stemmed dudleya under Alternative 3 is the same as for Alternative 2.
P-26 Dudleya viscida – sticky-leaved dudleya

State: None
Federal: None
ALTERNATIVE 1
RATIONALE: Sticky dudleya would be conserved under Alternative 1.
Sticky dudleya is found on mesic, mostly north-facing, and often steep, rocky canyon slopes.
In the San Mateo Wilderness, this species is most common on meta-sedimentary and
intrusive volcanic substrates (Boyd, et. al. 1992). In San Diego County, it has been
associated with exposed gabbroic rock or in very shallow soils and cracks on vertical rock
faces (Reiser 1996). It is known from fewer than twenty occurrences in southeastern Orange,
northern San Diego, and southwestern Riverside counties (Munz 1974; Bartel 1993; CNDDB
2000). In the study area, sticky dudleya is restricted to the extreme southwestern region of the
planning area where three populations occur in the San Mateo Wilderness Area Cleveland
National (Boyd, et al. 1992; Boyd, et. al. 1995). Because all of the known populations in
western Riverside County occur within Alternative 1, sticky dudleya is considered conserved

Because the only known populations of sticky dudleya occur in the San Mateo Wilderness
Area, conservation would depend on actions taking place within the Cleveland National
National Forest will address potential impacts to sticky dudleya, including habitat alteration,
fragmentation, destruction and degradation from urban development, as well as fire regime
alteration.
of forest activities on federally-listed threatened and endangered species. To address sticky
dudleya, the Forest Plans would also need to address the effects of forest activities on this
species and associated habitats (i.e.,north-facing, and often steep, rocky canyon slopes on
meta-sedimentary and intrusive volcanic substrates). In addition, sticky dudleya may also be
need to consider requiring surveys on appropriate habitat (i.e., north-facing, and often steep,
rocky canyon slopes on meta-sedimentary and intrusive volcanic substrates) within the private
inholdings and incorporate appropriate mitigation measures in individual projects should
ALTERNATIVE 2

Conservation of sticky dudleya under Alternative 2 is the same as for Alternative 1.
ALTERNATIVE 3
Conservation of sticky dudleya under Alternative 3 is the same as for Alternative 1.
P-27 Eriastrum densifolium spp. sanctorum – Santa Ana River

woollystar
State: Endangered
Federal: Endangered
ALTERNATIVE 1
RATIONALE: Santa Ana River woollystar would be conserved under Alternative 1.
Santa Ana River woollystar is found only within open washes and early-successional alluvial
fan scrub on open slopes above main watercourses on fluvial deposits where flooding and
scouring occur at a frequency that allows the persistence of open shrublands. Suitable habitat
is comprised of a patchy distribution of gravelly soils, sand soils, rock mounds and boulder
fields (Zembal and Kramer 1984; Zembal and Kramer 1985; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
1986). Suitable habitat typically contains low amounts of clay, silt and micro-organic materials
and has a perennial plant cover of less than 50 percent (Burk, et al., 1989). Within western
Riverside County, the Santa Ana River woollystar is known from only two small populations
(less than 10 individuals) near Market Street within the City of Riverside and west of Fairmont
Park and Golf Course (CNDDB 1998). The two populations and most of the potential habitat
for this species are located on public lands managed by the Riverside County Flood Control
and Water Conservation District and Riverside County. Because these public lands are
included in Alternative 1, this species is considered conserved under Alternative 1 with
Given the reliance of this species on flood plain dynamics, conservation of Santa Ana River
woollystar would require a combination of adaptive management and surveys. Adaptive
management measures would need to address threats to this species, including flood plain
modification for flood control purposes and development; flood control management (clearing

for channel maintenance and construction of flood control structures); off-road vehicle activity;
grazing (resulting in heavy weed cover); farming; sand and gravel mining; loss of habitat; and
competition with aggressive nonnative plant species such as European grasses and giant
cane (Arundo donax) (Zembal and Kramer 1985; Burk et al., 1989; U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service 1986). In addition, the County would need to consider requiring surveys on
appropriate habitat (i.e., open washes and early-successional alluvial fan scrub on open
slopes) within private lands along the Santa Ana River and incorporate appropriate mitigation
ALTERNATIVE 2
Conservation of Santa Ana River woollystar under Alternative 2 is the same as for Alternative
1.
ALTERNATIVE 3
Conservation of Santa Ana River woollystar under Alternative 3 is the same as for Alternative
1.
P-28 Eryngium aristulatum var. parishii – San Diego button-celery

State: Endangered
Federal: Endangered
ALTERNATIVE 1
RATIONALE: San Diego button-celery would be conserved under Alternative 1.
San Diego button-celery occurs only in vernal pools with clay soils (Skinner and Pavlik 1994).
Within western Riverside County, San Diego button-celery is known from only four populations
on the Santa Rosa Plateau (CNDDB 2000). Two populations occur on Mesa de Colorado
and two occur on Mesa de Burro. Collectively, the populations contain fewer than 1,000
individuals and all four populations occur within the Santa Rosa Plateau Nature Preserve.
Additional populations are not expected in the planning area. Because the Santa Rosa
Plateau Nature Preserve is included in Alternative 1, this species is considered conserved

Plateau Nature Preserve.
ALTERNATIVE 2
Conservation of San Diego button-celery under Alternative 2 is the same as for Alternative 1.
ALTERNATIVE 3
Conservation of San Diego button-celery under Alternative 3 is the same as for Alternative 1.
P-29 Galium angustifolium spp. jacinticum – San Jacinto

Mountains bedstraw
State: None
Federal: None
ALTERNATIVE 1
RATIONALE: San Jacinto Mountains bedstraw would be conserved under Alternative

1.
San Jacinto Mountains bedstraw occurs in partially shady, lower montane mixed forest and
coniferous forest. San Jacinto Mountains bedstraw is a narrow endemic species; the
distribution of this subspecies is limited to elevations of 1,280 to 1,980 m on the western side
of the San Jacinto Mountains in western Riverside County (Dempster and Stebbins 1971).
Occurrences of San Jacinto Mountains bedstraw are known from southeast of Hemet;
Camilla; Cherry Valley; and Lake Fulmor, Dark Canyon and Black Mountain area of the San
Jacinto Mountains in the San Bernardino National Forest (Dempster and Stebbins 1971;
Dempster 1993). The populations occur on both forest service lands (San Bernardino National
Forest) and on private lands, although most of the potential habitat and almost all of the known
occurrences are on forest service lands. The San Bernardino National Forest lands are

of forest activities on federally-listed threatened and endangered species. To address San
Jacinto Mountains bedstraw, the Forest Plans would also need to address the effects of forest
activities on this species and associated habitats (i.e., lower montane mixed forest and
coniferous forest). In addition, San Jacinto Mountains bedstraw may also be present within
private inholdings in the MSHCP planning area in the San Bernardino National Forest.
need to consider requiring surveys on appropriate habitat (i.e., lower montane mixed forest
and coniferous forest) within the private inholdings and incorporate appropriate mitigation
ALTERNATIVE 2
Conservation of San Jacinto Mountains bedstraw under Alternative 2 is the same as for
Alternative 1.

ALTERNATIVE 3
Conservation of San Jacinto Mountains bedstraw under Alternative 3 is the same as for
Alternative 1.
P-30 Galium californicum spp. primum – California bedstraw

State: None
Federal: None
ALTERNATIVE 1
RATIONALE: California bedstraw would be conserved under Alternative 1.
California bedstraw occurs on granitic or sandy soils in shaded areas at the ecotone of
chaparral and lower montane coniferous forest and in the lower edge of the pine belt (Skinner
and Pavlik 1994); CNDDB 2000). California bedstraw is endemic to the western side of the
San Jacinto Mountains in western Riverside County and San Bernardino County at elevations
of 1,350 to 1,700 m (Skinner and Pavlik 1994; CNDDB 2000; Dempster 1993). Within
western Riverside County, California bedstraw is known from the Alvin Meadows area of the
San Jacinto Mountains in the San Bernardino National Forest (Dempster 1993; Skinner and
Pavlik 1994). The UC Riverside Database includes a mapped locality in San Timoteo
Canyon west of Beaumont. The CNDDB (2000) also includes a description of a site in Reche
Canyon in the vicinity of the border between Riverside County and San Bernardino County.
These two localities should be verified as most sources describe the range of G. californicum
spp. primum as limited to the San Jacinto Mountains (Skinner and Pavlik 1994; Dempster
1993; Munz 1974). Because the Alvin Meadows area and the majority of the potential habitat
for California bedstraw are located on forest service lands. The San Bernardino National
Forest lands are included in Alternative 1. Therefore, this species is considered conserved

California bedstraw, the Forest Plans would also need to address the effects of forest
activities on this species and associated habitats (i.e., granitic or sandy soils in shaded areas
at the ecotone of chaparral and lower montane coniferous forest and in the lower edge of the
pine belt). In addition, California bedstraw may also be present within private inholdings in the
MSHCP planning area in the San Bernardino National Forest. Activities within these private
on appropriate habitat (i.e., granitic or sandy soils in shaded areas at the ecotone of chaparral
and lower montane coniferous forest and in the lower edge of the pine belt) within the private

Adaptive management measures should address the threat of genetic swamping by Galium
nuttallii. California bedstraw occurs in swarms with G. nuttallii in the San Jacinto Mountains
(CNDDB 2000).
ALTERNATIVE 2
Conservation of California bedstraw under Alternative 2 is the same as for Alternative 1.
ALTERNATIVE 3
Conservation of California bedstraw under Alternative 3 is the same as for Alternative 1.
P-31 Harpagonella palmeri var. palmeri – Palmer’s grapplinghook

State: None
Federal: None
ALTERNATIVE 1
RATIONALE: Palmer’s grapplinghook would be conserved under Alternative 1.
Palmer’s grapplinghook is associated with clay and cobbly clay soils in open coastal sage
scrub, chaparral, valley and foothill grasslands (Reiser 1996); and scrub oak woodland at
elevations between 15 and 830 m (CNDDB 2000). In western Riverside County, Palmer’s
grappling hook is known to occur at Elsinore Peak, Gavilan Plateau, the northwest base of
Gavilan Peak, Lake Skinner, Vail Lake, on the mesa west of Skunk Hollow, on the southside
of Bachelor Mountain near Lake Skinner, Harford Springs Park, in Temescal Canyon on the
south side of Alberhill Mountain, west northwest of Alberhill, Paloma Valley, Hemet Valley,
North Peak, Winchester and Borel Roads, Indian Truck Trail, the south-facing slope of Oak
Mountain near Vail Lake, Temecula Canyon Wash and at the Kolb Creek/Pechanga Creek
Divide near Dorland Mountain (UC Riverside; CNDDB 2000; Reiser 1996). Two populations
and the majority of a third population east of Winchester Road will be conserved by the
Multiple Species Subarea Habitat Conservation Plan (SHCP) that has been developed by the
County of Riverside, Rancho California Water District, the Metropolitan Water District of
Southern California, Murrieta Valley Unified School District, and nine individual property
owners, in coordination with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and California Department of

Fish and Game. The Bachelor Mountain population is conserved at the Southwestern
Riverside County Multi-Species Reserve. The majority of the known populations and the
potential habitat are included in Alternative 1. Therefore, this species is considered conserved
Conservation of Palmer’s grapplinghook would require a combination of adaptive

address threats to this species, including urban development and agriculture conversion
(Reiser 1996) and clay mining, fire-suppression activities (discing), grazing, competition with
invasive non-native plant species (CNDDB 2000).
clay and cobbly clay soils in open coastal sage scrub, chaparral, valley and foothill grasslands,
and scrub oak woodland) within private lands and incorporate appropriate mitigation
of the population at Harford Springs Park is consistent with the mission statement of the
Harford Springs Reserve.
ALTERNATIVE 2
Conservation of Palmer’s grapplinghook under Alternative 2 is the same as for Alternative 1.
ALTERNATIVE 3
Conservation of Palmer’s grapplinghook under Alternative 3 is the same as for Alternative 1.

