Location: MSHCP > Nexus Report Menu > Nexus Report

Nexus Report

1. INTRODUCTION

Historically, urban Development in Southern California has occurred in the coastal areas of Los Angeles, Orange, and San Diego Counties, which has resulted in a significant loss of important biological resources in the region. The inland valleys and hillsides of Riverside and San Bernardino Counties have, until recently, remained largely rural, agricultural, and relatively undeveloped. Natural Habitats that were once common and extensive in Southern California have rapidly declined due to this historic Development pattern and to increasing Development pressure in the northwestern and southwestern parts of Riverside County over the past 15 years.

The obligation to mitigate impacts of urbanization, including public infrastructure needed to support future planned residential and nonresidential development, is the responsibility of the County, the Cities and private landowners who hold much of the last remaining intact Habitats in the region. As Development pressure has increased, so have conflicts between landowning interests and the state and federal regulatory processes associated with protecting Endangered, Threatened, and rare Species. Conflicts over species Conservation impact the ability of local jurisdictions to plan for and build infrastructure necessary to support planned development, as well as sustainable economic growth, both of which are necessary to maintain a high quality of life in the County.

In recent years, an increasing number of proponents of public and private Developments in both the incorporated and unincorporated areas of Riverside County have been required to obtain Incidental Take permits from the Wildlife Agencies for impacts to Endangered, Threatened, and rare Species and their Habitats. This past practice of obtaining project specific Incidental Take permits has resulted in costly delays in public and private Development projects and an assemblage of unconnected Habitat areas. This piecemeal and uncoordinated effort to mitigate the effects of Development also does not sustain wildlife mobility, genetic flow, or ecosystem health, which require large, interconnected natural areas.¹ Thus, a comprehensive coordinated regional effort is needed to mitigate the effects of Development on Species and their Habitats.

1.1. PURPOSE OF THE MITIGATION FEE NEXUS REPORT

The Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan Mitigation Fee Nexus Report (the "Nexus Report") was prepared to document and establish the legal and policy basis by which a mitigation fee, pursuant to "The Mitigation Fee Act" (California Government Code Section 66000, et seq.), to finance habitat acquisition and other appropriate uses in connection with the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Plan (the "MSHCP") may be imposed on new development in the MSHCP Plan Area. The MSHCP Plan Area encompasses approximately 1,966 square miles and includes all unincorporated Riverside County land west of the crest of the San Jacinto Mountains to the Orange County line, as well as the jurisdictional areas of the Cities of Banning, Beaumont, Calimesa, Canyon Lake, Corona, Hemet, Lake Elsinore, Moreno Valley, Murrieta, Norco, Perris, Riverside, San Jacinto, and Temecula (Figure 1.1).

1.2. PARTICIPATION IN PREPARATION OF THIS FEE NEXUS REPORT

In April 2003, the "Administrative Review Draft Mitigation Fee Nexus Report for the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan" (the "Administrative Review Draft") was transmitted to the County and circulated to the Cities via the various technical advisory committees ("TACs") of the Western Riverside Council of Governments ("WRCOG") and presentations were made by County staff and their MSHCP consultant team to various WRCOG committees. In May 2003, based on comments received on the Administrative Review Draft document, the "Revised Administrative Review Draft Mitigation Fee Nexus Report for the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan" (the "Revised Administrative Review Draft") was prepared and circulated. Once again, County staff and the consultants assisting with preparation of the MSHCP and the Nexus Report presented the Revised Administrative Review Draft document to the WRCOG City Manager and Planning Director's TAC. In fact, several meetings were held with the Planning Director's TAC in which the City's planning directors had a number of comments and suggestions with respect to the Nexus Report (particularly regarding the fee calculation methodology and development horizon used in the Nexus Report). In addition to presenting the Administrative Review Draft and Revised Administrative Review Draft Nexus Report to the WRCOG TACs, presentations have also been made to the MSHCP Advisory Committee and at City Council meetings or study sessions for several of the Cities.

¹ With, K. and A. King. 1999. Extinction Thresholds for Species in Fractal Landscapes. Conservation Biology: 314-326.

1.3. ORGANIZATION OF THE MITIGATION FEE NEXUS REPORT

The Nexus Report is organized in several sections as follows.

Introduction - presents an introduction to Riverside County, the Riverside County Integrated Project, and the recommended fee amounts documented in the Nexus Report.
Riverside County Integrated Project ("RCIP") - presents a summary of the three RCIP components: General Plan, Community and Environmental Transportation Acceptability Process ("CETAP") and the MSHCP.
Existing Setting - presents a summary of the existing environmental, biological, and transportation setting of Western Riverside County.
Mitigation Fee Justification Study - presents the analysis required under the Mitigation Fee Act in order for the County and Cities of Banning, Beaumont, Calimesa, Canyon Lake, Corona, Hemet, Lake Elsinore, Moreno Valley, Murrieta, Norco, Perris, Riverside, San Jacinto, and Temecula to adopt a mitigation fee (the "Local Development Mitigation Fee" or "LDMF") to finance a portion of the MSHCP.
MSHCP Funding/Financing of the Conservation Area Assembly and Management - presents summary of the MSHCP implementation costs and an analysis of the funding sources available to finance the MSHCP.
Recommendations - presents the consultant's recommendations regarding the Local Development Impact Fee to be adopted.
Other Funding Issues - presents a summary of FESA requirements, the adequacy of MSHCP funding, and the long term financing approach for management activities.

1.4. RIVERSIDE COUNTY

Riverside County, the fourth largest county in California, contains 24 incorporated Cities and numerous unincorporated areas. Riverside County is located in the southern portion of the state and is bordered by San Bernardino and Los Angeles Counties on the north, Arizona on the east, San Diego and Imperial Counties on the south, and Orange County on the west (Figure 1-2). Riverside County, is approximately the size of the State of New Jersey and encompasses approximately 7,400 square miles extending approximately 200 miles west from the Colorado River to the County's western boundary approximately 15 miles east of the Pacific Ocean.

The geography of Riverside County supports a diversity of natural habitat and biological resources that includes deserts, mountains, deep valleys, forests, and rich agricultural lands. In addition to the above-described natural resources, or perhaps as a result of such resources, the County also includes a variety of established and/or growing urban, suburban and rural communities as well as, a variety of agricultural lands, lands devoted to mineral extraction, and recreational areas. Living environments in Riverside County range from dense urban cities, suburban enclaves, and resorts, to rural communities, agricultural communities, equestrian communities and sparsely populated outposts.

The San Jacinto and Santa Rosa Mountains roughly divide Riverside County into eastern and western portions. These two areas of the County have distinct physical characteristics and historic growth patterns. The smaller western portion of the County is approximately half the size of the eastern portion of the County and is bounded by the Santa Ana

Mountains and Cleveland National Forest on the west and the San Jacinto Mountains and the San Bernardino National Forest on the east. Compared to eastern Riverside County, the western portion of the County has experienced the greatest population growth and has a greater concentration of population than the eastern portion of the County. The residents of Western Riverside County are concentrated in the incorporated cities of Banning, Beaumont, Calimesa, Canyon Lake, Corona, Hemet, Lake Elsinore, Moreno Valley, Murrieta, Norco, Perris, Riverside, San Jacinto, and Temecula. Of Riverside County's 24 cities, only these 14 Western Cities would participate in the subject MSHCP.

1.5. RIVERSIDE COUNTY GROWTH TRENDS

Riverside County is one of the fastest growing areas in the State. Between 1994 and 1999, the population in Riverside County increased at an overall growth rate of approximately 7% during that time resulting in approximately 96,000 new residents.² Results of Census 2000³ indicate that Riverside County was home to over 1.5 million people and approximately 585,000 dwelling units in 2000. Year 2020 population and housing estimates prepared by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) project the population and housing stock in the County will nearly double to approximately 2.8 million people and 918,000 dwelling units.⁴

Another study by the California Department of Finance estimates that the County will continue to grow to 3.5 million people by 2030 and 4.5 million people by 2040. Projections developed for the Riverside County Integrated Project (RCIP) estimated that approximately 1.67 million persons would reside in nearly 558,000 dwelling units in the unincorporated areas of the County by 2040.

Accommodating Riverside County's projected population increase will require the development of thousands of acres of undeveloped land. Conflicts over species conservation threaten the ability of local jurisdictions to plan for and develop necessary infrastructure to provide for a high quality of life as well as accommodate and maintain economic development in Riverside County. Additionally, conflicts over conservation of species and their habitat threaten to fracture species habitats rather than conserve them. Continuation of the current piecemeal process of endangered species protection would likely preclude the possibility of creating a sustainable conservation area that will protect endangered, threatened, and other species and the habitats upon which they rely.

² County of Riverside General Plan, Housing Element, page H-78

³ United States Census Bureau, Census 2000, American Fact Finder Summary File

1.5.1 RIVERSIDE COUNTY INTEGRATED PROJECT

In order to maintain and enhance the quality of life and balance the associated housing, transportation, and economic needs of existing and future populations, in view of limited natural resources and the sensitivity of the natural environment, Riverside County undertook a unique and comprehensive planning effort, the Riverside County Integrated Project ("RCIP"). RCIP consists of three integrated plans that provide for future planning, transportation, and conservation needs for the County. These plans are listed below and summarized in Section 2:

The 2002 Riverside County General Plan⁵ (Comprehensive General Plan Amendment No. GPA006181) updated to be consistent with state requirements for the unincorporated portion of the County.
The Community Transportation and Environmental Transportation Acceptability Process ("CETAP"), which as an essential component of the General Plan's circulation element and arterial highway plan, identifies future transportation corridors in the western portion of the County.
The Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan ("MSHCP"), which provides for the Conservation of over 100 species in a conservation area of 500,000 acres within the western part of the County.

⁴ Draft MSHCP Volume IV, Draft EIR/EIS, November 15, 2002

⁵ The August 2002 Hearing Draft of the Riverside County General Plan was used in this Nexus Report.

1.6. RECOMMENDED FEE AMOUNTS

Table 1-1 presents the Local Development Mitigation Fee amounts to finance the habitat acquisition and other appropriate costs as documented in more detail in Section 4 of this report. The fee amounts in Table 1-1 do not reflect the application of any outside funding sources that may be available to fund a portion of the MSHCP program costs as discussed in Section 5 of the Nexus Report.

Table 1-1 - Summary of Local Development Mitigation Fee Amounts Derived in Section 4*
Land Use Category	Gross Acreage*	Density	Equivalent Dwelling Unit (EDU)	Equivalent Benefit Unit (EBU)
Residential, density less than 8 dwelling units per acre**	$9,492 /gross acre	$2,414 /DU***	$2,231 /DU***	$2,354 /DU***
Residential, density between than 8.1 and 14.0 dwelling units per acre dwelling units per acre	$9,492 /gross acre	$965 /DU***	$1,785 /DU***	$1,506 /DU***
Residential, density greater than 14.1 dwelling units per acre dwelling units per acre	$9,492 /gross acre	$8,208 /gross acre	$14,502 /gross acre	$859 /DU***
Commercial Development	$9,492 /gross acre	$8,208 /gross acre	$14,502 /gross acre	$8,004 /gross acre
Industrial and Business Park Development	$9,492 /gross acre	$8,208 /gross acre	$7,585 /gross acre	$8,004 /gross acre
These fee amounts do not reflect the application of outside funding sources as discussed in Section 5 of the Nexus Report Fee is imposed on a maximum of 0.5 acres for single family residential lots larger than 0.5 acres ** DU means dwelling unit

2. RIVERSIDE COUNTY INTEGRATED PROJECT (RCIP)

As introduced in Section 1, the County Board of Supervisors and the Riverside County Transportation Commission ("RCTC") initiated the Riverside County Integrated Project ("RCIP") in 1999 in order to comprehensively plan for the demands of the projected population growth, encourage economic development, create new jobs, and provide for the timely construction of infrastructure. As indicated in Section 1.5.1 of the Nexus Report, the RCIP includes 3 components: the 2002 General Plan⁶, CETAP, and the MSHCP.

