Location: MSHCP > VOLUME 4 > APPENDIX A
The County of Riverside (County), in cooperation with the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and participating local governments, will prepare a joint Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement (EIR/EIS) for the proposed Western Riverside County Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP). The County is serving as the lead agency for the EIR and the USFWS will act as the lead agency under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for purposes of the EIS.
The County and other participating jurisdictions intend to request Endangered Species Act (ESA) permits for up to 142 species including federally threatened or endangered species and unlisted species that may become listed during the term of the permit. The permit is needed to authorize take of listed species (including harm, injury, and harassment) that may result from urban and rural development in the approximately 1.26 million-acre (around 1,966.7 square mile) study area in western Riverside County. The proposed MSHCP would identify activities resulting in the incidental take of federally listed species and covered species that may become listed during the term of the permit. Moreover, the proposed MSHCP will identify those actions necessary to conserve species within a reserve system of approximately 510,000 acres, including 26 federally listed species and other species and major habitat types identified for inclusion and management during the preparation of the MSHCP.
The County intends to prepare the joint EIR/EIS in accordance with Section 15168 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and NEPA.
A joint EIR/EIS is being prepared for the MSHCP. The first step in preparing the Draft EIR/EIS is conducting scoping in accordance with Section 15168 of the CEQA Guidelines and the Council on Environmental Quality Guidelines for implementing the NEPA (40 CFR 1500-1508). The purpose of the scoping process is to describe the proposed project and to solicit input from the general public and public agencies regarding the scope of the alternatives and analysis to be included in the EIR/EIS.
This Scoping Summary Report describes the process undertaken by Riverside County, and the USFWS to involve the public and to obtain comments on the proposed MSHCP. In addition, this document summarizes the issues and comments raised during the scoping period (August 2, 2001 to November 30, 2001) and also contains the actual comments received.
The scoping process was initiated with the preparation and distribution of a Notice of Preparation (NOP) for MSHCP and the publication of a Notice of Intent (NOI) in the Federal Register.
A NOP was circulated to public agencies and other interested parties in compliance with Section 15082 of the CEQA Guidelines in October, 2000. The NOP is provided in Attachment 1, and the NOP mailing list is provided in Attachment 2. A NOI (Attachment 3) was published on September 7, 2001, in the Federal Register in compliance with federal regulation 40 CFR 1508.28. The NOI mailing list is provided in Attachment 4. Both the NOI and NOP are intended to inform public agencies and the public about the project and the environmental review process. Comments and suggestions were invited from all interested parties in order to ensure that the full range of issues related to the proposed improvements is addressed, and all significant issues identified, in the Draft EIR/EIS.
The public notice (Attachment 5) for the Public Scoping meetings was sent to the Press Enterprise and La Prensa. Public Scoping notices were published in the Press Enterprise on October 22, 2001. The Californian posted the advisory on its website and the Press Enterprise and the La Prensa both reported on the first MSHCP scoping meeting (Attachment 5). Publication dates of the notice in each publication were as follows:
In addition, information about the MSHCP is available on an ongoing basis via the Internet at www.rcip.org. The Riverside County Integrated Plan (RCIP) website provides comprehensive information about the RCIP planning process, including the MSHCP studies. The RCIP website also provides an opportunity to e-mail comments and questions directly to the project team. Notices of the scoping meeting were posted on the RCIP website.
The largest minority population within western Riverside County is Hispanic, who comprise approximately 28 percent of the population in this area. Minority ethnic groups are concentrated in a few specific areas, which result in clusters of high percentage minority populations. Two examples include the community of Perris, where almost 60 percent of the population reports being of Hispanic descent, and neighborhoods in south Lake Elsinore, west of I-15, where about 50 percent of the residents are Hispanic (source: U.S. Census Bureau). To notify Spanish-speaking people within the project area, public notices in Spanish were published in La Prensa on October 19, 2001.