P-32 Hemizonia mohavensis – Mojave tarplant
State: None
Federal: None
ALTERNATIVE 1
RATIONALE: Mojave tarplant would be conserved under Alternative 1.
Mojave tarplant occurs on low sand bars in riverbeds, along stream channels or in ephemeral
grassy areas in riparian scrub and chaparral, at elevations between 850 to 1,575 m (Skinner
and Pavlik 1994; CNDDB 2000). This species occurs in Riverside County and San Diego
County but is believed to be extirpated in San Bernardino County (CNDDB 2000). Within
Riverside County, Mojave tarplant is limited to the north-facing slopes of the San Jacinto
Mountains in the San Bernardino National Forest. The populations occur on both forest
service lands (San Bernardino National Forest) and on private lands, although most of the
potential habitat is on forest service lands. The San Bernardino National Forest lands are
Within western Riverside County, Mojave tarplant is restricted to the north-facing slopes of the
San Jacinto Mountains (San Bernardino National Forest) and conservation would depend on
actions taking place within the San Bernardino National Forest and on private inholdings with
suitable habitat within the San Bernardino National Forest. Forests in the Pacific Southwest
include the Los Padres, Angeles, San Bernardino, and Cleveland National Forests. These
forests are the subject of a Southern California Conservation Strategy that addresses
assessments of proposed actions and public review. An Environmental Impact Statement for

California bedstraw, the Forest Plans would also need to address the effects of forest
activities on this species and associated habitats (i.e., low sand bars in riverbeds, along
stream channels or in ephemeral grassy areas in riparian scrub and chaparral, at elevations
between 850 to 1,575 m). In addition, California bedstraw may also be present within private
inholdings in the MSHCP planning area in the San Bernardino National Forest. Activities
within these private inholdings would need to be reviewed by the County for compatibility with
MSHCP goals and objectives for this species. In addition, the County would need to consider
requiring surveys on appropriate habitat (i.e., low sand bars in riverbeds, along stream
channels or in ephemeral grassy areas in riparian scrub and chaparral, at elevations between
850 to 1,575 m) within the private inholdings and incorporate appropriate mitigation measures
ALTERNATIVE 2
Conservation of Mojave tarplant under Alternative 2 is the same as for Alternative 1.
ALTERNATIVE 3
Conservation of Mojave tarplant under Alternative 3 is the same as for Alternative 1.
P-33 Hemizonia pungens spp. laevis – smooth tarplant

State: None
Federal: None
ALTERNATIVE 1
RATIONALE: Smooth tarplant would be conserved under Alternative 1.
Smooth tarplant occurs in a variety of habitats including alkali scrub, alkali playas, riparian
woodland, watercourses, and grasslands with alkaline affinities (Skinner and Pavlik 1994).
The majority of the populations in western Riverside County are associated with alkali vernal
plains. Smooth tarplant is found at scattered low elevation locations throughout much of the
planning area. The key populations of smooth tarplant are located within the San Jacinto
Wildlife Area, the San Jacinto River, Salt Creek and areas north of the Tres Cerritos Hills. The

numerous populations reported along Temecula Creek and Murrieta Creek may be key
populations but should be verified. Other locations include: Sycamore Canyon Park, Moreno
Valley, Lake Skinner, Clinton Keith Road, and Potrero Creek near Beaumont (Bramlet 1993b;
CNDDB 2000). Because all of the key populations are located within Alternative 1, smooth
tarplant is considered conserved under Alternative 1 with additional conditions as noted
below.
Given the reliance of this species on flood plain dynamics, conservation of smooth tarplant
would require a combination of adaptive management and surveys. Adaptive management
measures would need to address threats to this species, including habitat destruction and
fragmentation from development, alteration of hydrology and flood plain dynamics, excessive
flooding, channelization, off-road vehicle activity, trampling by livestock, weed abatement, fire-
suppression practices (e.g., discing and plowing) and competition from alien plant species
(CNDDB 2000; F. Roberts, pers. comm. 2000). The County would need to consider requiring
surveys on appropriate habitat (i.e., alkali scrub, alkali playas, riparian woodland,
watercourses, and grasslands with alkaline affinities) and incorporate mitigation measures
ALTERNATIVE 2
Conservation of smooth tarplant under Alternative 2 is the same as for Alternative 1.
ALTERNATIVE 3
Conservation of smooth tarplant under Alternative 3 is the same as for Alternative 1.
P-34 Heuchera hirsutissima – shaggy-haired alumroot

State: None
Federal: None
ALTERNATIVE 1
RATIONALE: Shaggy-haired alumroot would be conserved under Alternative 1.

Shaggy-haired alumroot occurs in upper-montane coniferous forest and subalpine coniferous
forest, often near large rocks, at elevations of 1,81 to 3,500 m (Skinner and Pavlik 1994;
CNDDB 2000). This species is restricted to the San Jacinto Mountains and Santa Rosa
Mountains in Riverside County (Munz 1974; Skinner and Pavlik 1994). Within the planning
area, only two occurrences of this species are known, both within the San Jacinto Mountains
(UC riverside Database; CNDDB 2000). The two known populations occur on forest service
lands (San Bernardino National Forest) and most of the potential habitat is on forest service
lands. The San Bernardino National Forest lands are included in Alternative 1. Therefore, this
below.
Within western Riverside County, this species is limited to the San Jacinto Mountains (San
Bernardino National Forest) and conservation would depend on actions taking place within
the San Bernardino National Forest and on private inholdings with suitable habitat within the
San Bernardino National Forest. Forests in the Pacific Southwest include the Los Padres,
shaggy-haired alumroot, the Forest Plans would also need to address the effects of forest
activities on this species and associated habitats (i.e., upper-montane coniferous forest and
subalpine coniferous forest, often near large rocks). In addition, shaggy-haired alumroot may
also be present within private inholdings in the MSHCP planning area in the San Bernardino
County for compatibility with MSHCP goals and objectives for this species. In addition, the
County would need to consider requiring surveys on appropriate habitat (i.e., upper-montane

coniferous forest and subalpine coniferous forest, often near large rocks) within the private
ALTERNATIVE 2
Conservation of shaggy-haired alumroot under Alternative 2 is the same as for Alternative 1.
ALTERNATIVE 3
Conservation of shaggy-haired alumroot under Alternative 3 is the same as for Alternative 1.
P-35 Holocarpha virgata ssp. elongata – graceful tarplant

State: None
Federal: None
ALTERNATIVE 1
RATIONALE: Graceful tarplant would be conserved under Alternative 1.
Graceful tarplant occurs in chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal sage scrub and valley
and foothill grasslands below 600 m (Keil 1993; Skinner and Pavlik 1994). Generally, shrub
cover is not well-developed at graceful tarplant localities, with a heavy incidence of non-native
grasses and invasive herbs. Graceful tarplant is also known from heavy clay soils around
vernal pools and wet meadows (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, unpublished data). The
habitat for this species usually occurs on level, mildly disturbed terrain (Reiser 1996). Graceful
tarplant is endemic to Orange County, Riverside County and San Diego County (Skinner and
Pavlik 1994). Within western Riverside County, this species occurs on the Santa Rosa
Plateau (both inside and adjacent to the Santa Rosa Plateau Nature Preserve), north of
Tenaja Road and east of Squaw Mountain; southwest of Cherry Street in Temecula; south of
Poly Butte near Hemet and San Mateo Canyon Wilderness Area (UC Riverside Database;
Reiser 1996). A majority of the currently known populations and much of the potential habitat
are within Alternative 1. Therefore, graceful tarplant is considered conserved under

Conservation of graceful tarplant would require a combination of adaptive management

this species, including urbanization and development (Reiser 1996). In addition, the County
would need to consider requiring surveys on appropriate habitat (i.e., chaparral, cismontane
woodland, coastal sage scrub and valley and foothill grasslands) within the private lands and
Conservation of this species within the Santa Rosa Plateau Nature Preserve is consistent with
the mission statement of the Preserve.
Conservation of this species would also depend on actions taking place within the Agua Tibia
Wilderness Area of the Cleveland National Forest, and on private inholdings within suitable
habitat in the Cleveland National Forest.
graceful tarplant, the Forest Plans would also need to address the effects of forest activities
on this species and associated habitats (i.e., chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal sage
scrub and valley and foothill grasslands). In addition, graceful tarplant may also be present

consider requiring surveys on appropriate habitat (i.e., chaparral, cismontane woodland,
coastal sage scrub and valley and foothill grasslands) within the private inholdings and
ALTERNATIVE 2
Conservation of graceful tarplant under Alternative 2 is the same as for Alternative 1.
ALTERNATIVE 3
Conservation of graceful tarplant under Alternative 3 is the same as for Alternative 1.
P-36 Hordeum intercedens – vernal barley

State: None
Federal: None
CNPS: List 3 (RED Code ?-2-2)
ALTERNATIVE 1
RATIONALE: Vernal barley would be conserved under Alternative 1.
Vernal barley is associated with mesic grasslands, vernal pools, and large saline flats or
depressions (Braum and Bailey 1987; Skinner and Pavlik 1994). In Riverside County, vernal
barley is found in the Domino-Willows-Traver soils series and is associated with alkali flats
and flood plains within the alkali vernal plains community (Ferren and Fielder 1993). Within
this community vernal barley is primarily associated with alkali playa (F. Roberts, in litt.,
September 1999). The distribution of vernal barley in San Diego and Orange County
suggests that this species may occur in mesic grasslands, hard and basaltic vernal pool
habitats within Riverside County. The majority of recent collections are from the Upper Old
Salt Creek drainage area west of Hemet and along the San Jacinto River floodplain from
Mystic Lake south to at least the I-215 where it occurs in extensive stands forming the
dominant element of the alkali annual grassland community (Ogden 1996; F. Roberts, in litt.,
1999). One collection was recorded near Nichols Road north of Lake Elsinore. Three key
populations of vernal barley have been identified within the planning area: the San Jacinto

