Location: MSHCP > VOLUME 4 > 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES
2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES
The proposed MSHCP is one of three components of the Riverside County Integrated Project (RCIP). Taken together, the components of the RCIP establish a vision and process for future growth and development in Riverside County that will provide for high-quality development, necessary infrastructure to serve that development, and implementation of an open space reserve that will provide for conservation and stewardship of western Riverside County's rich biological heritage, both for the benefit of biological resources and for future generations within Riverside County.
The proposed MSHCP establishes a framework for complying with State and federal endangered species regulations while accommodating future growth in the proposed MSHCP Plan Area. Under existing regulations, the responsibility for conserving habitat for endangered species arises on an ad hoc, random basis as activities affecting declining species and their habitats are proposed. There is no mechanism in place for taking regional approach to habitat conservation. The framework established by the proposed MSHCP will allow the assembly of contiguous parcels of habitat, to provide viable habitat blocks to assist in the conservation of species. The following groups of beneficiaries will share responsibility for implementing the proposed MSHCP, including lands and costs associated with reserve assembly and the costs associated with long-term management of the Conservation Area:
2.1 Project Location
2.1.1 MSHCP Plan Area
The proposed MSHCP Plan Area includes an area of approximately 1.26 million acres (1,966 square miles) and encompasses unincorporated portions of western Riverside County and 14 incorporated cities (Banning, Beaumont, Calimesa, Canyon Lake, Corona, Hemet, Lake Elsinore, Moreno Valley, Murrieta, Norco, Perris, Riverside, San Jacinto, and Temecula). The Orange and San Bernardino County lines define the western boundary of the proposed Plan Area. The San Bernardino and San Diego County lines form the proposed Plan Area's northern and southern boundaries, respectively. The eastern boundary of the proposed Plan Area is formed by Banning Pass and the crest of the San Jacinto Mountains. The regional context of the proposed Plan Area and incorporated areas are illustrated in Figures 1.1 and 1.2, respectively, located in Section 1.0.
The majority of western Riverside County is characterized by rural and suburban development intermixed with agricultural operations and large blocks of undeveloped lands. Large blocks of land along the south, east, and west boundaries of the proposed Plan Area consist of National Forest holdings. The natural topography can be described as a valley lowland area intersected with rolling hills surrounded by mountainous ranges. Lowland valley areas exist below 2,000 feet in elevation while scrub/chaparral dominated hillsides range from 2,000 to 3,000 feet in elevation. Mountainous areas within the proposed Plan Area range from 3,000 to over 10,000 feet. The presence of large blocks of undeveloped mountains and hillsides along the proposed Plan Area boundaries gives evidence of the geographic and ecologic connection between these adjacent counties.
Existing land uses within the proposed MSHCP Plan Area can be characterized by developed, agriculture, and open space/vacant land categories. Developed land uses include residential uses (single-family detached, single-family attached, high-density residential, and mobile homes), commercial uses (retail/office and tourist/commercial recreation), industrial uses (light industrial/business park, heavy industrial, mineral extraction, and warehouse), public facilities (utilities, other public facilities, and schools), recreational uses (recreation open space), and rural uses (rural residential). Open space/vacant lands are composed of natural, vacant, and water categories. Approximately 218,260 acres of incorporated and unincorporated County lands are currently developed. A total of 169,480 acres is in active agriculture use, and 871,040 acres are characterized as vacant land. The existing patten of land use within the proposed MSHCP Plan Area is illustrated in Figure 2.1.
Planning areas within Orange County have Habitat Conservation Plans/Natural Community Conservation Plans (HCPs/NCCPs) that abut the western edge of the proposed MSHCP Plan Area. The Southern Subregion NCCP is in process, and the Central and Coastal Subregion NCCP has been completed. San Diego County is developing an HCP/NCCP referred to as the MSCP North County Subarea of the Multiple Habitat Conservation and Open Space Program, which abuts the southern boundary of the proposed MSHCP Plan Area. The eastern edge of the proposed Plan Area is bordered by the proposed Coachella Valley Association of Governments MSHCP.
2.1.2 Institutional/Political Framework
The proposed MSHCP Plan Area is composed of the jurisdictional boundaries of 14 cities as well as unincorporated lands within western Riverside County. Table 2A provides acreages for the various jurisdictions within the proposed Plan Area. As shown, unincorporated County lands comprise approximately 78 percent of the proposed Plan Area with the remaining approximately 22 percent comprising incorporated cities. County and cities' boundaries are depicted in Figure 2.2.
| Table 2A - Land Distribution by Jurisdiction |
| Unincorporated County |
988,135 acres (78.5%)1 |
| City of Temecula |
16,670 acres (1.3%) |
| City of Murrieta |
18,280 acres (1.5%) |
| City of Lake Elsinore |
24,750 acres (1.9%) |
| City of Canyon Lake |
2,965 acres (< 1%) |
| City of Corona |
22,875 acres (1.8%) |
| City of Norco |
8,550 acres (< 1%) |
| City of Riverside |
50,020 acres (4.0%) |
| City of Moreno Valley |
32,705 acres (2.6%) |
| City of Perris |
20,290 acres (1.6%) |
| City of Hemet |
16,165 acres (1.3%) |
| City of San Jacinto |
16,220 acres (1.3%) |
| City of Beaumont |
16,775 acres (1.3%) |
| City of Banning |
14,845 acres (1.2%) |
| City of Calimesa |
9,535 acres (< 1%) |
Note:
1 Includes all water bodies within both unincorporated and incorporated areas.
Source: RCIP Numbers Document. |
Generalized land ownership within the proposed MSHCP Plan Area is depicted in Figure 2.2. As shown, approximately 67 percent of the Plan Area is composed of private lands; approximately 3 percent is American Indian Lands, which are not a part of the proposed MSHCP; and the remaining approximately 30 percent of the proposed Plan Area is composed of various public ownerships.
Tables 2B and 2C summarize planned land uses within the proposed MSHCP Plan Area for the unincorporated County lands and the 14 cities, respectively, based on existing available General Plan data for the County and cities. As shown, the proposed County General Plan designates a total of 179,940 acres for community development land uses, 294,900 acres for rural land uses, 439,530 acres for open space land uses, and 30,610 acres for agricultural land uses within unincorporated County lands in the proposed MSHCP Plan Area (General Plan Update). Each of the 14 cities within the proposed MSHCP Plan Area has its own General Plan. According to the General Plans of the cities, a total of 222,530 acres would be designated for community development, 12,190 acres for rural use, 29,840 acres for open space, and 7,670 acres for agriculture (WRCOG City General Plan land use database, October 2000).
| Table 2B - Planned Land Uses within Unincorporated County Land |
| Unincorporated County Land |
Acres |
| Agriculture |
30,610 |
| Community Development1 |
179,940 |
| Open Space2 |
439,530 |
| Rural3 |
294,900 |
| American Indian Lands |
41,570 |
| TOTAL |
986,550 |
Notes:
1 Community Development includes the following designations: Very Low Density Residential, Low Density Residential, Medium Density Residential, Medium High Density Residential, High Density Residential, Very High Density Residential, Commercial Retail, Commercial Tourist, Commercial Office, Light Industrial, Heavy Industrial, Business Park, Public Facilities, Community Center, and Freeways.
2 Open Space includes the following designations: Open Space-Conservation, Open Space-Conservation Habitat, Open Space-Mineral Resource, Open Space-Recreation, Open Space-Rural, and Open Space-Water.
3 Rural includes the following designations: Rural Residential, Rural Mountainous, Rural Desert.
Source: Based on proposed Updated Riverside County General Plan (June 2002). |
| Table 2C - Planned Land Uses within Incorporated Land |
| Incorporated Land |
Acres |
| Agriculture |
7,670 |
| Community Development1 |
222,530 |
| Open Space2 |
29,840 |
| Rural3 |
12,190 |
| TOTAL |
272,230 |
Notes:
1 Community Development includes the following designations: High Density Residential, Medium Density Residential, Low Density Residential, Very Low Density Residential, Mixed Use, Commercial, Industrial/Business Park, Public Facilities, and Specific Plan Area.