The RCIP is unique in that it integrated the processes of land use and transportation planning with habitat preservation for endangered species. Consequently a primary objective of the RCIP is to accommodate projected population growth in the County by focusing development within areas that will be readily accessible to public infrastructure, will provide a good quality of life for future residents, and will minimize environmental impacts, including impacts to sensitive habitats, endangered species, and aquatic resources.

2.1. GENERAL PLAN

State law requires all counties and cities in the State to prepare and maintain a general plan for the long-term growth, development, and management of the community. The general plan acts as a charter for development, and is a city's or county's lead legal document in relation to growth, development, and resource management issues. The law further requires that a city's or county's development regulations (e.g., zoning and subdivision standards) be consistent with its General Plan.

The 2002 Riverside County General Plan⁷ (the "General Plan") consists of separate elements⁸ addressing: land use, circulation, multipurpose open space, safety, noise, housing, air quality, and administration which articulate the vision, issues, and County policies regarding the appropriate type and intensity of land use for every parcel within unincorporated Riverside County. Using text and maps, the General Plan identifies lands for housing, business, industry, public facilities, recreation, and other uses. As the blueprint for the future of Riverside County, the General Plan describes anticipated future growth, development, and environmental management programs over the long term. It is the foundation for growth and land-use-related decision-making with respect to public and private development, within unincorporated Riverside County. The General Plan expresses the community's goals regarding the manmade and natural environments and sets forth policies and implementation measures to achieve those goals for the welfare of those who live, work, and do business in Riverside County.

⁶ For Purposes of the Nexus Report the Public Hearing Draft of the County of Riverside General Plan, (dated April 5, 2002) was used.

⁷ Throughout the Nexus Report, references to the General Plan refer to the Public Hearing Draft General Plan dated April 5, 2002.

⁸ For a concise summary of the General Plan elements and organization please refer to page I-10 of the County of Riverside General Plan Public Hearing Draft (April 5, 2002).

With respect to the Nexus Report, two features of the General Plan are germane to the determination of the mitigation fee amount: Area Plans⁹ and the land use Foundation Components. Each of these features is discussed below.

2.1.1 AREA PLANS

This brief introduction to the area plan concept is included to acquaint the reader with the Area Plan concept. Area Plans are germane to the Nexus Report since they are used in determining the local acquisition costs as discussed in Section 4.8.

The General Plan consists of two levels of policies that direct land use and development in the County: 1) Policies that are applicable to the entire unincorporated area and are contained in the General Plan and reflected on the General Plan Land Use Map (Figure 2.1); and 2) focused policies that address specific regional or local issues which found in individual Area Plans.

The Area Plans include a land use map, specific policy direction regarding local issues such as land use, circulation, open space, and other issues unique to each of the 19 Area Plans identified in Table 2-1 and shown on Figure 2.2.

⁹ The Area Plans replace the previously adopted set of community plans plus the Riverside Extended Mountain Area Plan (REMAP) and the Southwest Area Plan (SWAP).

Table 2-1 Riverside County Area Plans¹⁰
Areas Plans Within Western Riverside County
Eastvale
Elsinore
Harvest Valley/Winchester
Highgrove
Jurupa
Lake Mathews/Woodcrest
Lakeview/Nuevo
Mead Valley
Reche Canyon/Badlands
Riverside Extended Mountain (REMAP)
San Jacinto Valley
Southwest (SWAP)
Sun City/Menifee Valley
Temescal Canyon
The Pass
Area Plans Within Eastern Riverside County
Desert Center
Eastern Coachella Valley
Palo Verde
Western Coachella Valley
¹⁰ Only the western Riverside County Area Plans are within the MSHCP Plan Area.

2.1.2 FOUNDATION COMPONENTS

In general terms, the Public Hearing Draft General Plan dated April 5, 2002, maps areas suitable for development, areas suitable for agriculture, and areas to be permanently conserved by designating all parcels in the unincorporated area of the County into one of four Foundation Components: Community Development, Rural, Agricultural, and Multipurpose Open Space as indicated on the General Plan Land Use Map (Figure 2.1). Foundation Components are basic to the entire process of land management in the County and accommodate a prescribed array of uses.

Multipurpose Open Space is the least intensive, followed by Agriculture, then Rural, and finally, Community Development.¹¹ The Community Development component is intended to accommodate the greatest amount of anticipated growth.

As discussed in Section 4 of this report, the Foundation Components are one of the factors considered in the estimated costs of assembling the local acquisition portion of the Additional Conservation Lands.¹²

2.2. COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENTAL AND TRANSPORTATION ACCEPTABILITY PROGRAM (CETAP)

Orderly development requires the efficient and effective transportation of people and goods. In order to achieve these objectives, the Community Environmental and Transportation Acceptability Program ("CETAP") component of RCIP identifies regional transportation corridors to meet the future transportation needs of Riverside County. CETAP goes beyond a typical circulation element¹³ in that it recognizes that transportation occurs between the various jurisdictions in Riverside County (i.e. unincorporated and incorporated areas) as well as between Riverside County jurisdictions and neighboring counties. CETAP is a multi-modal planning effort consisting of highway options, transit, and other forms of travel demand management and goods movement.

CETAP proposes two different corridors within Riverside County: a Winchester to Temecula corridor (the "WT Corridor") and a Hemet to Corona/Lake Elsinore corridor (the "HCLE Corridor"). CETAP also proposes two "bi-County" corridors, the San Bernardino to Moreno Valley corridor (the "SBMV Corridor") and the Orange County to Riverside County corridor (the "OCRC Corridor"). Proposed current alternatives for the San Bernardino connection focus on a connection from the SR-60 freeway in the western portion of Moreno Valley to the I-10 freeway in the Loma Linda/Redlands area of San Bernardino County.

¹¹ Refer to General Plan Chapter 3, Land Use Element for a more extensive description of the Foundation Components.

¹² As discussed in Section 4, the local acquisition portion of the Additional Reserve Lands is 56,000 acres.

¹³ Generally a circulation element pertains only to those transportation facilities within the corporate limits of a single jurisdiction.

The design concept for the CETAP corridors includes: 1) six mixed flow lanes (three in each direction) and two high occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes (one in each direction); 2) sufficient right-of-way-width to meet Caltrans' standards for freeway shoulders and medians; 3) sufficient right-of-way for an exclusive transitway for either rail or bus; 4) buffer areas and areas for utilities; and 5) interchanges at existing freeways.¹⁴

2.2.1 REGIONAL PLANNING CONTEXT

Planning for future transportation improvements in the six-county region of the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) is addressed in the Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), which was adopted in 2001. The RTP policies for western Riverside County reflect the goal to implement regional transportation improvements intended to satisfy future traffic demand in western Riverside County and achieve SCAG's long-range transportation planning goals to reduce traffic congestion and improve air quality within the region. The RTP is updated every three years.

The RTP was developed pursuant to federal requirements and policies and sets forth a multimodal, financially feasible planning strategy for southern California, including Riverside County. Additionally, the RTP set forth transportation policies and improvements necessary to achieving mobility goals to year 2025 after taking projected population growth and economic factors into account.

The RTP may be amended to substitute new or revised transportation improvements, if the proposed amendments will better accomplish future mobility goals. The alternative ultimately selected through the RCIP/CETAP process to increase mobility will be included as a specific transportation route in the RTP. Currently, the CETAP corridors are included in the 2001 RTP as generalized major transportation studies.

¹⁴ Source: Riverside County Road Department, January 30, 2003.

2.2.2 THE WINCHESTER TO TEMECULA CORRIDOR

The Winchester to Temecula Corridor (the "WT" Corridor) is intended to:

"...provide multimodal transportation improvements that will help alleviate future traffic demands and congestion and improve the movement of people and goods between the Winchester area and the existing Interstate corridors."¹⁵

The CETAP alternative selected for the WT Corridor is projected to reduce travel time between Winchester and Temecula in the future compared to future conditions without implementation of the WT Corridor.

2.2.2.1. Transportation Benefits from the WT Corridor

Without transportation improvements beyond those currently planned in western Riverside County, future development will not have adequate access to the regional transportation system, resulting in increased local and regional traffic congestion, and inadequate mobility on existing facilities, including regional highways and local arterials within the study area. There is a lack of an efficient north-south connection to address the projected movement of people and goods 25 years from now within the interior of western Riverside County.

Adequate transportation infrastructure is needed to support the projected job growth in the Hemet/San Jacinto, Temecula, Murrieta, and the I-215 Corridor areas. The particular need in the WT Corridor is for high-speed access to Interstate 10 and Interstate 15, allowing for better access to markets, customers, and suppliers in San Diego, Mexico, the Coachella Valley, and points to the east along Interstate 10.

Sections of particular concern are SR-79 (Winchester Road) in the City of Temecula and the I-15 in the cities of Temecula and Murrieta. As development occurs in this corridor, traffic will increase well beyond the capacity of SR-79 to accommodate it. Just east of I15, projected volume for year 2025 on SR-79 is 100,000 vehicles per day, representing Level of Service (LOS) F for seven hours per day.¹⁶ In addition, through traffic in this area has little choice but to use SR-79 through the core commercial area of the City.

¹⁵ Purpose and Need Statement for the Riverside County Integrated Project, Hemet to Corona/Lake Elsinore Corridor, July 13, 2001.

¹⁶ Transportation engineers describe the quality of traffic flow in terms of a "level of service" scale, from A to F. LOS A means very good traffic flow; level of service F means very poor flow.

Over time, as the interior of western Riverside County develops commercially, through truck traffic will increase on SR-79. The commercial nature and volume of through traffic is not compatible with SR-79 as an arterial street serving local commercial properties. I-15 between SR-79 and I-215 is projected to carry over 250,000 vehicles in year 2025, operating at LOS F. This level of congestion will result in substantial spillover traffic to city streets.

I-15 is also a critically important goods movement corridor, linking San Diego and Mexico with the Inland Empire (Riverside and San Bernardino Counties) and the greater Los Angeles region. Trucks make up approximately 15 percent of the traffic volume on I-15. One of the major reasons for the high level of traffic demand on I-15 near Temecula is the convergence of major roadways (I-15, I-215, and SR-79). The I-215 and SR-79 terminate within three miles of each other at the I-15. With the I-15 already carrying heavy volumes as the main north-south freeway for this portion of western Riverside County, the problems are intensified by the convergence of these roadways in the same area. I-15 is an eight lane to ten lane freeway in this area and can accommodate the current volumes of traffic; however, LOS F conditions will occur in 2025. Relief of future traffic congestion on I-15 through Temecula has been a consideration in the development of alternatives for this corridor.

As a six-lane facility, SR-79 east of I-15 in Temecula (Winchester Road) is currently carrying 34,000 vehicles per day. With few other existing east-west roadways in the City of Temecula, mobility is severely hampered for motorists during the peak periods. This specific lack of east-west mobility will increase pressures on existing east-west roadways and unnecessarily increase travel on north-south facilities. This will exacerbate both the local and regional traffic problems as traffic volumes on both the SR-79 and I-215 corridors increase.