Wildlife Area, the middle segment of the San Jacinto River from Ramona Expressway south
to Railroad Canyon, and the Salt Creek area west of Hemet. In its undisturbed condition, the
population at Salt Creek is a local dominant over 200 to 400 hectares. While the distribution
of key populations within western Riverside County are relatively well-understood because of
their close links with alkali vernal plains habitats, the overall distribution of this species in the
planning area is poorly known. Vernal barley is expected to occur in the Temecula-Murrieta
area, the Santa Rosa Plateau and perhaps the Anza area. All of the key populations and the
majority of other known populations and potential habitat are included within Alternative 1.
Therefore, vernal barley is considered conserved under Alternative 1 with additional
Conservation of vernal barley would require a combination of adaptive management

this species, including urbanization, agricultural conversion, discing, trampling from livestock,
channelization and alteration of hydrology (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1998). In addition,
the County would need to consider requiring surveys on appropriate habitat (i.e., the Domino-
Willows-Traver soils series and associated alkali flats and flood plains within the alkali vernal
plains community) within the private lands and incorporate appropriate mitigation measures
Conservation of the vernal barley along the San Jacinto River within State lands at the San
Jacinto Wildlife Area is consistent with the mission statement and management plans of the
California Department of Fish and Game. Conservation of this species is consistent with the
mission statement of the Santa Rosa Plateau Nature Preserve, which contains potential
habitat for vernal barley.
ALTERNATIVE 2
Conservation of vernal barley under Alternative 2 is the same as for Alternative 1.
ALTERNATIVE 3
Conservation of vernal barley under Alternative 3 is the same as for Alternative 1.
P-37 Hulsea vestita ssp. callicarpha – beautiful hulsea

State: None
Federal: None

ALTERNATIVE 1
RATIONALE: Beautiful hulsea would be conserved under Alternative 1.
Beautiful hulsea occurs on rocky or gravelly soils in chaparral and lower montane coniferous
forests on dry slopes at elevations of 1,200 to 2,750 m (Munz 1974; Wilkin 1993; Skinner and
Pavlik 1994). This species may be a fire-follower (Reiser 1996). This species is restricted
to the San Jacinto, Palomar and Santa Rosa Mountains in San Diego County and Riverside
County (Munz 1974; Skinner and Pavlik 1994). Within western Riverside County, beautiful
hulsea localities are primarily in the San Jacinto Mountains (San Bernardino National Forest)
in the vicinity of Lake Fulmor, Pine Cove, Idyllwild, Mountain Center, Pine Meadow and Hemet
Lake; and on Cahuilla Mountain (UC Riverside Database). Reiser (1996) reports this species
from North Mountain, east of Hemet, along the summit fire road. The populations occur on
both forest service lands (San Bernardino National Forest) and on private lands, although
most of the known occurrences and potential habitat are on forest service lands. The San
Bernardino National Forest lands are included in Alternative 1. Therefore, this species is
Most of the known populations and much of the potential habitat for this species are in the San
Jacinto Mountains (San Bernardino National Forest) and conservation would depend on

beautiful hulsea, the Forest Plans would also need to address the effects of forest activities
on this species and associated habitats (i.e., rocky or gravelly soils in chaparral and lower
montane coniferous forests on dry slopes). In addition, beautiful hulsea may also be present
within private inholdings in the MSHCP planning area in the San Bernardino National Forest.
need to consider requiring surveys on appropriate habitat (i.e., rocky or gravelly soils in
chaparral and lower montane coniferous forests on dry slopes) within the private inholdings
and incorporate appropriate mitigation measures in individual projects should major new
ALTERNATIVE 2
Conservation of beautiful hulsea under Alternative 2 is the same as for Alternative 1.
ALTERNATIVE 3
Conservation of beautiful hulsea under Alternative 3 is the same as for Alternative 1.
P-38 Juglans californica – California black walnut

State: None
Federal: None
CNPS: List 4 (R-E-D code 1-2-3)
RATIONALE: California black walnut would be conserved under Alternative 1.
California black walnut typically occurs on deep, friable tertiary marine shales that have a high
water-holding capacity (Keeley 1990; Holstein 1981). Scattered individuals commonly co-
occur with laurel sumac (Malosma laurina) on alluvium located at the base of hills and in
canyons. Individuals also occur infrequently on south-facing slopes and more commonly, on
west-facing slopes. On mesic north-facing slopes this walnut is primarily a member of open
woodlands of various types and sometimes produces pure stands. Along intermittent streams
California black walnut tolerates high salinity and alkalinity (Mullally 1992). In these riparian

corridors, this species prefers the dryer slopes that are almost never prone to flooding and
erosional activity yet are in close proximity to groundwater and seasonal surface water
(Keeley 1990). Within western Riverside County, California black walnut has been
documented at seven locations. The majority of the stands occur on the eastern and western
subregions of the Santa Rosa Plateau, although scattered individual trees exist east of Pedley
along Cimonite Avenue and west of Rubidoux, immediately north of Highway 60 (UC
Riverside Database). One key population area has been identified and is located within the
Santa Rosa Plateau Nature Preserve. This key population area is included in Alternative 1.
Therefore, this species is considered adequately conserved under Alterative 1 with additional
Conservation of California black walnut would require a combination of adaptive management

this species, including urban development and livestock which can compact soils, crush seeds
or eliminate seedlings through trampling Jones and Stokes Associates 1987).
deep, friable tertiary marine shales that have a high water-holding capacity and alluvium
located at the base of hills and in canyons) within private lands and incorporate appropriate
Conservation of the Santa Rosa Plateau Nature Preserve population is consistent with the
mission statement of the Preserve.
Additionally, fire is considered to be important for regenerations since it produces bare

ground where sufficient sunlight exists for the establishment of seedlings and triggers the
production of new sprouts at the base of trees (Keeley 1990).

ALTERNATIVE 2
Conservation of California black walnut under Alternative 2 is the same as for Alternative 1.
ALTERNATIVE 3
Conservation of California black walnut under Alternative 3 is the same as for Alternative 1.
P-39 Lasthenia glabrata ssp. coulteri – Coulter’s goldfields

Federal: None
ALTERNATIVE 1
RATIONALE: Coulter’s goldfields would be conserved under Alternative 1.
Coulter’s goldfields is associated with low-lying alkali habitats along the coast and in inland
valleys (Ornduff 1966). The majority of the populations area associated with coastal salt
marsh. In Riverside County, Coulter’s goldfields occurs primarily in highly alkaline, silty-clay
soils in association with the Traver-Domino-Willows soils series. Most Riverside County
populations are associated with the Willows soil series. Coulter’s goldfields occur primarily
in the alkali vernal plains community (Ferren and Fielder 1993; Bramlet 1993b). These are
flood plains dominated by alkali scrub, alkali playas, vernal pools and alkali grasslands
(Bramlet 1993; CNDDB 2000). These habitats form mosaics that are largely dependent on
salinity and micro-elevational differences. Coulter’s goldfields occurs in wetter areas.
Coulter’s goldfields is known primarily from four areas in western Riverside County: Mystic
Lake and the San Jacinto Wildlife Area; along the San Jacinto River from Lake View, Nuevo
and Perris to Railroad Canyon; Salt Creek; and the alkali wetlands near Nichols Road north
of Lake Elsinore (Bramlet 1993; CNDDB 2000). Small, or historic populations, have also
been reported from Anza, the vicinity of Murrieta and Temecula, the lake bed of Lake Elsinore
and at Woodcrest near Mockingbird Canyon. The current status of many of these smaller
populations is unknown. The San Jacinto River population complex is the largest remaining
population representing 70 to 90 percent of all Coulter’s goldfields known (CNDDB 2000); F.
Roberts, pers. comm., 1999). A significant proportion of this population is on the San Jacinto
Wildlife Area. The alkali wetlands in Warm Springs Valley near Nichols Road support a

moderate-sized population reported to be at least 1,500 individuals or larger. Salt Creek
supports a small population (Recon 1994; CNDDB 2000). There are three key populations
within the planning area. The largest and most significant populations are within the San
Jacinto Wildlife Area and southern shores of Mystic Lake. Although currently suppressed by
discing and dryland farming, the middle segment of the San Jacinto River also represents a
key population area. A third key population is located on the alkali flats between Alberhill and
Lake Elsinore. All of the key populations and the majority of other known populations and
potential habitat are included within Alternative 1. Therefore, Coulter’s goldfields is considered
Conservation of Coulter’s goldfields would require a combination of adaptive management

this species, including habitat destruction and fragmentation from urban and agricultural
development, pipeline construction, alteration of habitat and flood plain dynamics, excessive
flooding, channelization, off-road vehicle activity, trampling by cattle and sheep, weed
abatement, fire suppression practices (including discing and plowing), and competition from
alien plant species (CNDDB 2000; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1998). Coulter’s goldfields
has a patchy distribution within this habitat and its spatial distribution shifts over time as
conditions and seed banks change. Like other species dependent on alkali wetlands, this
species likely requires significantly more habitat than is occupied during any one season to
maintain population dynamics within the watershed and microhabitat diversity upon which this
taxon depends (Ornduff 1966; Bramlet 1993b; F. Roberts, pers. comm., 1999). Coulter’s
goldfields requires irregular seasonal inundation or flooding for seed dispersal, germination
and habitat maintenance. This plant is restricted to wetter areas within the alkali habitat,
particularly lake margins, playa borders, and vernal pools. Because of its annual habit and
reliance on periodic inundation, population size varies considerably from year to year, and
Coulter’s goldfields can be difficult to recognize in dry years or after recent disturbance such
as discing. The County would need to consider requiring surveys on appropriate habitat (i.e.,
the Traver-Domino-Willows soils series in association with the alkali vernal plains community)
within the private lands and incorporate appropriate mitigation measures in individual projects
Conservation of the Coulter’s goldfields along the San Jacinto River within State lands at the
the California Department of Fish and Game.

ALTERNATIVE 2
Conservation of Coulter’s goldfields under Alternative 2 is the same as for Alternative 1.
ALTERNATIVE 3
Conservation of Coulter’s goldfields under Alternative 3 is the same as for Alternative 1.
P-40 Lepechinia cardiophylla – heart-leaved pitcher sage

State: None
Federal: None
ALTERNATIVE 1
RATIONALE: Heart-leaved pitcher sage would be conserved under Alternative 1.
Heart-leaved pitcher sage occurs in closed-cone coniferous forest, chaparral and cismontane
woodland at elevations of 550 to 1,370 m (Epling 1948; Skinner and Pavlik 1994; Reiser
1996). Along Indian Truck Trail, heart-leaved pitcher sage is also associated with southern
oak woodland forest with scattered Coulter pine and big cone spruce. Along Horsethief Trail
this species is associated with chaparral-oak woodland and decomposed granite soils. On
Pleasants Peak, this species is associated with a stand of knobcone pine (CNDDB 2000).
Within western Riverside County, heart-leaved pitcher sage occurs primarily in the Santa Ana
Mountains (Cleveland National Forest): Sierra Peak, Indian Truck Trail, Bald Peak, Trabuco
Peak, Horsethief Trail, Pleasants Peak and the ridge between Ladd Canyon and East Fork
Canyon (CNDDB 2000). Occurrences have also been recorded for this species in the
foothills of the Santa Ana Mountains northwest of Lake Elsinore and in the hills southeast of
Alberhill (UC Riverside Database); these two occurrences should be verified. The majority
(potentially all) populations of heart-leaved pitcher sage occur within the Cleveland National
Forest. The Cleveland National Forest is included within Alternative 1. Therefore, heart-leaved
pitcher sage is considered conserved under Alternative 1 with additional considerations as
noted below.
Most of the known populations and much of the potential habitat for this species are in the

Santa Ana Mountains (Cleveland National Forest). Conservation would depend on actions
taking place within the Cleveland National Forest and on private inholdings with suitable
habitat within the Cleveland National Forest.
of forest activities on federally-listed threatened and endangered species. To address heart-
leaved pitcher sage, the Forest Plans would also need to address the effects of forest
activities on this species and associated habitats (i.e., closed-cone coniferous forest,
chaparral and cismontane woodland). In addition, heart-leaved pitcher sage may also be
need to consider requiring surveys on appropriate habitat (i.e., closed-cone coniferous forest,
chaparral and cismontane woodland) within the private inholdings and incorporate appropriate
development (Skinner and Pavlik 1994), installation of transmission lines and fire-suppression
activities (CNDDB 2000).

