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 Not conserved.
Polioptila californica coastal California gnatcatcher Not conserved.
californica
Vireo bellii pusillus least Bell’s vireo Not conserved.
Mammals
Dipodomys merriami parvus San Bernardino kangaroo rat Not conserved.
Dipodomys stephensi Stephens’ kangaroo rat Conserved.
Amphibians
Bufo californicus arroyo toad Conditionally conserved.
Rana aurora draytonii California red-legged frog Conserved.
Rana muscosa mountain yellow-legged frog Conserved.
Invertebrates/Crustaceans
Branchinecta lynchii vernal pool fairy shrimp Not conserved.
Streptocephalus woottoni Riverside fairy shrimp Not conserved.
Invertebrates/Insects
Euphydryas editha quino Quino checkerspot butterfly Not conserved.
Rhaphiomidas terminatus abdominalis Delhi sands flower-loving fly Not conserved.
Fish
Catastomus santaanae Santa Ana sucker Not conserved
Plants
Allium munzii Munz’s onion Not conserved.
Ambrosia pumila San Diego ambrosia Not conserved.
Atriplex coronata var. notatior San Jacinto Valley crownscale Not conserved.
Berberis nevinii Nevin’s barberry Not conserved.
Brodiaea filifolia thread-leaved brodiaea Not conserved.
Ceanothus ophiochilus Vail Lake ceanothus Not conserved.
Deinandra mohavensis Mojave tarplant Conserved.
Dodecahema leptoceras slender-horned spineflower Not conserved.
Eriastrum densifolium ssp. sanctorum Santa Ana River woollystar Not conserved.
Eryngium aristulatum var. parishii San Diego button-celery Conserved.
Navarretia fossalis spreading navarretia Not conserved.
Orcuttia californica California Orcutt grass Not conserved.
Other Species
Birds
Accipiter cooperii Cooper’s hawk Not conserved.
Accipiter gentilis northern goshawk Conserved.
Accipiter striatus sharp-shinned hawk Not conserved.
Agelaius tricolor tricolored blackbird (colony) Not conserved.
Aimophila ruficeps canescens rufous-crowned sparrow Not conserved.
Ammodramus savannarum grasshopper sparrow Not conserved.
Amphispiza bellii bellii Bell’s sage sparrow Not conserved.
Aquila chrysaetos golden eagle Not conserved.
Areda herdias great blue heron
Asio flammeus short-eared owl (breeding) Not conserved.
Asio otus long-eared owl (breeding) Not conserved.
Athene cunicularia burrowing owl Not conserved.
Botaurus lentiginosus American bittern Not conserved.
Buteo regalis ferruginous hawk Not conserved.
Campylorhynchus brunneicapillus couesi cactus wren Not conserved.
Cathartes aura turkey vulture (breeding) Not conserved.
Catharus ustulatus Swainson’s thrush (breeding) Not conserved.
Chaetura vauxi Vaux’s swift Conditionally conserved.
Charadrius alexandrinus nivosus western snowy plover Not conserved.
Circus cyaneus northern harrier (breeding) Not conserved.
Cypseloides niger black swift (breeding) Conserved.
Dendroica petechia brewsteri yellow warbler Not conserved.
Elanus leucurus white-tailed kite Not conserved.
Eremophila alpestris actia California horned lark Not conserved.
Falco columbarius merlin Not conserved.
Falco mexicanus prairie falcon (breeding) Not conserved.
Glaucidium gnoma northern pygmy owl Conserved.
Grus canadensis tabida greater sandhill crane Not conserved.
Icteria virens auricollis yellow-breasted chat Not conserved.
Ixobrychus exilis hesperis western least bittern Not conserved.
Lanius ludovicianus loggerhead shrike Not conserved.
Laterallus jamaicensis California black rail Not conserved.
Melospiza lincolnii Lincoln’s sparrow Conserved.
Nycticorax nycticorax black-crowned night-heron Conserved.
Oporonis tolmiea MacGillivray’s warbler Conserved.
Oreortyx picta mountain quail Conserved.
Otus flammeolus flammulated owl Conditionally conserved.
Pandion haliaetus osprey Conserved.
Phalacrocorax auritus double-crested cormorant Conserved.
Picoides pubescens downy woodpecker Not conserved.
Plegadis chihi white-faced ibis Not conserved.
Progne subis purple martin Conserved.
Sphyrapicus thyroideus Williamson’s sapsucker Conserved.
Strix occidentalis occidentalis California spotted owl Conserved.
Tachycineta bicolor tree swallow Not conserved.
Toxostoma lecontei Le Conte’s thrasher Not conserved.
Vermivora ruficapilla Nashville warbler Conserved.
Wilsonia pusilla Wilson’s warbler Conserved.
Mammals
Antrozous pallidus pallid bat Not conserved.
Bassarisucs astutus ringtail Not conserved.
Canis latrans clepticus coyote Conserved.
Chaeotodipus californicus femoralis Dulzura California pocket mouse Conserved.
Choeronyeteris mexicana Mexican long-tongued bat Not conserved.
Chaetodipus fallax fallax northwestern San Diego pocket mouse Conserved.
Dipodomys merriami collinus Aguanga kangaroo rat Not conserved.
Dipodomys merriami parvus San Bernardino kangaroo rat Not conserved.
Dipodomys simulans Dulzura kangaroo rat Not conserved.
Euderma maculatum spotted bat Not conserved.
Eumops perotis californicus California mastiff bat Not conserved.
Glaucomys sabrinus californicus San Bernardino flying squirrel Conserved.
Lasiurus ega southern yellow bat Not conserved.
Lepus californicus bennettii San Diego blacktailed jackrabbit Not conserved.
Lynx rufus californicus bobcat Not conserved.
Macrotus californicus California leaf-nosed bat Not conserved.
Mustela frenata latirostra long-tailed weasel Not conserved.
Myotis ciliolabrum western small-footed myotis Not conserved.
Myotis evotis long-eared myotis Not conserved.
Myotis thysanodes fringed myotis Not conserved.
Myotis volans long-legged myotis Not conserved.
Neotoma lepida intermedia San Diego desert woodrat Conserved.
Nyctinimops femorosaccus pocketed free-tailed bat Not conserved.
Nyctinimops macrotis big free-tailed bat Not conserved.
Onychomys torridus ramona southern grasshopper mouse Not conserved.
Ovis canadensis cremnobates peninsular bighorn sheep Not conserved.
Ovis canadensis nelsoni Nelson’s bighorn sheep Not conserved.
Perognathus longimembris brevinasus Los Angeles pocket mouse Not conserved.
Pleocotus townsendii pallescens pale big-eared bat Not conserved.
Pleocotus townsendii townsendii western big-eared bat Not conserved.
Puma concolor mountain lion Not conserved.
Sylvilagus bachmani brush rabbit Conserved.
Taxidea taxus American badger Not conserved.
Amphibians
Ensatina eschscholtzii klauberi large blotched salamander Conserved.
Scaphiopus hammondii western spadefoot toad Not conserved.
Taricha torosa torosa coast range newt Not conserved.
Reptiles
Anniella pulchra pulchra California legless lizard Not conserved.
Arizona elegans occidentalis coastal glossy snake Not conserved.
Charina bottae umbratica southern rubber boa Not conserved.
Clemmys marmorata pallida southwestern pond turtle Not conserved.
Cnemidophorus hyperythrus beldingi orange-throated whiptail Not conserved.
Cnemidophorus tigris multiscutatus coastal western whiptail Not conserved.
Coleonyx variegatus abbottii San Diego banded gecko Not conserved.
Crotalus ruber ruber northern red diamond rattlesnake Conserved.
Diadophis punctatus modestus San Bernardino ringneck snake Not conserved.
Diadophis punctatus similis San Diego ringneck snake Not conserved.
Gambelia wislizenii long-nosed leopard lizard Not conserved.
Lampropeltis zonata parvirubra San Bernardino mountain kingsnake Conserved.
Lampropeltis zonata pulchra San Diego mountain kingsnake Conserved.
Lichanura trivirgata roseofusca coastal rosy boa Conserved.
Phrynosoma coronatum blainvillei San Diego horned lizard Not conserved.
Salvadora hexalepis virgultea coast patch-nosed snake Conditionally conserved.
Sceloporus graciosus vandenburgianus southern sagebrush lizard Not conserved.
Sceloporus orcuttii orcuttii granite spiny lizard Not conserved.
Thamnophis hammondii two-striped garter snake Not conserved.
Thamnophis sirtalis infernalis California red-sided garter snake Not conserved.
Xantusia henshawi henshawi granite night lizard Not conserved.
Invertebrates
Linderiella santarosae Santa Rosa Plateau fairy shrimp Conserved.
Fish
Gila orcutti arroyo chub Not conserved.
Rhinichthys osculus Santa Ana speckled dace Conserved.
Plants
Arabis johnstonii Johnston’s rock cress Conserved.
Arctostaphylos rainbowensis Rainbow manzanita Not conserved.
Astragalus pachypus var. jaegeri Jaeger’s milkvetch Not conserved.
Atriplex coulteri Coulter’s saltbush Not conserved.
Atriplex parishii Parish’s brittlescale Not conserved.
Atriplex serenana var. davidsonii Davidson’s saltscale Not conserved.
Brodiaea orcuttii Orcutt’s brodiaea Conserved.
Calochortus palmeri var. munzii Munz’s mariposa lily Conserved.
Calochortus plummerae Plummer’s mariposa lily Not conserved.
Calochortus weedii var. intermedius intermediate mariposa lily Not conserved.
Caulanthus simulans Payson’s jewelflower Not conserved.
Centromandia pungens ssp. laevis smooth tarplant Not conserved.
Chorizanthe leptotheca peninsular spineflower Not conserved.
Chorizanthe parryi var. parryi Parry’s spineflower Not conserved.
Chorizanthe polygonoides var. longispina long-spined spineflower Not conserved.
Chorizanthe procumbens prostrate spineflower Not conserved.
Convolvulus simulans small-flowered morning glory Not conserved.
Dudleya multicaulis many-stemmed dudleya Not conserved.
Dudleya viscida sticky-leaved dudleya Conserved.
Galium angustifolium ssp. jacinticum San Jacinto Mountains bedstraw Conserved.
Galium californicum ssp. primum California bedstraw Conserved.
Harpagonella palmeri var. palmeri Palmer’s grapplinghook Not conserved.
Holocarpha virgata ssp. elongata graceful tarplant Not conserved.
Hordeum intercedens vernal barley Not conserved.
Huechera hirsuitissima shaggy-haired alumroot Conserved.
Hulsea vestita ssp. callicarpha beautiful hulsea Conserved.
Juglans californica var. californica Southern California black walnut Not conserved.
Lasthenia glabrata ssp. coulteri Coulter’s goldfields Not conserved.
Lepechinia cardiophylla heart-leaved pitcher sage Not conserved.
Lilium humboldtii ssp. ocellatum ocellated Humboldt lily Conserved.
Lilium parryi lemon lily Conserved.
Limnanthes gracilis var. parishii Parish’s meadowfoam Conserved.
Microseris douglasii var. platycharpha small-flowered microseris Not conserved.
Mimulus clevelandii Cleveland’s bush monkeyflower Conserved.
Mimulus diffusus Palomar monkeyflower Not conserved.
Monardella macrantha ssp. hallii Hall’s monardella Conserved.
Mucronea californica California spineflower Not conserved.
Muhlenbergia californica California muhly Not conserved.
Myosurus minimus ssp. apus little mousetail Not conserved.
Oxytheca caryophylloides chickweed oxytheca Conserved.
Penstemon californicus California beardtongue Conserved.
Polygala cornuta var. fishiae Fish’s milkwort Not conserved.
Potentilla rimicola cliff cinquefoil Conserved.
Quercus engelmannii Engelmann oak Not conserved.
Romneya coulteri Coulter’s matilija poppy Not conserved.
Satureja chandleri San Miguel savory Conserved.
Trichocoronis wrightii var. wrightii Wright’s trichocoronis Not conserved.
Source: Western Riverside County MSHCP.