The City of Temecula estimates that 25 percent of the workers living in that city travel to jobs in the San Diego region (source: commuter surveys of Temecula residents conducted by City of Temecula). As the San Diego region expands northward, this trend is expected to continue. Likewise, as growth moves northward from the Temecula/Murrieta area, the amount of travel through the cities to the San Diego region will increase. This will create an increasing problem of through traffic, including through truck traffic, traveling on the local streets of the cities of Temecula and Murrieta.

It is anticipated that the selected CETAP alternative for the WT Corridor will reduce travel time between Winchester and Temecula in the future compared to future conditions without implementation of the proposed action. In addition, it is anticipated that the selected alternative will reduce future traffic volume and congestion on I-15 in Temecula, reduce future traffic volumes on Winchester Road east of I-15, and improve average study area traffic speed.

Table 2-2¹⁷ shows differences in daily vehicle miles of travel ("VMT"), vehicle hours of travel ("VHT"), and average speed for all 2025 alternatives in the WT Corridor as compared with the 2025 base run. The differences are summarized at two levels: the WT Corridor study area, and western Riverside County. The corridor study area statistics are most directly applicable to the identification of average benefit among the various alternatives being considered in this corridor. The change in average speed is the most important distinguishing feature among the alternatives. It most directly relates to the purpose and need defined for the WT Corridor. The table also estimates the magnitude of annual user benefit for year 2025 in today's dollars. Transportation agencies typically assign a dollar value to a vehicle-hour of time saved. The values shown in Table 2-2 were developed using a value of $10 per vehicle-hour, a conservatively low value.

¹⁷ Data in Table 2-2 is summarized from the "Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Draft Environmental Impact Report Winchester to Temecula corridor." July 2002, Table 4.15.B.

Table 2-2 Daily User Benefits from WT Corridor
Scope	Statistic	No Build	Average of Alternate Alignments
Winchester-Temecula Corridor Study Area	VMT	9,662,000	+1.22%
	VHT	230,000	-2.6%
	Avg. Speed	42 mph	+3.9%
Western Riverside County	VMT	4,299,000	+0.3%
	VHT	1,629,100	-0.56%
	Avg. Speed	33 mph	+0.86%
Annual Benefit	NA	NA	$33.6 million

All WT Corridor alternatives show a general increase in average speed and reduction in VHT as compared to the base run, especially in the WT Corridor study area, since these alternatives are included primarily to serve north-south travel. However, there is an increase in VMT in the WT Corridor study area, with the exception of one alternative. The increases in VMT are primarily due to added capacity in the north-south direction and the diversion of traffic from roadways outside the corridor to roadways within the corridor. The higher average speed indicates a more efficient network. The savings in VHT are best assessed from the statistics for all of western Riverside County in Table 2-2. The VHT reduction for western Riverside County may appear to be small on a percentage basis, but are still very significant in terms of total delay savings and associated economic benefit. Alternative 5b, for example, would generate approximately 42 million dollars in economic value of time savings annually. When summed over the life of the project (usually assumed to be at least 40 years for major infrastructure), the total benefit is substantial, even though the percent change may be small.

The peak hour LOS, for the 2025 Base and the LOS for each of the alternatives have been analyzed for selected segments. With the exception of one alternative, all the alternatives in the WT Corridor operate at LOS C or better. Alternative H operates at LOS F on I-15 in the Temecula area, due to the high future traffic demands on that alternative. In some cases the WT alternatives improve operations on other roadways in the study area, and in other cases operation may worsen. Generally, roadways that parallel an alternative improve in level of service; roadways that feed into the alternatives may be impacted with higher volumes. However, the overall benefits of any selected alternative will enhance the LOS from what it is under the base run.

2.2.3 THE HEMET TO CORONA/LAKE ELSINORE CORRIDOR

The Hemet to Corona/Lake Elsinore Corridor (the "HCLE" Corridor) is intended to:

"…provide multimodal transportation improvements that will help alleviate future traffic demands and congestion and improve the east-west movement of people and goods across western Riverside County."¹⁸

¹⁸ Purpose and Need Statement for the Riverside County Integrated Project, Hemet to Corona/Lake Elsinore Corridor, July 31, 2001.

It is anticipated that the selected CETAP alternative for the HCLE Corridor will reduce future travel time between Hemet and Corona/Lake Elsinore when compared to future conditions without implementation of the HCLE Corridor. Additionally, it is anticipated that the HCLE Corridor will reduce future traffic volume and congestion on SR-91 and SR-60/I-215 in the City of Riverside and improve average traffic speed in the HCLE Corridor study area.

2.2.3.1. Transportation Benefits from the HCLE Corridor

As discussed in the "Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental Report Hemet to Corona/Lake Elsinore Corridor" (July 2002), adequate transportation infrastructure is needed to support the projected job growth in the Hemet/San Jacinto, Temecula, Murrieta, Banning/Beaumont/Calimesa, and the I-215 Corridor areas. The particular need in the HCLE Corridor is for high-speed access to I-15, I-215, and SR-79. For example, there are currently no reasonable transportation facilities for the movement of goods from the SR-91 corridor into the areas being designated for commercial development along I-215. Trucks must be routed along SR-91 and SR-60/215, which are highly congested now and are predicted to be more congested in the future. Existing arterials are not designed to support the anticipated goods movement activity. Even though SR-74 between I-15 and I-215 will be widened to four lanes within the next two years, the route passes through the middle of downtown Perris, and is not suitable for the movement of trucks or higher volume traffic. Also, Cajalco Road is a two-lane rural, winding roadway between I-15 and I-215, and passes through the Stephens' Kangaroo Rat Conservation Area to the south of Lake Mathews. SR-60/I-215 in the Box Springs area serves as the only other freeway access into the area, and this route is heavily congested and is only an indirect route from the Corona area and points to the west.

Some of the specific employment locations for which east-west access is a concern include March Air Conservation Area Base, the Sun City/Menifee employment area, the employment areas immediately north and east of the City of Perris, and the I-215 corridor. These areas will require improved connections to Interstate 10 to and from the east, to I-15 toward Corona and Ontario, and SR-91 with connections to Orange County and Los Angeles.

Many of the segments are projected to be operating at LOS F in year 2025. This will lead to degradation in the movement of people and goods on the transportation network to and from Hemet. Traffic on SR-60/I-215 in Box Springs is projected to increase from 170,000 vehicles per day to over 300,000 per day, well in excess of what this section of roadway can handle even with the addition of improvements already planned and programmed. One of the reasons for the projected increase in congestion on SR-60/I-215 is the lack of other major east-west transportation facilities.

As a point of reference, Riverside County has established, as a Countywide target, a Level of Service C on all County maintained roads and conventional State Highways, with LOS D allowed in areas planned for urban development. According to the 2000 Highway Capacity Manual (HCM), LOS is categorized by two parameters of traffic; uninterrupted and interrupted flow. Uninterrupted flow facilities (e.g., freeways) do not have fixed elements such as traffic signals that cause interruptions in traffic flow. Interrupted flow facilities have fixed elements that cause an interruption in the flow of traffic, such as stop signs and signalized intersections along arterial roads. Of the east-west routes discussed previously, SR-91 is the most heavily traveled facility, with a peak hour demand of nearly 11,000 vehicles in the PM peak hour eastbound east of I-15 (west of McKinley) and a LOS F rating. A freeway lane can carry approximately 2,300 vehicles per hour. SR-60/I-215 in the Box Springs area carries over 7,000 vehicles in the PM peak hour, also a LOS F.

Table 2-3¹⁹ shows the expected 2025 differences in daily VMT, VHT, and average speed for all alternatives in the HCLE Corridor as compared with the 2025 base run. The differences are summarized at two levels: the HCLE Corridor study area, and western Riverside County. The corridor study-area statistics are most directly applicable to the identification of greatest benefit among the various alternatives being considered in this corridor. The change in average speed is the most important distinguishing feature among the alternatives. It most directly relates to the purpose and need defined for this corridor. The peak period VMT, VHT, and average speeds show patterns similar to the daily statistics in terms of percentage differences and, therefore, are not shown. The table also estimates the magnitude of annual user benefit for year 2025 in today's dollars. Transportation agencies typically assign a dollar value to a vehicle-hour of time saved. The values shown in Table 2-3 were developed using a value of $10 per vehicle-hour, a conservatively low value.

¹⁹ Data in Table 2-3 is summarized from the "Draft Environmental Impact Statement/Draft Environmental Impact Report Hemet to Corona/Lake Elsinore Corridor", July 2002, Table 4.15.B.

Table 2-3 Daily User Benefits from HCLE Corridor
Scope	Statistic	No Build	Average of Alternate Alignments
HCLE Corridor Study Area	VMT	19,047,000	+4.37%
	VHT	469,600	+1.44%
	Avg. Speed	41 mph	+2.9%
Western Riverside County Annual Benefit	VMT	4,299,000	+0.83%
	VHT	1,629,100	-0.62%
	Avg. Speed	33 mph	+1.49%
Annual Benefit	NA	NA	$37.1 million

All HCLE alternatives show a general improvement in average speed as compared to the base run, especially in the Hemet to Corona/Lake Elsinore study area, since these alternatives are included primarily to serve east-west travel. However there is also an increase in VMT and VHT in the Hemet to Corona/Lake Elsinore Corridor. This is primarily due to added capacity in the east-west direction and the diversion of traffic from roadways outside the corridor to roadways within the corridor. The higher average speed indicates a more efficient network.

The savings in VHT are best assessed from the statistics for all of western Riverside County in Table 2-3. The VHT reduction for western Riverside County may appear to be small on a percentage basis, but are still very significant in terms of total delay savings and associated economic benefit. The average Annual Benefit generates approximately $37.1 million in annual economic value of time savings. When summed over the life of the project (usually assumed to be at least 40 years for major infrastructure), the total benefit is substantial, even though the percent change may be small.

For the 2025 Base Condition, that is without the HCLE corridor, most of the east-west facilities in the area, including SR-91, SR-60, Ramona Expressway and SR-74, show LOS E to F at a number of segments in both directions during the PM peak hour, indicating high levels of congestion. There is no high-capacity east-west highway south of SR-60 in the study area. This leads to most east-west facilities to serve future development facing excessive congestion during the PM peak hour. The pattern of deficient facilities in the study corridor suggests the need for additional high-speed capacity in the east-west direction between I-15 and SR-79. The following provide some overall conclusions from the traffic analysis regarding the effects of the HCLE Corridor alternatives on vehicular traffic operations in the project study area:

All of the HCLE alternatives operate at LOS D or better in year 2025. In some cases, the alternatives improve operations of other roadways in the study area and in other cases operations may worsen. Generally, roadways that parallel an alternative improve in LOS; roadways that feed the alternatives may be impacted with higher volumes. The farther south the alternative, the less traffic relief provided to SR-60 and SR-91. The farther south the alternative, the lower the reduction in travel time for businesses in the key commercial growth areas along I-215 in the Perris to Moreno Valley area. Even though the percentage reductions in VHT may appear to be small, the total benefit in delay savings and in economic terms is substantial for most alternatives.