2 Open Space includes the following designations: Open Space-Mineral Resources, Open Space-Multi-Purpose, Open Space-Recreational, Open Space-Water, and Watercourse Overlay.
3 Rural includes the following designations: Rural Mountainous and Rural Residential.
Source: Based on WRCOG City General Plan database (October 2000). |
Table 2D compares existing and planned land uses within the proposed MSHCP Plan Area. As shown, planned land uses within the proposed Plan Area indicate a shift in future use of land within western Riverside County. At build out, approximately 491,300 acres of currently vacant and agricultural lands are anticipated to shift to community development/rural uses. This shift in land use is planned to accommodate projected growth within the proposed Plan Area. The proposed MSHCP is being prepared to provide for maintenance of biological diversity within the proposed Plan Area through assembly, management, and monitoring of an approximately 500,000-acre MSHCP Conservation Area in the context of this projected growth and anticipated land use shift.
| Table 2D - Existing vs. Planned Land Use Within Western Riverside County |
| Existing Land Use |
Acres |
Planned Land Use |
Acres |
| Developed |
218,260 |
Community Development/Rural |
709,560 |
| Vacant1 |
871,040 |
Open Space |
469,370 |
| Agriculture |
169,470
169,480 |
Agriculture |
38,280 |
| |
|
American Tribal Lands |
41,570 |
| TOTAL2 |
1,258,750 |
|
1,258,750 |
Notes:
1 Includes American Indian Lands.
2 Total does not add up due to rounding error.
Sources:
Existing Land Use: LSA Associates, 1999 with updates 2000, 2001.
Planned Land Use: County of Riverside General Plan and WRCOG City General Plan Land Use Database, October 2000. |
2.1.3 Demographic Considerations
Historical Growth
Southern California has experienced periods of rapid growth over most of the past century. As the coastal regions of Los Angeles, Orange, and San Diego Counties have built-out, much of the new growth has shifted to the inland regions of Riverside and San Bernardino Counties. During the 1980s and 1990s, Riverside County led the region in population growth. During the 1990s, Riverside County was also a leader in job growth. In 1970, Riverside County's total population was 456,916; approximately 224,032 people lived within western Riverside County cities, and 178,591 lived within unincorporated areas (it is assumed a majority of unincorporated County occupants reside within western Riverside County). By 1980, Riverside County's total population had increased to 663,199. Approximately 291,313 people lived in western County cities, and 276,565 lived in the unincorporated County. The County's total population grew from 663,199 in 1980 to 1,170,413 by 1990; western County cities were populated by 594,046 people, and an additional 385,384 people lived in the unincorporated western County. The County's total population grew from 1,170,413 in 1990 to 1,545,387 in 2000. By 2000, a total of 848,413 people resided in western County cities, and an additional 420,721 resided in unincorporated western County areas (California Department of Finance web site, April 2002).
Forecast Growth
The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) and western Riverside County cities have historically prepared regional growth forecasts in an effort to allocate resources in the most efficient manner and assist infrastructure planning. Forecasts include population, housing, employment, and other economic data. SCAG estimates that by 2025 almost 7 million people and 4 million jobs the equivalent of adding two cities the size of Chicago will be added to the Southern California region. This would bring Southern California's regional population from 16 million to 22.8 million (SCAG 1998, with draft update 2001). Most of the population growth is expected to occur in north Los Angeles, Riverside, and San Bernardino Counties; however, job growth will also occur in Los Angeles and Orange Counties.
In 1998, SCAG released Riverside County's population forecasts for 2020; Riverside's population is projected to reach upwards of 2.8 million. This population growth equals approximately 2.8 percent a year from now until 2020 (Stanley R. Hoffman Associates, revised 2000). Population will continue to increase within the county beyond the 2020 horizon; the County's population will reach 3.5 million by 2030 and 4.5 million by 2050. A total of 569,608 additional housing units will be needed to accommodate this anticipated growth (426,354 in western Riverside County and 143,142 in eastern Riverside County).
Infrastructure Needs
The demographics clearly lay out the demands associated with growth in population, housing, and jobs that the RCIP is designed to address as discussed in Section 1.0 of this document. Among those are the demands that will be placed on local governments to provide critical infrastructure, municipal facilities, utilities, roads, parks, open space, and the state allocation of affordable housing units. Infrastructure needs are addressed as Covered Activities in the proposed MSHCP (Section 7.0). The demographics also foretell the increased stress on natural habitats, native plants, and animal species. Merely recounting numbers does not truly describe the magnitude of the challenges facing western Riverside County. Only by looking at the demographics in terms of their impacts on all aspects of the proposed Plan Area's infrastructure, including the conservation of natural resources, can western Riverside County prepare for the future. The RCIP through each of its three elements looks at the impacts of the growth facing the County and begins the process of building the infrastructure necessary to sustain the natural environment and meet the needs of future citizens.
2.2 Identification of Alternatives and Selection of Proposed Alternative
A wide range of potentially feasible alternatives was considered as part of the development of the Plan. The range of alternatives relates to the rough conservation locations, acreage estimates, and species lists developed for the August 9, 1999, Draft MSHCP Proposal. The range of alternatives considered was based on their feasibility, taking into account biological, land use, economic, regulatory, legal, and other considerations; their ability to reduce or avoid the Project's significant environmental impacts; and their consistency with the Project Objectives described in Section 1.0 of this document. In addition to the potential alternatives identified by the stakeholders and described in detail in this section, a Description of Preliminary Alternatives was assembled and distributed to stakeholders in February 2000. Those alternatives were based on General Plan land use alternatives being developed as part of the RCIP General Plan Update. Those alternatives have formed the alternative development process; however, it was decided to develop the General Plan separately from the MSHCP, so the Preliminary Alternatives presented in the February 2000 document were not developed further.
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 (discussed in Section 2.2.1). The MSHCP Advisory Committee also recommended identification of alternative conservation scenarios that could result in conservation of fewer species. The October 2000 Alternatives Development Document gave rise to several alternatives. 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 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. Also considered as part of this process were a No Project/No MSHCP Alternative and a modified reserve configuration alternative, which contemplated the conservation of 165 species. The No Project/No MSHCP Alternative and the modified reserve configuration alternative are discussed later in this chapter.
In general, the Lead Agencies (the County and the USFWS) concluded that the alternatives that resulted in conservation of fewer species were infeasible for economic and other reasons, conflicted with the Project Objectives identified in Section 1.2.2, and would not avoid or substantially lessen the Project's significant environmental impacts. They also concluded that the Modified Reserve Configuration Alternative was infeasible, conflicted with Project Objectives, and would not avoid or substantially lessen the Project's significant environmental impacts. Based on these general conclusions, the initial Conceptual Conservation Scenario (the Proposed Action), as refined by input from stakeholders and the County Board of Supervisors, was selected as the preferred alternative, and the conservation planning process proceeded with further development and refinement of that alternative.
2.2.1 Species Considered for Conservation
The species considered for conservation during the proposed MSHCP planning process are summarized in Table 2E. As shown in Table 2E, the initial list of species considered for conservation included 247 species identified for consideration by the MSHCP Advisory Committee in collaboration with the Wildlife Agencies. Early in the planning process, it was determined that sufficient information was not available for many of these species to proceed with conservation planning. The initial list of 247 species was reduced to 165 species as part of the August 9, 1999, Draft MSHCP Proposal prepared by DUDEK. The list was further refined to 146 species as the proposed MSHCP planning process proceeded and as information needed to proceed with conservation planning could not be obtained for certain species. Several species were added to the list during this process as suggested by stakeholders, such as the Wildlife Agencies and the California Native Plant Society (CNPS). Species added included great blue heron (Ardea herodias), Dulzra kangaroo rat (Dipodomys simulans), Aguanga kangaroo rat (Dipodomys merriami collinus), and six plant species.
Of the 146 covered species addressed in the proposed MSHCP, 130 118 species are considered to be adequately conserved. The remaining 16 28 covered species will be considered to be adequately conserved when certain conservation requirements are met as identified in the species-specific conservation objectives for those species (speciesspecific conservation objectives for the 146 covered species are presented in Section 9.0 of the proposed MSHCP). These 16 species are identified with notation (e) in the far right column of Table 2E. Specific survey requirements are included in the speciesspecific conservation objectives presented in Section 9.0 of the proposed MSHCP and in Section 4.1 of this EIR/EIS. Table 2E - Number of Species Considered for Conservation under the MSHCP since 1999
| Table 2E - Number of Species Considered for Conservation under the MSHCP since 1999 |
| Species Category1 |
Species Initially Considered for Conservation2 |
Species Considered for Conservation in "1999 Draft MSHCP Proposal" 3 |
Species Considered for Conservation in "March 2002 Admin Draft MSHCP Plan" 4 |
MSHCP Covered Species Adequately Conserved (August 2002) 5 |
| Listed/Proposed Invertebrates - Crustaceans |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
| Other Invertebrates - Crustaceans |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
| Listed/Proposed Invertebrates - Insects |
2 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
| Other Invertebrates - Insects |
7 |
0 |
0 |
0 |
| Listed/Proposed Fish |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
| Other Fish |
2 |
2 |
1 |
1 |
| Listed/Proposed Amphibians |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
| Other Amphibians |
3 |
3 |
2 |
2 |
| Listed/Proposed Reptiles |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 0 |
| Other Reptiles |
20 |
19 |
11 |
9 7 |
| Listed/Proposed Birds |
11 |
9 |
8 |
8 |
| Other Birds |
44 |
45 |
37 |
37 35 |
| Listed/Proposed Mammals |
3 |
2 |
2 |
2 |
| Other Mammals |
30 |
11 |
12 |
13 |
| Listed/Proposed Plants |
17 |
13 |
13 |
13 12 |
| Other Plants |
100 |
53 |
46 |
49 31 |
Notes:
1 "Listed and Proposed" species includes federally and State threatened and endangered species as well as Federal and State proposed threatened or endangered species. "Other" species includes Federal Species of Concern, California Species of Special Concern, California Rare species, California Fully Protected Species, and species with no special status at this time.
2 March 1999 FWS Tables 1 and 2: The list of species initially considered for conservation by the Wildlife Agencies in collaboration with the MSHCP Advisory Committee. This list was documented by USFWS staff in Tables 1 and 2 prepared in March 1999. Tables 1 and 2 are included in the Appendix to the August 9, 1999 "Draft MSHCP Proposal" (DUDEK, 1999) on file with the County of Riverside.
3 August 9, 1999, Draft MSHCP Proposal: This list of species was developed by DUDEK from the list of species initially considered for conservation based on preliminary review of the MSHCP database. This list is described in the August 9, 1999 "Draft MSHCP Proposal" (DUDEK, 1999) on file with the County of Riverside.
4 March 7, 2002, Administrative Draft MSHCP Plan: This list of species was developed by DUDEK as a refinement of the list of species included in the August 9, 1999 "Draft MSHCP Proposal." The refinements were based on input from the Wildlife Agencies and a variety of stakeholders as well as additional research conducted by DUDEK. In general, species previously considered for conservation were eliminated from the list because information needed to proceed with conservation planning for the species was determined to be unavailable.
|
2.2.2 Conceptual Conservation
Initial Concept
Early in the MSHCP development phase, 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. The Conceptual Conservation Scenario was intended to address the life history requirements of as many species as possible on the species list that was developed by the MSHCP Advisory Committee (Table 2E).
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. 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 habitat linkages connecting the core habitat 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 proposed Plan Area for species such as bobcat (Lynx rufus). 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 habitat 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 coyotes (Canis latrans), bobcats, and mountain lions (Felis concolor) 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 the following tasks:
A rough acreage estimate was derived from the four-step process described above. Then an acreage range was applied under the assumption of various levels of species conservation. The generalized range of conservation acreages in the Conceptual Conservation Scenario totaled 380,000 to 500,000 acres of private and public/quasipublic lands.
Informal Gap Analysis
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 lowercase 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. 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 proposed MSHCP Conservation Area.
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 Delhi sands flowerloving fly (Rhaphiomidas terminatus abdominalis) habitat areas.
2.3 Proposed Action - MSHCP
The proposed MSHCP is a comprehensive, multiple-jurisdictional planning program designed to create, manage, and monitor a system of habitat preserves in western Riverside County. The proposed MSHCP establishes a framework for complying with State and federal endangered species regulations while accommodating future growth within the proposed Plan Area. Under existing regulations, the responsibility for conserving habitat for endangered species arises on an ad hoc, random basis as activities affecting declining species and their habitats are proposed. There is no mechanism in place for taking regional approach to habitat conservation. The framework established by the proposed MSHCP will allow the assembly of contiguous parcels of habitat, to provide viable habitat blocks to assist in the conservation of species.
The proposed MSHCP will serve as an HCP pursuant to Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the FESA, as well as an NCCP under the NCCP Act of 1991, as amended. The proposed MSHCP will be used to allow, through the local land use planning process, the "take" of plant and animal species identified in this plan. The USFWS and the CDFG (Wildlife Agencies) have authority to regulate the "take" of threatened and endangered or otherwise species. The intent of the plan is for the Wildlife Agencies to grant "take authorization" for otherwise lawful actions such as development that may incidentally take or harm individuals for a species or its habitat outside of reserve areas, in exchange for supporting assembly of a coordinated reserve system. Conservation and management responsibilities as well as implementation assurances will be provided as outlined in the Implementation Agreement (IA).
The proposed MSHCP contains the overall conservation strategy for the proposed Plan Area and documents the conservation actions that collectively are intended to protect species covered by the proposed MSHCP. The proposed MSHCP also describes the cooperative institutional mechanisms through which Plan participants will coordinate implementation of the proposed MSHCP.
2.3.1 Generalized Reserve Description
Reserve Design
The criteria-based approach assumes conservation within the existing public/quasipublic lands comprising approximately 347,000 acres, and development of criteria to assure additional conservation on private lands of approximately 153,000 acres. The Area Plan boundaries established as part of the County's proposed General Plan were selected to provide an organizational framework for the criteria areas. While these boundaries are not biologically based, they relate specifically to County Plan Area boundaries and to the jurisdictional boundaries of incorporated cities. Use of the Area Plan framework for the criteria-based approach facilitates structuring implementation strategies around established planning boundaries.
For each of the 14 County Area Plans within the proposed MSHCP Plan Area, the following methodology was applied. The first steps in preparation of the criteria-based plan involved identification of: (1) Planning Species; (2) Biological Issues and Considerations; and (3) Reserve Configuration and Management Issues. For each Area Plan, several wildlife and plant species, known to occur within the Area Plan, were selected as Planning Species to provide guidelines for reserve design. Listed species and species with specific reserve design requirements, such as Bell's sage sparrow (Amphispiza bellii) (requires large patches of undisturbed habitat) and bobcat (wildlife movement) were chosen to guide reserve design efforts.
Areas with biological resource value were also identified for each Area Plan. Biological Issues and Considerations, such as maintenance of key habitat blocks or linkages, were also identified for each Area Plan. In addition, reserve design issues and management issues were outlined to ensure that NCCP biological concepts were incorporated into reserve design considerations. Other general Reserve Configuration and Management Issues were also considered as appropriate for each Area Plan including the following:
For each Area Plan, a conceptual map was roughly sketched onto a vegetation map with species and key biological resources and later digitized using GIS software. The conceptual maps developed for each Area Plan as part of this process formed the basis for identifying conservation targets and generating quantitative data for the proposed MSHCP species analyses. Target acreages for subunits within each Area Plan were later calculated based on the digitized map. The map was refined based on constraints and opportunities as represented on existing and planned land uses maps, topography maps, parcel maps, existing reserves and edge area maps. Other maps and resources were used as needed throughout the process. Consideration was given to reserve design issues within adjacent Area Plans to provide for appropriate edge matching. The conceptual maps developed as part of this process were developed primarily for the purposes of drafting reserve description criteria and developing quantitative data for the proposed MSHCP species analyses. The conceptual maps do not represent the only possible reserve that may be assembled within a particular Area Plan during the long-term MSHCP implementation process. Flexibility is intended to be incorporated in the Area Plan criteria to allow reserve assembly to be formed by project-specific data and planning as part of the MSHCP implementation process.
USGS quarter sections (i.e., 160-acre cells) were then overlain on the conceptual map such that each cell was an area in real space with a legal description but without being tied to a specific County assessor's legal parcel. For each quarter section, criteria were drafted to provide explicit description of the areas to be conserved. The quarter sections and conservation criteria were recorded on a matrix created for each Area Plan. With each cell assigned an arbitrary cell identification number, descriptive reserve criteria were written for each cell that provide an explicit description that would allow one to create a map of the reserve system. The Criteria for each Cell or Cell Group provide: (1) a statement of the core and linkage features within the particular Cell or Cell Group toward which Reserve Assembly will be directed; (2) a statement of the focus of habitat conservation within the particular Cell or Cell Group; (3) a statement of the reserve configuration or connectivity focus for the particular Cell or Cell Group; and (4) a statement of the geographic location and percentage of conservation desired within the particular Cell or Cell Group. For example, the Criteria for a particular Cell might be: "Conservation within this Cell will contribute to assembly of Proposed Core 6. Conservation within this Cell will focus on coastal sage scrub and chaparral. Conservation within this Cell will be connected to proposed conservation within Cell 1234 to the west. Conservation within this Cell will occur in the northern 30 to 40 percent of the Cell." It should be noted that the Criteria statements for Cells and Cell Groups are intended to be considered as a whole to guide Reserve Assembly; individual Criteria statements are not intended to be used as stand-alone guidance for Reserve Assembly. The Criteria are written with the intent that a "non-technical observer" could re-create the initial reserve concept for the particular Cell or Cell Group. Vegetation references in the criteria are based on the proposed MSHCP vegetation map. It is understood that biological conditions are dynamic and will change. In cases where the vegetation description in the criteria do not match existing conditions at the time of reserve assembly, the geographic references incorporated in the criteria are intended to take precedence.
Overall reserve criteria area boundaries within the proposed Plan Area are detailed previously in Figure 2.2. Four categories are depicted on the legend for the Plan map and are described below. The status of land ownership is illustrated in Figure 2.3.
Criteria Area
This represents the area within which proposed MSHCP Criteria will be applied and from which 153,000 acres of new conservation will be achieved to contribute toward assembly of the overall proposed MSHCP Conservation Area. The establishment of Criteria Area boundaries is intended to facilitate the process by which the County or cities will evaluate property that may be needed for inclusion in the proposed MSHCP Conservation Area. The Criteria Area is an area significantly larger than what the proposed MSHCP Conservation Area will be, within which property will be evaluated using proposed MSHCP conservation criteria. The Criteria Area is an analytical tool that assists in determining which properties to evaluate for acquisition and conservation under the proposed MSHCP and does not impose land use restrictions. Criteria have been developed for individual Cells or Cell Groupings and are presented for each Area Plan in Section 3.3 of the proposed MSHCP.
Public/Quasi-Public Lands. Under this category, existing known public/quasi-public lands that will form the initial backbone of the proposed 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%) 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 proposed MSHCP Conservation Area that would minimize edge effects when compared with more urban land uses.
American Indian Tribal Lands. This document makes a distinction between Indian Tribal Lands and Indian lands. Tribal land refers to land held in trust for Native American Tribes, which are sovereign nations and govern their own lands. The term Indian lands refers to land owned by individual Native Americans that is located within the United States of America, and is subject to all pertinent Federal and State rules and regulations. Native American Tribal Lands are depicted on the proposed MSHCP Plan map for reference purposes. No conservation is assumed on these lands, and no activities on these lands would be permitted under the proposed MSHCP. The Native American Tribal Lands are not a part of the proposed MSHCP.
The proposed MSHCP Conservation Area will be assembled through a combination of the following methods:
As previously stated, it is anticipated that conservation of lands already in public ownership will form the backbone of the Conservation Area, and public entities will cooperate to manage these lands for the benefit of the species addressed in the proposed MSHCP. Maximum use of conservation on public lands is intended to minimize the need to conserve privately-owned habitat. Public acquisition of private lands is also anticipated to be a key component of reserve assembly. Public acquisition of private lands is intended to occur in accordance with the procedures described in Section 6.1.1 of the MSHCP. Other public actions to conserve habitat will be associated with implementation of public projects. Mitigation for impacts of such projects will be directed toward assembly and management of the proposed MSHCP Conservation Area. Private actions to conserve habitat are anticipated to occur as part of the development review and entitlement process. It is intended that conservation of habitat occurring as a condition of development approval will occur in accordance with local jurisdictions, land use, and environmental regulations generally involving avoidance and minimization of habitat impacts, and compensatory mitigation for unavoidable impacts. Section 6.1.1 of the MSHCP describes the local implementation strategy designed to provide the framework for conservation occurring as a result of private development approvals.
Bioregions. Within the proposed MSHCP Plan Area, large percentages of the Agua Tibia mountains (80.3%; 10,130 acres), the San Jacinto Mountains (71.7%; 134,000 acres), the San Jacinto Foothills (64.6%; 72,240 acres), and the Santa Ana Mountains (61.3%; 85,810 acres) 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%; 33,460 acres), the San Bernardino Mountains (34.5%; 9,990 acres), and the Riverside Lowlands (24.2%; 166,820 acres) bioregions are conserved within the proposed 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 or agricultural development. About 10 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%), rural mountainous (15.7%), 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 proposed 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. See Figure 2.4.
Vegetation. Playas/vernal pools and montane coniferous forest vegetation types had the highest percentages of conservation within the MSHCP Conservation Area, with 85 percent and 94 percent of the total acreages of these vegetation communities conserved, respectively. Riparian scrub, woodland and forest, Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub, woodlands and forests, chaparral, water, and coastal sage scrub are also conserved at high levels, with 50 percent to 75 percent of each of these vegetation communities conserved. Desert scrub, grassland, meadows and marshes, and agriculture are conserved at the lowest levels, with percentages of conservation at 34 percent, 28 percent, 24 percent, and 12 percent, respectively. See Table 2F and Figure 2.5.
| Table 2F - Estimate of Conservation by Vegetation Community (Proposed MSHCP) |
| Vegetation Type |
MSHCP Plan Area (acres) |
Existing Public/Quasi-
Public Lands |
Additional Conservation (acres) |
Total Conserved (acres) |
Conserved |
| Agriculture |
169,480 |
11,480 |
8,540 |
20,020 |
12% |
| Chaparral |
434,950 |
207,380 |
64,900 |
272,280 |
63% |
| Cismontane Alkali Marsh |
1,260 |
<5 |
40 |
40 |
3% |
| Coastal Sage Scrub |
156,450 |
34,560 |
47,160 |
81,720 |
52% |
| Desert Scrub |
14,570 |
1,310 |
3,680 |
4,990 |
34% |
| Grassland |
154,140 |
22,810 |
20,010 |
42,820 |
28% |
| Meadows and Marshes |
1,020 |
330 |
180 |
510 |
50% |
| Montane Coniferous Forest |
29,910 |
20,480 |
20 |
20,500 |
69% |
| Playas and Vernal Pools |
7,910 |
2,920 |
3,830 |
6,750 |
85% |
| Riparian Scrub, Woodland, and Forest |
15,030 |
7,270 |
3,920 |
11,190 |
74% |
| Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub |
7,940 |
2,060 |
3,170 |
5,230 |
66% |
| Unknown |
1,350 |
1,230 |
10 |
1,240 |
92% |
| Water |
12,210 |
9,150 |
1,190 |
10,340 |
85% |
| Woodlands and Forests |
34,300 |
20,770 |
2,730 |
23,500 |
69% |
| Developed or Disturbed Land |
218,260 |
4,780 |
– |
4,780 |
2% |
| TOTALS |
1,258,780 |
346,530 |
159,3801 |
505,910 |
|
Notes:
1 This area represents where proposed MSHCP Criteria will be applied and from which 153,000 acres of new conservation will be achieved. |
2.3.2 Soils
Clay soils within the proposed Plan Area include Bosanko, Auld, Altamont, and Porterville. In addition, areas from which clay had been mined (known as "claypit") were digitized. Within the proposed Plan Area, clay soils support several sensitive plant species, including listed species such as Munz's onion (Allium munzii; State threatened, federally endangered), thread-leaved brodiaea (Brodiaea filifolia; State endangered, federally threatened), and San Diego button-celery (Eryngium aristulatum var. parishii; State and federally endangered); and sensitive species such as Orcutt's brodiaea (Brodiaea orcuttii), long-spined spine flower (Chorizanthe polygonoides var. longispina), small-flowered morning glory (Convolvulus simulans), many-stemmed dudleya (Dudleya multicaulis), Palmer's grapplinghook (Harpagonella palmeri var. palmeri), graceful tarplant (Holocarpha virgata ssp. elongata), and small-flowered microseris (Microseris douglasii var. platycharpha). The Domino-Traver-Willows soil association includes saline-alkali soils largely located along floodplain areas within the proposed Plan Area. Sensitive plants supported by the Domino-Traver-Willows soil association include two listed species: San Jacinto Valley crownscale (Atriplex coronata var. notatior; federally endangered) and spreading navarretia (Navarretia fossalis; federally threatened); and sensitive plant species, including Parish's brittlescale (Atriplex parishii), Davidson's saltscale (Atriplex serenana var. davidsonii), Coulter's goldfields (Lasthenia glabrata ssp. coulteri), and vernal barley (Hordeum intercedens).
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/QuasiPublic Lands or captured within the Additional Reserve Lands. Within Domimo-TraverWillows soils, 36 percent of the total is conserved, including 21 percent within the proposed 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.
2.3.3 Patch Size
The individual sizes of patches comprising the proposed 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 greater species diversity by efficiently preserving nodes of species of limited distribution. The proposed MSHCP Conservation Area has both small and large areas to balance the need to conserve narrowly-distributed species and preserve the greatest number of species and to protect habitat function with the least management effort.
Patch size is also important in how it relates to edge effects. 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 [Woodward, et al., 2001]), human-induced edge effects are generally unfavorable to native species.
The proposed MSHCP Conservation Area is composed of approximately 575 patches. The spatial character of the proposed 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 10 acres in area and make up less than 0.25 percent of the areas to be conserved under the proposed MSHCP. The vast majority of these small patches occurs 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%) are greater than 1,000 acres but these make up 94 percent of the areas to be conserved under the proposed MSHCP. A single connected block makes up the largest portion of the proposed MSHCP Conservation Area at approximately 238,000 acres (50% of the acreage).
2.3.4 Covered Species
The 146 species that receive coverage under the proposed MSHCP are listed in Table 2G. The 146 species represent a broad range of habitats and geographical areas in the proposed Plan Area. They include listed threatened and endangered species that have very specific habitat requirements and conservation and management needs, other regionally or locally sensitive or rare species, and upper trophic or generalist species that have broad habitat requirements.
| Table 2G - Species Conserved by the MSHCP |
| Species Scientific Name |
Species Common Name |
Listing Status:
State1/Federal2 |
| Phalacrocorax auritus |
double-crested cormorant |
SSC/- |
| Picoides pubescens |
downy woodpecker |
-/- |
| Plegadis chihi |
white-faced ibis |
SSC/FSC |
| Polioptila californica californica |
coastal California gnatcatcher |
SSC/FT |
| Progne subis |
purple martin |
SSC/- |
| Sphyrapicus thyroideus |
Williamson's sapsucker |
-/- |
| Strix occidentalis occidentalis |
California spotted owl |
SSC/FSC |
| Tachycineta bicolor |
tree swallow |
-/- |
| Vermivora ruficapilla |
Nashville warbler |
-/ |
| Vireo bellii pusillus |
least Bell's vireo |
SE/FE |
| Wilsonia pusilla |
Wilson's warbler |
-/ |
| Mammals |
| Canis latrans |
coyote |
-/- |
| Chaetodipus fallax fallax |
northwestern San Diego pocket mouse |
SSC/ |
| Dipodomys merriami collinus |
Aguanga kangaroo rat |
-/- |
| Dipodomys merriami parvus |
San Bernardino kangaroo rat |
SSC/FE |
| Dipodomys simulans |
Dulzra kangaroo rat |
-/- |
| Dipodomys stephensi |
Stephens' kangaroo rat |
ST/FE |
| Glaucomys sabrinus californicus |
San Bernardino flying squirrel |
SSC/- |
| Lepus californicus bennettii |
San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit |
SSC/ |
| Lynx rufus |
bobcat |
-/- |
| Mustela frenata |
long-tailed weasel |
-/- |
| Neotoma lepida intermedia |
San Diego desert woodrat |
SSC/- |
| Perognathus longimembris brevinasus |
Los Angeles pocket mouse |
SSC/ |
| Puma concolor |
mountain lion |
-/- |
| Sylvilagus bachmani |
brush rabbit |
-/ |
| Amphibians |
| Bufo californicus |
arroyo toad |
SSC/FE |
| Rana aurora draytonii |
California red-legged frog |
SSC/FT |
| Rana mucosa |
mountain yellow-legged frog |
SP, SSC/- |
| Scaphiopus hammondii |
western spadefoot toad |
SSC/- |
| Taricha tarosa tarosa |
coast range newt |
SSC/ |
| Reptiles |
| Charina bottae umbratica |
southern rubber boa |
ST/- |
| Clemmys marmorata pallida |
western pond turtle |
SSC/ |
| Cnemidophorus tigris multiscutatus |
coastal western whiptail |
-/- |
| Cnemidophorus hyperythrus beldingi |
Belding's orange-throated whip-tail |
SSC/ |
| Coleonyx variegatus abbottii |
San Diego banded gecko |
-/ |
| Crotalus ruber ruber |
northern red-diamond rattlesnake |
SSC/- |
| Lampropeltis zonata parvirubra |
San Bernardino mountain kingsnake |
SSC/ |
| Lampropeltis zonata pulchra |
San Diego mountain kingsnake |
SSC/- |
| Phrynosoma coronatum blainvillei |
San Diego horned lizard |
SSC/- |
| Sceloporus graciosus vandenburgianus |
southern sagebrush lizard |
-/ |
| Sceloporus orcuttii |
granite spiny lizard |
-/- |
| Xantusia henshawi henshawi |
granite night lizard |
-/ |
| Invertebrates/Crustaceans |
| Branchinecta lynchi |
vernal pool fairy shrimp |
-/FT |
| Linderiella santarosae |
Santa Rosa Plateau fairy shrimp |
-/- |
| Streptocephalus woottoni |
Riverside fairy shrimp |
-/FE |
| Invertebrates/Insects |
| Euphydryas editha quino |
Quino checkerspot butterfly |
-/FE |
| Rhaphiomidas terminatus abdominalis |
Delhi Sands flower-loving fly |
-/FE |
| Fish |
| Catastomus santaanae |
Santa Ana sucker |
SSC/FT |
| Gila orcutti |
arroyo chub |
SSC/ |
| Plants |
| Allium marvinii |
Yucaipa onion |
-/ |
| Allium munzii |
Munz's onion |
ST/FE |
| Ambrosia pumila |
San Diego ambrosia |
-/FE |
| Arabis johnstonii |
Johnston's rock cress |
-/ |
| Arctostaphylos rainbowensis |
Rainbow manzanita |
-/ |
| Astragalus pachypus var. jaegeri |
Jaeger's milkvetch |
-/- |
| Atriplex coronata var. notatior |
San Jacinto Valley crownscale |
-/FE |
| Atriplex parishii |
Parish's brittlescale |
-/- |
| Atriplex serenana var. davidsonii |
Davidson's saltscale |
-/ |
| Berberis nevinii |
Nevin's barberry |
SE/FE |
| Brodiaea filifolia |
thread-leaved brodiaea |
SE/FT |
| Brodiaea orcuttii |
Orcutt's brodiaea |
-/- |
| Calochortus palmeri var. munzii |
Munz's mariposa lily |
-/ |
| Calochortus plummerae |
Plummer's mariposa lily |
-/- |
| Calochortus weedii var. intermedius |
intermediate mariposa lily |
-/ |
| Caulanthus simulans |
Payson's jewelflower |
-/- |
| Ceanothus ophiochilus |
Vail Lake ceanothus |
ST/FT |
| Centromandia pungens ssp. laevis |
smooth tarplant |
-/- |
| Chorizanthe leptotheca |
peninsular spine flower |
-/- |
| Chorizanthe parryi var. parryi |
Parry's spine flower |
-/- |
| Chorizanthe polygonoides var. longispina |
long-spined spine flower |
-/ |
| Chorizanthe procumbens |
prostrate spine flower |
-/ |
| Convolvulus simulans |
small-flowered morning glory |
-/- |
| Deinandra mohavensis |
Mojave tarplant |
SE/- |
| Dodecahema leptoceras |
slender-horned spine flower |
SE/FE |
| Dudleya multicaulis |
many-stemmed dudleya |
-/- |
| Dudleya viscida |
sticky-leaved dudleya |
-/- |
| Eriastrum densifolium ssp. sanctorum |
Santa Ana River woollystar |
SE/FE |
| Erodium macrophyllum |
round-leaved filaree |
-/- |
| Eryngium aristulatum var. parishii |
San Diego button-celery |
SE/FE |
| Galium angustifolium ssp. jacinticum |
San Jacinto Mountains bedstraw |
-/ |
| Galium californicum ssp. primum |
California bedstraw |
-/- |
| Harpagonella palmeri |
Palmer's grapplinghook |
-/- |
| Heuchera hirsutissima |
shaggy-haired alumroot |
-/- |
| Holocarpha virgata ssp. elongata |
graceful tarplant |
-/ |
| Hordeum intercedens |
vernal barley |
-/- |
| Hulsea vestita ssp. callicarpha |
beautiful hulsea |
-/- |
| Juglans californica var. californica |
Southern California black walnut |
-/- |
| Lasthenia glabrata ssp. coulteri |
Coulter's goldfields |
-/- |
| Lepechinia cardiophylla |
heart-leaved pitcher sage |
-/- |
| Lilium humboldtii ssp. ocellatum |
ocellated Humboldt lily |
-/- |
| Lilium parryi |
lemon lily |
-/- |
| Limnanthes gracilis var. parishii |
Parish's meadowfoam |
SE/- |
| Microseris douglasii var. platycharpha |
small-flowered microseris |
-/ |
| Mimulus clevelandii |
Cleveland's bush monkeyflower |
-/- |
| Mimulus diffusus |
Palomar monkeyflower |
-/ |
| Monardella macrantha ssp. hallii |
Hall's monardella |
-/- |
| Muhlenbergia californica |
California muhly |
-/- |
| Myosurus minimus |
little mousetail |
-/- |
| Nama stenocarpum |
mud nama |
-/- |
| Navarretia fossalis |
spreading navarretia |
-/FT |
| Navarretia prostrata |
prostrate navarretia |
-/- |
| Orcuttia californica |
California Orcutt grass |
SE/FE |
| Oxytheca caryophylloides |
chickweed oxytheca |
-/ |
| Penstemon californicus |
California beardtongue |
-/- |
| Phacelia stellaris |
Brand's phacelia |
-/ |
| Polygala cornuta var. fishiae |
Fish's milkwort |
-/ |
| Potentilla rimicola |
cliff cinquefoil |
-/- |
| Quercus engelmannii |
Engelmann oak |
-/- |
| Romneya coulteri |
Coulter's matilija poppy |
-/- |
| Satureja chandleri |
San Miguel savory |
-/- |
| Sibaropsis hammittii |
Hammitt's clay-cress |
-/- |
| Trichocoronis wrightii var. wrightii |
Wright's trichocoronis |
-/ |
1
State Designations
SE Endangered: Species listed as endangered by the California Fish and Game Commission.
ST: Species listed as threatened by the California Fish and Game Commission.
SSC Species of Special Concern: Species considered by the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) as possibly facing extinction in California due to declining populations or habitat.
SP State Protected Species: May not be taken or possessed without a permit from the Fish and Game Commission and/or CDFG.
2
Federal Designations
FE Endangered: Species listed as endangered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS).
FT Threatened: Species listed as threatened by the USFWS.
PT Proposed Threatened: Species proposed for listing as threatened by the USFWS.
P Petitioned as Threatened or Endangered: Species for which the USFWS has received a petition for listing as threatened or endangered.
Source: MSHCP.
|
2.4 Listed, Proposed, and Strong Candidate Species Alternative
This alternative was developed to depict a potential conservation scenario that would address listed, proposed, and strong candidate species. A total of 32 listed and proposed species occur in the proposed MSHCP Plan Area. In addition to the listed and proposed species, this alternative also considers conservation needs for the seven species identified as "strong candidates" for listing: tricolored blackbird, cactus wren, burrowing owl, western pond turtle, San Bernardino mountain kingsnake, San Diego mountain kingsnake, and Los Angeles pocket mouse. These species are detailed in Table 2H. The focus of conservation for this alternative is these 39 listed, proposed, and strong candidate species. This alternative focuses largely on conservation of the 39 species identified in Table 2H. While large habitat blocks and broad linkages are incorporated in this alternative in some areas to provide for a reserve scenario that would address the conservation needs of the focus species, less emphasis is placed on broad-based ecosystem conservation. The reserve configuration consists of the boundaries within which conservation is proposed to be achieved. Table 2I provides a summary of acreages potentially conserved under this alternative, by vegetation category. These acreages are estimates of areas that are anticipated to be conserved within the reserve configuration depicted in Figure 2.6, along with the generalized reserve configuration under this alternative. As shown in Table 2I, under this alternative a total of 465,830 acres would be conserved, including 346,530 acres within existing reserves and 119,300 acres of currently private land outside existing reserves.
| Table 2H - Listed, Proposed, and Strong Candidate Species Alternative Species List |
| Species Scientific Name |
Species Common Name |
Listing Status:
State1/Federal2 |
| Listed and Proposed Species |
| Mammals |
| Dipodomys merriami parvus |
San Bernardino kangaroo rat |
SSC/FE |
| Dipodomys stephensi |
Stephens' kangaroo rat |
ST/FE |
| Birds |
| Buteo swainsoni |
Swainson's hawk |
ST/FSC |
| Charadrius montanus |
mountain plover (wintering) |
SSC/PT |
| Coccyzus americanus occidentalis |
western yellow-billed cuckoo |
SE/- |
| Empidonax traillii extimus |
southwestern willow flycatcher |
SE/FE |
| Falco peregrinus |
peregrine falcon |
SP, SE/delisted |
| Haliaeetus leucocephalus |
bald eagle |
SP, SE/FT |
| Polioptila californica californica |
coastal California gnatcatcher |
SSC/FT |
| Vireo bellii pusillus |
least Bell's vireo |
SE/FE |
| Reptiles |
| Charina bottae umbratica |
southern rubber boa |
ST/ |
| Amphibians |
| Bufo californicus |
arroyo toad |
SSC/FE |
| Rana aurora draytonii |
California red-legged frog |
SSC/FT |
| Rana mucosa |
mountain yellow-legged frog |
SP, SSC/FE |
| Invertebrates/Insects |
| Euphydryas editha quino |
Quino checkerspot butterfly |
-/FE |
| Rhaphiomidas terminatus abdominalis |
Delhi Sands flower-loving fly |
-/FE |
| Invertebrates/Crustaceans |
| Branchinecta lynchii |
vernal pool fairy shrimp |
-/FT |
| Streptocephalus woottoni |
Riverside fairy shrimp |
-/FE |
| Fish |
| Catastomus santaanae |
Santa Ana sucker |
SSC/FT |
| Plants |
| Allium munzii |
Munz's onion |
ST/FE |
| Ambrosia pumila |
San Diego ambrosia |
-/FE |
| Atriplex coronata var. notatior |
San Jacinto Valley crownscale |
-/FE |
| Berberis nevinii |
Nevin's barberry |
SE/FE |
| Brodiaea filifolia |
thread-leaved brodiaea |
SE/FT |
| Ceanothus ophiochilus |
Vail Lake ceanothus |
ST/FT |
| Deinandra mohavensis |
Mojave tarplant |
SE/- |
| Dodecahema leptoceras |
slender-horned spine flower |
SE/FE |
| Eriastrum densifolium ssp. sanctorum |
Santa Ana River woollystar |
SE/FE |
| Eryngium aristulatum var. parishii |
San Diego button-celery |
SE/FE |
| Navarretia fossalis |
spreading navarretia |
-/FT |
| Orcuttia californica |
California Orcutt grass |
SE/FE |
| Other Species |
| Mammals |
| Canis latrans |
coyote |
-/- |
| Chaetodipus fallax fallax |
northwestern San Diego pocket mouse |
SSC/- |
| Glaucomys sabrinus californicus |
San Bernardino flying squirrel |
SSC/- |
| Perognathus longimembris brevinasus |
Los Angeles pocket mouse (strong candidate species) |
SSC/- |
| Sylvilagus bachmani |
brush rabbit |
-/ |
| Birds |
| Accipiter cooperi |
Cooper's hawk |
SSC/ |
| Accipiter gentilis |
northern goshawk |
SSC/FSC |
| Accipiter striatus |
sharp-shinned hawk |
SSC/ |
| Agelaius tricolor |
tricolored blackbird (colony)
(strong candidate species) |
SSC/FSC |
| Aimophila ruficeps canescens |
Southern California rufous-crowned sparrow |
SSC/ |
| Athene cunicularia |
burrowing owl (strong candidate species) |
SSC/FSC |
| Botaurus lentiginosus |
American bittern |
-/ |
| Buteo regalis |
ferruginous hawk |
SSC/FSC |
| Campylorhynchus brunneicapillus |
cactus wren (strong candidate species) |
SSC/ |
| Cathartes aura |
turkey vulture (breeding) |
-/- |
| Cypseloides niger |
black swift (breeding) |
SSC/FSC |
| Dendroica petechia |
yellow warbler |
SSC/- |
| Falco columbarius |
merlin |
SSC/- |
| Icteria virens |
yellow-breasted chat |
SSC/- |
| Melospiza lincolnii |
Lincoln's sparrow (breeding) |
-/- |
| Nycticorax nycticorax |
black crowned night heron |
-/- |
| Oporornis tolmiei |
Macgillvray's warbler |
-/- |
| Oreortyx picta |
mountain quail |
-/- |
| Pandion haliaetus |
osprey |
SSC/- |
| Phalacrocorax auritus |
double-crested cormorant |
SSC/- |
| Picoides pubescens |
downy woodpecker |
-/- |
| Plegadis chihi |
white-faced ibis |
SSC/FSC |
| Progne subis |
purple martin |
SSC/- |
| Sphyrapicus thyroideus |
Williamson's sapsucker |
-/- |
| Strix occidentalis occidentalis |
California spotted owl |
SSC/FSC |
| Tachycineta bicolor |
tree swallow |
-/- |
| Vermivora ruficapilla |
Nashville warbler |
-/- |
| Wilsonia pusilla |
Wilson's warbler |
-/ |
| Reptiles |
| Clemmys marmorata pallida |
western pond turtle (strong candidate species) |
SSC/ |
| Cnemidophorus tigris multiscutatus |
coastal western whiptail |
-/ |
| Cnemidophorus hyperythrus beldingi |
Belding's orange-throated whiptail |
SSC/ |
| Coleonyx variegatus abbottii |
San Diego banded gecko |
-/ |
| Crotalus ruber ruber |
northern red diamond rattlesnake |
SSC/ |
| Lampropeltis zonata parvirubra |
San Bernardino mountain kingsnake (strong candidate species) |
SSC/ |
| Lampropeltis zonata pulchra |
San Diego mountain kingsnake (strong candidate species) |
SSC/ |
| Phrynosoma coronatum blainvillei |
San Diego horned lizard |
SSC/- |
| Sceloporus graciosus vandenburgianus |
southern sagebrush lizard |
-/ |
| Sceloporus orcuttii |
granite spiny lizard |
-/- |
| Xantusia henshawi henshawi |
granite night lizard |
-/ |
| Amphibians |
| Taricha tarosa tarosa |
coast range newt |
SSC/ |
| Invertebrates/Crustaceans |
| Linderiella santarosae |
Santa Rosa Plateau fairy shrimp |
-/ |
| Fish |
| Gila orcutti |
arroyo chub |
SSC/ |
| Plants |
| Arabis johnstonii |
Johnston's rock cress |
-/ |
| Arctostaphylos rainbowensis |
Rainbow manzanita |
-/ |
| Astragalus pachypus var. jaegeri |
Jaeger's milkvetch |
-/- |
| Atriplex parishii |
Parish's brittlescale |
-/- |
| Atriplex serenana var. davidsonii |
Davidson's saltscale |
-/- |
| Brodiaea orcuttii |
Orcutt's brodiaea |
-/- |
| Calochortus palmeri var. munzii |
Munz's mariposa lily |
-/- |
| Calochortus plummerae |
Plummer's mariposa lily |
-/- |
| Calochortus weedii var. intermedius |
intermediate mariposa lily |
-/ |
| Caulanthus simulans |
Payson's jewelflower |
-/- |
| Centromandia pungens ssp. laevis |
smooth tarplant |
-/- |
| Chorizanthe leptotheca |
peninsular spine flower |
-/- |
| Chorizanthe parryi var. parryi |
Parry's spine flower |
-/- |
| Chorizanthe polygonoides var. longispina |
long-spined spine flower |
-/ |
| Chorizanthe procumbens |
prostrate spine flower |
-/ |
| Convolvulus simulans |
small-flowered morning glory |
-/- |
| Dudleya multicaulis |
many-stemmed dudleya |
-/- |
| Dudleya viscida |
sticky-leaved dudleya |
-/ |
| Galium angustifolium ssp. jacinticum |
San Jacinto Mountains bedstraw |
-/ |
| Galium californicum ssp. primum |
California bedstraw |
-/- |
| Harpagonella palmeri var. palmeri |
Palmer's grapplinghook |
-/ |
| Heuchera hirsutissima |
shaggy-haired alumroot |
-/- |
| Holocarpha virgata ssp. elongata |
graceful tarplant |
-/ |
| Hordeum intercedens |
vernal barley |
-/- |
| Hulsea vestita ssp. callicarpha |
beautiful hulsea |
-/- |
| Juglans californica var. californica |
Southern California black walnut |
-/ |
| Lasthenia glabrata ssp. coulteri |
Coulter's goldfields |
-/- |
| Lepechinia cardiophylla |
heart-leaved pitcher sage |
-/- |
| Lilium humboldtii ssp. ocellatum |
ocellated Humboldt lily |
-/- |
| Lilium parryi |
lemon lily |
-/- |
| Microseris douglasii var. platycharpha |
small-flowered microseris |
-/ |
| Mimulus clevelandii |
Cleveland's bush monkeyflower |
-/- |
| Mimulus diffusus |
Palomar monkeyflower |
-/- |
| Monardella macrantha ssp. hallii |
Hall's monardella |
-/- |
| Muhlenbergia californica |
California muhly |
-/- |
| Myosurus minimus |
little mousetail |
-/- |
| Oxytheca caryophylloides |
chickweed oxytheca |
-/ |
| Penstemon californicus |
California beardtongue |
-/ |
| Polygala cornuta var. fishiae |
Fish's milkwort |
-/ |
| Potentilla rimicola |
cliff cinquefoil |
-/- |
| Quercus engelmannii |
Engelmann oak |
-/- |
| Romneya coulteri |
Coulter's matilija poppy |
-/- |
| Satureja chandleri |
San Miguel savory |
-/- |
| Trichocoronis wrightii var. wrightii |
Wright's trichocoronis |
-/ |
1 State Designations
SE Endangered: Species listed as endangered by the California Fish and Game Commission.
ST Species listed as threatened by the California Fish and Game Commission.
SSC Species of Special Concern: Species considered by the California Department of Fish and Game as possibly facing extinction in California due to declining populations or habitat.
SP State Protected Species: May not be taken or possessed without a permit from the Fish and GameCommission and/or CDFG.
2 Federal Designations
FE Endangered: Species listed as endangered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
FT Threatened: Species listed as threatened by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
PT Proposed Threatened: Species proposed for listing as threatened by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
P Petitioned as Threatened or Endangered: Species for which the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has received a petition for listing as threatened or endangered.
|
| Table 2I - Listed, Proposed, and Strong Candidate Species Alternative Vegetation Summary |
| Vegetation Type |
MSHCP Plan Area (acres) |
Existing Public/Quasi-Public Lands |
Additional Conservation (acres) |
Total Conserved (acres) |
Conserved |
| Agriculture |
169,480 |
11,480 |
14,900 |
26,380 |
16% |
| Chaparral |
434,950 |
207,380 |
39,610 |
246,990 |
57% |
| Cismontane Alkali Marsh |
1,260 |
<5 |
<5 |
<5 |
<1% |
| Coastal Sage Scrub |
156,450 |
34,560 |
39,180 |
73,740 |
47% |
| Desert Scrub |
14,570 |
1,310 |
150 |
1,460 |
10% |
| Grassland |
154,140 |
22,810 |
15,220 |
38,030 |
25% |
| Meadows and Marshes |
1,020 |
330 |
100 |
430 |
42% |
| Montane Coniferous Forest |
29,910 |
20,480 |
30 |
20,510 |
69% |
| Playas and Vernal Pools |
7,910 |
2,920 |
2,930 |
5,850 |
74% |
| Riparian Scrub, Woodland, and Forest |
15,030 |
7,210 |
2,100 |
9,370 |
62% |
| Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub |
7,940 |
2,060 |
2,380 |
4,440 |
56% |
| Unknown |
1,350 |
1,230 |
10 |
1,240 |
92% |
| Water |
12,210 |
9,150 |
940 |
10,090 |
83% |
| Woodlands and Forests |
34,300 |
20,770 |
1,750 |
22,520 |
66% |
| Developed or Disturbed Land |
218,260 |
4,780 |
0 |
4,780 |
2% |
| TOTALS |
1,258,780 |
346,530 |
119,300 |
465,860 |
|
2.5 Listed and Proposed Species Alternative
This alternative was developed to depict a potential conservation scenario that would address only listed and proposed species. As shown in Table 2H, 32 listed and proposed species occur in the proposed MSHCP Plan Area. This alternative focuses largely on the conservation of those 32 listed and proposed species within the proposed MSHCP Plan Area, with less consideration of the broad-based NCCP biological concepts.
While large habitat blocks and broad linkages are incorporated in this alternative in some areas to provide for a conservation scenario that would address the conservation needs of the listed and proposed species, less emphasis is placed in this alternative on broadbased ecosystem conservation. The generalized reserve configuration under this alternative is depicted in Figure 2.7. The reserve configuration consists of the boundaries within which conservation is proposed to be achieved. Table 2J provides a summary of acreages potentially conserved under this alternative, by vegetation category. These acreages are estimates of areas that are anticipated to be conserved within the reserve configuration depicted in Figure 2.7. As shown in Table 2J, under this alternative a total of 439,140 acres would be conserved, including 346,530 acres within existing reserves and 92,610 acres of currently private lands outside existing reserves.
| Table 2J - Listed and Proposed Species Alternative Vegetation Summary |
| Vegetation Type |
MSHCP Plan Area (acres) |
Existing Public/Quasi-Public Lands |
Additional Conservation (acres) |
Total Conserved (acres) |
Conserved |
| Agriculture |
169,480 |
11,480 |
14,900 |
26,380 |
16% |
| Chaparral |
434,950 |
207,380 |
27,010 |
234,390 |
54% |
| Cismontane Alkali Marsh |
1,260 |
<5 |
<5 |
<5 |
<1% |
| Coastal Sage Scrub |
156,450 |
34,560 |
29,830 |
64,390 |
41% |
| Desert Scrub |
14,570 |
1,310 |
|
1,310 |
9% |
| Grassland |
154,140 |
22,810 |
11,210 |
34,020 |
22% |
| Meadows and Marshes |
1,020 |
330 |
80 |
410 |
40% |
| Montane Coniferous Forest |
29,910 |
20,480 |
30 |
20,510 |
69% |
| Playas and Vernal Pools |
7,910 |
2,920 |
2,930 |
5,850 |
74% |
| Riparian Scrub, Woodland, and Forest |
15,030 |
7,270 |
1,800 |
9,070 |
60% |
| Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub |
7,940 |
2,060 |
2,360 |
4,420 |
56% |
| Unknown |
1,350 |
1,230 |
10 |
1,240 |
92% |
| Water |
12,210 |
9,150 |
860 |
10,010 |
82% |
| Woodlands and Forests |
34,300 |
20,770 |
1,590 |
22,360 |
65% |
| Developed or Disturbed Land |
218,260 |
4,780 |
|
4,780 |
2% |
| TOTALS |
1,258,780 |
346,530 |
92,610 |
439,140 |
|
2.6 Existing Reserves Alternative
The Existing Reserves Alternative consists of maintained species conservation in existing reserves, which would allow the issuance of a take permit for those species adequately conserved (see Table 2L). This would be accomplished by the management strategies of existing reserves that provide conservation of those species that occur there. In comparison, the proposed MSHCP and action alternatives include this conservation as well as additional measures and additional land. Table 2K summarizes vegetation acreages that would potentially be conserved under this alternative. The level of conservation within existing reserves would be dependent upon activities within the reserves and resource protection efforts undertaken by the reserve managers. Information regarding the size, character and mission of the existing reserves is included in MSHCP Description of Existing Reserves (April 2000).
A brief summary of the consequences of potential species conservation under this alternative is presented in Table 2L. As shown in this table, of the 32 listed and proposed species, only two bird species, peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus) and western yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus occidentalis), would be considered to be conserved under this alternative. One mammal species, Stephens' kangaroo rat (Dipodomys stephensi), would be conserved based on the existing HCP; however, protection would not be expanded to populations outside the existing HCP area. Additionally, two amphibian species, mountain yellow-legged frog (Rana muscosa) and California redlegged frog (Rana aurora draytonii), and one plant species, San Diego button-celery (Eryngium aristulatum var. parishii), could be considered to be conserved if additional conservation measures are implemented at the Santa Rosa Plateau and on USFS lands. The remaining 23 listed and proposed species would not be considered to be conserved under this alternative. The existing reserves alternative is depicted in Figure 2.8.
| Table 2K - Existing Reserves Alternative Vegetation Summary |
| Vegetation Type |
MSHCP Plan Area (acres) |
Existing Public/Quasi-Public Lands (acres) |
Conserved |
| Agriculture |
169,480 |
11,480 |
7% |
| Chaparral |
434,950 |
207,380 |
48% |
| Cismontane Alkali Marsh |
1,260 |
<5 |
<1% |
| Coastal Sage Scrub |
156,450 |
34,560 |
22% |
| Desert Scrub |
14,570 |
1,310 |
9% |
| Grassland |
154,140 |
22,810 |
15% |
| Meadows and Marshes |
1,020 |
330 |
32% |
| Montane Coniferous Forest |
29,910 |
20,480 |
68% |
| Playas and Vernal Pools |
7,910 |
2,920 |
37% |
| Riparian Scrub, Woodland, and Forest |
15,030 |
7,270 |
48% |
| Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub |
7,940 |
2,060 |
26% |
| Unknown |
1,350 |
1,230 |
91% |
| Water |
12,210 |
9,150 |
75% |
| Woodlands and Forests |
34,300 |
20,770 |
61% |
| Developed or Disturbed Land |
218,260 |
4,780 |
2% |
| TOTALS |
1,258,780 |
346,530 |
|
| Table 2L - Summary of Potential Species Conservation Under Existing Reserves Alternative |
| Scientific Name |
Common Name |
Notes |
| Listed and Proposed Species |
| Birds |
| Buteo swainsoni |
Swainson’s hawk |
Not conserved. |
| Charadrius montanus |
mountain plover |
Not conserved. |
| Coccyzus americanus |
western yellow-billed cuckoo |
Conserved. |
| occidentalis |
| Empidonax traillii extimus |
southwestern willow flycatcher |
Not conserved. |
| Falco peregrinus |
peregrine falcon |
Conserved. |
| Haliaeetus leucocephalus |
bald eagle |
|