2.7 No Project/No MSHCP Alternative

Under the No Project Alternative, subregional permits pursuant to the following regulations would not be issued: 1) Section 10(a)(1)(B) under the Federal Endangered Species Act; and 2) Section 2835 of the California Fish and Game Code. Activities involving take of State and/or federal listed species would require individual permitting on a project-by-project basis, as is currently the case.

Land use changes and policies that are being contemplated to implement the proposed MSHCP may not occur. However, planning currently being conducted under the RCIP for the County's General Plan and County Circulation Element could still be adopted. Implementation of the various elements of those plans resulting in take of listed species and regulated habitats, however, would need to be permitted separately under the applicable State and federal processes. Existing reserves would be retained with existing management strategies under the No Project/No MSHCP Alternative. A summary of existing reserves and associated management activities is provided in Table 2M.

Impacts resulting from development activities are currently subject to a variety of local, State, and federal regulatory processes. Under the No Project/No MSHCP Alternative, these existing processes, and the resulting project modifications and mitigation are anticipated to result in some conservation of habitats and species within the proposed Plan Area. Biological resources that are afforded the greatest level of protection under existing regulations and policies are those species that are listed as threatened or endangered, and those species and habitats associated with wetland systems, as further discussed in this section.

Table 2N provides a summary of species currently provided protection under federal and State endangered species regulations, their known locations within the proposed MSHCP Plan Area, and their general habitats and habitat associations. In addition, Figure 3.1.1 of this document provides a general context under which wetlands that are subject to existing regulation can be estimated. Actual jurisdictional areas would need to be mapped on a more detailed project-by-project basis to determine the specific areas affected. This information is provided to summarize and depict species and potential wetland locations that would receive some protection under the No Project/No MSHCP Alternative based on application of existing regulations.

Conservation of species and habitats provided through mitigation and compensation under the existing regulatory framework would likely result in a pattern of conservation that is fragmented, and managed in a piecemeal fashion. There would not be a coordinated system of linkages provided to connect conservation areas, and the ability to provide linkages through project-by-project mitigation may be precluded over time through continued development.

Although the aforementioned regulations and policies would continue to be applied throughout the proposed Plan Area in the absence of a comprehensive MSHCP, history has demonstrated that application of these regulations and policies would not avoid the decline of species in the proposed Plan Area that has resulted in increased listings of species in recent years. Based on historic trends, it is anticipated that under the No Project/No MSHCP Alternative, new species would continue to be listed in the future, and regulation of those species and their habitats would be applied under the current regulatory processes.



Table 2M - Summary of Existing Reserves within the Proposed MSHCP Plan Area
Name Ownership Existing Management Strategies
Cleveland National Forest USFS Resource conservation and compatible recreation activities; wilderness areas; recreation restricted to hiking, low-impact camping.
San Bernardino National Forest USFS Resource conservation and compatible recreation activities; wilderness areas; recreation restricted to hiking, low-impact camping.
Prado Basin US Army Corps of Engineers Management for watershed resource preservation as well as flood control protection.
Bureau of Land Management Lands BLM Management is based on multiple use and sustainable yield. Designation of Areas of Critical Environmental Concern (Potrero, Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve, Million Dollar Spring). Land swaps to promulgate concentration of ownership with the intent to better manage lands.
Lake Perris California State Preservation of natural and cultural resources and
Recreation Area Parks provide for recreational activities. Management for SKR and exotic species removal.
San Jacinto Wildlife Refuge CDFG / California State Parks Native species conservation and habitat enhancement. Hunting and fishing permitted in some areas. Mowing of 1,500 acres for maintenance of SKR habitat, per SKR HCP.
Chino Hills State Park California State Parks Conservation of natural communities (NCCP area) and species as well as recreational activities. Exotic species removal programs and promulgation of providing wildlife linkages to surrounding open space areas also occur.
Anza Borrego Desert State Park California State Parks Conservation of native environment. Monitoring programs for riparian vegetation communities, peninsular bighorn sheep (Ovis canadensis cremnobates) and least Bell's vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus). Wilderness areas are managed for primitive character and wildlife preservation.
Mt. San Jacinto Wilderness State Park California State Parks Conservation of native environment, maintenance of non-motorized vehicle or bicycle uses. Primitive camping and associated hiking facilities. Scientific research of high forest ecosystems and endangered plants occurs.
Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve CSU, San Diego / The Nature Conservancy / CDFG Managed for scientific education and research. The Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve Area of Critical Environmental Concern (BLM designation) is managed as a core reserve while still permitting educational and scientific research activities.
Santa Rosa Plateau Nature Reserve California State Parks / County of Riverside / The Nature Conservancy Managed to accommodate all owner's mission statements; daily non-motorized vehicle access, restoration of native habitats including vernal pools and Engelmann Oaks (Quercus engelmannii). Exotics removal program is underway.
Motte Rimrock Reserve University of California Regents Managed for purposes of education and scientific study. Open to the public, however the entire reserve is fenced
Box Springs Reserve University of California Regents Maintained as research and instruction site by UCR. Open to the public, however all sides are fenced.
Emerson Oaks Reserve University of California Regents Maintained for purposes of education and scientific study. Open to public during daylight hours. An exotic species removal program has also been deployed at this reserve.
UC James San Jacinto Mountain Reserve University of California Regents Maintained for purposes of education and scientific study. Open to public, however access is restricted due to perimeter fencing.
Kabian Park County of Riverside Parks and Open Space District / BLM Management for wildlife and recreation such as equestrian, hiking and picnicking. Being considered as a building block for a future core reserve.
DeAnza Park/Norton Younglove Reserve County of Riverside Parks and Open Space District Ultimate management and use of this land has not been resolved at this time. The County is currently in the process of evaluating prospects for a motor cycle park or a conservation area.
Harford Springs Reserve County of Riverside Parks and Open Space District Managed for passive recreation such as hiking, equestrian uses and wildlife viewing.
Box Springs Mountain Reserve County of Riverside Parks and Open Space District Managed for purposes of recreation including equestrian uses.
Santa Ana Regional Park County of Riverside Parks and Open Space District / US Army Corps of Engineers Hidden Valley Wildlife Area: managed for habitat conservation and enhancement.
Martha Mclean Anza Narrows Park: managed for active recreation. Rancho Jurupa Park: managed for active recreation including off-highway recreational vehicles.
Lake Skinner Recreation Area County of Riverside Parks and Open Space District Managed for active recreation.
Riverside County Habitat Conservation Agency Lands RCHCA All lands are dedicated in perpetuity to wildlife habitat.
Orange County Water District Lands Orange County Water District Managed for sustainable water resources for Orange County. Least Bell's vireo habitat restoration and species preservation program. Maintenance of 465 acres of wetland. Duck and pheasant hunting on adjacent lands.
Sycamore Canyon Wilderness Park City of Riverside Park and Recreation Department Managed as a component of the SKR reserve system. Exotics removal program in wetland areas is also a component of the park's management theme.
Lake Mathews-Estelle Mountain Reserve Metropolitan Water District / CDFG / RCHCA / BLM Managed as a component of the SKR reserve system. Active management for wildlife preservation. Adaptive management program in place.
Southwest Riverside County Multi-Species Reserve Metropolitan Water District / RCHCA / Riverside County Parks and Open Space District / BLM Managed as a multiple species reserve. Active management for wildlife preservation. Adaptive management program in place.
Metropolitan Water District Lands Metropolitan Water District A large majority of lands are reserved for operations and maintenance. Several smaller portions of land have been reserved for vernal pool or other habitat preservation. These parcels are managed for the perpetuity of native habitat and species preservation.
Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Lands Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Managed for protection of flood-related threats. Management plans have been developed with CDFG to regulate management regimes in sensitive areas.
March Air Reserve Base Reserve Lands March JPA Managed as a component of the SKR core reserve system (core reserve with Sycamore Canyon). March JPA is in discussion with USFWS regarding this land.
Southern California Edison Lands SCE Lands are reserved for operations and maintenance of utilities. Policies within SCE have been developed in order to reduce impacts to sensitive habitats when emergency action is necessary.
San Diego Gas and Electric Lands San Diego Gas and Electric Lands are reserved for operations and maintenance of utilities.
Mitigation Banks/ Conservation Banks Varies Lands are conserved and managed for the purpose of habitat and/or species preservation through mitigation. Lands are actively managed for specific species or habitat type.
BLM Bureau of Land Management
CDFG California Department of Fish and Game
CSU California State University
HCP Habitat Conservation Plan
JPA Joint Powers Authority
NCCP Natural Communities Conservation Plan
RCHCA Riverside County Habitat Conservation Agency
SCE Southern California Edison
SKR Stephens' kangaroo rat (Dipodomys stephensi)
UCR University of California, Riverside
USFS United States Forest Service


Table 2N - Existing Species Provided Protection within the
MSHCP Plan Area
Species Listing Status Known Locations in Plan Area Habitat/Habitat Association
Plants
Allium munzii
Munz's onion		 ST, FE 13 extant populations: Estelle Mountain, Gavilan Plateau, North Peak, Paloma Valley, Skunk Hollow and Bachelor Mountain North, Domenigoni Hills, Alberhill, and Temescal Canyon. Chaparral, coastal sage scrub, grassland, riparian scrub, woodland forests.
Atriplex coronata var. notatior
San Jacinto Valley crownscale		 FE 11 loosely defined areas largely associated with Mystic Lake, San Jacinto River, and Salt Creek. Also associated with willow soils at Alberhill Creek. Alkaline playas and vernal pools, grassland.
Berberis nevinii
Nevin's barberry		 SE, FE Vicinity of Vail Lake. Chaparral, Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub.
Brodiaea filifolia
thread-leaved brodiaea		 SE, FT 12 populations along San Jacinto River in Nuevo, Perris, and the San Jacinto Wildlife Area, Salt Creek, the Santa Rosa Plateau and west of Santa Rosa Plateau, and the old Salt Creek drainage. Clay, loamy sand, alkaline silty clay, grassland, playas and vernal pools.
Ceanothus ophiochilus
Vail Lake ceanothus		 SE, FT 3 populations in the hills immediately west of Vail Lake and on the lower north-facing slopes of the Agua Tibia Mountains in the Agua Tibia Wilderness. Chamise chaparral on ultra basic parent rock and weathered gabbro.
Dodechema leptoceras
slender-horned spineflower		 SE, FE 4 areas in Temescal Wash at Indian Creek; upper San Jacinto River at Valle Vista and Hemet; Central Bautista Creek, Arroyo Seco, Kolb Creek; and Vail Lake. Chaparral, gravels in open chamise, sandy soils in Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub.
Eriastrum densifolium ssp. sanctorum
Santa Ana River woollystar		 SE, FE 2 locations: near Market Street within the City of Riverside and west of Fairmont Park and Golf Club within the City of Riverside. Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub, washes and early succession alluvial fan sage scrub.
Eryngium aristulatum var. parishii
San Diego button-celery		 SE, FE 4 populations within proposed Plan Area.  
Limnanthes gracilis parishii
Parish's meadowfoam		 SE 1 location at Santa Rosa Plateau. Ephemeral wetlands in mountains.
Navarretia fossalis
spreading navarretia		 FT Western Riverside County supports the 12 largest remaining populations in alkali soils within upper Salt Creek west of Hemet, along the San Jacinto River from west of Mystic Lake south to Perris Valley Airport. Playas and vernal pools.
Orcuttia californica
California Orcutt grass		 SE, FE 3 vernal pool sites at upper Salt Creek west of Hemet, Skunk Hollow, and the Santa Rosa Plateau. Playas and vernal pools.
Invertebrates/Crustaceans
Branchinecta lynchii
vernal pool fairy shrimp		 FT 3 locations at Skunk Hollow, the Santa Rosa Plateau, and Salt Creek. Playas and vernal pools.
Streptocephalus woottoni
Riverside fairy shrimp		 FE Skunk Hollow vernal pools, just east of I-15 on the Pechanga Indian Reservation, and two locations in Rancho California along SR-79. Playas and vernal pools.
Coccyzus americanus occidentalis
western yellow-billed cuckoo		 SE 5 territories all within Prado Basin and Santa Ana River. Only summer population west of Colorado River. Riparian forests in woodlands and forests.
Empidonax traillii extimus
southwestern willow flycatcher		 SE, FE Sparse locations in Prado Basin and Vail Lake. Also maybe in Temescal Creek, Bautista Creek, Diamond Valley Lake area, Hemet Lake, Lake Elsinore, Santa Rosa Plateau East, Santa Ana River, Temecula Creek, Lake Mathews, Lake Skinner, Lake Perris, Murrieta Creek, Prado Park. Riparian scrub, woodlands and forests, Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub.
Falco peregrinus
peregrine falcon		 SE, delisted May exist anywhere in study area, observations in Prado Basin. Agriculture, desert scrubs, grassland, Alpine meadows and marshes, montane coniferous forests, canyons, cliffs, escarpments.
Haliaeetus leucocephalus
bald eagle		 SE, FT Primarily migrant and wintering species in western Riverside County. Some nesting attempted around bodies of water. Meadows and marshes, montane coniferous forests, riparian scrub, woodlands and forest, water.
Polioptila californica californica
coastal California gnatcatcher		 FT Throughout western Riverside County in coastal sage scrub habitats. High densities occur along I15 corridor, continuing southeast to Lake Skinner. Coastal sage scrub, Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub.
Vireo belli pusillus
least Bell's vireo		 FE, SE Summer resident in willow areas below 1,970 feet elevation, south of Tehachapi Mountains and north of northwestern Baja California. Riparian scrub, woodlands and forests.
Dipodomys merriami parvus
San Bernardino kangaroo rat
Dipodomys stephensi
Stephens' kangaroo rat		 FE ST, FE Aguanga, Sage, Temecula Creek, and Wilson Creek. Patchy distribution from Corona/Norco Hills just west of SR-91 to Anza Valley, Temecula area, Badlands, and Potrero Valley. Largest populations in Lake Mathews-Estelle Mountains, Lake Skinner Domenigoni Valley, and San Jacinto-Lake Perris core reserves. Coastal sage scrub, Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub. Sparse coastal sage scrub, grassland, sparse Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub.
ST Listed "Threatened" under the State of California Endangered Species Act.
SE Listed "Endangered" under the State of California Endangered Species Act.
FT Listed "Threatened" under the Federal Endangered Species Act.
FE Listed "Endangered" under the Federal Endangered Species Act.

2.8 Alternatives Considered but Eliminated from Further Analysis

State CEQA Guidelines Section 15126.6 (c) states the following with respect to the range of alternatives in an EIR:

The range of potential alternatives to the proposed project shall include those that could feasibly accomplish most of the basic objectives of the project and could avoid or substantially lessen one or more of the significant effects. The EIR should briefly describe the rationale for selecting the alternatives to be discussed. The EIR should also identify any alternatives that were considered by the lead agency but were rejected as infeasible during the scoping process and briefly explain the reasons underlying the lead agency's determination. Additional information explaining the choice of alternatives may be included in the administrative record. Among the factors that may be used to eliminate alternatives from detailed consideration in an EIR are: (i) failure to meet most of the basic project objectives, (ii) infeasibility, or (iii) inability to avoid significant environmental impacts.

NEPA regulations 40 CFR 1502.14 (a) states that the alternatives section of an EIS should:

[r]igorously explore and objectively evaluate all reasonable alternatives, and for alternatives which were eliminated from detailed study, briefly discuss the reasons for their having been eliminated.

This section briefly describes two alternatives (Narrow Endemic Plant Species Alternative and the Modified Reserve Configuration Alternative) that were evaluated and eliminated from further detailed study. Their reasons for being eliminated, which are the failure to meet most of the basic project objectives and their infeasibility, are also briefly discussed.

2.8.1 Narrow Endemic Plant Species Alternative

This alternative would focus on the conservation of narrow endemic plant species. The term endemic species refers to a species that is native to a particular geographic area. Endemic does not imply rarity or endangerment; rather, it refers to geographic distribution. A very narrowly distributed species is found only within a small geographic area (e.g., the San Jacinto Valley crownscale [Atriplex coronata var. notatior] is endemic [found only] in western Riverside County).

The term narrow endemic species has been used in conservation planning to refer to a species that is restricted to a relatively small geographic area and for which conservation planning decisions would have a substantial effect on the status of the species. Plant species that are the focus of this alternative are listed in Table 2O. It is anticipated that under this alternative, conservation areas for narrow endemic plants would overlap similar areas identified for conservation in the Modified Reserve Configuration Alternative.

Protocol surveys would be constructed for narrow endemic plants during the appropriate season. If populations of narrow endemic plants were observed, avoidance and minimization measures would be undertaken in the design of individual projects.



Table 2O - Plant Species Protected under the Narrow Endemic Species Alternative
Scientific Name Common Name Notes
Plant Species Endemic to the Plan Area
Allium munzii Munz's onion  
Arabis johnstoni Johnston's rock cress Generally confined to Forest Service lands
Atriplex coronata var. notatior San Jacinto Valley crownscale  
Atriplex parishii Parish's brittlescale  
Calochortus palmeri var. munzii Munz's mariposa lily Generally confined to Forest Service lands
Ceanothus ophiochilus Vail Lake ceanothus  
Galium angustifolium ssp. jacinticum San Jacinto Mountains bedstraw Generally confined to Forest Service lands
Plant Species for which Plan Area is Critical to Conservation (not Endemic to Plan Area)
Ambrosia pumila San Diego ambrosia  
Atriplex serenana var. davidsonii Davidson's saltscale  
Berberis nevinii Nevin's barberry  
Brodiaea filifolia thread-leaf brodiaea  
Dodecahema leptoceras slender-horned spineflower  
Dudleya multicaulis many-stemmed dudleya  
Eriastrum densifolium ssp. sanctorum Santa Ana River woollystar Santa Ana River
Hemizoniz pungens ssp. laevis smooth tarplant  
Lasthenia glabrata spp. apus Coulter's goldfield  
Lepechinia cordifolia heart-leaf pitcher-sage Generally confined to Forest Service lands
Myosurus minimus ssp. apus little mousetail  
Navarretia fossalis spreading navarretia  
Orcuttia californica California Orcutt grass  
Satureja chandleri San Miguel savory Santa Rosa Plateau, Steele Rock
Trichocoronis wrightii var. wrightii Wright's trichocoronis  
For many of the plant species being considered for conservation under the proposed MSHCP, the existing available distribution data are limited. If coverage of these species were sought in the selected alternative for the proposed MSHCP, the need to conduct surveys would apply to these species, as well as to the narrow endemic plant species.


The Narrow Endemic Plant Species Alternative conflicts with Project Objectives. Because it covers only 22 species, the Narrow Endemic Plant Species Alternative does not provide the maximum possible certainty that the Take Authorization will cover additional species that may be listed while the Permits are in effect. Also, the Narrow Endemic Plant Species Alternative will not streamline development authorization under FESA and CESA to the maximum extent practicable. Likewise, the Narrow Endemic Plant Species Alternative would not provide assurances that, to the extent legally possible, private parties will not be required to mitigate impacts under FESA and CESA except as required in the Plan. The Narrow Endemic Plant Species Alternative is also infeasible due to economic and other considerations, and it would not reduce or avoid any of the Project's significant environmental impacts. Thus, the Narrow Endemic Species Alternative was screened out from further consideration as an alternative to the Plan. However, elements from this alternative to protect endemic species were incorporated into the Proposed Action as additional survey requirements (Appendix B, Alternative Screening Document, contains a more detailed analysis). By incorporating these features, the Plan takes advantage of the species benefits that would have been provided by the Narrow Endemic Species Alternative.

2.8.2 Modified Reserve Configuration Alternative

This alternative seeks to promote the viability and recovery of western Riverside County ecosystems and habitats, and the species dependent upon them. Additionally, this alternative seeks to reduce the need for the potential listing of species in the future. Like the proposed Plan, this alternative also focuses generally on the following broad-based NCCP biological tenets:

The Modified Reserve Configuration Alternative provides for the most conservation of the alternatives and the Proposed Action. It seeks to conserve up to 146 species and 218,600 acres of habitat on private lands within the MSHCP Planning Area. The number of species to be conserved remains the same: 32 listed and proposed species, and 115 sensitive species.

Like all of the other alternatives, the Modified Reserve Configuration Alternative conserves 346,530 acres of existing public/quasi-public lands. In addition, the Modified Reserve Configuration Alternative also would conserve 218,600 acres of private lands. The 218,600 acres include the 153,000 acres proposed for conservation with the Proposed Action plus 65,400 acres of additional conservation on private lands. The additional 65,400 acres of private lands are largely comprised of lands designated as critical habitat for listed, threatened, or endangered species or areas supporting sensitive soils.

After analyzing the potential beneficial and detrimental effects of the alternatives, the Lead Agencies determined that the Modified Reserve Configuration Alternative conflicts with Project Objectives. The Modified Reserve Configuration Alternative would have increased the number of acres to be conserved by 65,400 acres even though the amount of habitat included in the Project is sufficient to adequately conserve all of the Covered Species. Thus, the Modified Reserve Configuration Alternative would have greatly increased the cost of the project (by the fair market value of those 65,400 acres) without significantly increasing the habitat value of the reserve. The Modified Reserve Configuration Alternative would conflict with Project Objectives because it would not be economically efficient and it would not limit the expenditure of public and private funds to the amount necessary to maintain a reserve that can adequately conserve the Covered Species. Moreover, because the Modified Reserve Configuration Alternative would require the purchase of an additional 65,400 acres of private lands, it is economically infeasible and it conflicts with the Project Objective requiring that the preferred alternative include a fee-based funding program that will generate sufficient revenue to contribute to the reserve’s funding needs. The Modified Reserve Configuration Alternative also fails to avoid or substantially reduce any of the Project’s significant environmental impacts. Based on these considerations, the Modified Reserve Configuration Alternative was screened out from further consideration as an alternative to the proposed Project. (Appendix B, Alternative Screening Document, contains a more detailed analysis of this decision-making process).

2.9 Funding

Local funding is an essential element of the western Riverside County MSHCP. Local funding provides mitigation for the local public and private development projects that the proposed MSHCP will accommodate. Riverside County's rapidly growing population will require the construction of more than 100,000 approximately 149,000 additional residential units in unincorporated western Riverside County to be built over the next 20 years by 2025. The local funding plan must balance the cost and benefits. A local mitigation fee on all new development will be required, subject to a Government Code Section 66000 establishing the legal relationship between the fee and the benefit to those paying it.

The Plan's ability to provide for timely acquisition of lands required for creation of the reserve system is the single most critical element in the success of the Plan. Land values in the proposed MSHCP Conservation Area are likely to range from less than $1,000 per acre to $100,000 per acre or more depending on location, natural constraints, access, availability of utilities, and zoning and land use entitlements. The projected cost to acquire 112,000 acres of private lands is $1,450,000,000. Further, the cyclical nature of land development in Riverside County adds to the volatility of land values. During the course of assembling the proposed MSHCP Conservation Area, inflation, economic cycles, supply and demand for housing in the region will all impact the actual costs of land acquisition. The financing plan will be revisited periodically during the life of the plan to update cost and financing projections.

Local funding sources include funding from both public and private development and regional funding sources that attempt to spread the financial burden over a broader base than just new development. Sources in this category include, but are not limited to, City and County developer mitigation fees, contributions from local public and private infrastructure projects, County contribution of El Sobrante Landfill tipping fees from out-of-County waste, County contribution of landfill tipping fees for in-County waste, a contribution of a portion of Measure A sales tax, other regional funding that may be developed, and County contribution of Density Bonus fees.

2.10 Implementation

Regional Conservation Authority. Implementation of the MSHCP will be overseen, administered, and enforced by a joint regional authority formed by the County and 14 cities pursuant to the requirements of the California Government Code and other appropriate legal authorities. This authority will be called the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (RCA). The RCA will have adequate authority to carry out the requirements of the MSHCP. The RCA shall sign the IA and will be a permitee under the permits. However, the RCA will not limit County or City local land use authority, or prevent a permitee from approving a discretionary project. The RCA will be formed either as a new joint powers authority or as part of an existing joint powers authority prior to the issuance of permits by the Wildlife Agencies. It is currently anticipated that the RCA will be governed by a Board of Directors consisting of the 5 members of the Riverside County Board of Supervisors a well as an elected official from each of the 14 cities.

The RCA will provide the primary policy direction for the implementation of the MSHCP and will provide opportunities for public participation in the decision-making process. Duties of the RCA will include (but are not limited to) the following:

The RCA will not have authority over State or Federal land in the MSHCP Conservation Area.

Funding Coordination Committee. To assist in implementing its duties pursuant to the MSHCP, the RCA Board of Directors shall form the FCC within 120 days of issuance of the permits, to provide input on local funding priorities and local MSHCP Conservation Area acquisitions. Members of the FCC will be appointed by the RCA and will consist of staff representatives from the Wildlife Agencies and the RCA. To the extent possible, FCC members will have expertise in real estate or land use planning matters, or experience in implementing large-scale conservation programs. All Planning Directors from the County and 14 cities will receive prior notice of all FCC meetings, which will include a meeting agenda and the list of potential acquisition sites, as appropriate. The Planning Directors or designated representatives will participate in the FCC as appropriate.

The FCC will advise the RCA through the Executive Director on local Additional Reserve Lands acquisitions and local funding priorities, as requested. However, the RCA will have the final decision-making authority in establishing and implementing the local priorities. The FCC will also provide a forum to discuss Wildlife Agencies land acquisition priorities and keep the RCA informed on acquisitions by non-local sources. The RCA will establish policies, as appropriate, under which the FCC will make recommendations to the RCA. These policies will include conflict of interest guidelines for the FCC members.

Executive Director. The RCA will also select an appropriate individual or entity to administer the plan (the Executive Director). Within 30 days of the formation of the RCA, the RCA will contract with an appropriate County Department to act as the Executive Director within 30 days of the formation of the RCA. This County Department will be recommended by the County Executive Officer and approved by the RCA Board of Directors. The County contract will be for an initial term of three years. At least six months prior to the expiration of the initial contract term, the RCA will review the County Department's performance as Executive Director, and will, as appropriate, either extend the contract or select an alternative entity or individual for the Executive Director position.

Duties of the Executive Director will include but not be limited to the following:

The Reserve Management Oversight Committee (RMOC) will be the intermediary between on-the-ground MSHCP activities conducted by the Reserve Managers and others and the decision-making function of the RCA. The Executive Director will serve as the chair of the RMOC. The RMOC will be assembled within 60 days of the effective date of the contract between the RCA and the County concerning appointment of the Executive Director. The RMOC will be composed of at least one representative appointed by the following:

RMOC representatives will have all the authority necessary to ensure that the RMOC's oversight and advisory duties and responsibilities are successfully executed. RMOC's representatives will therefore be Reserve Managers or the equivalent. To the extent feasible, RMOC representatives will have appropriate expertise in land management. Duties of the RMOC will be established by the Executive Director as necessary to ensure implementation of the MSHCP. These duties include oversight and advisory duties, discussed below.

Oversight duties include the following:

The RMOC will meet at least twice a year, or more frequently as needed. The RMOC will attempt to reach a consensus on recommendations, but in the event no consensus can be reached, majority vote will prevail. If an issue goes to a majority vote, the Wildlife Agencies would reserve their rights under the MSHCP, IA, and State and Federal law to take actions as they believe appropriate, even if in contradiction to the majority decision. Disputed matters may also be appealed to the RCA Board of Directors for a final administrative determination. Reserve Managers.

Reserve Managers will be appropriate individual selected by, and contracted directly with, the public or private entities that own affected MSHCP Conservation Area Land. The Reserve Managers for locally owned MSHCP Conservation Area Lands will be appointed by and report to the Executive Director. Reserve Managers for non-locally owned MSHCP Conservation Area Lands will consult with the RMOC. Reserve Manager duties will include the following:

Monitoring Program Administrator. A Monitoring Program Administrator selected by the RCA will be responsible for implementing the Monitoring Program contained in Section 5.0 of the MSHCP. During the first eight years of the permits, the Monitoring Program Administrator will be CDFG. After the initial term expires, the RCA Board of Directors may elect to have CDFG continue acting as the Monitoring Program Administrator, or may elect an alternative entity or individual for the position. If the RCA determines that CDFG cannot adequately perform the duties and responsibilities of the Monitoring Program Administrator, the RCA Board of Directors will select an alternative individual or entity for this position. Disagreements between permitees and the Monitoring Program Administrators regarding implementation of the Monitoring Program, the dispute will be resolved through RCA staff, or, if needed, the RCA Board of Directors.

Duties of the Monitoring Program Administrator will include:

Independent Science Advisors. The Executive Director will, as appropriate, appoint ISAs with input from the RMOC. These ISAs will be qualified biologists and conservation experts with expertise in the Covered Species and their habitats. The ISAs may be independent, associated with educational institutions or public agencies, members of a non-profit organization, or employees of biological science firms. To the extent feasible, the ISAs will have appropriate experience in land management. The ISAs will be retained on an annual basis and will report to the Executive Director.

Duties of the ISAs will include:

Any conflicts between recommendations made by the RMOC and the ISAs will be mediated by the Executive Director. If needed, the conflict may be submitted to the RCA Board of Directors for a decision.

The RCA will sponsor an annual workshop for the ISAs. This workshop will be a venue to exchange all current scientific information and literature that may assist in Reserve Assembly, management, Adaptive Management, and monitoring.

The participating jurisdictions within the proposed Plan Area will be required to select the legal mechanism to implement the terms of the proposed MSHCP prior to the execution of the Implementing agreement. The participating jurisdictions will submit such legal mechanism to the USFWS and CDFG in support of authorizations to "take" listed threatened and endangered species or other species of concern. Options include but are not limited to: adoption of an ordinance or resolution implementing proposed MSHCP policies and requirements, amending existing open space ordinances/resolutions, incorporation of the proposed MSHCP requirement into an existing General Plan, other General Plan Amendments, or adoption of model "mini" open space/resource element.