2.2.4 SAN BERNARDINO TO MORENO VALLEY CORRIDOR

The SBMV Corridor will be located in the vicinity of I-215 and Ironwood Avenue, Riverside County and extend to California Street in San Bernardino County. This facility will be tunneled under the Box Springs Conservation Area. The tunnel portals will be sited outside of the Criteria Area. The Corridor will proceed east from Box Springs Conservation Area generally along Center Street and span Reche Canyon Road before entering San Bernardino County. This SBMV Corridor is a covered activity under the MSHCP for direct, indirect and cumulative impacts within the MSHCP Plan Area. However, coverage is conditioned upon direct, indirect and cumulative impacts on the facility in San Bernardino County being addressed. An amendment to the MSHCP will be required to permit this facility within the MSHCP Conservation Area. The type of amendment, major or minor, will be determined once additional information is assembled regarding the design and location of the facility.

2.2.5 ORANGE COUNTY TO RIVERSIDE COUNTY CORRIDOR

The OCRC Corridor is currently under study by the Riverside County Transportation Commission and the Orange County Transportation Authority. The OCRC Corridor is not currently contemplated in the Hearing Draft General Plan Circulation Element, but has been identified as a mitigation measure in the Draft EIR for the General Plan as a mitigation measure to reduce the significant traffic impacts associated with the General Plan. There are six alternative alignment/location concepts under study, however only one alignment alternative would be selected. The selected alignment would be considered a Covered activity under the MSHCP, subject to the criteria and conditions contained therein. The MSHCP coverage applies only within the MSHCP Plan Area. If the selected alignment requires actions of the USFS, a separate FESA Section 7 consultation process between the USFS and the USFWS will be required. The direct, indirect, cumulative and growth inducing impacts of that portion of the OCRC Corridor within the MSHCP Plan Area are addressed in the MSHCP Plan. Indirect, Central and Coastal Subregion NCCP, subject to satisfaction of the criteria in the MSHCP. The direct, indirect, cumulative and growth inducing impacts for the potion of the other two alternative alignments outside of the MSHCP Plan Area are currently not addressed, but are required to be addressed and mitigated through the proposed Orange County Southern Subregion NCCP, the approval of which is required as a condition of coverage for these two alternatives, discussed in the MSHCP.

2.2.6 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CETAP AND MSHCP

The MSHCP (discussed in Section 2.3) is expected to address the cumulative and growth facilitating effects of the CETAP corridors on endangered species, and to facilitate requisite environmental clearances for such corridors. The route location decisions for the CETAP corridors will support and guide land use planning in western Riverside County. Due to the rapid pace of development in Riverside County, opportunities are being lost to set aside land for regional transportation facilities. The timely preservation of right-of-way helps ensure that needed transportation infrastructure will be available in the future to support the economy of Riverside County and provide and/or improve access to jobs; existing, planned, and future homesites; serve existing and future schools; shopping; and other daily activities. Similarly, the timely preservation of the requisite Habitats as mitigation for transportation will ensure that ESA conditions are met before adequate conservation and linkage options are precluded. The decision of where to locate the transportation corridors also informs government agencies, landowners, and residents so that timely land use policy decisions can be made and appropriate development standards can be implemented. The CETAP corridors are identified as permitted uses under the MSHCP as further discussed in Section 2.3.7.

2.3. WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan

2.3.1 INTRODUCTION TO THE MSHCP

The Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (the "MSHCP") involves the assembly and management of a conservation area for the conservation of natural habitats and their constituent wildlife populations for over 100 listed and unlisted species (the "Covered Species"). The MSHCP establishes a framework for complying with State and federal endangered species regulations in addition to accommodating future growth within the Cities and unincorporated portions of western Riverside County. Thus unlike the proposed General Plan, the MSHCP covers only the western portion of the County and includes both unincorporated and incorporated areas.

The MSHCP Plan Area encompasses approximately 1.26 million acres (1,966 square miles); and includes all unincorporated Riverside County land west of the crest of the San Jacinto Mountains to the Orange County line, as well as the jurisdictional areas of the Cities of Temecula, Murrieta, Lake Elsinore, Canyon Lake, Norco, Corona, Riverside, Moreno Valley, Banning, Beaumont, Calimesa, Perris, Hemet, and San Jacinto. The MSHCP is one of the largest plans ever attempted. It covers multiple species and multiple Habitats within a diverse landscape, from urban centers to undeveloped foothills and montane forests, all under multiple jurisdictions. It extends across many Bioregions as well, including the Santa Ana Mountains, Riverside Lowlands, San Jacinto Foothills, San Jacinto Mountains, Agua Tibia Mountains, Desert Transition, and San Bernardino Mountains. The MSHCP has been crafted to provide a coordinated Conservation Area and implementation program to maintain biological diversity and the region's quality of life.

The proposed MSHCP contains the overall conservation strategy for western Riverside County and documents the conservation strategies that will be used to permanently protect the species it covers. The conservation strategy includes the conservation of existing habitat, the restoration of degraded habitat, managing the system of conservation lands, and conducting biological monitoring in perpetuity. The proposed MSHCP describes the institutional mechanisms to coordinate MSHCP implementation among the County, Cities, and agencies, and identifies funding sources necessary for project implementation.

The MSHCP will serve as a habitat conservation plan (HCP) pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA), as well as a Natural Community Conservation Plan ("NCCP") under the California NCCP Act of 1991. The provisions of the MSHCP will provide mitigation for future impacts of planned urban, rural, and regional infrastructure development on the species identified in the MSHCP. The MSHCP will allow participating jurisdictions (Riverside County and each of the 14 Cities in the western portion of the County) to "take" (permit the loss of) the plant and animal species identified in the MSHCP through the agencies' local land use planning and development review processes. The Permittees will have the authority to grant Third Party Authorization to private developers, provided the terms of the MSHCP are satisfied. The intent of the MSHCP is to provide the documentation necessary for the

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ("USFWS") and California Department of Fish and Game ("CDFG") to grant "take authorizations" pursuant to the federal and State endangered species acts for otherwise lawful actions (e.g., permitted development that may incidentally take or harm individuals of the species or their habitats covered by the MSHCP). These take authorizations would be granted in recognition of the mitigating effects of the coordinated conservation system planned by the MSHCP.

The proposed MSHCP would provide for the creation of a conservation system to protect and manage 153,000 acres of habitat for Covered Species, consisting of 97,000 acres conserved as the local mitigation component and 6,000 acres conserved as mitigation for State Permittee projects (Caltrans and State Parks). It is anticipated that the Wildlife Agencies would provide an additional 50,000 acres to help achieve conservation identified in the MSHCP. Of the 97,000 acres conserved as the local mitigation component, 41,000 would accrue through the implementation of developer incentives and on-site set asides accomplished through the development review and land use entitlement process, with the remaining 56,000 acres of land being acquired.

The precise boundaries of the proposed 153,000 acre Additional Conservation Area Lands are not specifically identified in the MSHCP, but are generally targeted for acquisition in the Criteria Areas. The conservation area and the biological objectives are enumerated by Area Plan Sub-Unit Cell Grouping and ultimately on a cell-by-cell²⁰ basis. The conservation of 153,000 acres is anticipated to occur over the first 25 years of the program and when completed, must be in a configuration to, and include the vegetation communities that provide for the conservation of Covered Species. To accomplish this, the MSHCP envisions habitat conservation within approximately 347,000 acres of public/quasi-public lands, and establishes land use and conservation criteria sufficient to ensure additional conservation of approximately 153,000 acres of land currently in private ownership (Figure 2.3).

²⁰ Each cell represents approximately 160 acres.

The MSHCP plans the assembly of this conservation area through a combination of the following: Continued conservation of lands already within public ownership; Public acquisition of private lands from willing sellers; Private actions to conserve habitat within proposed development projects; Implementation of off-site mitigation for the impacts or proposed development projects; and Public actions to conserve habitats or otherwise mitigate the direct habitat impacts of public work projects.

Covered Activities, which are summarized in Section 2.2.7 of the Nexus Report and Volume I of the MSHCP and discussed in greater detail in Section 7 include, but are not limited to: public and private development, two internal regional transportation facilities,²¹ two regional transportation facilities to facilitate movement from Riverside County to adjacent counties,²² safety improvements on existing roads, the Circulation Elements of the Permittees, maintenance and construction of flood control facilities, single-family homes on existing legal parcels within the Criteria Area, existing agricultural operations, up to 10,000 acres of new agricultural activity within the Criteria Area, and compatible uses in the conservation area. The MSHCP makes a provision for the inclusion of special districts and other non-Permittee entities in the permit with a certificate of inclusion.

2.3.2 GOALS OF THE MSHCP

The MSHCP is intended to protect and sustain viable populations of native plant and animal species and their habitats through the creation of a conservation system that will accommodate continued economic development and quality of life for residents of western Riverside County. The proposed MSHCP was developed to allow for maintenance of biological diversity and ecosystem processes while allowing future economic growth. One goal of the MSHCP is the preservation of a quality of life characterized by well managed and planned growth intersected by an open space system.

The overarching goals of the MSHCP are:

Conserve Covered Species and their habitats in the MSHCP Plan Area:
Improve the future economic development in the County and 14 participating Cities by providing an efficient, streamlined regulatory process through which development can proceed in an efficient way. The MSHCP and the General Plan provide the County with a clearly articulated plan describing where future development should and should not occur; and
Provide for permanent open space, community edges, and recreational opportunities, which contribute to maintaining the community character of western Riverside County.

²¹ The WT and HCLE Corridors as discussed in Section 2.2.2 and 2.2.3, respectively.

²² The SBMV and OCRC Corridors as discussed in Sections 2.2.4 and 2.2.5, respectively.

2.3.3 HISTORY OF HABITAT CONSERVATION PLANS IN WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY

The County has had previous experience with single species habit conservation planning in both the eastern portion of the County with the Fringe Toed Lizard Habitat Conservation Plan ("HCP") in the Coachella Valley in 1985, and in the western portion of the County with the 1996 Stephen's Kangaroo Rat HCP ("SKRHCP"). In 1990 the County initiated a preliminary multiple species conservation planning effort that resulted in a draft document that included a gap analysis and a regional conservation concept. The initial multiple initial species planning processes occurred through the Riverside County Regional Parks and Open Space District ("RCPROSD").

In June 1992 RCHCA, RCRPOSD, and the Western Riverside Council of Governments ("WRCOG") initiated a program to develop a regional multiple species plan for Western Riverside County. The intent of this multiple-species planning effort, which was partially in response to the then-anticipated listing of the coastal California gnatcatcher, was to bring together the diverse assemblage of local and regional plans by developing a coordinated regional approach to protecting biodiversity for the western part of Riverside County.

As part of lessons learned through the completion of the SKRHCP,²³ a Planning Agreement²⁴ was drafted with significant input from local stakeholders, cities, the County, and the Wildlife Agencies. The Planning Agreement identifies a number of goals and principles that were ultimately used in the development of the MSHCP including:

Be more equitable and efficient, and less expensive and less time consuming than mitigating for species and Habitat impacts on a project-by-project basis.
Produce more biologically effective Habitat and species Conservation than the project-by-project alternative.
Distribute costs for the preparation and implementation of the MSHCP among local, state, and federal participants.²⁵
Provide a comprehensive means to coordinate, standardize, streamline, and ensure closure regarding mitigation requirements of the FESA, CESA, California Natural Communities Conservation Planning Act ("NCCP"), National Environmental Policy Act ("NEPA"), California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"), California Native Plant Protection Act ("CNPPA"), and other applicable laws and regulations related to biological and natural resources within the Plan Area.
Facilitate economic growth and prosperity so that it occurs in a manner consistent with the Conservation of biological resources within the Plan Area.
Provide the basis for issuance of Incidental Take permits for listed species adequately covered by the MSHCP, by the USFWS and CDFG.
Establish consistent mitigation standards for MSHCP Covered Species for potential application by the USFWS under Section 7 of the FESA.