Two scoping meetings were held in different locations within the study area in the month of October and November, 2001. The first meeting was held at the Temecula Library at 41000 County Center Drive in the City of Temecula on Monday October 29, 2001, from 4:00 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. The second meeting was held at the Perris Branch Cesar Chavez Library at 163 San Jacinto Avenue in the City of Perris, on Wednesday November 7, 2001, from 4:00 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. Between 35 and 70 people attended the two meetings. The scoping meetings included exhibits and informational handouts about the project to help participants learn about the planning and environmental review process and to consider the alternatives and issues under consideration.
The scoping meetings were conducted in an "open house" format. As participants entered the meetings, they were provided informational materials on the project and a comment card for the submittal of written comments and questions about the MSHCP. Several information stations were set up with display boards to provide information. Representatives of the MSHCP and project consultants were available throughout the meeting to answer individual questions. A seating area was provided to enable participants to complete their comment cards and to allow an opportunity to obtain additional clarification from project team members about the alternatives and the study process. An interpreter for the hearing impaired and another one for non-English speaking participants were provided.
This informal, "drop by" format of the scoping meetings was intended to provide a relaxed setting and afford interested citizens with an opportunity to comment on or question the issues as their schedules allowed. Project team members were positioned near each information station, to provide information and respond to questions. Meeting participants could stay for as long as they chose, to learn about the project at their own pace, and to pose their specific questions and concerns.
The informational handout distributed at the scoping meetings is included in Attachment 6, as well as the attendance list. The materials include information sheets, about RCIP and the environmental process, and the NOP.
The handouts provided an overview of the RCIP elements, of which MSHCP is one component, and explained the environmental review process.
Comments in response to the NOP received by November 30, 2001 are included in Attachment 7. Many of the comments received identified areas of concern that the commentors expected to have the County and USFWS analyze in the Draft EIR/EIS. All of the major comments will be considered by the County and the USFWS in developing the alternatives to be analyzed in the Draft EIR/EIS. Except where noted, these issues will be addressed in the appropriate sections of the Draft EIR/EIS. The comment letters have been organized into the following categories:
Letters received in response to the issuance of the NOP/NOI for the MSHCP provided valuable insights into the issues and concerns of potentially affected agencies, groups, and individuals. While many of the letters identified topics that are required to be included in the Draft EIR/EIS, the information and opinions provided in the letters identify specific issues to be addressed in the Draft EIR/EIS. Some of the major issues raised in the letters are listed below. However, for a more detailed understanding of the issues and opinions expressed, please see the complete set of the NOP/NOI response letters provided in Attachment 7.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Region IX. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has written one letter containing both recommendations and concerns in regards to the MSHCP. Included in the comment letter are also General Scoping Comments. The following is a summary of the recommendations and concerns toward the MSHCP and its environmental analysis:
State of California, Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). The NAHC recommends that the following actions be taken in order to adequately access potential impacts to archaeological resources in the Draft EIR/EIS:
The CDFG requests that the Draft EIR/EIS address potential impacts to riparian resources, areas occupied by threatened and endangered species, endemic plants, and rare and remaining blocks of native plant species. The CDFG has several concerns, which have been listed below:
The Department of Parks and Recreation manages the Lake Perris portion of the San Jacinto, Lake Perris (SJ/LP) core reserve. The Department has an interest and concern about potential land use changes and regional conservation planning efforts in this area because of the biotic boundaries of the core reserve which will extend well beyond its jurisdictional boundaries. The following is a list of the Department's comments and concerns.
SCAG responded to the NOP as the area wide clearinghouse for regionally significant project. Ths activity is based on SCAG's responsibilities as a regional planning organization pursuant to state and federal regulations. SCAG has requested that the EIR/EIS specifically cite appropriate SCAG policies and addresses the manner in which the MSHCP is consistent with applicable core policies or supportive of applicable ancillary policies.
