Location: MSHCP > VOLUME 1 > SECTION 3.0
SECTION 3.0
CONSERVATION PLANNING PROCESS/DESCRIPTION AND
AREA PLAN CRITERIA OF THE MSHCP CONSERVATION AREA
3.1 CONSERVATION PLANNING PROCESS
3.1.1 Process Background
The conservation planning process for the MSHCP Plan involved a variety of concurrent and sequential elements. These elements are listed below and summarized in this section.
3.1.2 Overall MSHCP Goals and Conservation Planning
Context
Sections 1.2.3 and 1.2.4 of this document summarize the overall planning and regulatory context within which the MSHCP conservation planning process proceeded. The range of stakeholder objectives to be addressed by the conservation planning process is presented in the planning context presented in Section 1.2.3. These various inputs resulted in the overall MSHCP goals and objectives presented in Section 1.3 of this document and in the policy direction provided by the County Board of Supervisors as noted in Section 1.3.
3.1.3 Compilation of Existing Data
A description of the biological and physical databases is provided in Section 2.1.1 of this document. In addition to these databases, a variety of other data were assembled as part of the overall RCIP process and informed the conservation planning process for the MSHCP. These include digital data layers depicting existing land use, planned land use, status of land ownership, existing and planned roads, utility easements and assessors parcels.
The biological and physical databases described in Section 2.1.1 were augmented by additional literature reviews and data gathered from a variety of sources. Input also was sought from local biologists. Representatives from the USFWS, UCR, DUDEK, RBF, Los Angeles County Museum, Coachella Valley Association of Governments, Tierra Madre Consultants (now AMEC), Camp Pendleton Amphibians and Reptiles Survey (CPARS), Zoological Society of San Diego, Loma Linda University, County of Riverside, and independent consultants convened for a three-day habitat assessment workshop on April 27 through 29, 1999. The workshop was followed by a subsequent meeting with Dr. Robert Fisher of San Diego State University and DUDEK regarding species occurrences and general conservation issues on June 9, 1999. The purpose of the habitat assessment workshops was several fold: to identify the goals and objectives of the MSHCP; to provide a forum for review of the data available for the planning effort; to discuss the status of the species data and accounts; and to discuss approaches to habitat assessment. A detailed description of the workshops can be found in Appendix C of the August 9, 1999 "Draft MSHCP Proposal" (DUDEK 1999) on file with the County of Riverside.
On June 30, 1999, a workshop hosted by UCR was conducted to further solicit information regarding species proposed for analysis as part of the MSHCP. Local biologists and other experts familiar with Western Riverside County flora and fauna discussed existing data and data gaps for the species to be addressed as well as other taxa (e.g., insects). A general evaluation of the existing data was made for each of the taxon, data gaps were identified, "hot spots" for species occurrence were noted, and corridors and areas of concern were identified. Habitat management also was discussed.
Other sources contributing to the compilation of existing data included ongoing personal communication with local biologists and biologists with the USFWS and CDFG, querying the CNDDB, and reviewing Environmental Impact Reports (EIRs) and Biological Technical Reports prepared for specific development projects within the Plan Area. This effort has been ongoing throughout the MSHCP planning process.
Analysis tools developed specifically for the MSHCP included the Bioregions map described in Section 2.1.2 of this document. An additional analysis tool to evaluate edge-affected areas under existing conditions and associated with potential conservation scenarios was developed. Edge- affected lands under existing conditions were identified using the MSHCP vegetation map, Bioregions map and major highways map. These polygon-based data layers were converted to 100-foot pixel grids. Lands were either classified as Habitat or urban/agricultural. Based on distance between urban/agricultural lands and Habitat, "Edge Effects" were defined as follows: 0-250 feet - strongly affected; 251-600 feet - somewhat affected; >600 feet - relatively unaffected. The application of this tool to analysis of the MSHCP Conservation Area is described in greater detail in Section A of the MSHCP Reference Document - Volume II of the MSHCP Plan.
3.1.4 Applicable Conservation Biology Principles
General principles of conservation biology are captured by the reserve design tenets described in the NCCP General Process Guidelines and NCCP Act (CDFG 1998). These reserve design tenets provided a framework for the conservation planning process. They can be summarized as follows:
The theoretical and empirical underpinnings of the NCCP reserve design tenets can be found in the conservation biology literature, of which key concepts are summarized here.
Although many factors can be incorporated into reserve design and selection, diversity, rarity, naturalness, size and representativeness are the most widely used (Margules et al. 1988). Other considerations include island biogeography design principles of MacArthur and Wilson (1963 and 1967): (1) area effect - the larger the preserve, 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 reserve units, the greater the opportunity for gene flow, colonization, and rescue effect (e.g., also see Brown and Kodric-Brown 1977); (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 reserve area to reserve perimeter, the lesser the Edge Effect.
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 (Ricklefs 1993)." 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 [e.g., reproductive output of the rufous-crowned sparrow (Morrison and Bolger 2002), distribution of arthropod species (Bolger et al. 2000)] or even show preferences for edges (e.g., indigo buntings and northern cardinals in Woodward et al. 2001), human-induced edge effects are generally unfavorable to native species.
Another important feature of reserve design is the spatial arrangement of wildlife movement corridors and Linkages between Core Areas. At this point it is useful to contrast movement corridors with Linkages. Movement corridors are often linear and facilitate efficient movement by providing adequate cover and lack of physical obstacles for movement (Beier and Loe 1992). Movement corridors do not provide Live-In Habitat for species. Linkages, in contrast, are areas providing permanent resident "Live-In" Habitat as well as movement Habitat for a particular species. The Linkage contains resources that meet the life history requirements for the species the Linkage is intended to serve. Known as landscape Linkages, these areas are capable of sustaining a full range of community/ecosystem processes, thus enabling seed dispersal and animal movement over a period of generations (USFWS 1999). 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 this document.
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. Bolger et al. (1997) found fewer rodent species in fragments isolated for longer periods of time and by greater distances. Lower arthropod diversity was also observed by Bolger et al. (2000) in older and smaller habitat fragments. The probability of extinction becomes greater as immigration and emigration are impeded by conversion of natural Habitat between occupied or potential habitat patches to inhospi land covers. Linkages, therefore, serve to ameliorate habitat fragmentation and isolation by permitting the following: (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 (Beier and Loe 1992).
Empirical evidence exists to support the utility of Linkages and corridors. In a study by Beier (1995), radio-tagged mountain lions never crossed into urban areas; individuals used defined movement corridors for dispersal and for traveling between areas comprising their home ranges. Beier and Noss's (1998) review of thirty-two empirical studies pertaining to the utility of wildlife corridors supported the idea that corridors are "valuable conservation tools." Price et al. (1994) also encourage the consideration of connectedness, particularly for endangered species such as the Stephens' kangaroo rat. Habitat connections are particularly important to the persistence of metapopulations which comprise this species' populations.
Using the available data, the five tenets listed at the beginning of this section were incorporated in the conservation planning process. The species list developed early in the planning process, as described in Section 2.1.4 of this document, along with the species occurrence database and input provided by local biologists and the information assembled for the species accounts (presented in Section B of the MSHCP Reference Document - Volume II of the MSHCP Plan), provided guidance for the overall species needs that would need to be met within the conserved areas. The MSHCP vegetation map, coastal sage scrub quality model, and edge analysis were combined and used in a variety of ways to identify the presence and locations of existing large habitat blocks for potential inclusion within conserved areas. These data and analyses also were used to evaluate existing and potential locations for Linkages. Data were generally analyzed by plotting hard copy maps of data layers and using acetate overlays to assess combined layers. This overlay technique was also conducted digitally using ArcView.
3.1.5 Review of Reserve Selection Models and Methods
In the spring of 1999 DUDEK reviewed several documents and papers from the "gray" and published scientific literature regarding theoretical and applied reserve selection techniques, ranging from relatively subjective ranking approaches (e.g., Duever and Noss 1990; San Diego Multiple Species Conservation Program [MSCP] and North San Diego County Multiple Habitat Conservation Program [MHCP]) to highly automated reserve selection approaches (e.g., Church et al. 1996). Based on this selective review of the literature, it was determined that these reserve selection procedures held little promise for a priori reserve design in the MSHCP planning effort for several reasons: (1) the lack of necessary data to run most of the models; (2) the lack of time and resources to collect such data; (3) the lack of time and resources to validate the results of the models; and (4) the scale differences for the MSHCP Plan Area (highly parcelized) compared to typical scales of 1/4 sections (160 acres) and sections (640 acres) used in the scientific models. Nonetheless, it is instructive to review some of the reserve selection approaches described in the literature because they illustrate many of the important concepts of conservation biology theory and provide some useful analytic approaches for evaluating the MSHCP.
There are many examples of reserve selection procedures in the literature, ranging from quantitative rankings of alternative reserve areas (Duever and Noss 1990) to automated computer algorithms that select reserve units based on pre-programmed criteria (e.g., Austin and Margules 1986; Bedward et al. 1992; Church et al. 1996; Kirkpatrick 1983; Lomolino 1994; Margules et al. 1988; Margules and Usher 1981; Rossi and Kuitunen 1996; Sætersdal and Birks 1993). The computer algorithms typically are designed to select the most efficient reserve system based on some preselected conservation currency such as the maximum number of species, rarity, or biodiversity hotspots; i.e., what reserve design provides the greatest conservation value with the least number of reserve sites? These reserve selection algorithms typically are optimizing solutions such as the Maximal Covering Location Problem (MLCP) (Church et al. 1996) or more simple heuristic iterative algorithms that find reasonable approximations to optimum solutions (e.g.,Margules et al. 1988).
A common feature of the reserve selection approaches is to establish conservation criteria, currency, or surrogates for conservation value. For example, Margules and Usher (1981) identified 18 classes of criteria for evaluating conservation value that could be incorporated into the selection procedure. Some common, but not necessarily mutually exclusive, criteria in these reserve selection models include the following:
Among these criteria, diversity, rarity, naturalness, size and representativeness are most widely used (Margules et al. 1988). Although these criteria tend to be common to selection approaches, how they are defined and used varies among the different model approaches (e.g., Belbin 1993).
As described above, a basic goal of the reserve selection models is to select a set of reserve units that optimizes or maximizes the representation of the identified conservation currency with the least number of units (e.g., Camm et al. 1996; Church et al. 1996). Criteria can be systematically and interactively manipulated to compare results using different priorities, assumptions, weightings of criteria, etc. A strength of such modeling is flexibility and the ability to evaluate different approaches fairly quickly, depending on the computer resources available, number of variables in the selection model, and the size of the data set. The disadvantage of this flexibility is that there are almost infinite ways that models can be programmed with regard to criteria, assumptions, and weightings. Thus, with a large and diverse group of stakeholders, achieving consensus on the most appropriate approach is extremely difficult. Also, demonstrating the sensitivity, reliability, and external validity of any given approach would be difficult in the planning time frame. The validity of the approach can only be evaluated in terms of the viability of the reserve system. Ultimately a functional analysis of the reserve system will occur over the next several decades through the monitoring and Adaptive Management Program.
An illustration of a reserve selection application is a study by Church et al. (1996) where reserve selection is approached as a Maximal Covering Location Problem (MCLP). The MCLP finds the optimum reserve design that solves the problem of selecting "the smallest number of sites from some biological domain which represents all, or as many as possible, of the species in that domain." Using the MCLP has a number of practical problems. A key assumption of the MCLP is that the reserve selected is large enough to support a viable population of a species, community, or Habitat, thus begging the question of what constitutes a viable species, community, or Habitat. This problem would have to be resolved before the reserve selection model could be applied because the viability threshold is part of the computer algorithm. Furthermore, the exercise of evaluating species viability is itself a spatial problem (e.g., how is a viable metapopulation spatially structured), and not just specifying a certain number of populations without regard to their spatial context. Hence, application of the MCLP after this is done seems somewhat redundant, although this qualitative analysis does not address the optimality of design. Finally, it should be noted that Church et al. caution that some optimality problems may be difficult or unsolvable. As the number of variables and data set increases, it is less likely that an optimum solution exists or that it can be easily solved.
Given the uncertain application of reserve selection techniques and the broad range of additional issues that would be triggered from such approaches, DUDEK tends to agree with the assertion of Prendergast et al. (1999) that funds should be allocated for more pragmatic and policy-driven approaches to Conservation (i.e., what are the jurisdictions actually capable of doing) rather than theoretical optimization of reserve design. Regardless of the reserve design selected, and whether it is algorithm-based or stakeholder-driven, the soundness of the MSHCP Conservation Area has to be evaluated by the Wildlife Agencies and other stakeholders.
Although specific reserve selection models were not developed and used for the reasons noted above, the concepts incorporated in the models and listed above (e.g., diversity, size, representativeness, etc.) were considered in the conservation planning process. Values and goals for the conservation planning effort were identified as described in Section 3.1.2 of this document. A comprehensive database was assembled as described in Section 3.1.3 and conservation biology principles were considered as described in Section 3.1.4. Based on this framework, an initial conservation scenario was developed for review by stakeholders with initial identification of potential acreage requirements. Development of this information was necessary for stakeholders to make decisions regarding the next steps in the conservation planning process. Subsequently, as described in Section 3.1.7, alternative conservation scenarios were developed for review by stakeholders and a recommended conservation scenario was selected. The recommended conservation scenario was then refined and analyzed as described in Sections 3.1.8 and 3.2 of this document.
3.1.6 Conceptual Conservation Scenario
An initial reserve concept was developed to assist the MSHCP Advisory Committee in decisions to proceed with conservation planning efforts. This generalized Conceptual Conservation Scenario was developed based on the existing data and literature, habitat assessment workshops, species occurrence information, coastal sage scrub habitat quality modeling, existing and planned land uses, and general conservation biology principles summarized in the NCCP reserve design tenets. At the direction of the MSHCP Advisory Committee, the Conceptual Conservation Scenario was presented and described in narrative form. A map was not prepared. Also at the direction of the MSHCP Advisory Committee, the Conceptual Conservation Scenario was intended to address the life history requirements of as many species as possible on the species list developed by the MSHCP Advisory Committee ( 2-2).
A key objective of the Conceptual Conservation Scenario was to develop a rough estimate of the number of acres needed to conserve the species on the species list developed by the Wildlife Agencies in concert with the MSHCP Advisory Committee (Table 2-2). To the extent possible, existing reserves and areas with multiple species and habitat resources (i.e., ‟hot spots") were incorporated to design an efficient reserve. Core Areas were identified including areas in both existing Public/Quasi-Public Lands and new areas.
Potential Linkages connecting the Core Areas also were identified. Consideration of the species anticipated to utilize the Linkages helped determine if the Linkage should be designed as a landscape Linkage containing biological features and resources for permanent residence, as a movement corridor primarily intended to convey larger wildlife or both. The San Jacinto River is an example of a landscape Linkage that is a Core Area for Narrow Endemic Plant Species but also serves as a movement corridor across the central portion of the Plan Area for species such as the bobcat. These Narrow Endemic Plant Species are dependent on the river's hydrological processes to maintain the appropriate soil and habitat features and a mechanism for dispersal. An example of a landscape Linkage constrained by existing land use patterns is the upland connection between Core Areas in the Lake Skinner/Diamond Valley Lake area and the Estelle Mountains/Lake Mathews Reserve area. Patches of coastal sage scrub exist in this area that provide Habitat for the coastal California gnatcatcher; however, existing conditions do not provide a continuous landscape connection suitable for less mobile species such as small mammals and reptiles. Examples of movement corridors unlikely to provide Live-In Habitat for most species include undercrossings of I-15 at Indian Canyon and Horsethief Canyon for bobcats and mountain lions moving between the Cleveland National Forest and the Estelle Mountains/Lake Mathews Reserve area.
Estimating rough acreages for Conservation was an important component of the Conceptual Conservation Scenario. This process involved:
Step 1: The narrative Conceptual Conservation Scenario was roughly mapped in the form of potential conservation analysis units. This rough map was intersected with the MSHCP vegetation map and vegetation acreages within each category were calculated using GIS.
Step 2: Consistent with the approach described in the August 9, 1999 "Draft MSHCP Proposal," 100 percent of the areas characterized as developed on the vegetation map and 75 percent of the areas characterized as Agriculture on the vegetation map were deleted from the acreage totals.
Step 3: Areas developed since the MSHCP vegetation map was prepared (1995) were defined using the Existing Land Use coverage developed in 1999 for the RCIP. The Existing Land Use coverage is based on 1998 aerial photography and 1997 SCAG database. Acreage estimates were determined for areas that appear to have been developed since the MSHCP vegetation map was prepared and these acreages were deleted from the overall acreage totals.
Step 4: A global 10 percent reduction in total acreage was then assumed based on anticipated new information such as updated information regarding existing Development, updated information regarding Public/Quasi-Public Lands, updated information regarding development approvals and Covered Activities.
A rough acreage estimate was derived from the four-step process described above and then an acreage range was applied under the assumption of various levels of species Conservation. The range of conservation acreages in the Conceptual Conservation Scenario totaled 380,000 to 510,000 acres of private and Public/Quasi-Public Lands.
3.1.7 Informal Gap Analysis
➤ Methods
Based on the Conceptual Conservation Scenario described above, an informal gap analysis was conducted. This informal gap analysis is not to be confused with the formal Gap Analysis Program (GAP) described by Scott et al. (1993), but is based on the same principles (note use of lower case for "gap analysis"). The gap analysis identified areas as important for Conservation in the Conceptual Conservation Scenario but not currently in public ownership, i.e., there is a lack ("gap") of protection in these areas. The locations of existing designated open space lands and other public lands were mapped using GIS. The initial analysis was based on the status of land ownership map (Figure 2-9). Subsequently, a preliminary parcel-based Public/Quasi-Public Lands database was developed by County staff and was used for analysis. This database was then compared with a schematic map of the Conceptual Conservation Scenario using GIS to identify the gaps in Conservation and where land may need to be acquired to assemble the MSHCP Conservation Area.
➤ Results
The gap analysis identified 153,000 acres needed for Conservation that are not currently in public ownership (i.e., the area within the generalized Conceptual Conservation Scenario that currently is unprotected). The gaps in protection include portions of core resource areas, landscape Linkages, movement corridors or Constrained Linkages, and other important localized resource areas such as vernal pool and the Delhi Sands flower-loving fly Habitats.
A narrative summary of the gaps in protection resulting from the analysis is provided below:
Northwest Section of Plan Area
Northeast Section of Plan Area
Southwest Section of Plan Area
Southeast Section of Plan Area
3.1.8 Identification of Alternatives and Selection of Proposed Alternative
As directed by the MSHCP Advisory Committee, the initial conservation planning process focused on identifying acreage requirements for a conservation scenario that would conserve the majority of species from the initial species list (Table 2-2). The MSHCP Advisory Committee also requested identification of alternative conservation scenarios that could result in Conservation of fewer species. These alternative conservation scenarios were identified as the Listed and Proposed Species Alternative, the Listed, Proposed and Strong Candidate Species Alternative, and the Existing Reserves Alternative. These alternatives were developed and analyzed both quantitatively and qualitatively using the MSHCP database in the same manner as the Conceptual Conservation Scenario. Schematic maps were developed for GIS analysis and visual display purposes for stakeholders. The alternatives are summarized in Section 3.4 of this document and in the MSHCP Alternatives Development Document (DUDEK, October 2000). Also considered as part of this process were a No Project/No MSHCP Alternative and a "more biologically robust" alternative. The No Project/No MSHCP Alternative is summarized in Section 3.4 and in the Alternatives Development Document and the "modified reserve design" alternative is discussed in detail in the MSHCP EIR/EIS and briefly in Section 9.0 of this document.
In general, it was concluded that alternatives that resulted in Conservation of fewer species would not substantially reduce acreage requirements for Conservation, or costs associated with Reserve Assembly. It was also concluded that the "modified reserve design" alternative would result in substantially increased costs while not resulting in Conservation of additional species. Based on these general conclusions, and other factors considered by stakeholders and the County Board of Supervisors, the refinement of the initial Conceptual Conservation Scenario, known as Alternative 1, was selected as the preferred alternative and the conservation planning process proceeded with further development and refinement of that alternative.
3.1.9 Conceptual Reserve Design/Criteria-Based Plan
At the December 19, 2000 meeting of the County Board of Supervisors, policy direction was given to proceed with preparation of a criteria-based plan for Alternative 1, which would conserve approximately 500,000 acres in the Plan Area. The criteria-based approach anticipates Conservation within the existing Public/Quasi-Public Lands comprising approximately 347,000 acres and development of Criteria to describe additional Conservation on private lands of approximately 153,000 acres.
Development of the criteria-based plan involved review and refinement of the initial Conceptual Conservation Scenario and conceptual Alternative 1 and creation of the Conceptual Reserve Design. This included an iterative process of going back through the data compilation and review, gap analysis, and consideration of conservation biology principles that were completed for the Conceptual Conservation Scenario and Alternative 1. The data layers described in Sections 2.1.1 and 2.2.2 were used for this process with updated data layers reflecting new information assembled throughout the planning process. The primary information updated throughout the process were the species occurrence data and other species-specific information obtained through review of literature and comments received on draft species accounts distributed at several intervals during the process. In addition, as noted previously, the Public/Quasi-Public data base was refined. A parcel-based Public/Quasi-Public Lands database was used for the description and analysis of the proposed MSHCP Conservation Area in this document. Updated land use data also were incorporated in the process including updated identification of lands with priorconservation agreements. Updated aerial photography became available in summer 2001.
As with the process for the Conceptual Conservation Scenario and Alternative 1, a specific quantitative model was not developed for the Conceptual Reserve Design. The iterative process involved overlaying data layers manually using hard-copy plots and acetates, as well as on-screen data overlays using GIS. Initial refined concepts were developed for review and comment by the Wildlife Agencies and their comments were addressed in the refined concepts. A more detailed description of the organizing framework and methodology used to develop the Conceptual Reserve Design/Criteria-Based Plan is presented in Section 3.3.1 of this document.
3.1.10 Description and Analysis of MSHCP Conservation Area
The process described in Sections 3.1.1 through 3.1.8 resulted in identification of an MSHCP Conservation Area that could be described and analyzed. The description and analysis of the MSHCP Conservation Area have two primary purposes: (1) to provide a complete enough description of the Conservation anticipated under the MSHCP such that Reserve Assembly can be adequately measured and monitored over the long-term MSHCP implementation process, while at the same time incorporating sufficient flexibility to allow appropriate response to new information and changing conditions; and (2) to provide a sufficient level of detail to permit analysis of Covered Species consistent with regulatory requirements. A generalized description and analysis of the MSHCP Conservation Area is presented in Section 3.2 of this document and in Section A of the Reference Document - Volume II of the MSHCP Plan. The detailed species accounts are included in Section B of the Reference Document - Volume II of the MSHCP Plan and summary species accounts are provided in Section 9.0 of this document.
3.2 DESCRIPTION OF THE MSHCP CONSERVATION AREA
3.2.1 The MSHCP Plan Map
Figure 3-1 depicts the Criteria Area within the Plan Area and represents the MSHCP Plan map. Four categories are depicted on the legend for the Plan map and are 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. Criteria have been developed for individual Cells or Cell Groupings and are presented for each Area Plan in Section 3.3.
Public/Quasi- Under this category, existing known Public/Quasi-Public Lands (PQP)
Public Lands: that will form the initial backbone of the MSHCP Conservation Area are depicted. Approximately 347,000 acres of Conservation are anticipated on these lands.
Within five years of Permit issuance, the RCA shall verify the precise acreage, location, amount and status of PQP Lands in the MSHCP Conservation Area. Such information shall be submitted to the Wildlife Agencies for review. In the event that a Permittee elects to use property currently depicted as PQP Lands on the MSHCP Plan map (Figure 3-1) in a way that alters the land use such that it would not contribute to Reserve Assembly the Permittee shall locate and acquire or otherwise encumber replacement acreage at a minimum ratio of 1:1 replacement taking into account direct and indirect effects of PQP Lands in one location with PQP Lands in another location. The Permittee must make findings that the replacement acreage is biologically equivalent or superior to the existing property as set forth in Section 6.5 of the MSHCP, Volume I.
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 MSCHP 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 Reserve 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 Lands: 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 existing Public/Quasi-Public Lands and new Conservation on approximately 153,000 acres of land within the Criteria Area. While the precise configuration for new Conservation within the Criteria Area has not been defined or mapped, a Conceptual Reserve Design was developed for analysis purposes as described in Sections 3.1.9 and 3.3.1 of this document. While certainly not the only possible configuration to emerge from application of Criteria within the Criteria Area, the Conceptual Reserve Design was a useful tool in establishing conservation targets as part of the MSHCP planning process. The conservation targets developed as part of that process, along with anticipated Conservation on Public/Quasi-Public Lands, form the basis for the description of the MSHCP Conservation Area presented in this section. Achievement of the conservation targets as part of the overall Reserve Assembly process will be an important measuring and monitoring tool for the MSHCP.
3.2.2 The MSHCP Conservation Area
In addition to the features incorporated in the MSHCP Plan map, as described above, the MSHCP Conservation Area may be described in terms of several specific analysis factors considered during the conservation planning process. These include Bioregions, vegetation, soils, patch size, and edge affected lands. This section provides a summary description of the MSHCP Conservation Area based on those analysis factors. A more detailed description is provided in Section A of the MSHCP Reference Document - Volume II of the MSHCP Plan. The MSHCP Conservation Area may also be described in terms of Cores and Linkages. The description of Cores and Linkages is provided in Section 3.2.3 of this document.
➤ Bioregions
Within the MSHCP Plan Area, large percentages of the Agua Tibia mountains (80.3 percent, 10,130 ac.), San Jacinto Mountains (71.7 percent, 134,000 ac.), San Jacinto Foothills (64.6 percent, 72,240 ac.) and the Santa Ana Mountains (61.3 percent, 85,810 ac.) Bioregions are conserved. Significant amounts of the Conservation in these Bioregions occur within existing Public/Quasi-Public Lands. Smaller portions of the Desert Transition (37.7 percent, 33,460 ac.), San Bernardino Mountains (34.5 percent, 9,990 ac.) and Riverside Lowlands (24.2 percent, 166,820 ac.) are conserved within the MSHCP Plan Area. Much of the central portion of the Desert Transition Bioregion will not be conserved. Six percent of the Desert Transition Bioregion currently supports urban Development or agricultural uses. About ten percent of the San Bernardino Mountains Bioregion currently has urban or agricultural land uses. The remaining non-conserved lands are either American Indian Lands (5.7 percent), Rural Mountainous (15.7 percent), or undeveloped private land. The Riverside Lowlands is the largest Bioregion and will have the lowest proportion of its acreage in Conservation, with 24.2 percent (166,820 acres) within the MSHCP Conservation Area. Approximately 50.4 percent (about 347,800 acres) of the land in this Bioregion is currently supporting urban or agricultural land uses. Very little of this Bioregion is within American Indian Lands or is considered Rural Mountainous.
➤ Vegetation
Table 3-1 presents a summary of Vegetation Communities conserved within the MSHCP Conservation Area. Playas/vernal pools and water vegetation types had the highest percentages of Conservation within the MSHCP Conservation Area, with 85 percent of the total acreages of both these Vegetation Communities conserved. Riparian scrub/woodland forest, Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub, woodlands/forests, chaparral, montane coniferous forest, coastal sage scrub and meadows/marshes also are conserved at high levels, with 50 percent to 75 percent of each of these Vegetation Communities conserved. Desert scrubs, grassland, Agriculture, and cismontane alkali marsh are conserved at the lowest levels, with percentages of Conservation at 34 percent, 28 percent, 12 percent, and 3 percent, respectively.
➤ Soils
Clay soils within the Plan Area include Bosanko, Auld, Altamont, and Porterville. In addition, areas from which clay had been mined (known as "claypit") were digitized. Within the Plan Area, clay soils support several sensitive plant species, including listed species such as Munz's onion (state threatened, federally endangered), thread-leaved brodiaea (state endangered, federally threatened), and San Diego button celery (state and federally endangered); and sensitive species such as Orcutt's brodiaea, long-spined spine flower, small-flowered morning glory, many-stemmed dudleya, Palmer's grapplinghook, graceful tarplant, and small-flowered microseris. The Domino-Traver-Willows soil association includes saline-alkali soils largely located along floodplain areas within the Plan Area. Sensitive plants supported by the Domino-Traver-Willows soil association include two listed species, the San Jacinto Valley crownscale (federally endangered) and the spreading navarretia (federally threatened); and sensitive plant species, including Parish's brittlescale, Davidson's saltscale, Coulter's goldfields, and vernal barley.
Within the clay soils areas, 31 percent of the total is conserved, including 12 percent within Additional Reserve Lands and 19 percent on existing Public/Quasi-Public Lands. Of these clay soils, 18 percent of Auld, 23 percent of Bosanko, 37 percent of Porterville, 10 percent of claypit, and 12 percent of Altamont are conserved either on Public/Quasi-Public Lands or captured within the Additional Reserve Lands. Within Domimo-Traver-Willows soils, 36 percent of the total is conserved, including 21 percent within the MSHCP Conservation Area and 15 percent on existing public lands. Within this soil association, 17 percent of Domino, 32 percent of Traver, and 74 percent of Willows soils are conserved either on Public/Quasi-Public Lands or within Additional Reserve Lands.
➤ Patch Size
The individual sizes of patches comprising the MSHCP Conservation Area are important elements to the functioning of the conserved lands. It is generally agreed that large-sized patches encompass a greater portion of the landscape and allow for a greater inclusion of ecological niches, and that larger Core Areas offer greater resistance to catastrophic changes. However, while larger-sized Core Areas are usually considered better-functioning, widespread smaller satellite Core Areas can incorporate higher species diversity by efficiently preserving nodes of species of limited distribution. The MSHCP Conservation Area has both small and large areas in order to balance the need to conserve narrowly-distributed species and preserve the greatest number of species and protect habitat function with the least management effort.
The MSHCP Conservation Area is composed of approximately 575 patches. The spatial character of the MSHCP Conservation Area is complex with large numbers of small, spatially disjunct patches and small numbers of large connected patches. Sixty-five percent of these patches are less than ten acres in area and make up less than 0.25 percent of the areas to be conserved under the MSHCP. The vast majority of these small patches occur within areas heavily fragmented by urbanization in the Riverside Lowlands Bioregion and are represented by small patches of existing Public/Quasi-Public Lands. By contrast only 28 of the patches (5 percent) are greater than 1,000 acres but these make up 94 percent of the areas to be conserved under the MSHCP. A single connected block makes up the largest portion of the MSHCP Conservation Area at approximately 238,000 acres (50 percent of the acreage).
➤ Edge Affected Land After Completion of Reserve Assembly
Increases in fragmentation of the landscape lead to increases in the area where urban/agricultural landscapes and native habitats interface. These areas of high fragmentation are subjected to Edge Effects, which are generally unfavorable and are ultimately due to nearby human activity. Some examples of Edge Effects include introduction/colonization of non-native species, increased predation, increased fire frequency, and small-scale environmental changes in temperature, light, and wind (Primack, 1993).
The MSHCP Conservation Area will be subjected to these Edge Effects due to urbanization within the Plan Area. For the purposes of estimating Edge Effects on habitat patches at completion of Reserve Assembly, each acre within the MSHCP Conservation Area (excluding urban and agricultural land) was placed into one of three categories based on proximity to urban/agricultural lands: strongly affected (1 to 250 feet from urban or agricultural land), somewhat affected (251 to 600 feet from urban or agricultural land), and not affected (more than 600 feet from urban or agricultural land).
From this analysis, it was found that 14 percent of the MSHCP Conservation Area will be strongly affected, 15 percent will be somewhat affected, and 71 percent will not be affected by Edge Effects. This large percentage of lands not likely to be exposed to Edge Effects is due to the effect of a small number of large habitat blocks. The strongly urban/agricultural areas of the Riverside Lowlands Bioregion and San Bernardino Mountains Bioregion have the greatest proportion of land that may be subject to Edge Effects.
3.2.3 Cores and Linkages within the MSHCP Conservation Area
The MSHCP Conservation Area is comprised of a variety of existing and proposed Cores, Extensions of Existing Cores, Linkages, Constrained Linkages and Non-contiguous Habitat Blocks. These features, generally referenced as Cores and Linkages, are depicted in Figure 3-2. The following definitions apply to the legend items shown on Figure 3-2.
Core A block of Habitat of appropriate size, configuration, and vegetation characteristics to generally support the life history requirements of one or more Covered Species. Although a more typical definition is population-related and refers to a single species (see Hunter 2002, Primack 2000), in the MSHCP this term is Habitat-related because of the multi-species nature of the MSHCP Plan.
Extension of Existing Core A block of Habitat contiguous with an existing Core Area which serves to provide additional Habitat for species in the adjacent existing Core and to reduce exposed edge.
Non-contiguous Habitat Block A block of Habitat not connected to other Habitat areas via a Linkage or Constrained Linkage.
Constrained Linkage A constricted connection expected to provide for movement of identified Planning Species between Core Areas, where options for assembly of the connection are limited due to existing patterns of use.
Linkage A connection between Core Areas with adequate size, configuration and vegetation characteristics to generally provide for "Live-In" Habitat and/or provide for genetic flow for identified Planning Species. Areas identified as Linkages in MSHCP may provide movement Habitat but not Live-In Habitat for some species, thereby functioning more as movement corridors. Since it is expected that every Linkage will provide Live-In Habitat for at least one species, and since the term "corridor" may be easily confused with the term as it is applied to transportation Corridors discussed in the CETAP portion of the RCIP, the term Linkage is used here. For a more thorough discussion of Linkage and movement corridors, see Section 3.1.4, Applicable Conservation Biology Principles.
The Cores and Linkages depicted in Figure 3-2 are based on the Conceptual Reserve Design developed for analytical purposes for the MSHCP. Likewise, the quantitative information presented with each Core or Linkage is based on the Conceptual Reserve Design. As described in Section 3.2.1 of this document, the Conceptual Reserve Design forms the basis for identifying target conservation acreages and generating quantitative data for the MSHCP biological analyses. The Conceptual Reserve Design is intended to describe one way in which the MSHCP Conservation Area could be configured consistent with MSHCP Criteria; it does not represent the only possible reserve that could be assembled consistent with the MSHCP Criteria. Flexibility is intended to be incorporated in the Reserve Assembly process to enable new information and data to be incorporated as part of the long-term MSHCP implementation process.
The tables in the text discussion present four categories of information for each Core or Linkage: Dimensions, Species, Adjacent Planned Land Uses, and Covered Activities.
1. Dimensional Data. Dimensional data include total acreage, edge, interior, P/A ratio, and distance to nearest Core. For Cores, Non-contiguous Habitat Blocks, and Extensions of Existing Cores, only total area, P/A ratio, and distance to the nearest connected Core are considered. For Linkages and Constrained Linkages, only total area, P/A ratio minimum/ maximum widths and lengths are considered.
Total area contained within a Core or Linkage was calculated based on the Conceptual Reserve Design and then was divided into area classified as edge and area classified as interior. To complete this edge analysis, a 250-foot buffer was created outside and adjacent to the Core or Linkage and designated "edge" area, while the remaining area was designated "interior." It is anticipated that these edge areas will incur greater "Edge Effects" due to nearby human activities such as lighting, urban runoff, toxics such as pesticides, or domestic predators. For the sake of simplicity, a 250-foot buffer was used, though in reality Edge Effects may decrease in a complex fashion, depending on species and type of Edge Effect, from the margin to the interior of the Core or Linkage (see Section 3.1.4 for a more thorough discussion of Edge Effects.). In addition, the extent to which a Core or Linkage is affected by edge varies as a function of the land use surrounding the Core or Linkage. For example, a Rural Mountainous land use designation in areas adjacent to a Linkage would give rise to far fewer Edge Effects than a city land use designation surrounding the Linkage. Land use designations surrounding each Core and Linkage are discussed in the individual Core and Linkage descriptions following the tables. Finally, Edge Effects are also species specific, since different species respond differently to Edge Effects.
The tables also present the distance to nearest connected Core and the perimeter-to-area (P/A) ratio of each Core or Linkage, as appropriate. Once a GIS coverage delineating Cores and Linkages was created, perimeters and areas were computed with GIS in order to determine the P/A ratio. Distance to nearest connected core was identified as the length of each linkage connecting the cores in question. From a biological perspective low P/A ratios are generally considered more favorable since low P/A ratios represent unfragmented habitat blocks with comparatively lower amounts of exposed edge. As the overall size of the Core or Linkage increases, however, the importance of this metric may decrease. In cases where more than one route through a Linkage is possible, the reader is referred to the text description of the Linkage.
Note: The sum of the areas for the proposed Cores and Linkages is 183,000 acres, a value above the target acreage of 153,000 acres of new Conservation on private lands. This difference arises as an artifact of the classification of each Core or Linkage as either "Proposed" (i.e., new, private Conservation) or "Existing" (i.e., Public/Quasi-Public Land) despite the fact that some Cores or Linkages contain a patchwork of Public/Quasi-Public Lands and private lands identified for potential acquisition. Thus, the additional 30,000 acres contained within the proposed Cores or Linkages reflects the inclusion of existing Public/Quasi-Public Lands within the proposed Cores and Linkages.
2. Planning Species. Planning Species considered for each Core or Linkage are also listed in the tables. Planning Species are subsets of Covered Species that are identified to provide guidance for Reserve Assembly in Cores and Linkages and/or Area Plans. Species listed in this column may include species which are not Planning Species for the area in question but which may have important or key populations located in the area.
3. Adjacent Proposed General Plan Land Use. Each table lists General Plan land uses proposed adjacent to the Core or Linkage, as defined by the County of Riverside General Plan. Proposed land uses include Agriculture, Community Development (including Community Centers), Open Space/Conservation, Cities, Rural (including Mountainous), Indian Lands, and Water. For specific descriptions of each of these categories, refer to the General Plan. Adjacent land uses are important because of the Edge Effects each exerts on each Core or Linkage. Community Development and Cities represent an urban level of Development with a high density of people and associated structures, vehicles, and activity. Agriculture and Rural (non-mountainous) represent land use designations with minimal structures and more open, vacant land. Rural Mountainous is typically an even lower-density land use due to steep slopes. Open space/Conservation lands are generally the most undeveloped, as they contain few, if any, structures and are specifically intended for the preservation of natural resources. Land use practices within these designations could affect resources within the Cores and Linkages due to issues such as those identified in Section 6.1.4 of this document. These issues include lighting, urban runoff, toxics such as pesticides, or domestic predators. MSHCP policies and procedures included in Section 6.0 of this document and in the global and species-specific objectives in Section 9.0 of this document will be implemented to ensure that the existing Habitat and movement functions of the Linkage are maintained as planned land uses are developed along the edge of the Linkage.
4. Major Covered Activities. Major Covered Activities that may affect the Cores and Linkages are also listed in the tables. These Covered Activities may include new facilities or widenings or extensions of existing facilities. Guidelines for Covered Activities presented in Section 7.0 of this document will be incorporated in the siting, design, construction and maintenance of these facilities to avoid and minimize effects of these facilities on Core and Linkage biological functions and values.
Quantitative data shown below for each Core and Linkage are based on the Conceptual Reserve Design. As noted in Section 3.3.1, the Conceptual Reserve Design was developed primarily for the purposes of developing quantitative information for the MSHCP species accounts and Area Plan Criteria. The Conceptual Reserve Design does not represent the only possible MSHCP Conservation Area that may be assembled during the long-term Reserve Assembly process. Flexibility is incorporated in the MSHCP to allow Reserve Assembly to be informed by project-specific data and planning as part of MSHCP implementation.
Index for Cores and Linkages
The Cores and Linkages are organized with their corresponding page numbers in this section as follows:
Existing Core A
Existing Core A consists of Prado Basin and the Santa Ana River, located in the northwest region of the Plan Area. This southwest-to-northeast trending swath of land is composed largely of Public/Quasi-Public Lands owned by a variety of entities, but it also contains a small number of privately-owned lands. The Core also functions as a Linkage, connecting Orange County to the west with San Bernardino County to the north. Existing Core A is connected to Existing Core B (Cleveland National Forest) via both and upland and a riparian connection (Proposed Constrained Linkage 1 and Proposed Constrained Linkage 2, respectively). This Core is constrained on all sides by existing urban development and agricultural use, and planned land uses surrounding the Core consist largely of high impact land uses such as city and community Development. Therefore, high quality riparian Habitat within the Core and along the edges must be maintained for species such as southwestern willow flycatcher, yellow warbler, yellow-breasted chat, western yellow-billed cuckoo, and others listed in the table below. Guidelines Pertaining to Urban/Wildlands Interface for the management of edge factors such as lighting, urban runoff, toxics, and domestic predators are presented in Section 6.1 of this document. Maintenance of existing floodplain processes and water quality along the Santa Ana River is also important to Santa Ana River woollystar and arroyo chub. Management entities in this existing Core include: the County of Riverside Parks and Open Space District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Orange County Water District, and California Department of Parks and Recreation.
Existing Core B
Existing Core B is composed of Cleveland National Forest, which lines the western border of the Plan Area. Within the Plan Area this Core consists of two large and two small blocks of Public/ Quasi-Public Lands. Existing Core B is connected to Existing Core A (Prado Basin/Santa Ana River) in the north via two Constrained Linkages (Proposed Constrained Linkage 1 and Proposed Constrained Linkage 2), in the center by Proposed Linkage 1 to the Lake Mathews/Estelle Mountain area, and in the south to the Tenaja Corridor (Proposed Linkage 9). This Core represents the second largest habitat block in the Plan Area and is located only 1.6 miles from the nearest connected Core. Studies of mountain lion movement within this Core indicated that this Core provides both Live-In and Linkage Habitat for this mammal, which requires very large blocks of intact Habitat. The Core then likely also provides linkage area for other mammals such as mountain lion and bobcat in addition to the species listed in the table below. Management entities in this existing Core include the U.S. Forest Service.
Existing Core C
Existing Core C consists of public lands in the Lake Mathews/Estelle Mountain area in the northwestern region of the Plan Area, originally assembled as a Core Reserve for the Stephens' Kangaroo Rat Habitat Conservation Plan. Connections to other MSHCP conserved lands exist to the east (Proposed Linkage 3) and west (Proposed Extension of Existing Core 2). This Core is somewhat constrained by existing agriculture to the north and south of the Core; however some natural lands remain along the border of the Core. A large portion of the western border of Existing Core C is contiguous with Proposed Extension of Existing Core 2, which markedly decreases amount of exposed edge and results in a lower actual P/A ratio than that reported in the table below. This Core provides Live-In Habitat for a large number of species as well as linkage area for species moving from the Gavilan Hills area to Temescal Wash. In addition to Stephens' kangaroo rat, the Lake Mathews/Estelle Mountain Reserve contains Habitat for other species with requirements for high quality Habitat, such as Quino checkerspot butterfly and coastal California gnatcatcher. Although the Core is surrounded largely by a rural planned land use designation, in areas where community Development is planned, treatment and management of edge conditions along the borders of this Core will be necessary to ensure that it provides Habitat and movement functions for species using the Core. Guidelines Pertaining to Urban/Wildlands Interface for the management of edge factors such as lighting, urban runoff, toxics, and domestic predators are presented in Section 6.1 of this document. Management entities in this existing Core include the Lake Mathews/Estelle Mountain Reserve Management Committee.
Existing Core D
Existing Core D consists of Sycamore Canyon Park. This Core is composed of two Non-contiguous Habitat Blocks of Public/Quasi-Public Land separated by approximately 2,000 feet, in approximately the north-central region of the Plan Area. Existing Core D is connected to Existing Noncontiguous Habitat Block A (Box Springs Mountains) via Proposed Constrained Linkage 7. At 10.8 miles from the nearest connected Core, Existing Core D is the most isolated of all proposed or existing Cores. The Core is also surrounded by City and Community Development planned land use designations. For these reasons, treatment and management of edge conditions along this Core will be necessary to ensure that it provides Habitat and movement functions for species using the Core. Guidelines Pertaining to Urban/Wildlands Interface for the management of edge factors such as lighting, urban runoff, toxics, and domestic predators are presented in Section 6.1 of this document. The Core provides Live-In Habitat for the granite spiny lizard, a species requiring rock outcrops, and likely provides movement Habitat for bobcat. Management entities in this existing Core include the City of Riverside Park and Recreation Department and March Joint Powers Authority.
Existing Core E
Existing Core E consists of Lake Elsinore, located in the west-central region of the Plan Area. Existing Core E is connected to other MSHCP conserved lands via Proposed Extension of Existing Core 3 (Lake Elsinore Soils). This Core provides Live-In Habitat for species as noted in the table below and also likely provides for movement of common mammals such as bobcat. Urban Development partially constrains the Core; however some natural lands remain along the border of the Core. Since this is an existing Core with no new Reserve Assembly anticipated, treatment and management of edge conditions along this Core will be necessary to ensure that it provides Habitat and movement functions for species using the Core. Guidelines Pertaining to Urban/Wildlands Interface for the management of edge factors such as lighting, urban runoff, toxics, and domestic predators are presented in Section 6.1.4 of this document.
Existing Core F
Existing Core F consists of the Santa Rosa Plateau Ecological Reserve, located in the southwest region of the Plan Area. Existing Core F is connected to other MSHCP conserved lands via several Linkages: Proposed Constrained Linkage 13 (Murrieta Creek) and Proposed Linkage 10 connect the Core to conserved lands in the southeast, Proposed Constrained Linkages 11 (De Luz Canyon) and 12 (Sandia Canyon) connect the Core to San Diego County in the south, and Proposed Linkage 9 (Tenaja Corridor) connects the Core to Existing Core B in the west. This Core represents a large habitat block with a relatively low proportion of its area potentially affected by edge (approximately 460 acres of the total 8,360 acres) and a comparatively low P/A ratio. Furthermore, much of the Core is surrounded by a Rural Mountainous land use designation, which will further lower Edge Effects at the borders of the Core. For these reasons Existing Core F can be expected to provide high quality movement and Live-In Habitat for the species listed in the table below. Maintenance of hydrological processes and water quality will be necessary, however, to provide Habitat for persistence of species such as vernal pool fairy shrimp, thread-leaved brodiaea, Orcutt's brodiaea, western pond turtle, vernal barley, Riverside fairy shrimp, Santa Rosa Plateau fairy shrimp, and California red-legged frog. Management entities in this existing Core include: The Nature Conservancy, County of Riverside and California Department of Parks and Recreation.
Existing Core G
Existing Core G is comprised of the Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve. This Core Area provides Live-In Habitat for species noted below and may serve as a Linkage for Planning Species, including bobcat and mountain lion, moving between the Santa Ana Mountains and the Agua Tibia Wilderness. In addition to maintenance of habitat quality, maintenance of existing floodplain processes along Santa Margarita River is important for these species. Adjacent land use practices which may affect movement of species through this Core include construction of barriers (i.e., fencing). Proposed widening activities of I-15 may also affect movement of wildlife species connecting to this Core Area, as well as water quality and floodplain processes of the Santa Margarita River. Because the distance to the Santa Rosa Plateau, the nearest connected Core Area, is 5.5 miles, maintenance of the connection to the Santa Rosa Plateau is important for species persistence, viability and dispersal. Management entities in this existing Core include: California State University, San Diego, The Nature Conservancy, and California Department of Fish and Game.
Existing Core H
Existing Core H is comprised of Lake Perris State Recreation Area, San Jacinto Wildlife Area, private lands and lands with pre-existing conservation agreements. It provides Live-In Habitat for certain species, contains soils suitable for some Narrow Endemic Plant Species, supports vernal pool complexes and may provide a connection to Core Areas in the Badlands and the middle reach of the San Jacinto River. Planning Species for which Habitat is provided within this Core Area include bobcat, Los Angeles pocket mouse, Stephens' kangaroo rat, smooth tarplant, San Jacinto Valley crownscale, spreading navarretia, California Orcutt grass, vernal barley and thread-leaved brodiaea. Maintenance of habitat quality, floodplain process along the San Jacinto River, and Conservation of vernal pool complexes are important for these species. This Core Area likely provides for Live-In Habitat for small rodents and common mammals, including bobcat and San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit.
In addition to indirect effects described in Section 6.0 of this document, other effects associated with locating the proposed General Plan land use designations noted in the table below may occur. Alteration of hydrology or fire suppression activities occurring on adjacent lands may adversely affect Narrow Endemic Plant Species, including spreading navarretia, San Jacinto Valley crownscale, vernal barley and smooth tarplant, known to occur in the vicinity of Mystic Lake and the San Jacinto Wildlife Refuge Area.
The three roadways listed in the table below are existing roadways that are proposed to be widened along the edge of the Core Area. The CETAP corridor, if approved, would generally follow Ramona Expressway. Proposed widening activities may directly affect Habitat or floodplain processes important to the species noted in the table below or may affect movement between this Core Area and other Core Areas in the Badlands and along the San Jacinto River. Ramona Expressway and Bridge Street cross the San Jacinto River under existing conditions and would continue to cross the river with proposed widenings. Management entities in this existing Core include the California Department of Parks and Recreation and California Department of Fish and Game.
Existing Core I
Existing Core I is comprised of the portion of the San Bernardino Mountains located within the MSHCP Plan Area. This Core Area provides potential nest sites, foraging Habitat, a connection to the portion of the San Bernardino Mountains in San Bernardino County and harbors key populations of certain species. Planning Species for which Habitat is provided for within this Core Area include mountain lion, San Bernardino mountain kingsnake, and California spotted owl. Maintenance of habitat quality and large intact interconnected habitat blocks are important for these species. In addition to the indirect effects described in Section 6.0 of this document, other activities associated with proposed adjacent General Plan land use designations noted in the table below, including recreation and poaching, may result in adverse effects to biological resources within the Core. Management entities in this existing Core include the U.S. Forest Service.
Note:*This Core is not connected to other MSHCP conserved lands. Distance "as the crow flies" to nearest habitat block is reported in table.
Existing Core J
Existing Core J is comprised of Diamond Valley Lake, Lake Skinner and Johnson Ranch. It provides potential nest sites, foraging Habitat, connections to other Core Areas in French Valley, Cactus Valley and Wilson Valley, and harbors key populations of certain species. Planning Species for which Habitat is provided for within this Core Area include bobcat, mountain lion, coastal California gnatcatcher, least Bell's vireo, northern harrier, tree swallow, turkey vulture, white-tailed kite, Quino checkerspot butterfly, and Stephens' kangaroo rat. In addition to maintenance of habitat quality, maintenance of existing floodplain processes along Tucalota Creek and Rawson Canyon is important for these species. This Core Area likely provides for Live-In Habitat for common mammals, including bobcat, and larger mammals such as mountain lion moving through the Core Area to other Core Areas in Wilson Valley and Cactus Valley. Since this is an existing Core and no new Reserve Assembly is anticipated, maintenance of existing large intact habitat blocks will be necessary for species persistence and movement in this Core .
In addition to indirect effects described in Section 6.0 of this document, other adverse effects associated with locating proposed General Plan land uses noted in the table below may occur. Fire and fire suppression, hunting, and collection of species by humans would result in adverse effects to Quino checkerspot butterfly and other Planning Species . Major Covered Activities listed in the table below may affect resources in the Core Area by directly affecting Habitat and/or floodplain processes important to the species noted above or result in habitat fragmentation of this Core Area. Rawson Road and Borel Road are existing roadways that are proposed to widened within the Core Area. Rawson Road crosses Rawson Canyon Creek under existing conditions and would continue to cross this creek with the proposed widening. Butterfield Stage Road forms the western boundary of Johnson Ranch would be extended north from the city limits of Temecula. Management entities in this existing Core include the Southwestern Riverside County Multi-Species Reserve Management Committee and County of Riverside Parks and Open Space District (Lake Skinner Recreation Area).
Existing Core K
Existing Core K is comprised of the San Bernardino National Forest and the Potrero Area of Critical Environmental Concern. It provides nesting, breeding, foraging and Live-In Habitat for a number of species, supports several Narrow Endemic Plant Species and connects to the eastern portions of Riverside County. Planning Species for which Habitat is provided within this Core include peninsular spine flower, San Bernardino kangaroo rat, slender-horned spine flower, graceful tarplant, mountain lion, California spotted owl, granite spiny lizard, Johnston's rock cress, western pond turtle and Stephens' kangaroo rat. Maintenance of habitat quality and maintenance of existing large intact habitat blocks are important for these species. This Core likely provides for Live-In Habitat for common mammals, including bobcat, and larger mammals such as mountain lion moving through the Core Area to other Core Areas in Wilson Valley and Cactus Valley. In addition to indirect effects associated with Adjacent Proposed
General Plan
Land Use designation described in Section 6.1.4 of this document, other activities such as off-road vehicle use, recreation and hunting may result in adverse effects. Management entities in this existing Core include the U.S. Forest Service and Bureau of Land Management.
Note: *This Core is contiguous with Proposed Core 3, Proposed Core 4, Proposed Core 5, and Proposed Core 7.
All four major Covered Activities that are proposed to be widened are existing roadways. Proposed widening activities may directly affect Habitat important to the species noted above, and may exacerbate indirect effects, including lighting, noise, road-kill, trash and runoff, associated with an increased number of motor vehicles traveling through the Core.
Existing Core L
Existing Core L is comprised of Beauty Mountain Management Area (BLM) and Anza-Borrego Desert State Park. This Core provides Habitat for several listed species and connections to San Diego County and eastern Riverside County. Planning Species for which Habitat is provided within this Core include Quino checkerspot butterfly, Stephens' kangaroo rat, golden eagle nest site, burrowing owl, Los Angeles pocket mouse, bobcat, mountain lion, and Aguanga kangaroo rat. Maintenance of habitat quality is important for these species, and maintenance of existing large intact habitat blocks will be necessary to perpetuate species occupation and movement in this Core. This Core likely provides for Live-In Habitat for common mammals, including bobcat, and larger mammals such as mountain lion moving through the Core Area to other Core Areas in Wilson Valley and San Diego County. In addition to indirect effects of adjacent land uses described in Section 6.0 of this document, other activities associated with locating proposed General Plan land use designations noted in the table below, including hunting, collection, recreation, off-road vehicle use and poaching, may result in adverse effects to Planning Species.
Note: * This Core is contiguous with Proposed Core 6 and Proposed Core 7.
No major Covered Activities are anticipated to traverse or affect this Core. Any road improvements or maintenance activities to existing roadways will be subject to guidelines for improvements on existing roads in Section 7.0 of this document to ensure that the Habitat and functions of the Core are maintained. Management entities in this existing Core include the Bureau of Land Management and California Department of Parks and Recreation.
Existing Core M
Existing Core M consists of the Agua Tibia Mountains, located along the south-central border of the Plan Area. Existing Core M is connected to other MSHCP conserved lands in the north via Proposed Linkages 17 (Woodchuck Road) and 18 (Arroyo Seco Creek) and Proposed Core 7 (Wilson Valley/Aguanga). Existing Core M is not constrained by existing urban development or agricultural uses. A very low proportion (approximately 180 acres of the 10,460 total acres) of the area of the Core is affected by edge, and the P/A ratio is also comparatively very low. Thus the Core can be expected to provide high quality movement and Live-In Habitat for the species listed in the table below. Additionally, a large portion of the border of Existing Core M is contiguous with Proposed Core 7 (Wilson Valley/Aguanga), which markedly decreases actual amount of exposed edge and ostensibly lowers the P/A ratio reported in the table. Management entities in this existing Core include the U.S. Forest Service.
Proposed Extension of Existing Core 1
Proposed Extension of Existing Core 1 (Prado Basin Extension) consists of private land located along the northwestern border of the Plan Area. This extension is present as two disjunct parcels in close proximity which serve to extend Existing Core A (Prado Basin/Santa Ana River). Proposed Extension of Existing Core 1 is connected only to Existing Core A within the Plan Area. In addition to adding to the functional area of Existing Core A, the presence of Proposed Extension of Existing Core 1 lowers the potential for Edge Effects in the area. Key populations of western yellow-billed cuckoo, southwestern willow flycatcher, Cooper's hawk, downy woodpecker, American bittern, black-crowned night heron, California horned lark, least Bell's vireo, tree swallow, white-tailed kite, and yellow warbler are supported by Proposed Extension of Existing Core 1. This area is also likely to be important for mountain lion movement from the Santa Ana Mountains to the Chino Hills beyond the Plan Area and is thought to provide for local movement of common mammals such as bobcat.
Note: * This Noncontiguous Habitat Block is completely surrounded by Existing Core A and thus contains no edge.
Proposed Extension of Existing Core 2
Proposed Extension of Existing Core 2 (Lake Mathews/Estelle Mountain Extension) consists of private lands located in the western region of the Plan Area. This extension is contiguous with Existing Core C (Lake Mathews/Estelle Mountain) along the length of its eastern border and serves to extend the Habitat in the Lake Mathews/Estelle Mountain area and smooth out edges along the border of this Core. Proposed Extension of Existing Core 2 is also connected to Proposed Constrained Linkage 4 (North Temescal Wash) in the north; and Proposed Linkage 1 and Proposed Constrained Linkages 3, 5 (Horsethief Canyon), and 6 (Temescal Wash south) in the south. The extension provides Habitat for species as listed in the table below, and also provides for movement of species. The Lake Mathews/Estelle Mountain Extension supports populations of coastal California gnatcatcher; thus high quality, connected Habitat must be maintained in this area which is surrounded by city (Corona) and community Development planned land uses. In addition, the proposed Hemet to Corona/Lake Elsinore CETAP Corridor Alternative 1B intersects the extension and may contribute to Edge Effects, if chosen. Guidelines Pertaining to Urban/Wildlands Interface for the management of edge factors such as lighting, urban runoff, toxics, and domestic predators are presented in Section 6.1 of this document.
Proposed Extension of Existing Core 3
Proposed Extension of Existing Core 3 (Lake Elsinore Soils) consists of two blocks of land extending from the southern border of Existing Core E (Lake Elsinore). The northern portion of the proposed extension is also connected to Proposed Linkage 8. Proposed Extension of Existing Core 3 conserves soils of the Traver series, which is important to the maintenance of several species of Narrow Endemic Plants. The northern portion of the extension also provides for movement of species along the lower San Jacinto River to Proposed Linkage 8. Together with Existing Core E, Proposed Extension of Existing Core 3 provides Habitat for shorebird use. Since surrounding land uses include city (Lake Elsinore) and community Development, management of edge conditions in this area will be necessary to maintain high quality Habitat in this area. Guidelines Pertaining to Urban/Wildlands Interface for the management of edge factors such as lighting, urban runoff, toxics, and domestic predators are presented in Section 6.1 of this document.