ALTERNATIVE 2
Conservation of heart-leaved pitcher sage under Alternative 2 is the same as for Alternative
1.
ALTERNATIVE 3
Conservation of heart-leaved pitcher sage under Alternative 3 is the same as for Alternative
1.
P-41 Lilium humboldtii ssp. ocellatus – ocellated Humboldt lily

Federal: None
ALTERNATIVE 1
RATIONALE: Ocellated Humboldt lily would be conserved under Alternative 1.
Ocellated Humboldt lily is associated with riparian corridors in lower montane coniferous
forest and coastal chaparral below 5,500 feet. This species typically occurs on lower stream
benches but can also occur on shaded, dry slopes, beneath a dense coniferous canopy and
cismontane oak woodland (Boyd and Banks 1995; Skinner and Pavlik 1994). Within western
Riverside County, this species is restricted to canyons along the east slope of the Santa Ana
Mountains and the north slope of the Palomar Mountains. This species is known to occur in
Arroyo Seco Canyon and Agua Tibia Canyon of the Agua Tibia Wilderness Area (Boyd and
Banks 1995) and Fisherman’s camp in Tenaja Canyon (UC Riverside Database). Historic
occurrences are known from Castro Canyon (Boyd and Banks 1995); Horsethief Canyon,
Elsinore Mountains and Corona between Tin Mine Canyon and Santiago Peak, Skyline Drive
(UC Riverside Database). Most of the known occurrences and potential habitat are located
on public lands within the Santa Ana Mountains (Cleveland National Forest) and in Arroyo
Seco and Agua Tibia canyons of the Agua Tibia Wilderness Area. The Cleveland National
Forest lands, the north slope of the Palomar Mountains and the Agua Tibia Wilderness Area
are all included in Alternative 1. Therefore, this species is considered conserved under

Santa Ana Mountains (Cleveland National Forest) and the Agua Tibia Wilderness Area of the
Cleveland National Forest. Conservation would depend on actions taking place within the
Cleveland National Forest and on private inholdings with suitable habitat within the Cleveland
National Forest.
ocellated Humboldt lily, the Forest Plans would also need to address the effects of forest
activities on this species and associated habitats (i.e., lower stream benches but can also
occur on shaded, dry slopes, beneath a dense coniferous canopy and cismontane oak
woodland). In addition, ocellated Humboldt lily may also be present within private inholdings
in the MSHCP planning area in the Cleveland National Forest. Activities within these private
on appropriate habitat (i.e., lower stream benches but can also occur on shaded, dry slopes,
beneath a dense coniferous canopy and cismontane oak woodland) within the private

ALTERNATIVE 2
Conservation of ocellated Humboldt lily under Alternative 2 is the same as for Alternative 1.
ALTERNATIVE 3
Conservation of ocellated Humboldt lily under Alternative 3 is the same as for Alternative 1.
P-42 Lilium parryi – lemon lily

Federal: None
ALTERNATIVE 1
RATIONALE: Lemon lily would be conserved under Alternative 1.
Lemon lily requires moisture year-round and the distribution of this species is limited to the
banks of seeps, springs and permanent streams higher than 1,200 m. Typical habitat
consists of forested, shady stream banks within narrow canyon bottoms (Linhart and Premoli
1994; Skinner 1993). In western Riverside County, lemon lily is considered to be limited to
the San Jacinto Mountains (Reiser 1994; Skinner 1988) and six population localities are
known within the San Jacinto Mountains (San Bernardino National Forest). One unconfirmed
1993 locality for the Tenaja Canyon area in the southern Santa Ana Mountains (Cleveland
National Forest) is reported (UC Riverside Database). The Cleveland National Forest and
the San Bernardino National Forest are included in Alternative 1. Therefore, this species is
Most of the known populations and much of the potential habitat for this species are in the San

of forest activities on federally-listed threatened and endangered species. To address lemon
lily, the Forest Plans would also need to address the effects of forest activities on this species
and associated habitats (i.e., forested, shady stream banks within narrow canyon bottoms).
In addition, lemon lily may also be present within private inholdings in the MSHCP planning
habitat (i.e., forested, shady stream banks within narrow canyon bottoms) within the private
unseasonal reduction of stream flows associated with flood control activities (i.e., damming),
and competition with non-native plant species (Mistretta and Parra-Szijj 1991; Linhart and
Premoli 1994).
ALTERNATIVE 2
Conservation of lemon lily under Alternative 2 is the same as for Alternative 1.
ALTERNATIVE 3
Conservation of lemon lily under Alternative 3 is the same as for Alternative 1.

P-43 Limnanthes gracilis ssp. parishii – Parish’s meadowfoam
State: Endangered
Federal: None

ALTERNATIVE 1
RATIONALE: Parish’s meadowfoam would be conserved under Alternative 1.
Parish’s meadowfoam is limited to ephemeral wetlands in the mountains of southern

California between 1,100 and 1,700 meters (Skinner and Pavlik 1994). It occurs on gentle
slopes or in swales, in forest glades, among Mima mounds and in areas likely to be inundated
(Bauder 1992). This species is endemic to San Diego and Riverside Counties, southern
California. Distribution of Parish’s meadowfoam is limited to scattered locations in the
Cuyamaca and Laguna mountains and on Palomar Mountain, all in San Diego County, and
the Santa Rosa Plateau in southwestern Riverside County (Bauder 1992). The single
occurrence in western Riverside County lies within the Santa Rosa Plateau Preserve. The
Santa Rosa Plateau Nature Reserve is located within Alternative 1; therefore Parish’s
meadowfoam is considered conserved under Alternative 1 with additional considerations as
noted below.
Plateau Preserve.
ALTERNATIVE 2
Conservation of Parish’s meadowfoam under Alternative 2 is the same as for Alternative 1.
ALTERNATIVE 3
Conservation of Parish’s meadowfoam under Alternative 3 is the same as for Alternative 1.

P-44 Microseris douglasii ssp. platycarpha – small-flowered
microseris
State: None
Federal: None
ALTERNATIVE 1
RATIONALE: Small-flowered microseris would be conserved under Alternative 1.
Small-flowered microseris is found in clay soils and occurs on plains, hillsides and foothill
slopes in association with native grasslands or vernal pools (Munz 1974; Chambers 1955;
Chambers 1993; Reiser 1996). Small-flowered microseris is known to occur primarily in the
southwestern and southeastern portions of the planning area: Santa Rosa Plateau (both
inside and adjacent to the Santa Rosa Plateau Nature Preserve), Tenaja, Elsinore Peak
(Santa Ana Mountains), Miller Mountain, Lake Skinner and Bachelor Mountain (U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service unpublished data; Lathrop and Thorne 1985). Boyd and Banks (1995) report
this species from the Oak Mountain north of Vail Lake, in the hills west of Vail Lake above
Pauba Valley and west of Woodchuck Park in the Dorland Mountain area. Occurrences are
also known from the San Mateo Wilderness Area, Alberhill, Lake Mathews Reserve and
Paloma Valley (UC Riverside Database). An isolated occurrence has been reported in lower
Temescal Canyon (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, unpublished data). A majority of the
currently known populations and much of the potential habitat are within Alternative 1.
Therefore, small-flowered microseris is considered conserved under Alternative 1 with
Conservation of small-flowered microseris would require a combination of adaptive

address threats to this species, including urbanization and agricultural conversion (Chambers
1955). In addition, the County would need to consider requiring surveys on appropriate
habitat (i.e., clay soils and occurs on plains, hillsides and foothill slopes in association with
native grasslands or vernal pools) within the private lands and incorporate appropriate

of the population within the Santa Rosa Plateau Nature Preserve is consistent with the mission
statement of the Preserve.
Conservation of this species would also depend on actions taking place within the Santa Ana
Mountains portion of the Cleveland National Forest), the Agua Tibia Wilderness Area of the
Cleveland National Forest, and on private inholdings within suitable habitat in the Cleveland
National Forest.
of forest activities on federally-listed threatened and endangered species. To address small-
flowered microseris, the Forest Plans would also need to address the effects of forest
activities on this species and associated habitats (i.e., clay soils and occurs on plains,
hillsides and foothill slopes in association with native grasslands or vernal pools). In addition,
small-flowered microseris may also be present within private inholdings in the MSHCP
for this species. The County would need to consider requiring surveys on appropriate habitat
(i.e., clay soils and occurs on plains, hillsides and foothill slopes in association with native
grasslands or vernal pools) within the private inholdings and incorporate appropriate

ALTERNATIVE 2
Conservation of small-flowered microseris under Alternative 2 is the same as for Alternative

1.
ALTERNATIVE 3
Conservation of small-flowered microseris under Alternative 3 is the same as for Alternative

1.
P-45 Mimulus clevelandii – Cleveland’s bush monkeyflower

State: None
Federal: None
ALTERNATIVE 1
RATIONALE: Cleveland’s bush monkeyflower would be conserved under Alternative

1.
Cleveland’s bush monkeyflower is known to occur mostly above 3000 feet in chaparral and
lower montane coniferous forests, especially on peaks and ridgelines (Boyd and Banks
1995). The microhabitat generally consists of open locales in xeric chaparral dominated by
chamise, with exposed rocks nearby and shallow soils available (Reiser 1994). The species
appears to strictly follow metavolcanic and gabbroic soils (Reiser 1994), although Hirshberg
(2000) has noticed this species growing in seeps in granitic outcrops and in the understory
of oak woodlands. Cleveland’s bush monkeyflower is restricted to the Peninsular Ranges,
occurring in the Santa Ana and Palomar mountains southward into northern Baja California
(Thompson 1993). In western Riverside County, only one population of Cleveland’s bush
monkeyflower has been documented (Calflora Database 2000). This population occurs at
several locations on Santiago Peak in the Santa Ana Mountains and represents the only key
population. The only known population occurs in the Cleveland National Forest. The
Cleveland National Forest is included within Alternative 1. Therefore, Cleveland’s bush
monkeyflower is considered conserved under Alternative 1 with additional considerations as
noted below.