²³ The SKRHCP was completed in the Spring of 1996.

²⁴ The document prepared pursuant to the California Natural Community Conservation Planning Act (California Fish and Game Code, Section 2800 et. seq.) to guide development of the MSHCP. A copy of said document is included in Appendix A of Volume I of the Draft MSHCP.

With the initiation of the RCIP, the County became the lead agency for the multiple-species planning efforts in 1999.

2.3.4 REGULATORY CONTEXT

The approval of the MSHCP and execution of the Implementing Agreement ("IA") by the Wildlife Agencies will allow the issuance of Take Authorizations to the signatories of the IA. Issuance of Take Authorization to the local jurisdictions will allow Plan participants to implement land use decisions consistent with the MSHCP without project-by-project review and permitting by the Wildlife Agencies. This local, streamlined approach to planning for Endangered and sensitive Species will result in greater economic development certainty and provide for and maintain biological diversity by creating an interconnected MSHCP Conservation Area in the Plan Area. In addition to the preservation of species and associated Habitats, the MSHCP Conservation Area will provide open space and recreational opportunities that will enhance the quality of life in Western Riverside County.

²⁵ Federal and state contributions shall be made as provided in the Implementing Agreement (IA) and the MSHCP.

2.3.5 CONSERVATION BIOLOGY PRINCIPLES INCORPORATED IN THE MSHCP

This discussion of conservation biology principles, which is summarized from Section 3 of Volume I of the MSHCP, is included in the Nexus Report to provide a basic understanding of the science driving the MSHCP. This background is helpful in understanding why mitigation for the species must be addressed at a regional level.

The NCCP General Process Guidelines and NCCP Act, incorporates general principles of conservation biology that are captured in the Conservation Area design tenets described therein. These Conservation Area design tenets, which are summarized below, provided a framework for the conservation planning process:

Conserve focus species and their habitats throughout the Plan Area;
Conserve large habitat blocks;
Conserve habitat diversity;
Keep conservation areas contiguous and connected; and
Protect conservation areas from encroachment and invasion by non-native species

Although many factors can be incorporated into Conservation Area design and selection, the most widely used are diversity, rarity, naturalness, size and representativeness.²⁶ Other considerations include island biogeography design principles: (1) area effect - the larger the area conserved, the greater the species richness (i.e., species/area relationship) and the greater the chances of long-term viability of populations (more individuals); (2) isolation or distance effect - the less the distance between Conservation Area units, the greater the opportunity for gene flow, colonization, and rescue effect,²⁷ (3) species equilibrium - the number of species that an area can support is determined by a balance between colonization and extinction; and (4) Edge Effect - the larger the ratio of conservation area to conservation perimeter, the lesser the Edge Effect.

²⁶ Margules, C.R. and A.O. Nicholls. 1988. Selecting networks of reserves to maximize biological diversity. Biological Conservation 43: 63-76.

²⁷ Brown, J.H. and A. Brown-Kodric. 1977. Turnover rates in insular biogeography: Effect of immigration on extinction. Ecology 58: 445-449.

An Edge Effect is defined as a change in the "conditions or species composition within an otherwise uniform Habitat as one approaches a boundary with a different Habitat.²⁸ Edge Effects at the boundary between natural lands and human-occupied lands ("urban edge effects") arise due to human-related intrusions such as lighting, noise, invasive species, exotic predators (dogs, cats, and opossums), hunting, trapping, off-road activities, dumping, and other forms of recreation and disturbance. Although some species are in some ways unaffected by edges or even show preferences for edges, human-induced edge effects are generally unfavorable to native species.

Another important feature of Conservation Area design is the spatial arrangement of wildlife movement corridors²⁹ and Habitat Linkages³⁰ between core Habitat areas.³¹ Each Habitat connection may be defined as a corridor or a Linkage for each species. Therefore, although areas in the MSHCP designated as Linkages may in fact function only as movement corridors for some species, for simplicity, connections between blocks of Habitat are always referred to generally as Linkages in the Plan.

Connectedness through landscape Linkages and movement corridors is important because Habitat fragmentation and isolation lead to extinction of local populations and are the most serious threats to biological diversity. The probability of extinction becomes greater as species movements (i.e., immigration and emigration) are impeded by the conversion of natural Habitat between occupied or potential Habitat patches to inhospitable land covers. Habitat Linkages prevent Habitat fragmentation and isolation by permitting: (1) the travel, migration and meeting of mates for wide-ranging animals; (2) plant propagation; (3) interchange of genetic material; (4) movement of populations in response to environmental changes and disasters; and (5) colonization of available Habitat by individuals.³²

²⁸ Ricklefs, R.E. 1993. The Economy of Nature. Third Edition. W.H. Freeman and Company. New York, NY.

²⁹ Movement corridors are often linear and facilitate efficient movement by providing adequate cover and lack of physical obstacles for movement. Movement corridors do not provide Live-In Habitat for species.

³⁰ Linkages, or landscape linkages, provide permanent resident Live-In Habitat, movement Habitat and are capable of sustaining a full range of community/ecosystem processes, including seed dispersal and animal movement over a period of generations.

³¹ Beier, P. and S. Loe. 1992. A checklist for evaluating impacts to wildlife movement corridors. Wildlife Society Bulletin 20: 434-440.

³² Beier, P. and S. Loe. 1992. A checklist for evaluating impacts to wildlife movement corridors. Wildlife Society Bulletin 20: 434-440.

2.3.6 DESCRIPTION OF THE MSHCP CONSERVATION AREA

2.3.6.1. The MSHCP Plan Map

Figure 2.4 is the MSHCP Plan map and depicts the individual cells that constitute the Criteria Area. Property in the Plan Area is assigned to one of the four categories described below.

Criteria Area This represents the area within which MSHCP Criteria will be applied and from which 153,000 acres of new Conservation will be achieved to contribute toward assembly of the overall MSHCP Conservation Area.

Public/Quasi-Public Lands Under this category, existing known Public/Quasi-Public Lands (PQP) that will form the initial backbone of the MSHCP Conservation Area are depicted. Approximately 347,000 acres of Conservation are anticipated on these lands.

Rural Mountainous Designation This category represents the Rural/Mountainous land use designation incorporated in the County General Plan. In general, these lands are characterized by steep slopes that represent constraints to Development. For example, of the approximately 54,900 acres depicted on the MSHCP Plan map outside the Criteria Area but within the Rural Mountainous designation, approximately 42,500 acres (77 percent) are characterized by slopes with gradients greater than 30 percent.

While Conservation Area Assembly activities are not expected to occur in Rural Mountainous designation areas outside the Criteria Area, existing and future land use practices in these areas may provide an edge for the MSHCP Conservation Area that would minimize Edge Effects when compared with more urban land uses.

American Indian American Indian Lands are depicted on the MSHCP Plan map for reference purposes. No Conservation is assumed on these lands and no activities on these lands would be permitted under the MSHCP. The American Indian Lands are not a part of the MSHCP.

The MSHCP Conservation Area will be comprised of Conservation on existing Public/Quasi-Public Lands and new Conservation on approximately 153,000 acres of land within the Criteria Area.

2.3.7 PERMITTED ACTIVITIES/ALLOCABLE USES

2.3.7.1. Covered Activities Outside Criteria Area

Public and private Development, including construction of buildings, structures, infrastructure and all alterations of the land, that are carried out by Permittees, Participating Special Entities, Third Parties Granted Take Authorization and others within the Plan Area, that are outside of the Criteria Area are permitted under the Plan, subject to consistency with MSHCP policies that apply outside the Criteria Area (such as policies related to riparian and riverine areas and vernal pools, narrow endemic plant species, additional survey needs and procedures, and funding/fee issues).

2.3.7.2. Agriculture

Take Authorization for existing agricultural operations applies to those lands within the Plan Area actively used for ongoing agricultural operations for at least one of the last five years preceding the Effective Date of the IA ("Existing Agricultural Operations"). Existing Agricultural Operations shall be exempt from payment of the LDMF with the following exceptions: (1) the expansion of agricultural operations within the Criteria Area requiring a discretionary permit or other discretionary authorization or (2) operations in which the construction and operation disturbance and associated impacts are confined solely to the existing building footprint (i.e. limited to those areas that have been recently and consistently disturbed and have little or no Habitat value).

2.3.7.3. Covered Activities Within Existing Public/Quasi-Public Lands Area Existing Roads Within Public/Quasi-Public Lands

There are many existing roadways, including interstates, freeways, State highways, city and county maintained roadways, as well as local roads, that are not maintained by a city or the County³³ within existing Public/Quasi-Public Lands. Table 2-4 presents an estimate of existing roadways that are permitted to remain within Public/Quasi-Public Lands.

Table 2-4 Existing Roads Within Public/Quasi-Public Lands
Facility Type	Length (Miles)* Public/Quasi Public
Interstate & Freeways	6.5
State Highways	2.9
County Maintained - Paved	7.0
County Maintained - Unpaved	0.5
CSA/CSD Maintained	2.3
City Maintained	9.2
Subtotal	128.4
Roadways Maintained by Others**	259.5
Plan Area Total	387.90
* Totals may not precisely add due to rounding ** Limited coverage afforded, subject to submittal of application for Certificate of Inclusion. CSA/CSD Maintained roads derived from selecting County Roads within CSA Boundaries. Roadways Maintained by Others derived from selecting road types other than those specified above.

Covered Road Maintenance Activities Within Public/Quasi-Public Lands

Privately Maintained Roads

Limited Maintenance Activities are permitted on "Roadways Maintained by Others" including only such grading as necessary to restore a smooth driving surface, maintain existing graded shoulders within the existing rights-of-way, and essential weed abatement, excluding the application of herbicides.

³³ Roads not maintained by a city or the County are generally maintained by the adjacent property owners, either individually or collectively.

Publicly Maintained Roads

Some of the existing County maintained unpaved roads may be paved within the existing roadbed as future traffic, safety and/or environmental conditions warrant. Safety improvements to other publicly maintained existing roadways and necessary operation and Maintenance Activities conducted for safety purposes within Public/Quasi-Public Lands are covered Activities.

Planned Roads Within Existing Public/Quasi-Public Lands</p>

Coverage of new planned road facilities within existing Public/Quasi-Public Lands is limited to the Hemet to Corona/Lake Elsinore CETAP Corridor (the "HCLE Corridor"). Although several alternative alignments for the HCLE Corridor are being analysed, only one corridor will be constructed. The MSHCP will provide mitigation for the direct and indirect impacts associated with the selected alternative. Table 2-5 presents an estimated range of the total acreage impacted by the HCLE Corridor.

Table 2-5 Hemet to Corona/Lake Elsinore Corridor Impacts Within Public/Quasi Public Lands
Existing Public/Quasi-Public Lands	Acreage Impacted
Lake Mathews/Estelle Mountain	170-230
San Jacinto/Lake Perris	0-45
Steele Peak	0
TOTAL	170-275

The transportation agencies are continuing the planning process for the HCLE CETAP Corridor, including a detailed analysis of alignments north of Lake Mathews. To ensure flexibility, the transportation agencies are proposing a process to include as a Covered Activity, an alternative to the northerly alignment. If it is not practicable to build the HCLE Corridor in the alignment north of Lake Mathews, the proposed alternative involves the realignment and widening of Cajalco Road south of Lake Mathews to a four-lane arterial status. This alternative would be proposed in place of the portion of the HCLE CETAP alternative between El Sobrante Road and the Temescal Wash.