County of San Bernardino Land Use Services Department. San Bernardino County is also pursuing the preparation of a MSHCP for the Valley portion of San Bernardino County (Chino Hills to Yucaipa). Many of the wildlife corridors, open space, and habitat areas are located along the contiguous County boundary. Hence, San Bernardino County looks forward to coordinating the planning, development, and implementation of the MSHCPs for these conservation/preserve areas and wildlife transportation corridors.
California Regional Water Quality Control Board. The California Regional Water Control Board has written a letter containing recommendations for the creation of preserves.
The MSHCP should take into consideration the creation of preserves that effectively protect the beneficial uses of water that riparian, aquatic, or flood dependent federal and state listed species require. This will require that:
Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD). There are two comment letters from this agency. The first letter contains several comments on CETAP and the General Plan for Riverside County. In addition, the following comments in regards to MSHCP were the same in both comment letters.
Attached to this correspondence is a copy of "Guidelines for Development in the Area of Facilities, Fee Properties, and/or Easements of the Metropolitan Water District of Souther California."
County of Orange Planning & Development Services Department. The County of Orange has no comment at this time, but would like to receive a complete copy of the Draft EIR/EIS when it becomes available.
County of Riverside Transportation and Land Management Agency. The County of Riverside requests that the USFWS extend its public comment period on the NOI.
Sierra Club, San Gorgonio Chapter. The Sierra Club submitted two letters, which provide comments and outline several areas of concerns.
Friends of the Northern San Jacinto Valley. The Friends of the Northern San Jacinto Valley requested that the following issues be included in the EIR/EIS:
Ingrid Baddour & Associates, Commercial Realtors. This commercial real estate broker stated that the scoping meetings and document reviewing locations may meet the minimal legal requirements for public disclosure but under any consideration, this minimizes the laws requiring open and meaningful meetings to solicit public input.
Friends of Live Oak Canyon. Live Oak Canyon is bordered by I-10, the Redlands City line, and San Timoteo Canyon.
Center for Biological Diversity. This agency centers around protecting endangered species and wild plants of Western North America and the Pacific. Their recommendations and concerns are as follows:
Center for Conservation Biology, University of California, Riverside. The scientific review panel has reviewed the Alternatives Development Document for Western Riverside MSHCP. The panel has written an eight-page letter offering several critical evaluations for the County of Riverside to consider.
Jackson, DeMarco & Peckenpaugh - representing - Murdock Development. Murdock Development owns property in the County which may be subject to the MSHCP. Murdock Development believes that the NOP for the MSHCP EIR/EIS is inadequate for the following reasons:
The County must at a minimum analyze the following potentially significant adverse impact areas resulting from implementation of the MSHCP:
MSHCP Process, in its present form, violates CEQA.
The MSHCP process as conceived is excessive, adds additional regulations, violates constitutional rights, and should be slowed down.
Friends of the Forest (Trabuco District) and Santa Rosa Plateau (FOF [TD] SRP). This nonprofit corporation is dedicated to the protection, preservation, and monitoring the environmental integrity of the Trabuco District of the Cleveland National Forest and the Santa Rosa Plateau. The FOF (TD) SRP has the following comments:
California Native Plant Society (CNPS). This private organization has several issues regarding botanical resources that should be addressed in the MSHCP EIR/EIS.
Jackson, DeMarco & Peckenpaugh -representing - Domenigoni-Barton Properties. Domenigoni-Barton Properties owns land in the County which may be subject to the MSHCP. There were two letters sent in regards to the MSHCP. The first letter is requesting that the public comment period be extended. The second letter states that Domenigoni-Barton believes that before releasing the MSHCP EIR/EIS, the work products should be revised to:
San Bernardino Valley Audubon Society. The San Bernardino Valley Audubon Society has expressed several concerns and has requested that the EIR/EIS comply and include the following requirements.
Riverside Land Conservancy. The San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board has identified a vital need to restore the Lower Warm Springs Creek. Attached are two study area maps. The Conservancy's intent is to ensure the following concerns are addressed:
Bryant, Judy. She would like the largest amount of land possible set aside. The growth that this plan provides for cannot be accommodated in this area. Growth should be minimized including no new roads, and that federal dollars should be used for a commuter rail system. Riverside County needs a much stronger right to farm law. It needs to allow farmers to continue operating over the objections of new housing development neighbors. She suggests that farmers could leave their land to the forest service, who will find people to farm the land so that it will always remain farm land.
Bryant, James. Included in the proposed alternatives should be a "No further development" alternative. This is the only alternative that can logically be assumed to provide the greatest assurance of protection for all listed species. There is no scientific foundation that any of the listed species could survive on less habitat than what presently exists, nor whether reclamation efforts are successful. The County's biological infrastructure should be as large an obligation as transportation or socioeconomic infrastructures. Owners of undeveloped lands should be required to demonstrate that any activities are in compliance with ESA. It must be recognized that very little is known about successful management of species and their habitat. We can expect to be much more successful if we seek primarily to limit the development of land. A more detailed analysis should be performed of the public services and socioeconomic effects of the MSHCP. Public services should be heavily impacted, as habitat management/ preservation should become a major obligation of County resources. It is time for the County and local residents to do their part and commit their assets to the preservation of the region's natural legacy, to designate critical lands, and acquire them. These resources should not be allowed to dribble away through a piece meal "criteria based approach." Any analysis of the economic effects of implementation has been focused on the costs associated with the reserve system and should also be equally focused on the benefits of the reserve system. Economic benefits would be realized in the following areas: safety, health, conservation, tourism, and recreation.
Christ, Roberta. Tenaja Community Services District governs 6,400 acres of prime habitat located between the Santa Rosa Plateau Preserve and The Cleveland National Forest. The Nature Conservancy has bought 20 percent of this district, which is zoned 5-acre minimum residential and contains about 60 homes. Property taxes are very high, but no services are provided. Please put our community on your priority list for working with the community and consider incentives like property tax relief to stimulate a positive wildlife friendly response.
Drummond, Paula. Please include the American Indian archeological site located at Mocking Bird Canyon Road and Harley John (also known as lot 63 tract 9842) which is owned by Riverside County. It not only has an "Indian kitchen," dwelling place, and petroglyph site, but is home to the gnatcatcher, butterflies, frogs, and lizards.
Grant, G.B. Public transportation will only become popular when the average individual cannot afford their own transportation. So don't look for support while that condition does not exist. USFWS must create a program whereby propagation of endangered species is qualified and verified. Land for conservation is not the answer, population control is.
Grant, Terry. I have lived in the Anza area of Riverside County for over 20 years. We do not need to save any more rats, bugs or endangered species, just people. In the past years you have not given this area any services, we do just fine without you. Please stay out of this area and do not take our land.
Hankins, Anthony. Wildlife should not be limited to reserves away from the general populace. Wildlife should be encouraged to stay in the cities as well. Some people, including farmers plow their fields completely leaving no home for wildlife. They should be encouraged by law to only plow what is necessary for firebreaks. Leave us the owl, falcon, rabbits, squirrels, snakes, and tarantulas, etc. I believe it makes mankind richer to be in touch with everyday nature.
Harker, Bill. People come first. The purpose of MSHCP is to facilitate the involvement of people. That should be the first priority. Therefore, the routing should be designed to move people in the most quickest manner, taking topography and cost effectiveness into consideration. Special attention should be paid to property rights. Species, wetlands, habitats, etc. should receive secondary priority.
Responses to the NOIs and NOPs identified a number of issues that will be addressed in the Draft EIR/EIS for the MSHCP. Some of the key issues included the following:
The responses received during the scoping process will be considered in the preparation of the Draft EIR/EIS and addressed to the greatest extent possible based upon the plans developed to date. All respondents and meeting participants will be included in the MSHCP public mailing lists to ensure their involvement throughout the project development.
The following discussion is a summary of alternatives suggested during the public scoping process. In some cases, the alternatives suggested include alternatives that were considered earlier in the MSHCP planning process, but were eliminated from consideration. In other cases, the suggested alternatives include new alignments.