CONSERVATION CONSIDERATION
The only known population occurs on public lands on Santiago Peak in the Cleveland National
Forest. As such, conservation of Cleveland’s bush monkeyflower will depend on actions
taking place within this forest. Forests in the Pacific Southwest include the Los Padres,
Cleveland’s bush monkeyflower, the Forest Plans would also need to address the effects of
forest activities on this species and associated habitats (i.e., above 3000 feet in chaparral
and lower montane coniferous forests, especially on peaks and ridgelines). In addition,
Cleveland’s bush monkeyflower may also be present within private inholdings in the MSHCP
planning area in the Cleveland National Forest. Activities within private inholdings would need
species. In addition, the County would need to require surveys on appropriate habitat (i.e.,
above 3000 feet in chaparral and lower montane coniferous forests, especially on peaks and
ridgelines) within the private inholdings and incorporate appropriate mitigation measures as
conditions of approval for in individual projects should major new populations be discovered
ALTERNATIVE 2
Conservation of Cleveland’s bush monkeyflower under Alternative 2 is the same as for

Alternative 1.
ALTERNATIVE 3

Conservation of Cleveland’s bush monkeyflower under Alternative 3 is the same as for
Alternative 1.
P-46 Mimulus diffuses – Palomar monkeyflower

State: None
Federal: None
ALTERNATIVE 1
RATIONALE: Palomar monkeyflower would be conserved under Alternative 1.
Palomar monkeyflower is a foothill and mountain species. It grows in sandy soil in chaparral
and yellow pine forest habitats, generally from 1,500 to 2,000 m, although it occurs as low as
400 m on the north slope of the Agua Tibia Mountains in southern Riverside County. It may
be found in sandy washes and disturbed areas near roads and trails (Grant 1924; Munz 1974;
Thompson 1993). In the United States it is found from the Santa Ana and San Jacinto
Mountains of Orange and Riverside County south through the Peninsular Ranges of San
Diego County to the Mexican border. In Baja California, this species is restricted to the Sierra
Juarez Mountains (Reiser 1996). Palomar monkeyflower is highly restricted in Riverside
County and known only from higher elevations of the Santa Ana Mountains (Boyd, et al. 1992),
the Agua Tibia Mountains (Boyd and Banks 1995) and the San Jacinto Mountains. The UC
Riverside Database has 19 mapped locations with 21 occurrences: eight in the San Jacinto
Mountains along Highways 74 and 243; three in the vicinity of Sage; three west of the Santa
Rosa Plateau in the Santa Ana Mountains and one in each of the following locations: French
Valley north of Lake Skinner, Good Hope, Reche Canyon, in the hills south of Alberhill, and
southwest of El Cerrito. Because no information is available concerning the current status and
size of populations, key populations have not been identified at this time. Future surveys may
result in the identification of key populations. The majority of the known populations and
potential habitat occur within the Cleveland National Forest and the San Bernardino National
Forest. Both the Cleveland National Forest and the San Bernardino National Forest are
included within Alternative 1. Therefore, Palomar monkeyflower is considered conserved
Conservation of Palomar monkeyflower would require a combination of adaptive management

this species, including trampling and trail maintenance activities (Boyd and Banks 1995) and
competition with non-native species. In addition, the County would need to consider requiring
surveys on appropriate habitat within private lands (e.g., sandy soil in chaparral and yellow
pine forest habitats, generally from 1,500 to 2,000 m) and incorporate appropriate mitigation
measures into the conditions of approval for individual projects should major new major
For the populations that occur on that occurs on public lands in the Cleveland and San
Bernardino National Forests, conservation of Palomar monkeyflower will depend on actions
taking place within these forests. Forests in the Pacific Southwest include the Los Padres,
Palomar monkeyflower, the Forest Plans would also need to address the effects of forest
activities on this species and associated habitats (i.e., chaparral, pine forest). In addition,
Palomar monkeyflower may also be present within private inholdings in the MSHCP planning
area in the Cleveland National Forest and the San Bernardino National Forest. Activities
within these private inholdings would need to be reviewed by the County for compatibility with
requiring surveys on appropriate habitat within the private inholdings and incorporate
discovered.
ALTERNATIVE 2
Conservation of Palomar monkeyflower under Alternative 2 is the same as for Alternative 1.

ALTERNATIVE 3
Conservation of Palomar monkeyflower under Alternative 3 is the same as for Alternative 1.
P-47 Monardella macrantha spp. hallii – Hall’s monardella

State: None
Federal: None
ALTERNATIVE 1
RATIONALE: Hall’s monardella would be conserved under Alternative 1.
Hall’s monardella occurs on dry slopes and ridges in openings within broad-leaved upland
forest, chaparral, lower montane, coniferous forest, cismontane woodland and valley and
foothill grassland (Munz 1974; Jokerst 1993; Skinner and Pavlik 1994). Hall’s monardella is
known to occur on the northeast slope of Santiago Peak, the north slope of Cahuilla Mountain
and along a drainage on the north slope of Agua Tibia Mountain (CNDDB 2000). Reiser
(1996) reports this species from Sugarloaf in the Santa Ana Mountains and on the trail to San
Jacinto Peak. The majority of the known occurrences and potential habitat are located on
public lands within the Santa Ana Mountains (Cleveland National Forest), in the Agua Tibia
Wilderness Area (Cleveland National Forest), and in the San Jacinto Mountains (San
Bernardino National Forest). The Cleveland National Forest lands and the San Bernardino
National Forest lands are included in Alternative 1. Therefore, this species is considered
Santa Ana Mountains (Cleveland National Forest), the Agua Tibia Wilderness Area of the
Cleveland National Forest and the San Jacinto Mountains of the San Bernardino National
Forest. Conservation would depend on actions taking place within the Cleveland National
Forest and on private inholdings with suitable habitat within the Cleveland National Forest.

of forest activities on federally-listed threatened and endangered species. To address Hall’s
monardella, the Forest Plans would also need to address the effects of forest activities on this
species and associated habitats (i.e., dry slopes and ridges in openings within broad-leaved
upland forest, chaparral, lower montane, coniferous forest, cismontane woodland and valley
and foothill grassland). In addition, Hall’s monardella may also be present within private
inholdings in the MSHCP planning area in the Cleveland National Forest and San Bernardino
County for compatibility with MSHCP goals and objectives for this species. In addition, the
County would need to consider requiring surveys on appropriate habitat (i.e., dry slopes and
ridges in openings within broad-leaved upland forest, chaparral, lower montane, coniferous
forest, cismontane woodland and valley and foothill grassland) within the private inholdings
and incorporate appropriate mitigation measures in individual projects should major new
ALTERNATIVE 2
Conservation of Hall’s monardella under Alternative 2 is the same as for Alternative 1.
ALTERNATIVE 3
Conservation of Hall’s monardella under Alternative 3 is the same as for Alternative 1.
P-48 Mucronea californica – California spineflower
State: None
Federal: None

ALTERNATIVE 1
RATIONALE: California spineflower would be conserved under Alternative 1.
California spineflower is associated with very sandy soils in coastal dunes, coastal sage
scrub, chaparral, cismontane woodland, and valley and foothill grasslands (Reiser 1996;
Skinner and Pavlik 1994). One population was recorded in 1904 in Wilder’s Canyon in the
Jurupa Hills (Reveal 1989). The Jurupa Hills have undergone extensive development since
1904 and this occurrence should be verified. Because the one known (historic) population of
this species within western Riverside County is not included within Alternative 1, and because
this species has such a wide spread distribution and a variety of potential habitats, California
spineflower can only be conserved under Alternative 1 with additional considerations as noted
below.
Conservation of California spineflower would require a combination of adaptive management

this species, including aggregate mining; flood control modification and water percolation
projects associated with urban development; and off-road vehicles (Reveal 1989; Skinner and
Pavlik 1994). In addition, the County would need to consider requiring surveys on appropriate
habitat (i.e., very sandy soils in sage scrub, chaparral, cismontane woodland, and valley and
foothill grasslands) within private lands and incorporate appropriate mitigation measures in
individual projects should major new populations be discovered. The 1904 occurrence in
Wilder’s Canyon should be verified.
ALTERNATIVE 2
Conservation of California spineflower under Alternative 2 is the same as for Alternative 1.

ALTERNATIVE 3
Conservation of California spineflower under Alternative 3 is the same as for Alternative 1.
P-49 Muhlenbergia californica – California muhly

State: None
Federal: None
ALTERNATIVE 1
RATIONALE: California muhly would be conserved under Alternative 1.
California muhly occurs in chaparral, coastal sage scrub, lower coniferous forest and
meadows, usually near mesic seeps or along stream banks (Skinner and Pavlik 1994).
California muhly occurs at Sage, Aguanga, Estelle Mountain, Gavilan Hills, Gavilan Plateau,
near Prado Dam, Temescal Canyon and Sitton Peak in the Santa Ana Mountains (Cleveland
National Forest) (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, unpublished data). The majority of currently
known populations and most of the potential habitat for this species occur within Alternative
1; therefore, California muhly could be conserved under Alternative 1 with additional
Conservation would depend on adaptive management measures, surveys and actions taking
place within the Cleveland National Forest and on private inholdings with suitable habitat
within the Cleveland National Forest.

California muhly, the Forest Plans would also need to address the effects of forest activities
on this species and associated habitats (i.e., chaparral, coastal sage scrub, lower coniferous
forest and meadows, usually near mesic seeps or along stream banks). In addition, California
muhly may also be present within private inholdings in the MSHCP planning area in the
Cleveland National Forest and San Bernardino National Forest. Activities within these private
on appropriate habitat (i.e., chaparral, coastal sage scrub, lower coniferous forest and
meadows, usually near mesic seeps or along stream banks) within the private inholdings and
Conservation of the Estelle Mountain population at the Lake Mathews/Estelle Mountain

Reserve is consistent with the Reserve’s mission statement and adaptive management plan.
The Reserve Management Committee is currently working to develop a recreational use plan
and corresponding management plan (Baxter, pers. comm. March 2000). If recreational uses
are proposed at the location of the Estelle Mountain population, the recreational management
plan should include additional adaptive management measures to prevent impacts to this
species.
development, road construction, grazing and recreational activities (U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, unpublished data). In addition, the County would need to consider requiring surveys
on appropriate habitat (i.e., chaparral, coastal sage scrub, lower coniferous forest and
meadows, usually near mesic seeps or along stream banks) within private lands and
ALTERNATIVE 2
Alternative 2 is consistent with the conservation of California muhly. However, because the

habitat link along Temescal Canyon would be narrower than in Alternative 1, the County would
need to require additional surveys in this area within appropriate habitat (i.e., chaparral,
coastal sage scrub, lower coniferous forest and meadows, usually near mesic seeps or along
stream banks) within private lands along Temescal Canyon and incorporate appropriate
Adaptive management measures would need to address threats to this species in this area,
including development, road construction, grazing and recreational activities (U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, unpublished data).
ALTERNATIVE 3
Conservation of California muhly under Alternative 3 is the same as for Alternative 2.
P-50 Myosurus minimus ssp. apus – little mousetail