Reference is made to Section 7.2.3 of Volume I of the Draft MSHCP for a discussion of the proposed process to include the Cajalco Road realignment and widening alternative as a Covered Activity.

Two corridors linking Riverside County to San Bernardino County are currently being studied. The corridors are discussed in Section 2.3.7.4 of the Nexus Report.

Future Facilities Within Public/Quasi-Public Lands

The MSHCP provides for the construction of future facilities such as water, sewer, electrical, gas and solid waste facilities that will serve existing and future Western Riverside County Residents. These facilities are described in more detail in subsequent sections and would be permitted within existing Public/Quasi-Public Lands subject to a finding of equivalent conservation provided through individual project mitigation.

2.3.7.4. Covered Activities Inside Criteria Area Public and Private Development Consistent with MSHCP Criteria

Public and private Development within the Criteria Area that is determined to be consistent with the Criteria is considered a Covered Activity, provided all terms of the MSHCP are met.

Single-family Homes on Existing Legal Parcels Within the Criteria Area

Development of individual single-family homes on existing legal parcels, in accordance with existing land use regulations is a Covered Activity within the Criteria Area as discussed in Section 7.3.2 of Volume I of the Draft MSHCP, provided all terms of the MSHCP are met.

Agricultural Lands Within the Criteria Area

Conversion of natural lands to agricultural use, as defined and outlined in Section 6.2 of Volume I of the Draft MSHCP, will be allowed as a Covered Activity within the Criteria Area, up to an established threshold of 10,000 acres over the life of the Plan, as allowed to increase pursuant to the amendment process set forth in Section 6.10 of the Draft MSHCP, provided all terms of the MSHCP are met.

Existing Roads Within the Criteria Area

Maintenance of existing roads within the Criteria Area is considered a Covered Activity under the Plan. Existing roads within the Criteria Area are not anticipated to be included in the total acreage of Additional Conservation Area Lands and will not be included in the MSHCP Conservation Area. Nonetheless, maintenance and minor modifications to existing roads may result in impacts to listed species. Existing roadways within the Criteria Area include interstates, freeways, State highways, city and County maintained roadways, as well as local roads, which are not city, or County maintained³⁴ that provide property access. Table 2-6 summarizes the estimated lengths of these various types of existing roadways, which are permitted to remain within the Criteria Area.

Table 2-6 Existing Roadways Permitted to Remain in the Criteria Area
Facility Type	Length (Miles) Criteria Area
Interstate & Freeways	70
State Highways	93
County Maintained - Paved	123
County Maintained - Unpaved	33
CSA/CSD Maintained	64
City Maintained	333
Subtotal	716
Roadways Maintained by Others*	677
Plan Area Total	1,393
* Limited coverage afforded, subject to submittal of application for Certificate of Inclusion. CSA/CSD Maintained roads derived from selecting County Roads within CSA Boundaries. Roadways Maintained by Others derived from selecting road types other than those specified above.

Covered Road Maintenance Activities Within the Criteria Area

Privately Maintained Roads

Covered Maintenance Activities on "Roadways Maintained by Others" is substantially limited in scope, including only such grading as necessary to restore a smooth driving surface, maintain existing graded shoulders within the existing rights-of-way, and essential weed abatement, excluding the application of any herbicides.

³⁴ Roadways not maintained by a city or the County are generally maintained by the adjacent property owners, either individually or collectively.

Publicly Maintained Roads

Some of the existing County maintained unpaved roads may be paved within the existing roadbed as future traffic, safety and/or environmental conditions warrant. In addition, safety improvements to other publicly maintained existing roadways and necessary operation and Maintenance Activities conducted for safety purposes will be permitted as Covered Activities within the Criteria Area.

Planned Roads Within the Criteria Area

Planned roadways are defined as either existing facilities that require improvements (i.e., widening) or as new facilities to be constructed. Planned roadways which are depicted in a general fashion on the County Circulation Element include seven types of roadways, freeways, CETAP Corridors and other major facilities (Figure 2.5).

Evaluations of planned roadways with respect to conservation of biological resources have been conducted throughout the MSHCP planning process. As a result, only those planned roadways identified in this section are Covered Activities within the Criteria Area. Roadways other than those identified in this section are not covered without an amendment to the MSHCP. Planned roadways, which include improvements to existing roadways and construction of new roadways, are proposed to occur within the Criteria Area to serve future Development anticipated under the General Plans of the Permittees, including planned state and federal highway improvements. Four categories of planned roadways are depicted on Figure 2.5: (1) circulation element roadways, (2) SR-79 North Corridor, (3) freeways, and (4) CETAP Corridors.

Circulation Element Roadways

Seven types of roadways are proposed as part of the General Plan Circulation Element:expressways (184' ROW), urban arterials (152' ROW), arterials (128' ROW), major roads (118' ROW), mountain arterials (110' ROW), secondary roads (100' ROW) and collector roads (74' ROW). The improvement/construction and the operation and Maintenance Activities of circulation element roadways shown on Figure 2.5 are Covered Activities within the Criteria Area.

Approximately 5,840 acres of roadways will be improved/constructed within the Criteria Area.

State Route 79 Realignment (Newport Road to Gilman Springs Road)

The RCTC intends to designate right-of-way and construct an improved State Route 79 (SR-79) Transportation facility. Improvements to the portion of SR-79 south of Domenigoni Parkway are covered under the MSHCP as part of the proposed circulation element of the County General Plan.

Freeways

State freeways are also shown on Figure 2.4 they include I-215, I-15, I-10, SR-60, and SR-91. Freeways are operated and maintained by Caltrans. Caltrans has identified preliminary improvements for these facilities that have been included in the analysis as Covered Activities.

Interstate 215 Improvements

Interstate 215 is currently a 4-lane facility from the I-215 interchange to the San Jacinto River crossing, and a 6-lane facility from that point to the SR-60 interchange. Ultimate improvements include widening to 8 regular travel lanes, with 4 High Occupancy Vehicle (HOV) lanes and 2 auxiliary lanes from I-215 to SR-60. Additional improvements may include 75 feet of rail Corridor within the alignment.

Interstate 15 Improvements

Interstate 15 is currently an 8-lane facility from the San Diego County Line to the San Bernardino County Line. Improvements include addition of 4 HOV lanes and 2 auxiliary lanes, with an additional 75 feet of rail Corridor within the alignment.

Interstate 10 Improvements

Within the Plan Area, I-10 is an 8-lane facility. The ultimate improvements will result in the addition of 4 HOV lanes, 2 auxiliary lanes and a 75-foot wide rail Corridor.

State Route 60 Improvements

From the San Bernardino County line to the I-215 separation, SR-60 is currently a 6-lane facility. To the east of I-215, SR-60 is a 4-lane facility. Improvements will include widening the facility through the Plan Area to 8 lanes, with 4 additional HOV lanes, 2 auxiliary lanes and a 75-foot wide rail Corridor.

State Route 91 Improvements

SR-91 ranges from 6 to 12 lanes within the Plan Area, including HOV lanes from the Orange County line to Magnolia Street. Proposed improvements will include widening and lane reconfigurations that will result in 8 regular travel lanes, 4 HOV lanes and 2 auxiliary lanes, with an additional 75-foot wide rail Corridor.

Approximately 360 to 400 acres of freeways are proposed to occur within the Criteria Area.

In addition to the freeways listed, Caltrans maintains jurisdiction over other state highway facilities including: SR-74, SR-79, SR-371 and SR-71

CETAP Corridors

Four CETAP transportation Corridors, as discussed in Section 2.2 of this Nexus Report are proposed to be located within the MSHCP Plan Area: (1) a north-south CETAP transportation Corridor from Winchester to Temecula (the "WT Corridor"), (2) an east-west transportation Corridor from Hemet to Corona/Lake Elsinore (the "HCLE Corridor"), (3) the San Bernardino to Moreno Valley Corridor ("SBMV Corridor") and (4) a Corridor linking Orange County and Riverside County ("OCRC Corridor). Multiple alternatives for these Corridors are currently being contemplated; however, only one east-west Corridor, one north-south Corridor, one SBMV Corridor, and one OCRC County Corridor will be selected and built.

Winchester to Temecula (WT Corridor)

Two north-south CETAP alternatives for the WT Corridor have been selected for further analysis, with one of the alternatives including two options for a total of three different alignments. The northern terminus of both alternatives is located at Domenigoni Parkway and Winchester Road and the Southern terminus is at I-215. As previously stated, only one north-south Corridor will ultimately be constructed and covered under the MSHCP.

Depending upon which WT Corridor alternative is ultimately constructed approximately 10-130 acres within the Criteria Area will be impacted.

Hemet to Corona/Lake Elsinore (HCLE Corridor)

Two east-west CETAP alternatives for the HCLE Corridor with one alternative having two options, and the other alternative having three options, plus two hybrid options for a total of nine different alignments were selected for further analysis. The eastern terminus of one HCLE Corridor is located at Sanderson Avenue and Ramona Expressway with the western terminus being at I-15 and Cajalco Road. The eastern terminus of the other HCLE Corridor located at Domenigoni Parkway and Winchester Road.

San Bernardino to Moreno Valley Corrido (SBMV Corridor)

The San Bernardino to Moreno Valley Corridor will be located in the vicinity of I-215 and Ironwood Avenue, Riverside County and extend to California Street in San Bernardino County. This facility will tunnel under the Box Springs Conservation Area, with the tunnel portals sited outside of the Criteria Area.

This facility is covered under the MSHCP for direct, indirect and cumulative impacts within the MSHCP Plan Area. However, coverage is conditioned upon impacts outside of the MSHCP Plan Area being addressed. These include direct, indirect and cumulative impacts on the facility in San Bernardino County. An amendment to the MSHCP will be required to permit this facility within the MSHCP Conservation Area.

Orange County to Riverside County Corridor (OCRC Corridor)

A transportation Corridor linking Orange County with Riverside County is currently under study by RCTC and OCTA. The Corridor is not currently contemplated in the Draft General Plan Circulation Element, but is identified in the Draft EIR for the General Plan as a mitigation measure to reduce significant traffic impacts associated with the General Plan.

There are six alternative alignment/location concepts under study, however only one alignment alternative will be selected and ultimately constructed. The selected alignment would be considered a Covered Activity under the MSHCP, subject to the criteria and conditions contained therein. The MSHCP coverage applies only within the MSHCP Plan Area. In addition, it is acknowledged that if the selected alignment requires actions of the USFS, a separate FESA Section 7 consultation process between the USFS and the USFWS will be required.

The direct, indirect, cumulative and growth inducing impacts of the facility within the MSHCP Plan Area are addressed in the MSHCP. In addition, indirect, cumulative and growth inducing impacts for four of the corridor alterntives are considered to be addressed in the Orange County Central and Coastal Subregion NCCP, subject to satisfaction of the criteria contained in the MSHCP. This assumption is made because the Central and Coastal Subregion NCCP addresses buildout within its planning area and the four alternatives of the proposed facility are not anticipated to affect buildout assumptions within the NCCP planning area, as the primary impact of the facility would be on employment centers in the developed/non-conserved portions of the NCCP planning area.