Development of property outside of the proposed MSHCP reserve shall be covered for incidental take of listed species and their habitat, provided payment of an impact mitigation fee is made (or credit for land conveyed is obtained). Payment of the mitigation fee is intended to provide full mitigation under CEQA and NEPA, as well as the federal and State ESAs, for impacts to the species covered under the proposed MSHCP, pursuant to agreements with participating regulatory agencies and as set forth in the Implementing Agreement. The proposed MSHCP cannot provide mitigation for projects regulated by entities or agencies not participating in the proposed MSHCP.

2.11 Covered Activities

This section summarizes the activities determined to be compatible or conditionally compatible with the designation and management of the proposed MSHCP reserve. Detailed information regarding the location and extent of these activities is included in Appendix B of the MSHCP. Chapter 7.0 of the MSHCP, Volume I, provides specific covered uses, anticipated impacts associated with these uses, and guidelines for covered activities.

2.11.1 Covered Activities Outside the Criteria Area

Public and private Development, including construction of buildings, structures, infrastructure and all alterations of the land, that are carried out by Permittees, Participatory Special Entities, Third Parties Granted Take Authorization and others within the Plan Area, that are outside of the Criteria Area are permitted under the Plan, subject to consistency with MSHCP policies that apply outside the Criteria Area (such as policies related to Riparian and Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools, Narrow Endemic Plant Species, Additional Survey Needs and Procedures, and Funding/Fee Issues).

2.11.2 Covered Activities within Existing Public/Quasi-Public Lands

Some of the following activities may be proposed on federal lands, or may involve federal agency approvals (i.e., have a federal "nexus"). To the extent that these Covered Activities that involve a federal nexus are determined to affect federally listed species and as such require a Section 7 consultation with the USFWS under FESA, Incidental Take of listed species would occur through the Section 7 process, not through the MSHCP. However, the USFWS Obligations and Assurances provided for in Section 14.9 of the Implementing Agreement would apply.

Existing Roads

Both publicly- and privately-maintained roads occur on Public/Quasi-Public lands, as summarized in Table 7-1 of the MSHCP. Maintenance Activities on privately- maintained roads are afforded limited coverage, subject to the submittal of an application for Certificate of Inclusion. The covered Maintenance Activities for these roadways is substantially limited in scope, including only such grading as necessary to restore a smooth driving surface, maintain existing graded shoulders within the existing rights-ofway, and essential weed abatement, excluding the application of any herbicides. Guidelines are provided in Section 7.3.5 of the MSHCP which would minimize and avoid impacts to sensitive species and habitats occurring adjacent to the existing roadway. The Best Management Practices (BMPs) in Appendix C of the MSHCP would be applied as appropriate.

Some of the existing County maintained unpaved roads may be paved within the existing roadbed as future traffic, safety and/or environmental conditions warrant. In addition, safety improvements to other publicly maintained existing roadways within Public/Quasi-Public Lands are Covered Activities. Guidelines are provided in Section 7.3.5 of the MSHCP which would minimize and avoid impacts to sensitive species and Habitats occurring adjacent to the existing roadway. The BMPs in Appendix C of the MSHCP would be applied as appropriate. Covered maintenance activities include: signage, traffic control devices, guardrails and fences, pavement repairs, accident response, tree trimming, natural disaster damage/restoration of emergency access, storm drainage, weed control, grading shoulders (up to 12 feet), grading existing dirt roadways, dust stabilization, culverts/drop structures, curbs/gutters/sidewalks, roadway widening, berms, roadway resurfacing, ditch clearing, landscape maintenance, bridge maintenance, and roadway reconstruction.

Planned Roads

New Circulation Element roads, or improvements to existing Circulation Element roads proposed within existing Public/Quasi-Public Lands include Butterfield Stage Road, Anza Road, Bautista Canyon Road, Gilman Springs Road and Roads crossing the Santa Ana River, including a potential new crossing at Schleisman Avenue. Siting, design and construction of these facilities shall be subject to the guidelines provided in Sections 7.5.1, 7.5.2, and 7.5.3, and will also be subject to the Best Management Practices identified in Appendix C of the MSHCP.

Impacts to Habitats within existing Public/Quasi-Public Lands shall be compensated by purchase and dedication into the MSHCP Conservation Area of land that is in addition to the Additional Reserve Lands.

Specific planned roadway projects are subject to additional restrictions, as set forth in Section 7.2 of the MSHCP. These include the CETAP corridors (Section 7.2.2) and the Cajalco Road Realignment and Widening (Section 7.2.3).

Future Facilities

Future facilities such as water, sewer, electrical, gas and solid waste facilities, that are described in more detail in Section 7.3.9 of the MSHCP would also be permitted within existing Public/Quasi-Public Lands subject to a finding of equivalent conservation provided through individual project mitigation. An equivalency analysis shall be provided by either the Permittee or the entity requesting a Certificate of Inclusion. The analysis shall be provided for review and concurrence by the Wildlife Agencies in narrative and graphic form comparing the effects/benefits of the proposed project including specific mitigation and compensation for lost conservation values, with the conditions prior to facility implementation. The analysis shall consider specific project design features, including consideration of the siting and design guidelines, contained in Section 7.5.1, as well as the Best Management Practices contained in Appendix C of the MSHCP. Impacts to Habitats within existing Public/Quasi-Public Lands shall be compensated by purchase and dedication into the MSHCP Conservation Area of land that is in addition to the Additional Reserve Lands.

Existing Facilities

Public facilities within existing Public/Quasi-Public Lands may be maintained by Permittees within the existing disturbance area of each existing facility, and without any changes in the operating characteristics of the facility that would affect Covered Species.

Existing Agricultural Uses

Existing agricultural uses within Local Public/Quasi-Public Lands are Covered Activities subject to no expansion of the area used for agriculture and no increase in the intensity of agricultural use.

2.11.3 Covered Activities in the Criteria Area

Public and Private Development

As discussed in Section 3.0 of the MSHCP, public and private Development within the Criteria Area that is determined to be consistent with the Criteria is considered a Covered Activity.

Single-Family Homes on Existing Legal Parcels within the Criteria Area

Development of individual single-family homes on existing legal parcels, in accordance with existing land use regulations is a Covered Activity within the Criteria Area. As described in Section 6.1.1 of the MSHCP, there is currently a process for siting a home on an existing legal lot. The location of a single family home or mobile home on an existing legal lot is determined by factors such as access, topography/terrain, zoning development standards including setbacks, soil types, presence of earthquake fault lines, leach fields, presence of oak trees and location of lot within a high fire hazard area. Therefore, an expedited review process, through the Property Owner Initiated Habitat Evaluation and Acquisition Negotiation Process has been developed to assist in determining the appropriate location of a single family home or mobile home on an existing legal lot within the Criteria Area.

An application for the issuance of a grading permit for an individual single family home on an existing legal lot or a site preparation permit for a mobile home on an existing legal lot within the Criteria Area will be subject to review against the MSHCP Conservation Criteria solely in order to determine the location of a building foot print area and any necessary access road(s) on the least sensitive portion of the lot. A habitat assessment for certain species may be required in order to assist in determining the most appropriate location for the area of disturbance and any necessary access road(s). Upon completion of the review, the Permittee will determine the location of the area of disturbance, and the location of any necessary road(s). Any necessary firebreaks will be included within the area of disturbance.

Agricultural Lands

Existing agricultural uses and conversion of natural lands to agricultural use, as defined and outlined in Section 6.2 of this document, will be allowed as a Covered Activity within the Criteria Area. New conversions to agricultural use within the Criteria Area are covered up to an established threshold of 10,000 acres over the life of the Plan. Agricultural Operations, as defined in Section 6.2, include the production of all plants (horticulture), fish farms, animals and related production activities, including the planting, cultivation and tillage of the soil, dairying, and apiculture; and the production, plowing, seeding, cultivation, growing, harvesting, pasturing and fallowing for the purpose of crop rotation of any agricultural commodity, including viticulture, apiculture, horticulture, and the breeding, feeding and raising of livestock, horses, fur-bearing animals, fish, or poultry and all uses conducted as a normal part of such operations; provided such actions are in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations.

The guidelines for coverage of Agricultural Operations and mechanisms for implementing the New Agricultural Lands Cap are discussed in detail in Section 6.2. The purpose of this discussion is to establish a process for monitoring New Agricultural Lands and for ensuring that Reserve Assembly activities are adjusted to account for New Agricultural Lands in the Criteria Area.

In order to verify the location of the Existing Agricultural Operations, the County will establish a database identifying Existing Agricultural Operations (“Existing Agricultural Operations Database”) on or before the Effective Date of the Implementing Agreement or the issuance of the Section 10(a) Permit and the NCCP Authorization. The New Agricultural Lands Cap of 10,000 acres within the Criteria Area will be applied to Agricultural Operations that are in addition to the activities recorded in the Existing Agricultural Operations Database. The 10,000 acre New Agricultural Lands Cap represents approximately 3 percent of the total acreage contained within the Criteria Area.

Existing Roads

Maintenance of existing roads within the Criteria Area is considered a Covered Activity under the Plan. Existing roads within the Criteria Area are not anticipated to be included in the total acreage of Additional Reserve Lands and will not be included in the MSHCP Conservation Area. However, maintenance and minor modifications to existing roads may result in impacts to listed species. Specified road maintenance activities as outlined in this section, are Covered Activities under the Plan. Existing roadways within the Criteria Area include interstates, freeways, State highways, City and County maintained roadways, as well as local roads, which are not City, or County maintained that provide property access. This latter category of other maintained roadways are generally maintained by the adjacent property owners, either individually or collectively. Table 7-3 in the MSHCP provides an estimate summarizing the extent of these various types of existing roadways which are permitted to remain within the Criteria Area.

Maintenance Activities on privately-maintained roads are afforded limited coverage, subject to the submittal of an application for Certificate of Inclusion. The covered Maintenance Activities for these roadways is substantially limited in scope, including only such grading as necessary to restore a smooth driving surface, maintain existing graded shoulders within the existing rights-of-way, and essential weed abatement, excluding the application of any herbicides. Guidelines are provided in Section 7.3.5 of the MSHCP which would minimize and avoid impacts to sensitive species and habitats occurring adjacent to the existing roadway. The Best Management Practices (BMPs) in Appendix C of the MSHCP would be applied as appropriate.

Some of the existing County maintained unpaved roads may be paved within the existing roadbed as future traffic, safety and/or environmental conditions warrant. In addition, safety improvements to other publicly maintained existing roadways within Public/Quasi-Public Lands are Covered Activities. Guidelines are provided in Section 7.3.5 of the MSHCP which would minimize and avoid impacts to sensitive species and Habitats occurring adjacent to the existing roadway. The BMPs in Appendix C of the MSHCP would be applied as appropriate. Covered maintenance activities include: signage, traffic control devices, guardrails and fences, pavement repairs, accident response, tree trimming, natural disaster damage/restoration of emergency access, storm drainage, weed control, grading shoulders (up to 12 feet), grading existing dirt roadways, dust stabilization, culverts/drop structures, curbs/gutters/sidewalks, roadway widening, berms, roadway resurfacing, ditch clearing, landscape maintenance, bridge maintenance, and roadway reconstruction.

Planned Roads

Planned roadways are defined as either existing facilities that require improvements (i.e., widening) or as new facilities to be constructed. Planned roadways include seven types of roadways, freeways, CETAP Corridors and other major facilities that have been identified as part of the General Plan circulation element (depicted in Figure 7-1 of the MSHCP). Planned roadways are depicted in a general fashion on the County Circulation Element. Only those roadways identified in Section 7 of the MSHCP are Covered Activities in the Criteria Area. Roadways other than those identified in this section are not covered without an amendment to the MSHCP in accordance with the procedures described in Section 6.10 of the MSHCP.

Roads with special environmental issues due to their location within particularly sensitive areas are listed in Table 7-4 of the MSHCP, which identifies specific considerations for design and alignment of these roads.

State Park Facilities

An Off- Highway Vehicle Park/State Vehicle Recreation Area (SVRA) may be constructed within Sections 12, 13, 24 T3S.R2W and Sections 18, 19 and 20 T3S.R1W and access developed to the site through sections 20, 21, 28, 29, 30, 31 and 32 T3SR1W. The SVRA may impact up to 1,200 acres including the active riding area, access roads, parking areas and other ancillary facilities. The siting of the facilities must comply with the terms of the MSHCP. The development of the SVRA is also required to comply with additional measures presented in Section 7.3.6 of the MSHCP.

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

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

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

Mount San Jacinto State Park and State Wilderness. This park facility includes 20 acres of campgrounds, five acres of parking areas, 10 acres of day use areas, one acre of administrative facilities, one acre of water facilities, 15 acres of roads and nine acres of trails. Future improvements will include a two-acre visitor center, five additional acres of parking, 15 additional acres of campgrounds, two additional acres of trails, and two additional acres of roads.

San Timoteo Park. Land is currently being acquired to establish a State Park. Existing improvements to the land include one acre of administrative facilities and eight acres of roads. Future improvements include a two-acre visitor center, five acres of parking areas, 15 acres of campgrounds, two acres of trails, and two additional acres of roads.

Anza-Borrego State Park. Within the MSHCP Plan Area this facility has five acres of administrative uses, 18 acres of roads, and five acres of trails. No future uses are proposed.

Flood Control Facilities

Within the Criteria Area, flood control facilities (improvements and new construction) that are undertaken by a Permittee are Covered Activities. Maintenance of existing flood control facilities within Public/Quasi Public Lands or the Criteria Area that is subject to an MOU or agreement with the Wildlife Agencies for such activities would be covered pursuant to those MOUs or agreements. Table 7-14 in the MSHCP contains a list of flood control facilities that have been identified as Covered Activities within the Criteria Area. It should be noted that some of the County Flood Control District lands have been included in the Public/Quasi-Public Lands database. Flood control activities within Public/Quasi-Public Lands are also Covered Activities pursuant to this section. As discussed in Section 7.1 of the MSHCP, facilities that are located outside of the Criteria Area are also Covered Activities.

The Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District ("County Flood Control") intends to implement flood control measures (including channelization or some other form or forms of engineered flood control) on the San Jacinto River between the Ramona Expressway and the mouth of Railroad Canyon ("San Jacinto River Project'). The County Flood Control anticipates the development of a flood control project for the San Jacinto River which is expected to reduce the flow to approximately 6,000 cubic feet per second at the Ramona Expressway during 100 year flood events. Other Covered Activities within the vicinity of the San Jacinto River include Ramona Expressway bridge and culvert, Nuevo Road bridge, San Jacinto Avenue crossing, I-215 bridge and levee, Case Road bridge, Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad bridge, Goetz Road bridge, Ethanac Road bridge, Perris Valley Storm Drain Channel and Romoland Channel. This facility would be subject to the criteria presented in Section 7.3.7 of the MSHCP.

Waste Management Facilities

Facilities located outside the Criteria Area are covered as outlined in Section 7.1 of the MSHCP. Operations, maintenance and expansion activities at these existing active waste management facilities within the Criteria Area and Public/Quasi-Public Lands will be Covered Activities if performed within the existing boundaries (ownership or lease area) of these facilities. Coverage for these activities is subject to satisfaction of all obligations identified in Section 13.6 of the Implementing Agreement. Although El Sobrante Landfill may be located within the MSHCP Conservation Area, activities at El Sobrante Landfill will be dictated by its approved HCP. Landfill operations and maintenance activities will be carried out in a manner consistent with regulatory authorizations and/or permits. Covered Activities also include development of waste related activities within the existing disturbed use areas at inactive landfill sites. Waste related activities include energy production (such as gas-to-energy operations), transfer and recycling facilities and state-mandated maintenance activities.

Future Facilities

Future facilities are facilities that are necessary to support planned Development. Certain future facilities have been preliminarily identified by the agencies responsible for their construction, operation and maintenance, while others have not been or cannot be identified and/or located at present. Future facilities that are carried out by a Permittee, Participating Special Entities and/or Third Parties Granted Take Authorization will be considered Covered Activities. The process for mitigation and/or contribution to Reserve Assembly for future facilities is described in Section 6.1.6 of the MSHCP.

There are three general categories of future facilities that may need to be located within either the Criteria Area, due to the fact that such facilities are linear, or involve engineering constraints that make avoidance of Criteria Areas not practicable Feasible. Such constraints may also require location of these facilities within Public/Quasi-Public Lands. If such is the case, all of the conditions described in this section for coverage of future facilities apply, with the addition of a requirement that impacts to Habitats within existing Public/Quasi-Public Lands shall be compensated by purchase and dedication into the MSHCP Conservation Area of land that is in addition to the Additional Reserve Lands. The three categories include: Water/Wastewater Facilities, Electrical Utility Facilities, and Natural Gas Facilities.

Water and wastewater facilities generally include by but are not limited to pipelines, pump stations, lift stations, force mains, reservoirs, wastewater treatment plants, filtration plants and appurtenant facilities. There are several potential future subtransmission projects planned by electric utility purveyors that may need to be located within the Criteria Area. These include new or upgraded/replacement transmission lines, and electrical generation facilities that require specific locations (e.g. water, and wind power facilities). Activities related to gas facilities will largely be comprised of operation and maintenance of gas utility purveyors' existing and planned facilities and pipelines. The following are examples of activities that may be conducted to install, test and maintain pipeline: ROW repair, including grading, blocking and dragging, below-grade pipe and coating inspections, leak excavations, installation or replacement of anodes, placement of cathodic protection units, repair of large pipeline washouts, and road improvements.

For facilities proposed within the Criteria Area where the area proposed for the facilities has not yet been assembled into the MSHCP Conservation Area, the facilities will be subject to the Criteria contained in Section 3 of the MSHCP. If the facilities are determined to meet the Criteria, construction of the facilities will proceed as a Covered Activity within the Criteria Area. If the facilities were determined not to be consistent with the Criteria, the facilities may still proceed as a Covered Activity within the Criteria Area, provided that either the location and/or characteristics of the facilities are modified to meet the Criteria, and/or the Criteria Area is amended through the Criteria Refinement Process identified in Section 6.5 of the MSHCP. Future facilities siting criteria are provided in Section 7.3.9 of the MSHCP.

2.11.1 Compatible Uses 2.11.4 Allowable Uses

Compatible Uses

The following uses are considered to be compatible with the overall conservation goals and objectives of the proposed MSHCP and are covered within the Conservation Area reserve system.

Reserve Management and Scientific Research Activities. Scientific research activities related to habitat conservation, monitoring, and habitat restoration and enhancement are covered within the reserve, subject to approval by the local managing entity and/or underlying landowner, as appropriate. Such scientific research activities shall be conducted in a manner consistent with the proposed MSHCP criteria, conditions of coverage for individual species, and proposed MSHCP adaptive management plan.

Emergency, Safety, and Police Services. Local, State and federal law enforcement entities will be allowed access to the reserve system, as necessary, to enforce the law. Medical, rescue, firefighting operations, and other emergency service providers will be allowed access to the reserve system to carry out operations necessary for the health, safety and welfare of the public. Local law enforcement agencies and other entities such as the National Guard or Immigration and Naturalization Service operating within the reserve system are subject to existing State and federal laws. The proposed MSHCP will not create additional permit requirements for these entities beyond those of existing State and federal laws.

Emergency Repairs. Public infrastructure facilities and utilities are currently located in areas anticipated to be included within the reserve system and may be constructed in the future in the reserve system in accordance with the covered activities described in this section. From time to time, emergency repairs may be required to these facilities as necessary for the health, safety and welfare of the public. Such activities will be covered within the reserve.

2.11.2 Conditionally Compatible Uses

The following uses are considered conditionally compatible with the overall conservation goals and objectives of the proposed MSHCP and are covered within the reserve subject to the guidelines and criteria detailed in Section 7.0 of the MSHCP, Volume I.

Public Access and Recreation. While the main goal of the proposed MSHCP reserve is to protect biological resources, another primary objective is to provide recreational and educational activities within the reserve. Because it gives the public an opportunity to experience and appreciate the natural environment that is being protected, public access is an important component of the proposed MSHCP. Public access, while permitted, would be via trails and potential future opportunities for nature centers. These activities are not part of the MSHCP and would be funded separately. By increasing awareness and appreciation for natural resources within the reserve, local residents and visitors can learn the importance of and practice of environmental stewardship. The covered public access uses within the proposed MSHCP reserve would consist of trail facilities and passive recreational activities.

Transportation Facilities. Two classifications of roadways have been identified and evaluated for the proposed MSHCP: existing and planned roadways. Existing roadways refer to those for which ongoing maintenance and safety improvements may be needed, but no new construction or widening involving addition of lanes is needed. Planned roadways are defined as existing facilities that require improvements (i.e., widening) or as new facilities to be constructed. Planned roadways include those types of roadways that have been identified as part of the General Plan Circulation Element.

Necessary operation and maintenance activities conducted for safety purposes shall be permitted in the reserve. These uses or activities include, but are not limited to: signage, pavement repairs, weed control, dust stabilization, accident response, repair of natural disaster damage, roadway resurfacing, bridge maintenance, and roadway widening.

Planned roadways, which include improvements to existing roadways and construction of new roadways, would not occur within the reserve. With different alternatives, roads may be conditionally covered. These roads were anticipated in existing General Plans of the 14 cities within western Riverside County and in existing approved projects. Planned roadways include the following:

Water-Related Activities. Water-related activities can be separated into two categories: flood control and water/wastewater activities. Flood control activities include projects with the main purpose of protecting people and property from flooding. Water/wastewater activities include most other water-related activities such as wastewater treatment, water storage, and pipeline projects.

For both water-related categories, covered activities within the proposed MSHCP reserve would consist of operations and maintenance activities at existing facilities and construction of new projects by water districts or agencies.

Covered flood control activities within the proposed MSHCP reserve would consist of the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District's (Flood Control District) future planned projects and operations, maintenance, and emergency activities at existing and planned flood control facilities. Existing flood control facilities include lined channels, unlined channels (including levees), basins, and dams throughout western Riverside County. Maintenance activities at existing facilities are essential to maintain hydraulic capacity and ensure public safety. Existing maintenance activities are carried out per an agreement with CDFG. Maintenance of existing flood control facilities within Public/Quasi Public Lands or the Criteria Area that is subject to an MOU or agreement with the Wildlife Agencies for such activities would be covered pursuant to those MOUs or agreements. It should be noted that some of the County Flood Control District lands have been included in the Public/Quasi-Public Lands database. Flood control activities within Public/Quasi-Public Lands are also Covered Activities pursuant to this section. As discussed in Section 7.1 of the MSHCP, facilities that are located outside of the Criteria Area are also Covered Activities.

Water districts would also be allowed to continue operations and maintenance activities at existing facilities. These existing facilities include filtration plants, reservoirs and appurtenant facilities, aqueducts, canals, pipelines, power plants and pumpback facilities, and water tanks.

Utilities. The main utility providers in western Riverside County are Southern California Edison (SCE) and Southern California Gas Company (The Gas Company). These utilities must be allowed to perform their operations, maintenance, and emergency activities to provide reliable and quality gas and electric service.

Existing facilities include generating facilities, substations, transmission (500 and 230 kilovolt [kV]) lines, subtransmission (115 and 66 kV) lines, and distribution (33, 12, and 4 kV) lines that were operational as of 2002. There are several potential future subtransmission projects planned by SCE that may need to be located within the reserve.

Proposed transmission line improvements would involve improvements to existing lines. In some cases, the existing facilities that would be improved traverse portions of the proposed reserve. The MSHCP puts forth a mechanism to utilize "take" permits; however, future facilities are not covered.

Covered utilities activities within the proposed MSHCP reserve would also comprise operation, maintenance, and emergency activities at the Gas Company's existing and planned facilities and pipelines. Because specified maintenance of natural gas pipelines is required by State and federal law to protect public safety, the Gas Company must have access to and be able to maintain all of their existing rights-of-way and to install new pipe where needed.

Waste Management. The Riverside County Waste Management Department is charged with the responsibility for meeting the solid waste disposal needs of all Riverside County residents by providing an integrated and cost-effective waste management system of facilities and programs that operates in compliance with federal, State, and local environmental and land use laws and regulations. The covered activities for the Waste Management Department would include operations and maintenance activities at its active, inactive, or closed landfills and other planned public waste facilities and/or expansion of existing facilities.

Operations and maintenance activities at existing waste management facilities would be covered if performed within the existing boundaries of these facilities. Existing and future waste management facilities would receive coverage and be provided mitigation with the MSHCP. Although El Sobrante Landfill may be located within the proposed MSHCP reserve, activities at El Sobrante Landfill will be dictated by its approved HCP. Landfill operations and maintenance activities will be carried out in a manner consistent with regulatory authorizations and/or permits. Covered Activities also include development of waste related activities within the existing disturbed use areas at inactive landfill sites. Waste related activities include energy production (such as gas-to-energy operations), transfer and recycling facilities and state-mandated maintenance activities.