State: None
Federal: None
ALTERNATIVE 1
RATIONALE: Little mousetail would be conserved under Alternative 1.
In southern California, little mousetail occurs in association with vernal pools and within the
alkali vernal pools and alkali annual grassland components of alkali vernal plains (Munz 1974;
Bramlet 1993; Skinner and Pavlik 1994; Ferren and Fielder 1993). Little mousetail is found
in areas that have semi-regular inundation. Little mousetail is known from at least nine
locations in western Riverside County. The largest population complex of this plant known is
found within a complex of 200 or more alkali vernal pools at Salt Creek west of Hemet
(Bramlet 1993). This complex likely represents 80 percent or more of the individuals within
southern California (Recon 1994; F. Roberts, pers. comm., 2000). Two populations
consisting of six occupied vernal pools are on the Santa Rosa Plateau within the Santa Rosa
Plateau Nature Preserve. One population is known from the Gavilan Plateau within Harford
Springs County Park (CNDDB 2000). Populations at March Air Reserve Base (last reported
in 1922) and within the Edgemont area (last reported in 1952) are likely extirpated. Little
mousetail has been reported from the vicinity of Lake Elsinore, Wildomar, and Menifee;
however, the status of these populations is unknown. Three key populations occur within the
study area: the Salt Creek populations west of Hemet, and the two populations on the Santa

Rosa Plateau. All three key populations, as well as the Gavilan Plateau population and the
majority of the potential habitat for little mousetail are included within Alternative 1. Therefore,
little mousetail is considered conserved under Alternative 1 with additional considerations as
noted below.
This species is restricted to vernal pool habitats with clay or alkali soils. As with other vernal
pool species, this one is dependent on maintaining hydrology and the surrounding watershed.
Little mousetail may not germinate or may be undetectable in dry years.
Like other species on the alkali vernal plains of Salt Creek, little mousetail depends on
specific hydrology: vernal pools. Vernal pools cannot exist in isolation and require enough
other surrounding matrix habitat to support the processes that fill the pools with water and
allow for natural populations dynamics. Alkali vernal pools can form over a larger area,
different locations, and with different configurations from year to year, based on rainfall timing,
the degree and extent of regional and local flooding and disturbance from human-related
activities such as discing and barley farming. Maintaining adequate vernal pool diversity to
allow for population dynamics is critical to this species. Loose sediment from nearby surface
disturbance can damage vernal pools.
During the last several years, nearly continuous disturbances (discing, sludge dumping, etc.)
have significantly reduced the potential for vernal pools to form at Salt Creek. This has
resulted in significant declines of little mousetail in some of the most important populations.
Therefore, de facto conservation of habitat may not be enough to assure long-term
conservation and it will be necessary to restore habitat within these areas.
Therefore, conservation of this species would require adaptive management and surveys.
habitat destruction and fragmentation from urban and agricultural development, pipeline
construction, alteration of hydrology and flood plain dynamics, excessive flooding,
channelization, off-road vehicle activity, trampling by cattle and sheep, weed abatement, fire
suppression practices (including discing and plowing), and competition from alien plant
species (Bramlet 1993b; Recon 1994; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1998).
vernal pools and within the alkali vernal pools and alkali annual grassland components of alkali
vernal plains) within private lands and incorporate appropriate mitigation measures in

Conservation of the population at Harford Springs Park is consistent with the mission
statement of the Harford Springs Reserve. Conservation of the populations on the Santa
Rosa Plateau is consistent with the mission statement of the Santa Rosa Plateau Nature
Preserve.
ALTERNATIVE 2
Conservation of little mousetail under Alternative 2 is the same as for Alternative 1.
ALTERNATIVE 3
Conservation of little mousetail under Alternative 3 is the same as for Alternative 1.
P-51 Navarretia fossalis – spreading navarretia

State: None
Federal: Threatened
ALTERNATIVE 1
RATIONALE: Spreading navarretia would be conserved under Alternative 1.
Spreading navarretia occurs in vernal pools and depressions and ditches in areas that once
supported vernal pools (Day 1993; Reiser 1996; Tierra Madre Consultants 1992). In western
Riverside County, spreading navarretia has been found in relatively undisturbed and
moderately disturbed vernal pools, within a larger vernal flood plains dominated by annual
alkali grassland or alkali playa (Bramlet). The alkali vernal play/pool habitat found in the
Hemet area is based primarily on silty clay soils in the Willows and Traver series. These soils
are usually saline-alkaline in nature and reliably pond water for long durations. Western
Riverside County supports the largest remaining populations of spreading navarretia, and
these populations area associated with the largest areas of available habitat in the United
States. Twelve populations have been identified. Several populations are reported to exceed
40,000 individuals (CNDDB 1999). Eleven of the 12 populations are found in the alkali soils
of two population complexes within the Upper Salt Creek drainage west of Hemet, and along
the San Jacinto River extending from just west of Mystic Lake south to the Perris Valley Airport

(Bramlet 1993; CNDDB 1999). The majority of the populations at Hemet and along the San
Jacinto River occur on private lands. A significant number of these populations have been
suppressed and reduced by discing and dry land farming activities in recent years (Five
closely clustered populations are in the San Jacinto Wildlife Area. Several vernal pools
occupied by spreading navarretia south of the Ramona Expressway are on lands managed
for conservation by the Riverside County Habitat Conservation Association. A small
population of spreading navarretia has been reported to occur on the Santa Rosa Plateau
within the Santa Rosa Plateau Nature Preserve (Metropolitan Water District 1991). However,
the identification of this population is uncertain; other Navarretia localities on the plateau have
been identified as prostrate navarretia (N. prostrata). Populations of spreading navarretia
also occurred at three localities in the vicinity of Murrieta Hot Springs and the southern end of
French Valley as recently as the 1920s; however, these populations have been extirpated
(Stan Spencer, in litt., 1993). Other populations are anticipated in this area. The status of a
small population on private land at the north end of French Valley near Highway 79 is
uncertain. Three key populations of spreading navarretia have been identified within the
planning area (D. Bramlet, in litt., 1992; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1998b). These areas
include alkali habitats within the San Jacinto Wildlife Area, the flood plains of the San Jacinto
River from Ramona Expressway south to Railroad Canyon and the upper Salt Creek drainage
area west of Hemet. All 12 known populations, including the three key populations, as well as
the majority of the potential habitat for spreading navarretia are included within Alternative 1.
Therefore, spreading navarretia is considered conserved under Alternative 1 with additional
This species is restricted to vernal pools and depressions and ditches in areas that once
supported vernal pools. As with other vernal pool species, this one is dependent on
maintaining hydrology and the surrounding watershed.

Like other species on the alkali vernal plains of Salt Creek, spreading navarretia depends on
specific hydrology: vernal pools. Vernal pools cannot exist in isolation and require enough
different locations, and with different configurations from year to year, based on rainfall timing,
resulted in significant declines of spreading navarretia in some of the most important
populations. Therefore, de facto conservation of habitat may not be enough to assure long-
term conservation and it will be necessary to restore habitat within these areas.
species (D. Bramlet, in litt. 1992; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1998b).
vernal pools and depressions and ditches in areas that once supported vernal pools) within
Conservation of spreading navarretia on the Santa Rosa Plateau is consistent with the
mission statement of the Santa Rosa Plateau Nature Preserve. Conservation of spreading
navarretia along the San Jacinto River within State lands at the San Jacinto Wildlife Area is
consistent with the mission statement and management plans of the California Department
of Fish and Game. Conservation of this species on County lands along the San Jacinto River
within the 100-acre Riverside County Habitat Conservation Agency parcel is possible but this
land is not being managed for the benefit of any particular species or habitat (Loew, pers.
comm. March 2000). Conservation of the one population within a Metropolitan Water District
private preserve is consistent with the management practices of the District. This private

preserve contains alkali play and vernal pools and is managed for the perpetuity of those
systems (Picht, pers. comm. March 2000).
ALTERNATIVE 2
Conservation of spreading navarretia under Alternative 2 is the same as for Alternative 1.
ALTERNATIVE 3
Conservation of spreading navarretia under Alternative 3 is the same as for Alternative 1.
P-52 Orcuttia californica – California Orcutt grass

State: Endangered
Federal: Endangered
ALTERNATIVE 1
RATIONALE: California Orcutt grass would be conserved under Alternative 1.
All California Orcutt grass occurrences are associated with vernal Pools (Crampton 1959;
Reeder 1982; Skinner and Pavlik 1994; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1998). In western
Riverside County, this species is found in southern basaltic claypan vernal pools and alkaline
vernal pools (Bramlet 1993; CNDDB 1999). Within western Riverside County, this species
is known to occur from three vernal pool sites: Upper Salt Creek west of Hemet, Skunk Hollow
and the Santa Rosa Plateau Nature Preserve (Boyd 1984; Bramlet 1993; U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service 1998; CNDDB 1999). Historically, this species was also known from Salt
Creek west of Menifee, and Murrieta Hot Springs (Reeder 1982; CNDDB 1999). A mapped
locality west of the Santa Rosa Plateau, possibly in Tenaja Canyon and a recently mapped
population at the intersection of Borel Road and Benton Road should be verified. The key
populations of California Orcutt grass in the planning area are located within the upper Salt
Creek drainage west of Hemet and on the Santa Rosa Plateau. Uncertainty regarding
distribution of this species in the Murrieta and Temecula area may conceal additional key
populations. Because all three known populations (including the two key populations) and the
majority of the potential habitat for California Orcutt grass are included within Alternative 1,
California Orcutt grass is considered conserved under Alternative 1 with additional

This species is restricted to vernal pools and depressions and ditches in areas that once
supported vernal pools. As with other vernal pool species, this one is dependent on
maintaining hydrology and the surrounding watershed.
Like other species on the alkali vernal plains of Salt Creek, California Orcutt grass depends
on specific hydrology: vernal pools. Vernal pools cannot exist in isolation and require enough
different locations, and with different configurations from year to year, base on rainfall timing,
resulted in significant declines of California Orcutt grass in some of the most important
populations. Therefore, de facto conservation of habitat may not be enough to assure long-
term conservation and it will be necessary to restore habitat within these areas.
species (D. Bramlet, in litt. 1992; U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1998b).
vernal pools and depressions and ditches in areas that once supported vernal pools) within
Conservation of California Orcutt grass on the Santa Rosa Plateau is consistent with the
mission statement of the Santa Rosa Plateau Nature Preserve.