The direct, indirect, cumulative and growth inducing impacts of the other two alternatives outside of the MSHCP Plan Area are not addressed, but are required to be addressed and mitigated through the proposed Orange County Southern Subregion NCCP. Approval of the Southern Subregion NCCP Plan is required as a condition of coverage for these two alternatives, as discussed in the MSHCP.

State Park Facilities

La Borde Canyon Off-Highway Vehicle Park/State Vehicle Recreation Area

An Off-Highway Vehicle Park/State Vehicle Recreation Area (SVRA) that may impact up to 1,200 acres including the active riding area, access roads, parking areas and other ancillary facilities may be constructed. The siting of the facilities must comply with the terms of the MSHCP.

Other State Park Facilities

Existing State Park facilities within the MSHCP Conservation Area include the Lake Perris State Recreation Area, Chino Hills State Park, Mount San Jacinto State Park, San Timoteo State Park and Anza-Borrego State Park. The following is a description of existing and future activities and acreages (including brush management areas) within these State Park facilities that are Covered Activities under the MSHCP. Recreational activities allowed within the campgrounds and day use areas include hiking, horseback riding, bicycling, camping, picnicking, swimming, boating and hunting (at Lake Perris SRA).

Lake Perris State Recreation Area

Existing visitor use facilities are primarily located along the north shore of the lake and on the south shore in the Bernasconi Pass area. The main administrative facility is located below the dam. Existing use areas consist of approximately 220 acres of campgrounds, 120 acres of parking areas, 200 acres of day use areas, 10 acres of administrative uses, 5 acres of water treatment and storage facilities, a 5-acre museum, 54 acres of roads and 10 acres of trails. Future uses/expansions of existing uses are anticipated to include a 2-acre visitor center, 15 additional acres of parking, a 15-acre swim lagoon, 1-acre campfire center, 7 additional acres of campgrounds, 1 additional acre of trails/bridges, and 4 additional acres of roads.

Chino Hills State Park

Existing improvements within portions of the Chino Hills State Park within the MSHCP Plan Area are limited to two acres of existing roads. Future improvements will include two acres of parking, and one acre of campgrounds.

Mount San Jacinto State Park and State Wilderness

This park facility includes 20 acres of campgrounds, 5 acres of parking areas, 10 acres of day use areas, 1 acre of administrative facilities, 1 acre of water facilities, 15 acres of roads and 9 acres of trails. Future improvements will include a two-acre visitor center, 5 additional acres of parking, 15 additional acres of campgrounds, 2 additional acres of trails, and two additional acres of roads.

San Timoteo Park

Land is currently being acquired to establish a State Park. Existing improvements to the land include an acre of administrative facilities and 8 acres of roads. Future improvements include a 2-acre visitor center, 5 acres of parking areas, 15 acres of campgrounds, 2 acres of trails, and 2 additional acres of roads.

Anza-Borrego State Park

This facility has 5 acres of administrative uses, 18 acres of roads, and 5 acres of trails within the MSHCP Plan Area. No future uses are proposed.

Flood Control Facilities

Flood control facilities within the Criteria Area undertaken by a Permittee are Covered Activities. These facilities include those identified in Table 2-7 as well as facilities that are located outside of the Criteria Area are also Covered Activities.

Table 2-7 Potential Flood Control Projects Within the MSHCP Criteria Area
Project Description	Project Location
Flood Control Improvements	In Prado Basin
Arroyo del Toro Channel	Lake Elsinore Outlet Channel to Cabern Avenue
Day Creek Channel Stage 6	Lucretia Street to Limonite Avenue
Gavilan Hills/Smith Road	Southwesterly of Smith and Cajalco Roads
Murrieta Creek Channel	Gage Station to Tenaja Road
Murrieta Creek MDP- Line A	Del Rio Road to Front Street
Murrieta Creek MDP- Line D	Murrieta Creek to Madison Avenue
Perris Valley Channel	Ramona Expressway to San Jacinto River
San Jacinto River Stage 3	Ramona Expressway to Railroad Canyon
San Jacinto River Stage 4	4000ft NW of Sanderson Avenue to Corps Levee SE of State Street
Warm Springs Channel	Madison Avenue westerly to existing Stage 2 channel near Jefferson Avenue

San Jacinto River Flood Control Project

The Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District ("RCFCWCD") anticipates the Development of a flood control project, in the San Jacinto River area. Other Covered Activities within the vicinity of the San Jacinto River include: Ramona Expressway bridge and culvert, Nuevo Road bridge, San Jacinto Avenue crossing, I-215 bridge and levee, Case Road bridge, Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad bridge, Goetz Road bridge, Ethanac Road bridge, Perris Valley Storm Drain Channel and Romoland Channel. The Development of the aforementioned flood control facilities will facilitate planned Development within portions of the MSHCP Plan Area.

Future Facilities

Future facilities i.e., facilities necessary to support planned Development that are carried out by a Permittee, Participating Special Entities and/or Third Parties Granted Take Authorization will be considered Covered Activities.

There are four general categories of future facilities that are linear, or involve engineering constraints that make avoidance of Criteria Areas not practicable. These categories are: water/wastewater facilities, electrical utility facilities, natural gas facilities, and waste management facilities.

2.4. MSHCP CONSERVATION AREA ASSEMBLY

Funding for local acquisition of Additional Conservation Area Lands (53,546 acres), will be provided through the local funding program, which is discussed in Section 5 of the Nexus Report. Figure 2.6 and Table 2-8 summarizes the expected acquisition sources of the Additional Conservation Area Lands.

Table 2-8 Assembly of Additional Conservation Area Land
	New Conservation Total (Acres)	New Conservation Counted as Mitigation (Acres)	Local Management & Monitoring Obligation (Acres)
State and Federal Acquisition*	6,000	6,000
Local Acquisition	6,000	6,000	6,000
Sub-total Acquisition	112,000	62,000	6,000
Conservation Through Development Review	41,000	41,000	41,000
Total Additional Conservation	153,000	103,000	97,000
Existing Local Lands			5,000
Total Additional and Existing			152,000
* Includes mitigation provided by DPR and Caltrans permitted projects

The Local Implementation Plan provides for the assembly of 103,000 acres of Additional Conservation Area Lands which are identified as New Conservation Counted as Mitigation in Table 2-8 above. The Local Implementation Plan utilizes the HANS Process³⁵ as the primary mechanism for implementing the MSHCP. The local assembly of Additional Conservation Area Lands will occur under HANS using either the general approach of dedications of land provided through the Cities' and County's Development Review process for new Development and/or through the application of incentives, using the approach of the acquisition of lands from willing sellers, or a combination of the two approaches.

The Local Implementation Plan has four approaches that will be assist in obtaining conservation lands: Development Review, Local Permittees' Acquisition of Additional Conservation Area Lands, Caltrans Acquisition of Additional Conservation Area Lands, and State Parks Acquisition. Table 2-9 presents the anticipated results of the four implementation approaches, which are discussed in the following paragraphs.

³⁵ The HANS Process is presented in detail in Section 6.1.1 of Volume I of the MSHCP.

Table 2-9 Local Implementation Plan
Implementation Approach	Anticipated Conservation
Development Review	41,000
Local Permittees' Acquisition of Additional Conservation Area Lands	6,000
Caltrans Acquisition of Additional Conservation Area Lands	3,000
State Parks Acquisition	3,000
Total	103,000

2.4.1 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW

In the course of the Development review process, approximately 41,000 acres of land are anticipated to be conserved as Additional Conservation Area Lands through: (1) Density Bonus/Clustering in Rural and Open Space Lands; (2) Density Transfers and Bonuses, Historic Open Space Dedications in Community Development Areas; (3) Wetlands Conservation.

2.4.2 LOCAL PERMITTEES' ACQUISITION OF ADDITIONAL CONSERVATION LANDS

Approximately 56,000 acres will be conserved either through direct acquisition from willing sellers or through the purchase of conservation easements or other mechanism that results in the permanent Conservation of the lands. The HANS process will identify properties to be acquired on a first-in-first-out basis as funding becomes available. Acquisitions may also occur outside of the HANS process as opportunities arise to conserve important properties that will benefit the MSHCP Conservation Area. Acquisitions may be used to fill in critical gaps in the MSHCP Conservation Area and strategically consolidate holdings in an area to allow the conservation value of previously conserved properties to be fully realized.

2.4.3 CALTRANS ACQUISITION OF ADDITIONAL CONSERVATION LANDS

Within the first eight years of Caltrans' Permit, it will acquire two Additional Conservation Area Land areas, one of approximately 2,000 acres in the eastern portion of the Criteria Area and one of approximately 1,000 acres in the western portion of the Criteria Area. The estimate for the acquisition costs of these lands is $36 million. The estimated cost for establishing the western area, based on $20,000 per acre, is $20 million. The estimated cost for the eastern area is $16 million based on $8,000 per acre. The estimated cost per acre for both areas is considered a mid-range cost per acre and reflects the per acre costs of recent acquisitions and/or appraisals funded by the Wildlife Conservation Board, the land acquisition arm of CDFG.

2.4.4 STATE PARKS ACQUISITION OF ADDITIONAL CONSERVATION LANDS

State Parks are obligated to fulfill the purpose of the Permits, MSHCP and IA for covered activities and to comply with certain policies as set forth in Volume I of the Draft MSHCP. State Parks will serve as a member of the Conservation Area Management Oversight Committee and carry out all other applicable requirements of the MSHCP, the IA and the Permits. Prior to construction of the OHV Park, State Parks will contribute 3,000 acres of Additional Conservation Lands in the Badlands, within the Criteria Area, as mitigation for impacts associated with up to 600 acres of active riding areas resulting from the establishment of a State Vehicular Recreational Area in the Badlands. For Non-OHV activities, State Parks' Take Authorization for Covered Activities is contingent on the preparation of unit management plans pertaining to each Covered Activity, which will reflect the scope of work and obligation of State Parks to manage and monitor State Parks land within the MSHCP Conservation Area.

2.5. RELATIONSHIPS AND DIFFERENCES BETWEEN RCIP COMPONENTS

The General Plan Circulation Element includes proposed CETAP corridors as part of its roadway and highway system. The MSHCP provides comprehensive mitigation for the project specific cumulative, and indirect impacts resulting from Development of the proposed General Plan land uses and transportation facilities (including CETAP corridors) within the western portion of the County. The MSHCP also includes CETAP corridors as permitted activities where they cross the MSHCP Conservation Area.

The three components of RCIP cover different areas of the County. The General Plan, which contains a circulation element that provides for internal transportation facilities, covers all unincorporated lands within Riverside County's corporate boundary except March Air Conservation Area Base, Indian lands, and lands owned by the State and federal governments. The MSHCP covers both unincorporated and incorporated areas in western Riverside County, since the Cities are participating in the program. CETAP addresses specific transportation corridors in western Riverside County.

Due to the differences in each RCIP component, the individual components require approval from different government entities. The General Plan was prepared pursuant to the provisions of the California Government Code and requires approval only by the County of Riverside, although certain actions undertaken pursuant to the General Plan may require approvals of outside agencies. Environmental documentation for the proposed General Plan is conducted under CEQA.

The MSHCP is being prepared pursuant to both State and federal law and will require approval of the County, the Cities, CDFG, and the USFWS. Since the MSHCP complies with State and federal law, its environmental documentation is subject to the provisions of CEQA and NEPA. Lead Agencies for CEQA and NEPA purposes are Riverside County and USFWS, respectively.