ALTERNATIVE 2
Conservation of California Orcutt grass under Alternative 2 is the same as for Alternative 1.
ALTERNATIVE 3
Conservation of California Orcutt grass under Alternative 3 is the same as for Alternative 1.
P-53 Oxytheca caryophylloides – chickweed oxytheca

State: None
Federal: None
ALTERNATIVE 1
RATIONALE: Chickweed oxytheca would be conserved under Alternative 1.
Chickweed oxytheca occurs in sandy soils in association with yellow pine forest (Munz 1974;
Hickman 1993). Chickweed oxytheca is endemic to California and in Riverside County is
restricted to the San Jacinto Mountains at elevations of 1,200 to 2,600 m (Munz 1974; Ertter
1980; Reveal 1989; Hickman 1993. Within western Riverside County, six locations have been
mapped, all within the San Jacinto Mountains. The populations occur along S.R. 243 and in
the vicinity of Idyllwild in the San Bernardino National Forest. Most of the potential habitat is
on forest service lands. The San Bernardino National Forest lands are included in Alternative
1. Therefore, this species is considered conserved under Alternative 1 with additional
Within western Riverside County, chickweed oxytheca is limited to the San Jacinto Mountains
(San Bernardino National Forest) and conservation would depend on actions taking place
within the San Bernardino National Forest and on private inholdings with suitable habitat within
the San Bernardino National Forest.

chickweed oxytheca, the Forest Plans would also need to address the effects of forest
activities on this species and associated habitats (i.e., yellow pine forest). In addition,
chickweed oxytheca may also be present within private inholdings in the MSHCP planning
habitat (i.e., yellow pine forest) within the private inholdings and incorporate appropriate
ALTERNATIVE 2
Conservation of chickweed oxytheca under Alternative 2 is the same as for Alternative 1.
ALTERNATIVE 3
Conservation of chickweed oxytheca under Alternative 3 is the same as for Alternative 1.

P-54 Penstemon californicus – California beardtongue
State: None
Federal: None
ALTERNATIVE 1
RATIONALE: California beardtongue would be conserved under Alternative 1.
California beardtongue occurs on granitic and sandy soils and stony slopes in chaparral,
coniferous forest and pinyon-juniper woodland habitats (Skinner and Pavlik 1994; Holmgren
1993; Munz 1974; CNDDB 2000). This species is restricted to Riverside County and northern
Baja California at elevations of 1,000 to 2,100 m (Skinner and Pavlik 1994). The majority of
known occurrences for California beardtongue are in the San Jacinto Mountains (San
Bernardino National Forest), particularly Garner Valley, Pyramid Peak and Kenworthy Ranger
Station. Other localities include Hemet Valley, the vicinity of the Eastside Reservoir, Tenaja
Road in the Santa Rosa Plateau Nature Reserve, Blackburn Canyon, Aguanga and Sage
(Reiser 1996; UC Riverside Database; CNDDB 2000; Munz 1974). The populations occur
on both forest service lands (San Bernardino National Forest) and on private lands, although
most of the known occurrences and potential habitat are on forest service lands. The San
Bernardino National Forest lands are included in Alternative 1. Therefore, this species is
Within western Riverside County, California beardtongue is primarily limited to the San

California beardtongue, the Forest Plans would also need to address the effects of forest
activities on this species and associated habitats (i.e., granitic and sandy soils and stony
slopes in chaparral, coniferous forest and pinyon-juniper woodland). In addition, California
beardtongue may also be present within private inholdings in the MSHCP planning area in the
San Bernardino National Forest. Activities within these private inholdings would need to be
granitic and sandy soils and stony slopes in chaparral, coniferous forest and pinyon-juniper
woodland) within the private inholdings and incorporate appropriate mitigation measures in
grazing, firebreak construction and maintenance, and residential development in Garner
Valley (CNDDB 2000).
ALTERNATIVE 2
Conservation of California beardtongue under Alternative 2 is the same as for Alternative 1.
ALTERNATIVE 3
Conservation of California beardtongue under Alternative 3 is the same as for Alternative 1.

P-55 Polygala cornuta var. fishiae – fish’s milkwort
State: None
Federal: None
ALTERNATIVE 1
RATIONALE: Fish’s milkwort would be conserved under Alternative 1.
Fish’s milkwort is most frequently associated with shaded areas within cismontane oak
woodlands and riparian woodlands, although it also occurs in xeric and mesic chaparral
habitat at elevations of 100 to 1,000 m (Reiser 1996; Skinner and Pavlik 1994; Munz 1974;
Boyd and Banks 1995). The majority of the mapped localities occur in the Cleveland National
Forest and the Santa Rosa Plateau Nature Reserve. Fish’s milkwort localities are known from
the Santa Rosa Plateau; Temecula Canyon and Cole Canyon west of Murrieta (Lathrop and
Thorne 1985; UC Riverside Database), at least two localities from the vicinity of San Mateo
Canyon in the San Mateo Wilderness Area (Boyd, et al. 1992) and Main Street Canyon just
south of Corona in the northern Santa Ana Mountains (UC Riverside Database). Fish’s
milkwort has been recorded just outside the southern boundary of Riverside County along the
southern flank of the Agua Tibia Mountains (Boyd and Banks 1995) indicating that this
species may also be found along the northern slopes of the Agua Tibia Mountains. Because
the majority of the mapped localities and potential habitat occur in the Cleveland National
Forest, Santa Rosa Plateau Nature Reserve and Agua Tibia Wilderness Area, all of which are
included in Alternative 1, this species is considered conserved under Alternative 1 with
Within western Riverside County, Fish’s milkwort occurrences and potential habitat are
primarily limited to the Santa Ana Mountains (Cleveland National Forest), Santa Rosa Plateau
Nature Reserve and Agua Tibia Wilderness area; therefore, conservation would depend on
actions taking place within the Cleveland National Forest and on private inholdings with
suitable habitat within the Cleveland National Forest.

of forest activities on federally-listed threatened and endangered species. To address Fish’s
milkwort, the Forest Plans would also need to address the effects of forest activities on this
species and associated habitats (i.e., xeric and mesic chaparral habitat at elevations of 100
to 1,000 m). In addition, Fish’s milkwort may also be present within private inholdings in the
MSHCP planning area in the Cleveland National Forest. Activities within these private
on appropriate habitat (i.e., xeric and mesic chaparral habitat at elevations of 100 to 1,000
m) within the private inholdings and incorporate appropriate mitigation measures in individual
Moreover, conservation of this species is consistent with the goals of the U.S. Forest Service
in wilderness areas, and the mission statement of the Santa Rosa Plateau Nature Preserve.
xeric and mesic chaparral habitat at elevations of 100 to 1,000 m) within private inholdings
in the Cleveland National Forest and incorporate appropriate mitigation measures in
ALTERNATIVE 2
Conservation of Fish’s milkwort under Alternative 2 is the same as for Alternative 1.
ALTERNATIVE 3
Conservation of Fish’s milkwort under Alternative 3 is the same as for Alternative 1.

P-56 Potentilla rimicola – cliff cinquefoil
State: None
Federal: None
ALTERNATIVE 1
RATIONALE: Cliff cinquefoil would be conserved under Alternative 1.
Cliff cinquefoil occurs in granite crevices and rocky sites within upper-montane coniferous
forest and subalpine coniferous forest, at elevations of 2,390 to 3,030 m (Skinner and Pavlik
1994; CNDDB 2000). This species is restricted to the San Jacinto Mountains in Riverside
County and the San Pedro Martir Mountains in northern Baja California (Munz 1974; Ertter
1993; Skinner and Pavlik 1994). Within western Riverside County, cliff cinquefoil appears to
be restricted to the San Jacinto Mountains and only two occurrences are known: near Deer
Spring and in Dark Canyon (CNDDB 2000). The two known populations occur on forest
service lands (San Bernardino National Forest) and most of the potential habitat is on forest
service lands. The San Bernardino National Forest lands are included in Alternative 1.
Within western Riverside County, cliff cinquefoil is limited to the San Jacinto Mountains (San
Bernardino National Forest) and conservation would depend on actions taking place within
the San Bernardino National Forest and on private inholdings with suitable habitat within the
San Bernardino National Forest. Forests in the Pacific Southwest include the Los Padres,

of forest activities on federally-listed threatened and endangered species. To address cliff
cinquefoil, the Forest Plans would also need to address the effects of forest activities on this
species and associated habitats (i.e., granite crevices and rocky sites within upper-montane
coniferous forest and subalpine coniferous forest). In addition, cliff cinquefoil may also be
present within private inholdings in the MSHCP planning area in the San Bernardino National
need to consider requiring surveys on appropriate habitat (i.e., granite crevices and rocky
sites within upper-montane coniferous forest and subalpine coniferous forest) within the
private inholdings and incorporate appropriate mitigation measures in individual projects
ALTERNATIVE 2
Conservation of cliff cinquefoil under Alternative 2 is the same as for Alternative 1.
ALTERNATIVE 3
Conservation of cliff cinquefoil under Alternative 3 is the same as for Alternative 1.
P-57 Quercus engelmannii – Engelmann’s oak

State: None
Federal: None
CNPS: List 4 ( RED Code 1-2-2)
ALTERNATIVE 1
RATIONALE: Engelmann oak would be conserved within Alternative 1.
Stands of Engelmann oak are limited to sites above dry, coastal plains and below cold,
montane areas that receive at least 15 inches of precipitation per year, rarely experience frost
and have warm or hot summers (Pavlik, et al. 1991). This species has been documented at
a maximum elevation of 1,310 m. Typically, underlying soils are deep loamy clay, but the

species also does well in rocky or shallow soils with some sort of summer moisture such as
an intermittent stream or spring (Pavlik 1991). Engelmann oak is associated with alluvial fans,
interior valleys and occasionally slopes with a mesic aspect (Roberts 1995; Reiser 1996).
This species commonly occurs in two types of foothill habitats: southern oak woodlands,
where oak canopies cover from ten percent to fifty percent of the landscape; and riparian/oak
woodlands, where there is a closed-canopy of mixed hardwood species along canyon
bottoms and watercourses. Approximately 76 percent of woodlands containing Engelmann
oaks are southern oak woodlands and 24 percent are riparian woodlands (Scott 1990).
Engelmann oak has been documented in over 75 locations within western Riverside County.
The majority of stands in the planning area occur in a twelve-by-twelve-mile area around the
Santa Rosa Plateau of the Santa Ana Mountains (Scott 1990). Scattered populations also
occur in the Gavilan Hills and small stands are scattered across the Perris Plain and the
foothills of the San Jacinto Mountains (Scott 1991). This species has one key population
complex within the planning area, within the Santa Rosa Plateau Nature Preserve. The
majority of Engelmann oak populations, including the key population, and potential habitat are
included within Alternative 1. Therefore, this species is considered conserved under
Conservation of Engelmann oak would require a combination of adaptive management

this species. Cattle, deer and small rodents such as deer mice (Peromyscus sp.), woodrats
(Neotoma fuscipes) and ground squirrels threaten the regeneration of the species by feeding
and trampling upon acorns and seedlings (Lathrop and Osborne 1990; Osborne 1989; Snow
1972). Pocket gophers have been shown to inhibit resprouting because of the damage they
inflict to the roots of seedlings and young saplings (Lathrop and Young 2000). Together these
detrimental activities along with prolonged periods of drought, have created a regeneration
problem that is substantiated by the fact that Engelmann oak stands are devoid of trees
established in the last 75 to 125 years (Pavlik et al. 1991).
The County would need to consider requiring surveys on appropriate habitat (e.g., alluvial fans,
interior valleys and occasionally slopes with a mesic aspect) within private lands and
Conservation of populations within the Cleveland National Forest would depend on actions
taking place within the Cleveland National Forest and on private inholdings with suitable

habitat within the Cleveland National Forest.
Engelmann oak, the Forest Plans would also need to address the effects of forest activities
on this species and associated habitats (i.e., alluvial fans, interior valleys and occasionally
slopes with a mesic aspect). In addition, Engelmann oak may also be present within private
inholdings in the MSHCP planning area in the Cleveland National Forest. Activities within
these private inholdings would need to be reviewed by the County for compatibility with
requiring surveys on appropriate habitat (i.e., alluvial fans, interior valleys and occasionally
slopes with a mesic aspect) within the private inholdings and incorporate appropriate
Conservation of the Santa Rosa Plateau Nature Preserve population is consistent with the
Nature Conservancy’s mission statement.
ALTERNATIVE 2
Conservation of Engelmann oak under Alternative 2 is the same as for Alternative 1.

ALTERNATIVE 3
Conservation of Engelmann oak under Alternative 3 is the same as for Alternative 1.
P-58 Romneya coulteri – Coulter’s matilija poppy

State: None
Federal: None
ALTERNATIVE 1
RATIONALE: Coulter’s matilija poppy would be conserved under Alternative 1.
Coulter’s matilija poppy occurs in dry washes and canyons below 1,200 m in open, mildly
disturbed sage scrub, chaparral and along rocky drainages (Munz 1974; Clark 1993). Mature
chaparral and sage scrub may limit expansion of this species (Reiser 1996). Coulter’s
matilija poppy is restricted to the eastern slope and foothills of the Santa Ana Mountains in
Los Angeles, Orange, Riverside and San Diego counties (Reiser 1996). In western Riverside
County, Coulter’s matilija poppy is known from the confluence of Leach and Dickey canyons,
Alberhill (Mountain Avenue and canyons near Alberhill), Fresno Canyon and Wardlow Canyon
west of Corona, south of Lake Skinner, Railroad Canyon along the San Jacinto River, Murrieta
Hot Springs, Gavilan Plateau, Temescal Canyon and Horsethief Canyon (UC Riverside
Database; Reiser 1996). This species is known historically from the Elsinore Mountains (UC
Riverside Database). This species occurs on both forest service lands (Cleveland National
Forest) and private lands. Because this species has such a widespread distribution and
widely occurring potential habitats, Coulter’s matilija poppy can only be considered conserved
Conservation of Coulter’s matilija poppy would require a combination of adaptive

address threats to this species, including urbanization, agricultural conversion, flood control
measures and road widening and maintenance (Skinner and Pavlik 1994). In addition, the
County would need to consider requiring surveys on appropriate habitat (i.e., dry washes and
canyons below 1,200 m in open, mildly disturbed sage scrub, chaparral and along rocky
drainages) within private lands and incorporate appropriate mitigation measures in individual

Coulter’s matilija poppy, the Forest Plans would also need to address the effects of forest
activities on this species and associated habitats (i.e., dry washes and canyons below 1,200
m in open, mildly disturbed sage scrub, chaparral and along rocky drainages). In addition,
Coulter’s matilija poppy may also be present within private inholdings in the MSHCP planning
area in the Cleveland National Forest. Activities within these private inholdings would need
species. The County would need to consider requiring surveys on appropriate habitat (i.e.,
dry washes and canyons below 1,200 m in open, mildly disturbed sage scrub, chaparral and
along rocky drainages) within the private inholdings and incorporate appropriate mitigation

ALTERNATIVE 2
Conservation of Coulter’s matilija poppy under Alternative 2 is the same as for Alternative 1.
ALTERNATIVE 3
Conservation of Coulter’s matilija poppy under Alternative 3 is the same as for Alternative 1.
P-59 Satureja chandleri – San Miguel savory

State: None
Federal: None
ALTERNATIVE 1
RATIONALE: San Miguel savory would be conserved under Alternative 1.
San Miguel savory occurs in coastal sage scrub, chaparral, cismontane woodland, riparian
woodland and valley and foothill grasslands, in association with rocky, gabbroic and
metavolcanic substrates (CNDDB 2000). Occurrences of San Miguel savory are known from
Steele Mountain, in the vicinity of the Hogbacks; in the hills west of the Santa Rosa plateau;
on the Santa Rosa Plateau (both inside and adjacent to the Santa Rosa Plateau Nature
Preserve); and in the Santa Ana Mountains (Cleveland National Forest). A historic (1959)
occurrence is known from St. Johns Canyon south of Hemet; this occurrence should be
verified. This species occurs on both forest service lands (Cleveland National Forest) and
private lands. Because this species has such a wide spread distribution and widely occurring
potential habitats, San Miguel savory can only be considered conserved under Alternative 1
with additional considerations as noted below.
Conservation of San Miguel savory would require a combination of adaptive management

this species, including urbanization, agricultural conversion, and recreational activities
(Skinner and Pavlik 1994). In addition, the County would need to consider requiring surveys
on appropriate habitat (i.e., coastal sage scrub, chaparral, cismontane woodland, riparian
woodland and valley and foothill grasslands, in association with rocky, gabbroic and

metavolcanic substrates) within private lands and incorporate appropriate mitigation
Conservation of the population within the Santa Rosa Plateau Nature Preserve is consistent
with the mission statement of the Preserve.
of forest activities on federally-listed threatened and endangered species. To address San
Miguel savory, the Forest Plans would also need to address the effects of forest activities on
this species and associated habitats (i.e., coastal sage scrub, chaparral, cismontane
woodland, riparian woodland and valley and foothill grasslands, in association with rocky,
gabbroic and metavolcanic substrates). In addition, San Miguel savory may also be present
consider requiring surveys on appropriate habitat (i.e., coastal sage scrub, chaparral,
cismontane woodland, riparian woodland and valley and foothill grasslands, in association
with rocky, gabbroic and metavolcanic substrates) within the private inholdings and

ALTERNATIVE 2
Conservation of San Miguel savory under Alternative 2 is the same as for Alternative 1.
ALTERNATIVE 3
Conservation of San Miguel savory under Alternative 3 is the same as for Alternative 1.
P-60 Trichocoronis wrightii var. wrightii – Wright’s trichocoronis

State: None
Federal: None
ALTERNATIVE 1
RATIONALE: Wright’s trichocoronis would be conserved under Alternative 1.
In western Riverside County, Wright’s trichocoronis is found in the alkali vernal plains and
associated with alkali playa, alkali annual grassland and alkali vernal pool habitats (Bramlet
1993; Ferren and Fielder 1993). This species occupies the more mesic portions of these
habitats (Bramlet 1993). This species is known from only four locations along the San Jacinto
River from the vicinity of the Ramona Expressway and the San Jacinto Wildlife Area (Bramlet
1993; CNDDB 1998) and along the northern shore of Mystic Lake. Only two locations on
either side of the Ramona Expressway have been seen in recent years. This species may
have once occurred at Salt Creek and possibly in the alkali wetlands near Nichols Road in the
vicinity of Lake Elsinore. Both of the two currently known populations and the majority of the
potential habitat are included within Alternative 1; therefore, Wright’s trichocoronis is
This species is restricted to alkali vernal plains. Like other alkali vernal plains species,
Wright’s trichocoronis is highly dependent on alkaline soils that are saturated for extended
periods of time. Much of the remaining suitable habitat for this species has been impacted
by discing for fuel modification, alteration in the hydrology, and dry land farming activities.
Maintaining adequate flooding is critical to this species. Therefore, de facto conservation of
habitat may not be enough to assure long-term conservation and it will also be necessary to

restore habitat within these areas to allow Wright’s trichocoronis to recolonize, or reintroduce
the species to these areas.
species (Bramlet 1993b; F. Roberts, pers. comm., 2000).
alkali vernal plains and associated with alkali playa, alkali annual grassland and alkali vernal
pool habitats) within private lands and incorporate appropriate mitigation measures in
Conservation of Wright’s trichocoronis along the San Jacinto River within State lands at the
ALTERNATIVE 2
Conservation of Wright’s trichocoronis under Alternative 2 is the same as for Alternative 1.

ALTERNATIVE 3
Conservation of Wright’s trichocoronis under Alternative 3 is the same as for Alternative 1.

Alts Development

Cargado por

Información del documento

Descripción original:

Título original

Derechos de autor

Formatos disponibles

Compartir este documento

Compartir o incrustar documentos

Opciones para compartir

¿Le pareció útil este documento?

¿Este contenido es inapropiado?

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

Alts Development

Cargado por

Copyright:

Formatos disponibles

PRELIMINARY DRAFT

WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY MSHCP

605 Third Street

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ES-1

2.0 DATA SOURCES AND EVALUATION TOOLS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

4.0 DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

5.0 PRELIMINARY SPECIES ANALYSES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126

5.2.1 Birds .................................................. 127

ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT October 4, 2000

WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY MSHCP i

B-6 Ammodramus savannarum– grasshopper sparrow . . . . . 138

ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT October 4, 2000

WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY MSHCP ii

B-36 Nycticorax nycticorax -

5.2.2 Mammals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224

ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT October 4, 2000

WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY MSHCP iii

M-9 Mustela frenata latirostra – long-tailed weasel . . . . . . . . . 239

5.2.3 Amphibians . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 255

5.2.4 Reptiles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 269

ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT October 4, 2000

WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY MSHCP iv

R-12 Lampropeltis zonata pulchra –

5.2.5 Invertebrates/Crustaceans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 307

5.2.6 Invertebrates/Insects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 312

5.2.7 Fish ................................................... 316

5.2.8 Plants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 321

ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT October 4, 2000

WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY MSHCP v

P-4 Arctostaphylos rainbowensis – rainbow manzanita . . . . . . 327

ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT October 4, 2000

WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY MSHCP vi

P-34 Heuchera hirsutissima – shaggy-haired alumroot . . . . . . . 384

ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT October 4, 2000

WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY MSHCP vii

Figure 1 Regional Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT October 4, 2000

WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY MSHCP viii

Table 1 Alternative 1 — Vegetation Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT October 4, 2000

WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY MSHCP ix

ALTERNATIVE 1: Species Considered for Conservation in August 9 ?Draft

ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT October 4, 2000

WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY MSHCP 1

| Acreage ranges, by vegetation category;

1.3 ASSUMPTIONS AND LIMITATIONS

| This document provides information to support consideration of a range of

| This document is based on information currently (September 2000) assembled

ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT October 4, 2000

WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY MSHCP 2

2.1 DATA SOURCES

ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT October 4, 2000

WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY MSHCP 3

ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT October 4, 2000

WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY MSHCP 4

ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT October 4, 2000

WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY MSHCP 5

ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT October 4, 2000

WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY MSHCP 6

| MSHCP SPECIES OCCURRENCE DATA BASE. UCR has assembled a species

ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENT October 4, 2000

WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY MSHCP 7