CETAP proposes using local, State, and federal sources to fund right-of-way acquisition and ultimate construction of its corridors. Thus, environmental documentation for CETAP must also comply with the provisions of CEQA and NEPA. The lead agencies for CEQA and NEPA purposes are Riverside County and the Federal Highway Administration, respectively.

3. EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL, TRANSPORTATION, AND BIOLOGICAL SETTING OF THE MSHCP PLAN AREA

3.1. ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING

Variation in topography, soil, and climate across the elevational range of the MSHCP creates habitats for a wide variety of animals and plants, including many that are rare or endemic to Southern California. Thirty-nine species indigenous to western Riverside County have special status under FESA and/or CESA. These include species that are listed as "endangered" or "threatened" under FESA or that have been "proposed" or are "strong candidates" for such listing.

3.2. TRANSPORTATION SETTING

The existing circulation and transportation system serving the proposed MSHCP Plan Area consists of a series of separate modes of travel and goods movement that include passenger vehicles and truck freight, transit, passenger and freight rail, passenger and cargo air, non-motorized systems (bicycle facilities, pedestrian facilities, and equestrian facilities) and major utility corridors. Roadways in the Plan Area include numerous State highways, County roads, and city routes. The public transit system includes fixed route public transit systems, common bus carriers, AMTRAK (intercity rail service), MetroLink (commuter rail service), and other local agency transit and paratransit services. Transportation systems in the Plan Area include general aviation facilities, limited passenger air service within the proposed Plan Area, extensive air passenger facilities in the Southern California and San Diego regions, freight rail service, bicycle facilities, and other non-motorized forms of transportation (pedestrian and equestrian trails).

Travel occurs within the Plan Area and between the Plan Area and Los Angeles, Orange, Ventura, San Bernardino, San Diego, Imperial and Kern Counties as residents and businesses from Riverside County commute to places of employment and economic activity. There is also travel between the western and eastern portions of the County (i.e., between Riverside and Blythe). Due to the interrelationship of employment, housing and services, and the low average density of existing land uses, the private automobile is the

dominant mode of travel within the proposed Plan Area, with transit representing less than two percent of all trips made in the County. Public transportation, where service is available, is utilized primarily by a transit-dependent population (senior citizens, students, low-income residents, and the physically disabled) that generally does not have access to automobiles. The Plan Area's industrial and agricultural economies depend on safe and efficient movement of goods and people. The County maintains an extensive network of low volume rural roads in sparsely settled areas to service goods movement and the agricultural industry. Large trucks are the primary means of transporting such goods. Freight rail is also an important element in movement of goods in the Plan Area. Non-motorized transportation is also prevalent in the proposed Plan Area and includes bikeways, pedestrian facilities, and equestrian amenities.

3.2.1 EXISTING STREET AND HIGHWAY SYSTEM

Figure 3.1 illustrates the existing roadway system in the Plan Area. The proposed Plan Area's highway network, includes three interstate routes (I-10, I-15, and I-215) and several State Routes (SRs 60, 71, 74, 79, 91, 243, and 371).

The highway system also includes County roadways, as well as roadways within each of the Cities. Major roadways include Alessandro Boulevard, Arlington, La Sierra, Limonite, and Magnolia Avenues, Market Street, Mission Boulevard, Perris Boulevard, Ramona Expressway, Rancho California Road, San Jacinto Road, Van Buren Boulevard, and Washington Street.

SR-60 (Pomona Freeway), I-10 (San Bernardino Freeway), SR-91 (Riverside Freeway), and SR-74 (Ortega Highway) link the Plan Area to Los Angeles and Orange Counties. The I-15 freeway and minor conventional highways provide links to San Diego County its many tourist and recreational amenities, and to Mexico via I-5, I-15, and I-805. Links to San Bernardino County are provided by I-15 and I-215, as well as by other major and minor local roadways

The I-10 freeway also provides connection to destinations in Arizona, with I-15 and I-215 providing access through San Bernardino County to Nevada and its primary recreation areas in the City of Las Vegas and Lake Mead. In addition, I-15 provides access south to San Diego.

3.3. BIOLOGICAL SETTING

This section describes the biological setting in which the goal of assembling the MSHCP Conservation Area, which will conserve over 100 plant and wildlife species would be achieved. The reader is referred to Volume II of the MSHCP³⁶ for a detailed discussion of the plants and wildlife in the Plan Area.

3.3.1 BIOREGIONS

The Plan Area encompasses seven distinct bioregions:

Santa Ana Mountains,
Riverside Lowlands,
San Jacinto Foothills,
Agua Tibia Mountains
Desert Transition
San Bernardino Mountains, and
San Jacinto Mountains.

These bioregions are depicted on Figure 3.2 and described below.

Santa Ana Mountains Bioregion

The Santa Ana Mountains Bioregion extends south of State Route 91 (SR-91) to the Riverside/San Diego County line and occurs west of Interstate 15 (I-15). It encompasses the Cleveland National Forest and areas north of the Santa Margarita River.

³⁶ Volume II is the MSHCP reference document.

This bioregion generally occurs at elevations above 2,000 feet and supports Diegan coastal sage scrub, mesic chaparral, and sparse coniferous vegetation.

Riverside Lowlands Bioregion

The Riverside Lowlands Bioregion is the largest bioregion in the Plan Area and is located east of the Santa Ana Mountains Bioregion, south of the Riverside/San Bernardino County line, west of Diamond Valley Lake, Lake Skinner, and Gilman Hot Springs, and north of the Riverside/San Diego County line. This bioregion encompasses Estelle Mountain, Lake Mathews, Reche Canyon/Badlands, the San Jacinto Valley, Gavilan Hills, Lakeview Mountains, and French Valley. The Riverside Lowlands Bioregion generally occurs at elevations below 2,000 feet and is characterized by Riversidean sage scrub and annual grasslands. The relatively arid climate is in part the result of the rain shadow effect cast by the Santa Ana Mountains. A high level of disturbance and urbanization is noted within this bioregion.

San Jacinto Foothills Bioregion

The San Jacinto Foothills Bioregion generally includes areas north of SR-79, east of the Riverside Lowlands Bioregion and west of the San Jacinto Mountains Bioregion. This bioregion encompasses Vail Lake, Sage, and Cactus Valley. The San Jacinto Foothills Bioregion occurs at elevations of 2,000 to 3,000 feet and is dominated by Riversidean sage scrub and xeric chaparral associations. This bioregion receives less frequent frost and snow than the mountainous areas and has not been heavily disturbed or urbanized.

Agua Tibia Mountains Bioregion

The Agua Tibia Mountains Bioregion extends south from SR-79 to the Riverside/San Diego County line. It encompasses the Agua Tibia Mountains and generally occurs at elevations above 2,000 feet. This bioregion supports Diegan coastal sage scrub, mesic chaparral, and sparse coniferous vegetation and has not been heavily disturbed or urbanized.

Desert Transition Bioregion

The Desert Transition Bioregion is located in the southeastern portion of the Plan Area and encompasses the Cahuilla Indian Reservation and Lake Riverside areas. The Desert Transition Bioregion generally occurs at elevations above 3,000 feet, is arid and desert-influenced, and supports red shank chaparral, big basin sage scrub, and semidesert succulent scrub habitats. This bioregion has not been heavily disturbed or urbanized.

San Bernardino Mountains Bioregion

The San Bernardino Mountains Bioregion generally occurs at elevations above 3,000 feet and encompasses areas north of I-10 within the Calimesa, Beaumont, and Banning area. This bioregion supports coniferous forests, montane chaparral, and broad-leaved forest. The San Bernardino Mountains Bioregion is floristically distinct from the San Jacinto Mountains Bioregion and has not been heavily disturbed or urbanized.

San Jacinto Mountains Bioregion

The San Jacinto Mountains Bioregion generally occurs at elevations above 3,000 feet and encompasses the San Bernardino National Forest, Pine Cove, Idyllwild, and upper San Jacinto River and Bautista Canyon Creek. This bioregion supports coniferous forests, montane chaparral, and broad-leaved forest. The San Jacinto Mountains Bioregion is floristically distinct from the San Bernardino Bioregion.

3.3.2 VEGETATION COMMUNITIES

The MSHCP Plan Area supports the following vegetation communities:

Chaparral,
Cismontane alkali marsh,
Coastal (Diegan and Riversidean) sage scrub,
Desert scrubs,
Native and non-native grassland,
Meadows and marshes,
Montane coniferous forest,
Peninsular juniper woodland and scrub,
Playas and vernal pools,
Riparian scrub/woodland/forests,
Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub,
Open water, and
Woodlands and forests.

In addition to the communities listed above, the Plan Area also contains agricultural, and developed land. A brief description of each vegetation community is provided below.³⁷

Agriculture

Agricultural lands include areas occupied by dairies and livestock feed yards or areas that have been tilled for use as croplands or groves/orchards. The largest areas of dairy and livestock feed yards are located north of San Jacinto and north of Juniper Flats in the communities of Lakeview, Mystic Lake, Nuevo, southeast Perris, Eastvale, Lake Norconian off Bellegrave Avenue, Norco, and in Glen Avon. Field croplands are mapped extensively throughout the Plan Area with the largest areas located around the following: State Route 371 (SR-371) in the vicinity of Anza; in an east-west strip from Murrieta Hot Springs, through French Valley; Antelope Valley, Paloma Valley, Menifee Valley, Winchester, and Domenigoni Valley to West Hemet; the Diamond Valley area; and in Eastvale. The largest grove/orchard area is in Santa Rosa East between Gavilan Mountain and Mesa de Colorado.

Chaparral

Chaparral vegetation is the most abundant and widespread vegetation type in western Riverside County. Within the Plan Area large contiguous stands of chaparral occur along the Santa Ana Mountains in the west along the San Bernardino, San Jacinto, and Agua Tibia Mountains in the east and south. Although chaparral is less common than other vegetation types in the central lowlands of Riverside County, three large chaparral-dominated areas occur on steeper lands near the Gavilan Hills-Gavilan Plateau-Meadowbrook Region, the Lakeview Mountains-Double Butte area, and the Sedco Hills-Hogbacks area.

³⁷ Reference is made to Section C of the MSHCP Reference Document (MSHCP Volume II) for detailed habitat accounts describing the biogeography, range and distribution, vegetation characteristics, species composition, physical environment, ecosystem processes, community relationships, and threats for each vegetation community within the Plan Area.

Cismontane Alkali Marsh

Cismontane occupies in two general localities in the Plan Area, along Cahuilla Creek south of Anza and upstream from Lake Mathews along the Colorado River aqueduct.

Coastal Sage Scrub

Coastal sage scrub is distributed throughout western Riverside County and the Plan Area. It occurs from the eastern slopes of the Santa Ana Mountains to elevations in the San Jacinto Mountains less than 5,000 feet. Sage scrub often is distributed in patches throughout its range. Over a scale of several miles, it can be found in diverse vegetation community mosaics with other plant communities, particularly grassland and chaparral, and oak/riparian woodland in wetter areas. In western Riverside County, coastal sage scrub is found both in large contiguous blocks scattered throughout the County as well as integrated with chaparral and grasslands.

Desert Scrub

Desert scrub, including big sagebrush scrub and Sonoran desert scrub, occurs mostly in the southeastern portion of western Riverside County. Large acreages of this vegetation community occur north and south of SR-371 within Tule Valley, Culp Valley, Wilson Creek, Cahuilla, the Ramona Indian Reservation, the Community of Anza, and east of Aguanga and Lake Riverside.

WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTYMULTIPLE SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN