Location: MSHCP > VOLUME 5 > COMMENT LETTERS
A-1 Responses A-2 through A-36 are provided below. The public review period for the Draft MSHCP and Draft EIS/EIR closed on January 15, 2003; however, the NEPA review period for the Plan and EIS/EIR was reopened on February 28, 2003 and closed on March 14, 2003.
A-2 A four component Conservation Strategy is identified for each Covered Species in the Draft MSHCP consisting of 1) a global biological goal; 2) global biological objectives; 3) species-specific objectives; and 4) management and monitoring activities. The Conservation Strategy for each species identifies the specific conservation requirements for each species and, for some species, calls for surveys outside the Criteria Area, to ensure that the species-specific Conservation Strategy is met (see Figures 6-1, 6-3, 6-4 and 6-5 of the Draft MSHCP). The information and analyses provided in the Draft MSHCP will be used by the Wildlife Agencies in their determinations regarding the permit issuance and FESA and NCCP criteria must be met for all species on the Covered Species list. Since more specific information is not provided regarding species for which "the criteria for permit coverage are not met," a more specific response is not possible.
A-3 The National Forest Management Act (NFMA) provides regulations that prescribe how land and resource management planning is to be conducted on National Forest System lands. Management is carried out under a forest management plan pursuant to the NFMA. Species noted in the comment are forest sensitive species which are managed in accordance with the forest management plan.
The species accounts for San Bernardino mountain kingsnake, San Diego mountain kingsnake, southern rubber boa, black swift, California spotted owl, MacGillivray's warbler, northern goshawk, Williamson's sapsucker, San Bernardino flying squirrel, California beardtongue, California bedstraw, chickweed oxytheca, lemon lily, ocellated Humboldt lily and San Jacinto Mountains bedstraw recognize that much of the Conservation for these species will occur on Forest Service lands. Other features incorporated in the MSHCP will also benefit these species as noted on the table on the following pages.
As noted in the Draft MSHCP, Swainson's hawk, merlin and peregrine falcon have sparse and widespread distribution throughout the Plan Area, on Forest Service lands, other Public/Quasi-Public (PQP) Lands, and within the Criteria Area. Swainson's hawk is generally present in the Plan Area only during transient migratory movements and the Plan will benefit this species by providing 141,960 acres of suitable foraging Habitat. Likewise, merlin is generally present in the Plan Area only during transient migratory movements and the Plan will benefit this species by providing 193,840 acres of suitable foraging Habitat. Peregrine falcon is primarily a fall transient but has been known to nest in the Plan Area; it has been observed at almost every open water body in the Plan Area and is present in Prado Basin on a regular basis. The Plan will benefit peregrine falcon by providing over 15,000 acres of open water Habitat and providing a 100m buffer around these open water areas as they are incorporated into the MSHCP Conservation Area. Based on these features incorporated in the Plan, it is expected that existing patterns of use by these species in the Plan Area will continue with implementation of the MSHCP.
Lincoln's sparrow has a sparse and widespread distribution throughout the Plan Area within a variety of Habitats and is a rare breeder within the mountain Bioregions. Lincoln's sparrow will not become a Covered Species Adequately Conserved until the requirements outlined in species-specific Objective 3 for this species are met. This objective requires protection of breeding Habitat for Lincoln's sparrow and documentation of successful reproduction. Approximately 190,390 acres of wintering Habitat for Lincoln's sparrow will be conserved within the Plan Area.
The Lead Agencies agree that Conservation of the species referenced in the comment depends on management of Forest Service lands. The Final MSHCP retains these species on the Covered Species list but states that some of these species will be moved to the list of Covered Species Adequately Conserved only upon execution of an MOU with the Forest Service regarding management activities associated with these species. For the remainder of these species, it was concluded that features are already incorporated in the MSHCP that provide for protection of these species. This information is clearly summarized on the forest species table reproduced on the following pages.
In addition, the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) provides regulations that prescribe how land and resource management planning is to be conducted on National Forest system lands. Management is carried out under a forest management plan pursuant to the NFMA. Species noted in the comment are forest sensitive species which are managed in accordance with the forest management plan.
| MSHCP FOREST SPECIES LIST | ||
|---|---|---|
| Common Name Scientific Name | Conservation Contribution by Permittees | Incidental Take Summary |
| AMPHIBIANS | ||
| mountain yellow-legged frog Rana mucosa |
Additional surveys will be required as part of the project review process for public and private projects and detected populations will be protected according procedures in Section 6.3.2. • Primary habitat for this species includes riparian scrub and water bodies. Implementation of the Protection of Species Associated with Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pool Policy (see Section 6.1.2) would benefit this species. |
• Approximately 138 acres (29 percent) of suitable primary breeding habitat and 11,459 (26 percent) of potentially suitable secondary habitat (11,597 acres total [26 percent]), would be located outside the MSHCP Conservation Area and individuals within these areas will be subject to Incidental Take consistent with the Plan. |
| REPTILES | ||
| San Bernardino mountain kingsnake1 Lampropeltis zonata parvirubra |
• Funding for the MSHCP Plan includes provisions for transfer of local funding for management that will benefit the entire MSHCP Conservation Area. | • Approximately 7,571 acres (26 percent) of potential habitat for the San Bernardino mountain kingsnake would be outside the MSHCP Conservation Area and individuals within these areas will be subject to Incidental Take consistent with the Plan. |
| San Diego mountain kingsnake1 Lampropeltis zonata pulchra |
Conservation of 717 acres (9%) of suitable habitat within the Criteria Area would occur. | Approximately 2,723 acres (26 percent) of potential habitat for the San Diego mountain kingsnake would be outside the MSHCP Conservation Area and individuals within these areas will be subject to Incidental Take consistent with the Plan. |
| southern rubber boa1 Charina bottae umbratica |
Funding for the MSHCP Plan includes provisions for transfer of local funding for management that will benefit the entire MSHCP Conservation Area. | Incidental Take of the southern rubber boa is difficult to quantify due to our limited knowledge of the species distribution within the Plan Area and the fact that losses may be masked by fluctuations in abundance and distribution during the life of the permit. However, the maximum level of Take of the southern rubber boa can be anticipated by the loss of the number of acres of habitat that will become unsuitable for this species, and individuals within these areas will be subject to Incidental Take consistent with the Plan. Approximately 155 acres (5 percent) of potential habitat for the southern rubber boa would be outside the MSHCP Conservation Area. |
| southern sagebrush lizard1 Sceloporus graciosus vandenburgianus |
Funding for the MSHCP Plan includes provisions for transfer of local funding for management that will benefit the entire MSHCP Conservation Area. | Approximately 10,246 acres (20 percent) of potential habitat for the sagebrush lizard would be outside the MSHCP Conservation Area and individuals within these areas will be subject to Incidental Take consistent with the Plan. Eleven (42 percent) of the 26 precision code "1" or "2" records would be outside the MSHCP Conservation Area. |
| BIRDS | ||
| black swift (breeding) Cypseloides niger |
This species is known to nest at waterfalls. Implementation of the Protection of Species Associated with Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pool Policy (see Section 6.1.2) would benefit this species. | The Incidental Take of the black swift is difficult to quantify due to our limited knowledge of its distribution and abundance within the Plan Area. The maximum level of Incidental Take of black swift can be anticipated by the loss of the number of acres of habitat. Approximately 12,270 acres (27 percent) of potential habitat for the black swift will be outside the Criteria Area and Public/Quasi-Public Land designations and individuals within this area will be subject to Incidental Take consistent with the Plan. No known nesting locations will be subject to Take. |
| California spotted owl1 Strix occidentalis occidentalis |
No take of active nest sites will occur. | Approximately 16,000 acres (about 28 percent) of potential habitat for the California spotted owl will be outside the Criteria Area or Public/Quasi-Public designations, and individuals within these areas will be subject to Incidental Take consistent with the Plan. Approximately five locations from the CDFG database appear to be located outside of the Criteria Area or Public/Quasi-Public designations. Only one of these five locations outside of the MSHCP Conservation Area has been recorded as nesting (1988). No other known nesting areas are outside the Criteria Area or Public/Quasi-Public designations. No take of nesting locations is included within this permit. |
| Lincoln's sparrow (breeding) Melospiza lincolnii |
This species is know to nest in meadows and montane riparian/riparian scrub. Implementation of the Protection of Species Associated with Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pool Policy (see Section 6.1.2) would benefit this species. Approximately 70 acres (7%) of breeding habitat would be conserved within the Criteria Area. Approximately 114,790 acres (60%) of wintering habitat would be conserved within the Criteria Area. Foraging areas in lowlands occurring within the Criteria Area would be used by this species during migration. | The Incidental Take of the Lincoln's sparrow is difficult to quantify due to our limited knowledge of its distribution and abundance within the Plan Area. The maximum level of Incidental Take of Lincoln's sparrow can be anticipated by the loss of the number of acres of habitat that will become unsuitable for this species. About 580 acres (55 percent) of potential breeding habitat for the Lincoln's sparrow will be outside the Criteria Area and Public/Quasi-Public lands, and individuals within this habitat will be subject to Incidental Take consistent with the Plan upon satisfaction of Objective 2 above. Of this area, approximately 30 acres (3 percent) will be within Rural/Mountainous designation areas. Although these areas will not be part of the managed MSHCP Conservation Area and the existing zoning/ordinances for these areas do not preclude development and could allow substantial fragmentation and/or degradation of habitat for proposed covered species, the anticipated levels of development in these areas may be consistent with the continued presence of the Lincoln's sparrow, although Lincoln's sparrow tends to be of insular distribution for nesting and thus may be sensitive to fragmentation of its suitable breeding habitat. Take of nests of Lincoln's sparrow is not covered by the MSHCP Plan. About 219,670 acres (54 percent) of potential wintering habitat for the Lincoln's sparrow will be outside the Criteria Area and Public/Quasi-Public Lands and individuals within this habitat will be subject to Incidental Take consistent with the Plan. |
| MacGillivray's warbler Oporornis tolmiei |
This species is known to forage and breed in wetland habitats. Implementation of the Protection of Species Associated with Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pool Policy (see Section 6.1.2) would benefit this species. Approximately 125,230 acres (19%) of suitable habitat would be conserved within the Criteria Area. Foraging areas in lowlands occurring within the Criteria Area would be used by this species during migration. | About 240,570 acres (36 percent) of potential habitat for the MacGillivray's warbler will be outside the Criteria Area or Public/Quasi-Public designations, and individuals within these areas will be subject to Incidental Take consistent with the Plan. |
| mountain quail Oreortyx pictus |
Approximately 19,800 acres (6%) of suitable habitat would be conserved within the Criteria Area. During wintering, this species is known to move downslope into areas within the Criteria Area (i.e. Wasson Canyon). | About 93,800 acres (29 percent) of potential habitat for the mountain quail will be outside the Criteria Area and Public/Quasi-Public designations and individuals within these areas will be subject to Incidental Take consistent with the Plan. Additionally, approximately 32,730 acres of potential habitat (10 percent) are designated Rural/Mountainous and individuals within these areas will be subject to Incidental Take consistent with the Plan. |
| Nashville warbler Vermivora ruficapilla |
Approximately 125,230 acres (19%) of suitable breeding, dispersal and migration habitat would be conserved within the Criteria Area. Foraging areas in lowlands occurring within the Criteria Area would be used by this species during migration. This species is know to breed in wetland habitats. Implementation of the Protection of Species Associated with Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pool Policy (see Section 6.1.2) would benefit this species. | About 240,570 acres (about 36 percent) of potential breeding and dispersal/migration habitat for the Nashville warbler will be outside the Criteria Area or Public/Quasi-Public designations, and individuals within these areas will be subject to Incidental Take consistent with the Plan. The area outside the MSHCP Conservation Area includes 71,100 acres of breeding habitat within the mountain Bioregions and 169,470 acres of dispersal/migration habitat. Of this, approximately 91,510 acres (14 percent) of potential habitat are located within Rural/Mountainous designation areas. While the Rural/Mountainous areas are not included within the MSHCP Conservation Area and will not be managed for the benefit of wildlife, the anticipated levels of development in these areas will likely be consistent with maintaining some habitat for the Nashville warbler. Two point locations will be in the Rural/Mountainous zone. Two high precision recent points are located outside the MSHCP Conservation Area and are located in non-native grassland observed during migration due to the lowland location. The known nest location areas are not outside the MSHCP Conservation Area. |
| northern goshawk Accipiter gentilis |
No take of active nest sites will occur throughout the Plan Area. | About 12,270 acres (27 percent) of potential habitat for the northern goshawk will be outside the Criteria Area and Public/Quasi-Public and individuals within this habitat will be subject to Incidental Take consistent with the Plan. No nest sites are known outside the MSHCP Conservation Area; however no systematic surveys have been conducted to locate nest sites for this species outside the MSHCP Conservation Area. No take of active nest sites will be permitted. |
| purple martin Progne subis |
This species is known to nest in wetland habitats. Implementation of the Protection of Species Associated with Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pool Policy (see Section 6.1.2) would benefit this species. One of three known nest sites occurs in the Criteria Area. | About 17,810 acres (about 28 percent)of potential Habitat for the purple martin will be outside the Criteria Area and Public/Quasi-Public designations, and individuals within these areas will be subject to Incidental Take consistent with the Plan. Of this, approximately 4,840 acres (8 percent) will be within Rural/Mountainous designation areas. Although these areas will not be part of the managed MSHCP Conservation Area the anticipated levels of development in these areas will likely be consistent with the continued presence of the purple martin. The historic breeding location of the purple martin at Hemet Lake is not included within the MSHCP Conservation Area, however this site may no longer be viable and may not be active. |
| Williamson's sapsucker1 Sphyrapicus thyroideus |
Inclusion of potential nesting habitat (i.e., groups of large snags) would occur within the MSHCP Conservation Area. | About 12,270 acres (27 percent) of potential Habitat for the Williamson's sapsucker will be outside the Criteria Area or Public/Quasi-Public designations, and individuals within this Habitat will be subject to Incidental Take consistent with the plan. Of this, approximately 890 acres (2 percent) of potential Habitat are located within Rural/Mountainous designation areas. This does not represent a significant contribution to the conservation of the Williamson's sapsucker and the areas are located outside of the important breeding Habitat for the species. |
| Wilson's warbler Wilsonia pusilla |
This species is know to nest in montane meadows and riparian scrub, woodlands and forests. Implementation of the Protection of Species Associated with Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pool Policy (see Section 6.1.2) would benefit this species. Approximately 15,700 acres (6%) of breeding habitat would be conserved within the Criteria Area. Approximately 116,780 acres (28%) of transient movement habitat would be conserved within the Criteria Area. Foraging areas in lowlands occurring within the Criteria Area would be used by this species during migration. | The Incidental Take of the Wilson's warbler is difficult to quantify due to our limited knowledge of its distribution and abundance within the Plan Area. The maximum level of Incidental Take of Wilson's warblers can be anticipated by the loss of the number of acres of potential Habitat that will become unsuitable for this species. About 71,030 acres (26 percent) of potential breeding Habitat for the Wilson's warbler will be outside the Criteria Area and Public/Quasi-Public Lands designations and individuals within these areas will be subject to Incidental Take consistent with the Plan. Of this, approximately 39,460 acres (15 percent) will be within Rural/Mountainous designation areas. About 219,680 acres (53 percent) potential transient migratory movement Habitat for the Wilson's warbler will be outside the Criteria Area and Public/Quasi-Public Lands designations. Of this, approximately 58,800 acres (14 percent) will be within Rural/Mountainous designation areas. Although these areas will not be part of the managed MSHCP Conservation Area, the anticipated levels of development in these areas may be consistent with the continued presence of the Wilson's warbler. |
| MAMMALS | ||
| San Bernardino flying squirrel Glaucomys sabrinus californicus |
Funding for the MSHCP Plan includes provisions for transfer of local funding for management that will benefit the entire MSHCP Conservation Area. | About 9,404 acres (33 percent) of suitable habitat in the San Jacinto Mountains Bioregion is on private ownerships outside of the MSHCP Conservation Area. This suitable habitat is on private lands in the areas of Pine Cove, Idyllwild, Mountain Center, Hemet Lake and various other private inholdings within the forest. Any proposed Incidental Take of habitat on USFS or State Park lands would be consistent with approved activities for those lands. |
| PLANTS | ||
| Beautiful hulsea ( Hulsea vestita ssp. callicarpha) |
Approximately 5,400 acres (4%) of suitable habitat would be conserved within the Criteria Area. In accordance with Species Objective 2 for this species, 12 known occurrences will be conserved, including occurrences at Lake Hemet. | Approximately 36,060 acres (25 percent) of potential habitat for beautiful hulsea will not be conserved. According to the UCR database and herbarium records, 19 of the mapped locations are located on private lands and will not be conserved. Of these 19 mapped locations, however, 18 are dated 1970 or earlier. |
| California beardtongue Penstemon californicus |
Approximately 7,160 acres (4%) of suitable habitat would be conserved within the Criteria Area. • Although the majority of known occurrences are on Forest Service lands, other known localities include Hemet Valley, the vicinity of Diamond Valley Lake, Tenaja Road in the Santa Rosa Plateau, Aguanga and Sage. |
Approximately 52,100 acres (31 percent) of potential habitat for California beardtongue will not be conserved. According to the UCR herbarium and UCR database, three of the mapped locations, including one locality in the San Jacinto Mountains and the two outliers in Cactus Valley and north of Sage will not be conserved. According to the CNDDB, one of the mapped locations is within a private in-holding in the San Jacinto Mountains approximately two miles north of the intersection of Highway 74 and Highway 371 and will not be conserved. |
| California bedstraw1 Galium californicum ssp. primum |
Funding for the MSHCP Plan includes provisions for transfer of local funding for management that will benefit the entire MSHCP Conservation Area. | Approximately 9,180 acres (18 percent) of potential habitat for California bedstraw will not be conserved and will be subject to impacts consistent with the Plan. Within the UCR database, two of the mapped locations are located outside of the MSHCP Conservation Area within San Timoteo Canyon west of Beaumont and within the vicinity of the Diamond Valley Lake. According to the CNDDB, one of the mapped locations within the San Jacinto Mountains is located within a private in-holding and will not be conserved. |
| California muhly Muhlenbergia californica |
This species occurs near mesic seeps or along streambanks. Implementation of the Protection of Species Associated with Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pool Policy (see Section 6.1.2) and General Management Measure 4, maintenance of wetland habitat conditions, would benefit this species Approximately 112,180 acres (19%) of suitable habitat would be conserved within the Criteria Area. | Approximately 221,350 acres of potential habitat will not be included in the MSHCP Conservation Area. This species occurs at Sage, Aguanga, Estelle Mountain, Gavilan Hills, Gavilan Plateau, near Prado Dam, La Paz Canyon, Temescal Canyon, and Sitton Peak in the Santa Ana Mountains (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Unpublished Data). Some or all of the occurrences at these localities may be conserved within the MSHCP Conservation Area. |
| chickweed oxytheca Oxytheca caryophylloides |
Funding for the MSHCP Plan includes provisions for transfer of local funding for management that will benefit the entire MSHCP Conservation Area. | Approximately 9,200 acres (33 percent) of potential habitat for chickweed oxytheca will not be conserved. According to the UCR database and herbarium records, four of the mapped locations are located on private lands or within road right-of-way and will not be conserved. Of these four mapped locations, however, three are dated 1924 and the third dates from 1978. |
| Cleveland's bush monkeyflower1 Mimulus clevelandii |
Funding for the MSHCP Plan includes provisions for transfer of local funding for management that will benefit the entire MSHCP Conservation Area. | Approximately 790 acres of potential habitat for Cleveland's bush monkeyflower will not be conserved in the MSHCP Conservation Area. One of the records (in the foothills of the Agua Tibia Mountains) will not be conserved. |
| cliff cinquefoil Potentilla rimicola |
Funding for the MSHCP Plan includes provisions for transfer of local funding for management that will benefit the entire MSHCP Conservation Area. | Approximately 10 acres (less than 1 percent) of potential habitat for cliff cinquefoil will not be conserved. None of the known occurrences will be located outside of the MSHCP Conservation Area. |
| Hall's monardella Monardella macrantha ssp. hallii |
Approximately 15,260 acres (5%) of suitable habitat would be conserved within the Criteria Area. | Approximately 83,530 acres (27 percent) of potential habitat for Hall's monardella will not be included within the Criteria Area or existing Public/ Quasi-Public Lands. None of the known occurrences for this species will be outside the MSHCP Conservation Area. |
| lemon lily1 Lilium parryi |
Funding for the MSHCP Plan includes provisions for transfer of local funding for management that will benefit the entire MSHCP Conservation Area. | Approximately 1,170 acres (10 percent) of potential habitat for lemon lily will not be conserved. Of the records in the UCR database and the herbaria at UCR and Rancho Santa Ana Botanic Gardens, five of the mapped locations are located on private lands within the San Jacinto Mountains and will not be conserved. |
| Mojave tarplant Deinandra mohavensis |
Approximately 7,150 acres (7%) of suitable habitat would be conserved within the Criteria Area. | Approximately 27,850 acres (26 percent) of potential habitat for Mojave tarplant will not be conserved. According to the University of California, Riverside, GIS database, the mapped location along the Banning Idyllwild Panoramic Highway is located on private lands and will not be conserved. According to the CNDDB, an occurrence within the San Jacinto Mountains is located outside of the MSHCP Conservation Area (road right-of-way)and will not be conserved. |
| ocellated Humboldt lily1 Lilium humboldtii ssp. ocellatum |
Approximately 1,070 acres (9%) of suitable habitat would be conserved within the Criteria Area. | Approximately 3,820 acres (33 percent) of potential habitat for ocellated Humboldt lily will not be included in the MSHCP Conservation Area. The two historic (1955 and 1966) localities in Horsethief Canyon and near Corona, will be located outside the MSHCP Conservation Area. |
| Palomar monkeyflower Mimulus diffusus |
In accordance with Species Objective 2 for this species, 18 localities will be confirmed and managed within the Santa Rosa Plateau, Sage, French Valley, and east of Lake Skinner. | Approximately 8,940 acres of (27 percent) the potential habitat for Palomar monkeyflower will not be included in the MSHCP Conservation Area. Of the 26 known locations (29 occurrences),11 of the mapped locations (six locations in the San Jacinto Mountains, one location in the Santa Ana Mountains, and four locations in the vicinity of Sage) are located outside of the MSHCP Conservation Area. |
| prostrate spine flower Chorizanthe procumbens |
In accordance with Species Objective 2 for this species, 14 localities will be confirmed and managed in areas including Beaumont and French Valley. Approximately 5,250 acres (5%) of suitable habitat would be conserved within the Criteria Area. | About 31,590 acres (33 percent) of potential habitat for the prostrate spine flower would be outside the MSHCP Conservation Area. Seven of the mapped locations (including Moreno Valley, Meadowbrook,Lake Elsinore, Murrieta, two localities along Temecula Creek, and the foothills of the Santa Ana Mountains) are located outside of the MSHCP Conservation Area; however, several of these occurrences are suspect and should be verified. |
| San Jacinto Mountains bedstraw Galium angustifolium ssp. jacinticum |
This species would be surveyed in accordance with the Narrow Endemics Plant Species Surveys (see Section 6.1.3). | Approximately 8,545 acres (41 percent) of potential habitat for San Jacinto Mountains bedstraw will not be conserved. One of the localities is within private in-holdings within the San Jacinto Mountains and will not be conserved. It is important to note, however, that this potential habitat and the mapped location are included within the Narrow Endemic Plant Species survey area and conservation of this potential habitat and known location will be addressed in accordance with the procedures presented in the Narrow Endemic Plant Species policy described in Section 6.1.3 of the MSHCP, Volume I. |
| shaggy-haired alumroot1 Heuchera hirsutissima |
Funding for the MSHCP Plan includes provisions for transfer of local funding for management that will benefit the entire MSHCP Conservation Area. | Approximately 2,210 acres (22 percent) of potential habitat for shaggy-haired alumroot will not be conserved. |
| sticky-leaved dudleya1 Dudleya viscida |
Approximately 3,800 acres (4%) of suitable habitat would be conserved within the Criteria Area. | Approximately 26,740 acres (27 percent) of potential habitat for sticky-leaved dudleya would not be included in the MSHCP Conservation Area. There is one known population cluster of this species in the San Mateo Wilderness. No known undisputed populations occur outside the MSHCP Conservation Area. |
| 1 These species will be considered to be adequately conserved when a Memorandum of Understanding is executed with the Forest Service that addresses management for these species on Forest Service Land. | ||
A-4 The Lead Agencies are unaware of what "commitments to owners of existing mitigation banks" have been made, or are not being honored, and are unable to respond. The MSHCP anticipates that lands identified as conservation banks will be conserved, whether through the sale of credits or through other mechanisms. However, the Permittees are not obligated to purchase any credits in any existing conservation bank or mitigation area. Owners of conservation banks and mitigation areas may also choose to initiate the HANS Process as set forth in Section 6.1.1 of the Draft MSHCP.
A-5 As described in Section 3.1 of the Plan and in Responses R-19, R-20, R-21 and R-25, the Plan is not based on "what is achievable" but rather on an iterative process that began with identification of an initial Conceptual Conservation Scenario that, as directed by stakeholders, addressed the conservation needs of up to 164 species as well as NCCP requirements. The iterative planning process that resulted in identification of the Criteria Area incorporated use of the best scientifically and commercially available data, as described in Section 2.1 of the Plan.
Species occurrence data were available for review by the public at the UCR website and RCIP website. In addition, the MSHCP species accounts were made available for review by the public throughout the Plan preparation process in the August 9, 1999 Draft MSHCP Proposal, in the October 4, 2000 Alternatives Development Document, in the March 7, 2002 Administrative Draft MSHCP distributed to the MSHCP Advisory Committee and in the November 15, 2002 Draft MSHCP distributed for public review.
The data characterization portions of the species accounts described in detail the species occurrence data for each species, and the discussions of conservation levels and Take in each species account note the locations of occurrences anticipated to be conserved and those expected to be located outside the MSHCP Conservation Area.
A-6 As described in Response D-18, the species analyses incorporated a variety of ecological data bases, specific to the analysis of each species. Ecological data bases used included vegetation, uncollapsed vegetation, select soils, elevation, Bioregions, and other data such as aerial photography. The best scientific and commercial data available were used, in accordance with the applicable federal and state requirements.
A-7 See Responses A-5 and A-6.
A-8 The No Surprises Rule (50 CFR 17.3, 17.22(b) and 17.32(b)) is a legal assurance that applies to HCPs provided that the MSHCP, IA and Permits are properly implemented. The No Surprises Rule as it is presented in the MSHCP conforms with legal requirements and is not overly broad or inclusive. The Lead Agencies acknowledge that certain groups are not in favor of the No Surprises Rule but, at this time, it is an assurance that is available to the Permittees and has been properly applied in the MSHCP.
A-9 Changed circumstances are addressed in Section 6.8.3 of the Plan. Since more specific comments are not given, a more specific response cannot be provided. See Responses A-17, A-18 and A-30.
A-10 See Responses C-65, C-66, D-23 and D-72 for discussion of Conservation of the San Jacinto River floodplain as incorporated in the MSHCP. Since a more specific comment is not given, a more specific response cannot be provided.
A-11 The level of Development surrounding areas identified as Constrained Linkages vary. For Constrained Linkage 19, the constraining factors were considered to be existing agricultural operations within the area. It is acknowledged that a wider connection with Live-In Habitat is possible and is proposed, as compared to other Constrained Linkages identified in the Plan.
A-12 See Response K-5. The IA and the MSHCP make specific provisions allowing the Cities to adopt an adequate alternative to the HANS Process to ensure compliance with the Criteria and acquisition of Additional Reserve Lands. As stated repeatedly, the MSHCP does not preempt local land use authority. (MSHCP, § 6.2.2; see also Response H2-40.) It will be up to the Cities to determine if eminent domain and condemnation will constitute an adequate alternative process to HANS.
A-13 Section 6.1 of the Draft MSHCP states that the County will implement the MSHCP through incorporation of the relevant terms and requirements into its General Plan, which is currently in the process of being updated. If the new General Plan and MSHCP are both adopted and Permits issued, the MSHCP will constitute the mitigation in the General Plan for impacts to biological resources for Covered Species in the Plan Area. If the General Plan is approved but the MSHCP is not adopted, there are alternate mitigation requirements proposed for the General Plan to address biological impacts. The IA is the agreement that ensures that the Permittees will implement the terms and conditions of the MSHCP. Thus, if the County executes the IA, it will be required to implement the MSHCP as set forth in Section 11.1.2 of the IA, which states that the County will establish in each Area Plan policies for Covered Species.
A-14 This comment does not sufficiently explain its reference to the "Board requirement on page 25" regarding creation of the RCA to allow a response. A separate joint powers authority can be formed under the auspices of an existing joint powers authority even if the governing board make up and voting requirements differ. At this point, it is contemplated that the RCA will be a separate joint powers authority. A decision has not been made whether the RCA should be under the WRCOG umbrella.
A-15 The Farm Bureau specifically requested the addition of the first sentence of the referenced paragraph. With regard to the 10,000 acres of New Agricultural Land, see Responses C-56 and F-12.
A-16 The paragraph states that the RCA shall seek an amendment to increase the 10,000-acre New Agricultural Lands Cap. However, the Wildlife Agencies will make the final determination regarding whether the New Agricultural Land Cap will be increased. Accordingly, the Lead Agencies believe that the language in Section 11.3.7 of the IA should remain unchanged. See Response F-16 and Section 6.2G of the MSHCP for a detailed discussion of the criteria for raising the New Agricultural Lands Cap.
A-17 Water management activities that would alter the flow of waters of the United States downstream of a dam would require permitting by the ACOE and would involve consultation with the USFWS. Changes in discharges from reclaimed water sources would be monitored by the RCA in accordance with the provisions of Section 5 of the MSHCP and any changes that would affect Covered Species would be addressed through appropriate actions. The Final MSHCP includes language to provide this clarification. In the event of decreased water levels, operational activities that would change the water level of a reservoir would not be anticipated to have impacts to Covered Species.
A-18 See Response A-17.
A-19 See Response K-145.
A-20 The correct citation is actually Section 7.3.5 pages 7-37 and 7-38. The IA will be revised to reflect the correct citation.
A-21 The IA states that if a City is a Permittee and thus receives Take Authorization pursuant to the MSHCP, it will have to ensure that there are no General Plan or Area Plan inconsistencies that conflict with the provisions of the IA. As such, the IA states in Section 13.2(A) that the Cities have the obligation to "amend their general plans as appropriate" to effectuate the IA and fulfill the requirements of the Plan. These requirements are also included in the Draft EIR/EIS in Table 1A on page 1.4-1.
A-22 The existing MOU may be obtained from RCFCWCD. The MOU referenced in the Final MSHCP has not yet been executed; it will be available from RCFCWCD upon completion.
A-23 The commentor misunderstands the point of the Caltrans Banking Agreement. In the event that Caltrans has unused credits due to Permit suspension, revocation or termination, this section allows Caltrans to use the credits for other projects. Take Authorization would have to be obtained through a vehicle other than the MSHCP. At that time, appropriate species coverage would be determined by Caltrans and the Wildlife Agencies.
A-24 The management results associated with Caltrans and with State Parks are anticipated to be very similar, but are achieved somewhat differently. With regard to Caltrans, the lands acquired and managed will be independent of any other land managed by Caltrans. As a result, the level of staffing and estimated costs is higher. The Draft MSHCP (page 8-12) identifies the estimated cost for 3 positions for management and monitoring is $350,000 annually. State Parks' mitigation lands will be within or adjacent to other State Parks lands. As a result, State Parks' personnel, including enforcement personnel, will assist in carrying out State Parks' management responsibilities. The two State Parks funded positions for management and monitoring identified in the MSHCP (Draft MSHCP p. 8-13) are dedicated positions without other responsibilities. The estimated annual costs for the positions are $250,000 annually (Draft MSHCP p. 8-13). The responsibilities for management and monitoring their respective mitigation lands and assisting with implementing the MSHCP monitoring program are the same.
A-25 The Lead Agencies disagree with this comment. Species objectives address methods for obtaining the information required to consider these species Covered Species Adequately Conserved. The Wildlife Agencies will consider this and all other information in the administrative record before them including public comment, to determine if the MSHCP provides information adequate to issue the Permits.
A-26 This Section says that "after opportunity for public review and comment, based upon the best available current scientific and commercial data, the USFWS has found..." This is merely draft language in the IA that will not be signed by the Service until all other requirements of FESA and NCPA have been met, including preparation of the Final MSHCP, Final EIR/EIS and a Biological Opinion. The clause objected to by commentor regarding CEQA and NEPA merely states that the Service will not take a subsequent position that may contradict the goals and purposes of the MSHCP. This provision does not restrict the ability of the Service to comment on future CEQA/NEPA documents.
A-27 The commentor does not specify why Section 14.19 does not create an independent cause of action and, thus, a response is not required. This section states that "to the maximum extent allowable" future biological opinions will be consistent with the MSHCP biological opinion. This section also states that "to the maximum extent appropriate," any reasonable and prudent measures in a future biological opinion will be consistent with MSHCP and IA implementation measures. If other measures are legally required, then they would have to be imposed.
A-28 The Lead Agencies disagree with the comment. This section states that "to the maximum extent allowable after public review and comment" lands within the Plan Area will not be designated Critical Habitat. This section also states that the Service will reassess and revise the boundaries of Critical Habitat within the MSHCP "to the maximum extent allowable after public review and comment." This does not make federal policy or new law - it merely allows the Service to act within the confines of existing law when making this determination.
A-29 See Response A-8. The referenced language limits the responsibilities of the Permittees for Unforeseen Circumstances. However, this language does not preclude land acquisitions or other actions by the Service.
A-30 See Responses A-17 and A-18 for discussion of specific comments regarding Changed Circumstances. The commentor has not indicated how this section is "redundant with other portions of the Implementing Agreement" and thus, the Lead Agencies are unable to respond.
A-31 After numerous discussions with the Wildlife Agencies, County, Cities and stakeholders, it was determined that an Implementing Agreement and Permit term of 75 years would be appropriate and legally adequate to implement all the goals and objectives of the MSHCP given its scope and breadth. (See IA, §19.0)
A-32 A Plan Amendment is not automatically necessary if a Permittee withdraws from the MSHCP. See Section 20 and 22 of the IA. In that event, the RCA will meet and confer with the Wildlife Agencies to determine to what extent, if any, Take Authorization may continue to be provided to the remaining Permittees. In making this determination, the RCA and/or any other Party may decide that an Amendment is necessary to continue implementing the Plan.
A-33 The MOU that will be executed by all agencies that own and/or manage land in the MSHCP Conservation Area shall contain specific commitments that will ensure that the referenced agencies will not take actions that would lead to the revocation or suspension of all or a portion of the Permits. Moreover, the Corps of Engineers, FHWA, FEMA, and FERC do not currently own PQP Lands. If these agencies propose projects on PQP Land, the PQP property owner would have to ensure compliance with the MSHCP. The MSHCP contributes funds to management on federal PQP Lands. Additionally, future federal funds may be committed to PQP Lands which could be used for PQP Lands.
A-34 The Lead Agencies agree with the comment that the CDFG can defend itself against lawsuits arising from its obligations. However, the commentor misinterprets Section 27.8 of the IA. This Section does not state that the CDFG will defend the County, Cities or other Permittees. It only states that "[u]pon request, the CDFG will, to the extent authorized by California law, provide appropriate support to the Permittees in defending, consistent with the terms of the MSHCP, lawsuits arising out of the Permittees' adoption of the MSHCP and/or this Agreement." Accordingly, this Section does not impose any inappropriate requirements on CDFG.
A-35 This Section of the IA does not prevent adequate funding for the MSHCP. It merely provides assurances to the Wildlife Agencies that federal and state funding will have to be authorized, and that local governments will not be financially responsible from general fund sources unless expressly authorized. In order to satisfy FESA Section 10 Permit issuance requirements, the Permittees must provide adequate funding assurances. See Section 8.0 in the Draft MSHCP for a detailed discussion of MSHCP funding sources.
A-36 Copies of the Final MSHCP, IA and EIS/EIR will be made available to the commentor when complete.
A2-1 The comment period on the MSHCP, IA and EIS was extended by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service. The Lead Agencies have responded to all comments received during the extended comment period.
A3-1 Section 8.0 of the Draft MSHCP provides a funding plan to acquire the called for Conservation over the next 25 years and allows for the use of incentives through the HANS Process. The commentor does not identify specific requested changes or areas where the funding plan should be revised.
A3-2 The MSHCP does not rely on new regulation. The HANS Process lays out the time lines for property acquisitions (see Section 6.11 of the Draft MSHCP). The funding mechanisms listed by the commentor are all possible outcomes of the HANS negotiations. All lands acquired will be from willing sellers at fair market values established through an established appraisal process. The Lead Agencies disagree that MSHCP funding is not adequate to provide the necessary assurances for issuance of the Permits.
A4-1 It appears that the property referenced in this comment is SP315. The County is currently reviewing the draft SP, and processing is currently in the early stages, with several planning issues that are unresolved. Based on their initial review, County staff believes that there are no major issues related to the proposed project's ability to comply with MSHCP requirements, and the MSHCP review process will take into consideration the applicants discussion with the USFWS concerning the proposed open space.
A5-1 This comment does not raise any issues related to the Draft MSHCP, the IA or the Draft EIR/EIS, and therefore no additional response is necessary.
A5-2 See Responses S2-2 through S2-6.
A5-3 The MSHCP provides a process through which a flood control project may be considered a Covered Activity under the Plan (Section 7.3.7). In the event that a flood control project is advanced that meets the criteria identified in the Plan, that project would be considered to be consistent with the Criteria.
A5-4 See Response A5-3.
A5-5 See Responses S2-6, S2-8 and S2-10.
A5-6 A flood control project that meets the criteria set forth in Section 7.3.7 of the Plan, is thus a Covered Activity, and would not require a Minor Amendment.
B-1 See Response A-10.
B-2 See Response A-12.
B-3 See Response A-13.
B-4 See Response A-14.
B-5 See Response A-15.
B-6 See Response A-16.
B-7 See Response A-17.
B-8 See Response A-18.
B-9 See Response A-19.
B-10 See Response A-20.
B-11 See Response A-21.
B-12 See Response A-22.
B-13 See Response A-23.
B-14 See Response A-24.
B-15 See Response A-25.
B-17 See Response A-27.
B-18 See Response A-28.
B-19 See Response A-29.
B-20 See Response A-30.
B-21 See Response A-31.
B-22 See Response A-32.
B-23 See Response A-33.
B-24 See Response A-34.
B-25 See Response A-35.
B-26 The Lead Agencies appreciate the commentor's participation. Additional comments will be responded to as they are received; however, the Lead Agencies cannot guarantee that responses to comments received after the close of the public comment period will be included in the Final EIR/EIS.
B2-1 It is understood that the Criteria address Conservation of a subset of the area proposed for Murrieta Creek Flood Control Project. The Project, as it is currently contemplated would be consistent with the Criteria, as it would conserve a slightly larger area than addressed in the Criteria. Therefore, it is anticipated that consistency of the Project with the MSHCP can be demonstrated without any modifications to either the Project or the MSHCP Criteria.
B2-2 The percentages of Conservation within each Cell proposed in the Area Plan Criteria are intended to be interpreted as one criterion and are not intended to set minimum and maximum conservation acreages. Evaluation of individual projects and circumstances may yield Conservation that is consistent with the Criteria that do not precisely match the Cell percentages.
B2-3 See Response B2-2. The Draft MSHCP anticipates that Development that has occurred since collection of data used in developing the Area Plan Criteria may affect Reserve Assembly, and will be considered on a case-by-case basis as development applications are reviewed and processed, and as Reserve Assembly proceeds.
B2-4 See Responses B2-2 and B2-3.
B3-1 See Responses W2-1 and Y2-3. The MSHCP respects property rights of individual property owners and assures that property needed for Conservation will be acquired from willing sellers at a fair market price.
B3-2 The MSHCP does not establish zoning on any property. The question of an appropriate zoning designation can be addressed through the General Plan or subsequently when the County undertakes a consistency zoning study. The Lead Agencies disagree that inclusion of property within the Criteria Area is "improper or discriminatory."
B3-3 The vegetation map depicted in the Draft EIR/EIS and the Draft MSHCP represent "collapsed" or generalized vegetation types. It is expected that vegetation coverage on the ground may vary from this generalized mapping. A more detailed breakdown of the vegetation map was used in the analysis performed for the MSHCP. The level of detail provided in the vegetation mapping represents the best scientific and commercially available data, and is considered appropriate for landscape-level conservation planning. See Responses D-17 through D-19.
B3-4 See Response B3-2.
B3-5 The commentor should contact the Riverside County Planning Department to discuss the Williamson Act designation on their property. The comment does not relate to the MSHCP, IA or the EIR/EIS.
B3-6 See Responses B3-2 and B3-5.
B3-7 See Response Y2-3. If all or a portion of the property is desirable for Conservation under the MSHCP, the HANS Process includes an appraisal methodology to determine fair market value.
B3-8 The request for a zoning change is not related to the MSHCP. The commentor should contact the Riverside County Planning Department to discuss the process for changing the zoning on a property. If the property owner processes a development application, the HANS Process would result in a determination as to whether all or any portion of the property is necessary for inclusion in the MSHCP Conservation Area and allow for negotiation on the appropriate mix of development and Conservation based on the MSHCP Criteria if only a portion is needed for inclusion.
B3-9 The MSHCP and EIS comment period was extended to March 14, 2003 by the Service.
B4-1 The comment letter is included in the administrative record for the MSHCP and the EIR/EIS and specific responses to the specific comments presented in this letter are provided below.
B4-2 Criteria pertaining to the referenced Cell 168 and other Cells and Cell Groups for which Delhi Sands flower-loving fly is the primary species of concern have been revised in the Final MSHCP. Rather than including specific Reserve Assembly guidance, the Criteria in the Final MSHCP simply refer to the species-specific objectives for the fly. The species-specific objectives for the fly have been revised in the Final MSHCP.
B4-3 This comment consists of a report from Thomas Olsen Associates, Inc. documenting the results of a Habitat Suitability Evaluation on the subject property.
B4-4 See Response B4-2.
B5-1 See Response C5-1. The Lead Agencies do not believe that the requested maps are necessary to provide adequate public disclosure of potential effects associated with the MSHCP.
B5-2 See Response C5-1. The Lead Agencies do not believe that the requested overlays are necessary to provide adequate public disclosure of potential effects associated with the MSHCP.
B5-3 See Response B5-2. The Draft EIR/EIS provides an analysis of potential impacts to land use resulting from the implementation of the MSHCP. Additionally, the Plan (Sections 5.0 and 7.0) provides a discussion of management considerations and allowable uses within the MSHCP Conservation Area. It is unclear what further information the commentor is asking for. Thus, the Lead Agencies are unable to provide any further response.
B5-4 Notice of actions and meetings related to the MSHCP will be provided as required by law.
C-1 CNPS's contributions to the conservation planning process for the MSHCP are acknowledged.
C-2 The MSHCP does not provide "clearance" for the public and private development projects referenced in the comment. Such projects will be subject to project specific CEQA review by their respective lead agencies. "Clearance" provided by the MSHCP is limited to Take Authorization for MSHCP Covered Species as long as the project under consideration is determined to be consistent with the MSHCP. Review for consistency of the types of projects noted will be conducted by the Permittee and in accordance with the joint project review process described in Section 6.6 of the MSHCP.
It is assumed that the comment regarding Public/Quasi-Public (PQP) Lands is referring to the discussion in Section 3.2.1 of the Plan which calls for verification of the precise acreage, location and amount of PQP Lands within five years of Permit issuance. This discussion does not imply that the existing PQP data base is "very tentative" but rather provides for a verification process for conservation value. Indeed, as described in the Plan, the existing PQP data base is parcel-specific and appears to have a high level of accuracy. Analysis of the GIS attribute data conducted to date indicates that less than 1% of the identified PQP Land may change as part of the verification process.
C-3 Features incorporated in the MSHCP provide for Conservation of core populations of plant species. For plant species for which core populations are known, Conservation of those populations is called for in the species-specific objectives. For plant species for which such information is insufficiently known at this time, surveys are required with appropriate avoidance and minimization requirements. Of the 63 plants proposed to be Covered Species, surveys will be required for 27 of them and an additional 13 species will not be considered to be Covered Species Adequately Conserved until specific conservation requirements are met within the MSHCP Conservation Area. This reflects the rigorous features incorporated in the MSHCP to assure Conservation of Covered Species including plant species proposed to be Covered Species.
It is uncertain how the five-year period referenced in the comment would benefit Conservation of plant species. The Reserve Assembly process is anticipated to extend for 25 years and Development is anticipated to occur during the 75-year term of the Permit(s). Potential impacts of Development within the Criteria Area would therefore not be known within a five-year period nor would a final review of the total conserved area be possible at that time.
C-4 As defined in Section 3.2.3 - Cores and Linkages within the MSHCP Conservation Area, "Planning Species are subsets of Covered Species that are identified to provide guidance for Reserve Assembly in Cores and Linkages and/or Area Plans." Not all of the Narrow Endemic Plant Species were considered to be Planning Species. There are a variety of reasons why a species may not be considered to be a Planning Species.
For example, Hammitt's clay-cress is not considered to be a Planning Species. Hammitt's clay-cress, a Narrow Endemic Plant Species, is currently only known to occur near Elsinore Peak within existing PQP Lands in Existing Core B. There were a number of other sensitive species that occur in Existing Core B whose known distribution and potential Habitat were used to guide the Reserve Assembly. Hammitt's clay-cress limited distribution was not a guiding factor in Reserve Assembly.
Spreading navarretia, a Narrow Endemic species, is considered to be a Planning Species for Proposed Core 4, Existing Core H and Proposed Noncontiguous Habitat Block 6. Eleven of the 14 known populations of spreading navarretia comprise three Core Areas (the San Jacinto Wildlife Area, the floodplains of the San Jacinto River from Ramona Expressway south to Railroad Canyon and the upper Salt Creek drainage area west of Hemet). Due to the known distribution of spreading navarretia Core Areas, potential Habitat and dependence on fluvial processes, spreading navarretia was determined to be a Planning Species and was used to guide the Reserve Assembly. Subsequently, the three Core Areas are proposed for Conservation within the Criteria Area and existing PQP Lands.
C-5 It is acknowledged that survey requirements for plants are documented in two separate sections of the MSHCP - Section 6.1.3 - Protection of Narrow Endemic Plant Species and Section 6.3.2 - Additional Survey Needs and Procedures, and that plants that may be considered to be Narrow Endemics appear on both lists. The rationale for dividing the lists of plants for which surveys are required was based on consideration of those plants for which surveys would be required within appropriate locations of the broad Narrow Endemic Plant Species survey area (Draft MSHCP, Figure 6-1) and those plants for which surveys could be confined to appropriate locations within the Criteria Area (Draft MSHCP, Figure 6-2). Survey methods and avoidance, minimization and mitigation requirements are the same for both lists of plants so the ways in which these plant species are addressed in the Plan do not differ based on whether they appear on the Narrow Endemic Plant Species survey list or the Additional Survey Needs and Procedures list. In preparing the Plan, it was recognized that having survey requirements appear in several different sections of the document may be somewhat cumbersome. For this reason, a Summary of MSHCP Species Survey Requirements was prepared and is included in Appendix E to Volume I of the Plan. The plant species survey requirements are combined and consolidated in this Appendix.
In addition, Section 6.1.2 - Protection of Species Associated with Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools - would provide benefits to a number of plant species that occur in wetlands. It is acknowledged that the list of plant species in Section 6.1.2 that would benefit from the protection of Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools within the MSHCP Plan Area does overlap with those plant species listed in Sections 6.1.3 and 6.3.2 and in Table 6-1; however, the list of plant species in Section 6.1.2 focuses on plants that occur in wetlands. Not all of the plant species listed in Section 6.1.2 are included in Table 6-1, nor are all of the plant species listed in Table 6-1 included in Section 6.1.2.
C-6 Take Authorization is provided for Covered Species at the time the Permit(s) are issued subject to the Permittee(s) implementing the requirements of the Plan. There is no requirement that "a portion of a habitat type be designated" for Conservation prior to impacts to Covered Species such as a plant population. Conversely, public and private development projects would not benefit from the Take Authorization granted by the Permit(s), unless they were consistent with the Plan. For plant species, consistency with the Plan requires conducting surveys for most of the Covered Species, as noted in Response C-2, avoiding and minimizing impacts to identified populations in accordance with the requirements of Sections 6.1.3 and 6.3.2, and meeting the Conservation Strategy for each Covered Species, including the species-specific conservation objectives, as described in Section 9.2. New information gathered as a result of surveys will be used to guide the Reserve Assembly process to assure that the areas likely to provide the most benefit for species conservation are acquired for the MSHCP Conservation Area; this is an important foundation of the criteria-based approach incorporated in the MSHCP which identifies an approximately310,000-acres Criteria Area from which approximately 153,000 acres of land will be acquired for Conservation. Implementation of these requirements will lead to achievement of the CNPS goal of conserving plants at known or to be discovered extant locations.
C-7 See Response A-33.
C-8 As described in Section 9.2 of the Plan, a Conservation Strategy is identified for each Covered Species that consists of four components: 1) a global biological goal; 2) global biological objectives; 3) species-specific objectives; and 4) management and monitoring requirements. The Conservation Strategy for each Covered Species encompasses the standard that must be met.
C-9 In addition to the substantial public and stakeholder participation that has occurred during the preparation of the MSHCP, the IA, the associated joint EIR/EIS and related documents, the public will continue to have meaningful input and review in the post-MSHCP adoption planning process. The RCA, which will oversee implementation of the MSHCP, will be a joint powers authority and will hold regularly scheduled public meetings in compliance with the Brown Act open meeting requirements (see Draft MSHCP, Section 6.6.2). Public participation will be permitted and encouraged at these meetings, as well as through the public processes held by the Permittees as part of the normal individual development review application process. See Responses F-43, F-75 and F-78. In addition, each Permittee will implement their public review procedures in review of individual public and private development projects.
C-10 The Lead Agencies appreciate the comment that plant species accounts have been greatly improved. See Responses C-88 and C-93 for examples of species that occur in various Vegetation Communities in association with particular soil types and Response C-90 for species that occur in various Vegetation Communities within dry canyons or ephemeral stream channels.
C-11 The referenced data sources will continue to be used throughout the MSHCP implementation process to ensure that the best information is used to assemble and manage the MSHCP Conservation Area.
C-12 Contrary to the comment, as noted in the species account, beautiful hulsea is not proposed for Conservation only in Core M but will also be conserved in Core K. As noted in the comment, most of the distribution of beautiful hulsea lies within Core K. Although beautiful hulsea occurs in both Core K and Core M, it was considered a Planning Species for Core M but not for Core K. Core K contains potential habitat and known occurrences for a far greater number of sensitive species than does Core M. As defined in Section 3.2.3 - Cores and Linkages within the MSHCP Conservation Area, "Planning Species are subsets of Covered Species that are identified to provide guidance for Reserve Assembly in Cores and Linkages and/or Area Plans." Therefore, the distribution and potential habitat for beautiful hulsea had a greater influence in identification of Core M than of Core K.
C-13 It is recognized that an existing connection along Temescal Wash is present from the portion of lower Temescal Wash within the Criteria Area to the Santa Ana River. This area is shown as PQP lands on the MSHCP Plan map (Figure 3-1). The Criteria Area identifies the area from within which 153,000 acres of Additional Reserve Lands will be acquired. Since this area is already in PQP Lands, it was not included in the Criteria Area.
The amount of edge anticipated to occur within the MSHCP Conservation Area is not related to use of the quarter-section approach in development of the Criteria. In fact, all of the Cell Criteria identify areas connectivity requirements between Cells and Cell Groups. Reserve Assembly is also guided by the Cores and Linkages descriptions in Section 3.2.3 of the Plan. A review of the estimated interior and edge acres for the Cores and Linkages, and the anticipated perimeter to area ratios, indicate those features that are anticipated to have more or less edge. The discussion in Section 3.2.3 of the Plan acknowledges that certain Cores and Linkages will require special management measures to address edge conditions.
C-14 No PQP Lands are identified for acquisition. The Criteria Area extends over certain isolated PQP Lands within the Plan Area so as not to have "holes" in the Criteria Area. A review of the specific Criteria for Cells and Cell Groups including PQP Lands will show that those lands are not identified for acquisition as part of Reserve Assembly.
C-15 The word "area" in the referenced statement refers to the "approximate total area (acres)" given for each Core and Linkage in the individual descriptions of the Cores and Linkages. This will be clarified in the text of the Final MSHCP.
C-16 The Lead Agencies are not in receipt of the referenced article, and therefore a response is not required.
C-17 With the exception of the Non-Contiguous Habitat Blocks, the Cores and Linkages are planned to be connected. Without specific reference to areas that are not connected, a more specific response cannot be provided.
C-18 As noted above in Responses C-4 and C-12, the definition of Planning Species as described in Section 3.2.3 - Cores and Linkages within the MSHCP Conservation Area, is as follows: "Planning Species are subsets of Covered Species that are identified to provide guidance for Reserve Assembly in Cores and Linkages and/or Area Plans." It is not true that the plant species listed in this comment "are not mentioned as occurring in any of the existing/proposed cores and linkages," but rather these species were not considered to be Planning Species. There are a variety of reasons why these species were not considered to be Planning Species and conservation of these species will be achieved upon implementation of the species Objectives listed in the species accounts.
For example, Coulter's matilija poppy is restricted to the eastern slopes and foothills of the Santa Ana Mountains. Most of the records for this species are outside of the proposed MSHCP Conservation Area and the existing records are not believed to be indicative of the distribution of this species. Therefore, this species was not used to guide the Reserve Assembly for Core B or Linkage 1.
For a discussion of why Hammitt's clay-cress is not considered to be a Planning Species see Response C-4.
Another example is heart-leaved pitcher sage. The only population of heart-leaved pitcher sage identified at this time within the Plan Area is the complex within San Mateo Canyon. This population is located within the existing PQP Lands within the San Mateo Canyon Wilderness Area. Thus, heart-leaved pitcher sage was not considered a guiding factor in Reserve Assembly for Core B.
C-19 As noted above in Responses C-4, C-12 and C-18, not all species were considered to be Planning Species. As defined in Section 3.2.3 - Cores and Linkages within the MSHCP Conservation Area: "Planning Species are subsets of Covered Species that are identified to provide guidance for Reserve Assembly in Cores and Linkages and/or Area Plans." Simply because a species was not identified as a Planning Species does not mean that species will not be conserved. Rather it means that the species was not considered to have guided Reserve Assembly in light of the other species which occur in the same Linkage or Core.
With respect to major Covered Activities potentially affecting Cores and Linkages, the information provided in the referenced tables identifies those activities. The commentor has failed to provide a list of "potential major projects" that were not considered, and thus no additional response is possible.
C-20 As noted above in Responses C-4, C-12, C-18, and C-19 not all species are considered to be Planning Species. Brand's phacelia is known from two localities along the Santa Ana River: at Fairmont Park and in the Santa Ana Wilderness Area. The species account identifies potential habitat as coastal sage scrub between 5 and 400 m in the Riverside Lowlands Bioregion. Species of Concern Area ID 7 on Figure 6-1 depicts the Narrow Endemic Plant Species Survey Area for Brand's phacelia. The Santa Ana River is a minor subset of the Narrow Endemic Plant Species Survey Area and Brand's phacelia was not a Planning Species for the Santa Ana River and Existing Core Area A.
Smooth tarplant has a fairly scattered distribution, including Antelope Valley; Temescal Canyon; Lake Elsinore; Murrieta Creek; French Valley; Lakeview Mountains; Lake Skinner; Diamond ValleyLake;SycamoreCanyon Park; Alberhill Creek; Lake Mathews; the Santa Ana River; and the core locations at the San Jacinto Wildlife Area, the middle segment of the San Jacinto River and upper Salt Creek. This species does not appear to be concentrated along the Santa Ana River and did not guide Reserve Assembly in Existing Core A.
C-21 It is acknowledged that Jaeger's milkvetch was incorrectly included as a Planning Species for Existing Core Area B and this will be corrected in the text.
Regarding the list of species suggested as Planning Species for Existing Core Area B, see Responses C-4, C-12, C-18, C-19 and C-20. The species on this list are not considered Planning Species for Existing Core Area B.
C-22 It is acknowledged that thread-leaved brodiaea was incorrectly included as a Planning Species for Existing Core Area C and this will be corrected in the text.
Regarding the list of species suggested as Planning Species for Existing Core Area C, see Responses C-4, C-12, C-18, C-19 and C-20. The species on this list are not considered Planning Species for Existing Core Area C.
C-23 See Response C-20 regarding the smooth tarplant. The smooth tarplant is not a Planning Species for Existing Core Area D.
The reference should be to Alessandro and this will be corrected in the Final MSHCP.
C-24 Regarding the list of species suggested as Planning Species for Existing Core Area E, see Responses C-4, C-12, C-18, C-19 and C-20. The species on this list are not considered Planning Species for Existing Core Area E.
Existing Core Area E does not include the Alberhill Creek area. Proposed Linkage 2 includes the Alberhill Creek area.
C-25 See Response C-24.
C-26 It is acknowledged that California Orcutt grass was incorrectly included as a Planning Species for Existing Core Area H and this will be corrected in the text.
Regarding the suggestion that mud nama is a Planning Species for Existing Core Area H, see Responses C-4, C-12, C-18, C-19 and C-20. This species is not considered a Planning Species for Existing Core Area H.
C-27 Regarding the list of species suggested as Planning Species for Existing Core Area J, see Responses C-4, C-12, C-18, C-19 and C-20. The species on this list are not considered Planning Species for Existing Core Area J.
C-28 Regarding the suggestion that slender-horned spine flower is a Planning Species for Existing Core Area J, see Responses C-4, C-12, C-18, C-19 and C-20. This species is not considered a Planning Species for Existing Core Area J.
C-29 As noted above in Responses C-4, C-12, C-18, and C-20, not all species were considered to be Planning Species. As defined in Section 3.2.3 - Cores and Linkages within the MSHCP Conservation Area: "Planning Species are subsets of Covered Species that are identified to provide guidance for Reserve Assembly in Cores and Linkages and/or Area Plans." Simply because a species was not identified as a Planning Species does not mean that species will not be conserved. Rather it means that the species was not considered to have guided preparation of the Criteria in light of the other species which occur in the same Linkage or Core. Conservation of these species will be achieved upon implementation of the species objectives listed in the species accounts.
C-30 It is acknowledged that Wright's trichocoronis is a Planning Species for Proposed Extension of Existing Core Area 4 and the text will be edited to reflect this.
C-31 The lists of Planning Species for Area Plan Subunits sometimes differ from the lists of Planning Species for Cores and Linkages in similar areas because of the different geographic boundaries of the Subunits and Cores and Linkages. See Responses C-4, C12, C-18, C-20 and C-29.
C-32 There is no acreage coverage for playas and vernal pool Vegetation Communities in the Elsinore Area Plan map. The Nichols Road wetlands lie within Cells 4067 and 4166.
The difficulty of producing report-size, hard-copy maps that are fully legible is recognized. For this reason, the County has made a GIS query system available to the public through the RCIP website (http://rcip.org/PDFlib/rcip/apn_search.asp) and Cell information may be retrieved from that source.
C-33 See Response C-32 regarding the difficulty in reading maps. The requested cross-reference information is provided in the descriptions of Area Plan Subunits and Criteria for Cells and Cell Groups which specifically identify applicable Cores and Linkages. This is not necessary for the Rough Step Analysis Units or the preliminary Management Units as the large size of these units would incorporate many Cores and Linkages and such a table would not be meaningful.
C-34 The sample form referenced in the comment, entitled Form for Assessment of Upland and Wetland Habitat Conditions is from Section 5.2.1 of the Draft MSHCP - Proposed Management Activities. As explained in Section 5.2.1, the purpose of the sample form is to provide consistency in how and what data are collected in accordance with General Management Measures 3 and 4. These measures require the maintenance and management of Upland Habitats and Wetland Habitats, respectively, within the MSHCP Conservation Area. However, the form is not intended to be absolute; it may be used as is or modified at the discretion of the Reserve Manager. The habitat conditions will be measured at regular intervals as identified in Section 5.3.5 -Vegetation Community/Wildlife Habitat Inventory and Monitoring. Section 5.3.5 further describes the monitoring methods to be used, including the CNPS "Vegetation Rapid Assessment Protocol" (CNPS 2002) and "Relevant Protocol" (CNPS 1998).
C-35 As described in General Management Measure 8 of Section 5.2.1 of the Draft MSHCP Proposed Management Activities, management activities must ensure that species presence and continued use shall be maintained at 75% of the locations identified in the species account for each species, as measured at a minimum of once every eight years. The comment requests additional information for the terms "presence," "75%," and "locations." In this sense, 75% means three out of four, location means population or locality as referenced in the species objectives and presence means observed to be present.
C-36 There is no mention of General Management Criteria 4 on page 5-7 of the Draft MSHCP. If the commentor is referring to General Management Measure 4, the General Management Measures are outlined in Section 5.2.1 - Proposed Management Activities.
C-37 The commentor requests that Special Considerations and Management Actions in Table 5-1, Factors to be Considered in Management Responses to Disturbance Regimes, be clarified so that the considerations and actions are not open to prevent interpretation. However, as described in General Management Measure 9 of the Draft MSHCP, it is the intent of Table 5-1 not to prescribe management activities but to identify a common list of potential actions and considerations for Reserve Managers to evaluate. Because preexisting conditions, post-disturbance conditions and special considerations may vary considerably by reserve location, it is imperative to provide flexibility in the ability of Reserve Managers to respond to disturbance.
Regarding the question on the relationship between the columns Pre-existing/Post-Disturbance columns, the two columns are not tied together. For example, "availability of irrigation"is not tied to a specific Pre-existing/Post-disturbance column entry but is one of many special considerations in response to a fire disturbance. Based on the type of habitat to be restored, the Reserve Manager may determine that irrigation would be a benefit or not.
Regarding the statement "Determine target vegetation to re-establish" in the Special Considerations column for fire, the Management Action includes the establishment of native plants and exotic species control. Management Actions in Table 5-1 do not include the re-establishment of non-native vegetation.
"Presence of sensitive plant species - bulb, etc." is a Special Consideration for Fire and Disturbed Habitat. It is acknowledged that this Special Consideration should be added to the remaining Disturbance Source categories: Exotic Plant Invasion, Sedimentation and Erosion. Table 5-1 will be revised accordingly.
C-38 This definition of revegetation anticipates that non-native annual species could contribute to revegetation efforts as a "nurse" crop in erosion control mixes. The nurse crop species would not be anticipated to persist longer than one or two seasons.
C-39 Table 5-2 includes "persecution" as a threat of the bald eagle. Persecution in this sense means systematic hunting due to a perceived threat, typically to livestock.
C-40 Please review the Definitions and Acronyms section that follows the Table of Contents and precedes Section 1 - Introduction. The definition of "Vegetation Community(ies)" is: A group of plants that tend to occur together in consistent, definable groups based on typical constituents as depicted on the MSHCP Vegetation Map, Figure 2-1 of the MSHCP, Volume 1.
The definition of "Habitat" is: The combination of environmental conditions of a specific place providing for the needs of a species or a population of such species.
C-41 "Change Detection for Vegetation Communities and Wildlife Habitats" is an element of the long-term monitoring phase and would be implemented every eight years. This element of the monitoring is intended to detect changes in the Vegetation Communities and Wildlife Habitats.
C-42 As described in the Long-Term Monitoring of Covered Species subsection of Section 5.3.5 -Vegetation Community/Wildlife Habitat Inventory and Monitoring, a "community approach will be used to the extent possible for the long-term monitoring program." This subsection goes on to state "Species that cannot be grouped together or be sampled at a common sampling station because of rarity of occurrence, seasonality, geographic location, or other restriction may require a different monitoring strategy." A sample list of such species is included within the Long-Term Monitoring of Covered Species subsection. As discussed in Section 5.3.3 - Monitoring Program Implementation Sequence, long-term monitoring strategies will be developed during years two through four. These strategies include schedules, protocols, time intervals and multi-species approaches, where appropriate. During years three through five, intensive monitoring will be conducted for Covered Species with additional information needs. In years six through eight and beyond, this intensive monitoring will continue to be conducted for Covered Species with additional information needs. It is acknowledged that a number of annual plant species are dependent on rainfall and other sources of hydrology. As annual plant species are evaluated in years two through four, those considered to have additional information needs will require more intensive monitoring. As indicated above, rarity of occurrence and seasonality will affect the monitoring strategy. See complete Responses to Comment Letter J.
C-43 There are no gaps in Table 5-8; however, there are columnar categories that do not apply to all of the species in this table. As described in Section 2.1.4 - Species Considered for Conservation in the MSHCP, of the 146 Covered Species included in the MSHCP, 130 species are Covered Species Adequately Conserved. The 16 remaining species will be considered adequately conserved at such time as the species-specific conservation requirements are met. These objectives are in the species accounts and in Section 9.0 Conservation and Take Estimates. These 16 species have a check mark in the column "Demonstrate Conservation."
C-44 Table 5-8, Summary of Survey Requirements for Covered Species as per the Species Objectives, includes only those survey requirements that are included in the species objectives, or the default survey requirement of at least once every eight years. As discussed in Response C-42, the monitoring schedule for each species will be determined in years two through four and those species that require more frequent surveys will be identified at that time. Regarding the column Demonstrate Conservation, see Response C-43.
Regarding reproduction/recruitment assessments, the Plan proposes this for only one plant species: Engelmann oak. As noted in Objective 3 in the Engelmann oak species account, recruitment must be maintained at a minimum of 80 percent of the conserved populations within the MSHCP Conservation Area, measured by the presence/absence of seedlings and/or saplings over five consecutive years. However, the MSHCP states that currently no other plant species require reproduction/recruitment monitoring but that conservation is demonstrated through achieving species-specific objectives pertaining to minimum conservation of potential habitat acreage, known and/or future locations, floodplain processes, etc. If it is determined through implementation of Section 5.2 MSHCP Management and Adaptive Management Programs and 5.3 - Biological Monitoring Program that certain plant species require reproduction/recruitment monitoring in order to attain the species-specific objectives then reproduction/ recruitment monitoring would be carried out on a species by species basis.
The 8-year interval is the cycle when all monitoring activities will have occurred at least once and is used as an index for establishing a new baseline distribution and at least an index of abundance for all Covered Species. However, a number of the Covered Species are being monitored more frequently in accordance with species-specific objectives. Table 5-8 illustrates the sampling intervals for each species and Section 5.3.9 Anticipated Levels of Effort and Estimate Costs identifies the proposed survey/ monitoring teams in the Initial Inventory and Assessment Phase and Long-Term Monitoring Phase. Please note that these teams are separate from the Reserve Management teams.
As discussed in Section 5.3 of the Draft MSHCP, the decision to use an 8-year monitoring cycle is based on RCFCWCD rainfall data for the years 1880-1999 indicating that wet and dry periods in the Plan Area occur in 7 to 10 year cycles. The 8-year cycle will therefore capture data within the historic normal wet and dry cycles in the Plan Area.
The monitoring plan also includes provisions to change monitoring intervals based on new information during the long-term MSHCP implementation process.
From a species perspective, a 7-yearinterval was initially considered, related to perceived climate patterns (partially supported by Riverside County rainfall data). The interval was later modified to an 8-year interval to provide for a greater opportunity to examine correlative relationships of vegetation change with species trends (species monitored every 1, 2, or 4 years would have common data points with vegetation status every 8th year; because 7 is a prime number, a 7-year cycle offers less opportunity to simultaneously link data within a given year).
Based on CDFG's extensive experience with, and knowledge of, monitoring mammal species, the 8-year cycle was determined to be appropriate, balancing information needs and costs of monitoring.
C-45 The phrase "three 3-person crews" contains a typographical error. The text will be corrected to reflect three 2-person crews as budgeted.
C-46 The three seasonal positions referenced are for the rapid assessment surveys, which is separate from species-specific surveys. It is acknowledged that a larger effort for species-specific plant surveys may be required in the spring following a high rainfall year. Since surveys for all Covered Species will be staggered from year to year, it is anticipated that crews that have been budgeted for other surveys, but will not in fact be used that year, can be used for spring plant surveys. In the event that more staff is needed, the use of the 10% contingency fund will be considered.
C-47 See Response C-46.
C-48 See Response C-5.
C-49 See Response C-5.
C-50 As described in Section 3.3.1 of the Plan, the Area Plan boundaries are institutional boundaries and are not biologically based. It would not be appropriate to have Rough Step Analysis Units based on units that are not biologically meaningful. In contrast, the Cores and Linkages are biologically meaningful units and the Rough Step Analysis Units are based on appropriate assemblages of the identified Cores and Linkages.
C-51 The discussion of property acquisition is included in the Property Owner Initiated Habitat Evaluation and Acquisition Negotiation Strategy (HANS) since it is anticipated that a significant amount of the property will be acquired through this process. The Lead Agencies do not agree that a discussion of how property will be acquired is appropriate for inclusion in the species accounts. The purpose of the species accounts is to specify the biological goals and objectives for each species. These goals and objectives may only be achieved if property is in fact conserved or set aside through acquisition of fee title or the imposition of deed restrictions or conservation easements.
C-52 Yes. See Section 8.4.2 of the Draft MSHCP for a discussion of conservation tools not requiring full acquisition.
C-53 As set forth on page 6-4 of the Draft MSHCP, the initial application review period for proposed projects within the Criteria Area may be extended beyond the 45-day period upon the mutual consent of the parties. In addition, the Joint Project/Acquisition Review Process described on pages 6-78 et seq. of the Draft MSHCP will also occur.
C-54 The second paragraph of page 6-12 of the Draft MSHCP states that any approved development application that precludes compliance with MSHCP Conservation Criteria will result in suspension or revocation of the Permits terminating Third Party Take Authorization. This suspension or revocation can occur as appropriate and may cover all or a portion of the Plan Area, Covered Species, etc. The commentor does not indicate why or how this section could be clearer.
C-55 These entities can take fee title to property, if appropriate.
C-56 See Responses F-12, F-14, F-15, F-16.
C-57 The plants noted in the comment will be added to the list of plants in the Purpose portion of Section 6.1.2 in the Final MSHCP.
C-58 Parish's meadowfoam (Limnanthes gracilis var. parishii), Orcutt's brodiaea (Brodiaea orcuttii), San Diego button-celery (Eryngium aristulatum var. parishii) and vernal barley (Hordeum intercedens) are already listed in Section 6.1.2 as species that would benefit from the protection of Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools within the MSHCP Plan Area.
As suggested, the following species will be added to the list of plant species in Section 6.1.2 that would benefit from the protection of Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools within the MSHCP Plan Area.
Brand's phacelia (Phacelia stellaris)
California walnut (Juglans californica)
Coulter's matilija poppy (Romneya coulteri)
Engelmann oak (Quercus engelmannii)
Fish's milkwort (Polygala cornuta var. fishiae)
graceful tarplant (Holocarpha virgata ssp. elongata)
lemon lily (Lilium parryi)
Mojave tarplant (Deinandra mohavensis)
mud nama (Nama stenocarpum)
ocellated Humboldt lily (Lilium humboldtii ssp. ocellatum)
San Miguel's savory (Satureja chandleri)
slender-horned spineflower (Dodecahema leptocerus)
smooth tarplant (Centromadia pungens)
It should be noted that the only species for which survey requirements are identified in Section 6.1.2 are those birds and invertebrates/crustaceans listed under the Survey, Mapping and Documentation Requirements portion of Section 6.1.2. See Sections 6.1.3 and 6.3.2 of the Draft MSHCP for identification of plant species for which surveys are required. Appendix E to Volume I of the MSHCP also provides a summary of survey requirements.
C-59 As stated in the Survey, Mapping and Documentation Requirements portion of Section 6.1.2, mapping of riparian/riverine areas and vernal pools will be required "as projects are proposed within the Plan Area,...as currently required by CEQA." As lead agencies under CEQA for both public and private projects, Local Permittees will be required to ensure that the Survey, Mapping and Documentation Requirements are implemented.
C-60 As mentioned above in Response C-58, mud nama and smooth tarplant will be added to the list of plant species in Section 6.1.2 that would benefit from the protection of Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools within the MSHCP Plan Area. Prostrate navarretia will also be added to this list.
C-61 As mentioned above in Response C-5, it is acknowledged that survey requirements for plants are documented in two separate sections of the MSHCP - Section 6.1.3 Protection of Narrow Endemic Plant Species and Section 6.3.2 - Additional Survey Needs and Procedures, and that plants that may be considered to be narrow endemics appear on both lists. The rationale for dividing the lists of plants for which surveys are required was based on consideration of those plants for which surveys would be required within appropriate locations of the broad Narrow Endemic Plant Species survey area (Draft MSHCP, Figure 6-1) and those plants for which surveys could be confined to appropriate locations within the Criteria Area (Draft MSHCP, Figure 6-2). Survey methods and avoidance, minimization and mitigation requirements are the same for both lists of plants so the ways in which these plant species are addressed in the Plan do not differ based on whether they appear on the Narrow Endemic Plant Species survey list or the Additional Survey Needs and Procedures list.
C-62 The Nichols Road wetlands are included in Narrow Endemic Plant Species Survey Area 1. Coulter's goldfields, Davidson's saltbush, Parish's saltbush and San Jacinto Valley crownscale are not included in Section 6.1.3 as Narrow Endemic Plant Species and therefore these species do not appear on Figure 6-1, Narrow Endemic Plant Species Survey Area with Criteria Area. Regarding San Diego ambrosia, this species is known to occur in this area and will be added to Figure 6-1 for Survey Area 1. Regarding spreading navarretia and Wright's trichocoronis, although these species are known to be associated with alkali soils they are not known to occur in the Alberhill area and have not been included in Survey Area 1 for that reason.
C-63 The text will be corrected to reflect the correct scientific name for Parish's brittlescale.
Section 6.1.3 - Protection of Narrow Endemic Plant Species includes a list of plants for which surveys are required within appropriate locations of the broad Narrow Endemic Plant Species survey area (Figure 6-1). Parish's meadowfoam (Limnanthes gracilis var. parishii), small-flowered microseris (Microseris douglasii var. platycarpha), Santa Ana River woolly-star (Eriastrum densiflorum var. sanctorum), San Diego button-celery (Eryngium aristulatum var. parishii) and Orcutt's brodiaea (Brodiaea orcuttii) were not included on the Narrow Endemic Plant Species list in Section 6.1.3 for reasons discussed below.
Parish's meadowfoam and San Diego button-celery are restricted to ephemeral wetlands and vernal pools on the Santa Rosa Plateau and are not expected to occur elsewhere in the Plan Area. Because the only known and expected occurrences of these two species are conserved within the Santa Rosa Plateau Nature Conservancy Preserve, it was determined that Conservation of these two species would not be dependent upon conserving additional locations within the broad Narrow Endemic Plant Species survey area.
The known extant localities (four occurrences) of the Santa Ana River woolly-star would be conserved in the MSHCP Conservation Area with connectivity along the Santa Ana River. This species is not expected to occur elsewhere in the Plan Area and therefore it was determined that conservation of this species would not be dependent upon conserving additional locations within the broad Narrow Endemic Plant Species survey area.
At least eight of the known locations of small-flowered microseris will be conserved in the MSHCP Conservation Area at Lake Matthews, in the Cleveland National Forest, at Lake Skinner and at Vail Lake. However, this species has a fairly scattered distribution and the existing records are not believed to be indicative of the distribution of this species; it was not possible to determine a Narrow Endemic Plant Species survey area for small-flowered microseris. Rather than identify a particular survey area, it was determined that coverage of this species would not be included in this Permit until Conservation of the species in the Plan Area has been demonstrated by confirming 10 localities (locality in this sense is not smaller than one quarter section) with at least 1,000 individuals (unless a smaller population has been demonstrated to be self-sustaining).
Three populations of Orcutt's brodiaea are known to occur within the Plan Area of which two lie within PQP Lands. The Core Area and associated watershed are conserved within the Santa Rosa Plateau Nature Conservancy Preserve and the Miller Mountain population is located partially within the San Mateo Wilderness. The third record along the San Jacinto River will be conserved in the MSHCP Conservation Area. This species is not expected to occur elsewhere in the Plan Area and therefore it was determined that Conservation of this species would not be dependent upon conserving additional locations within the broad Narrow Endemic Plant Species survey area.
Section 6.1.3 - Protection of Narrow Endemic Plant Species includes a list of plants for which surveys are required within appropriate locations of the broad Narrow Endemic Plant Species survey area (Figure 6-1). California bedstraw (Galium californicum ssp. primum), Jaeger's milk-vetch (Astragalus pachypus var. jaegeri) and sticky dudleya (Dudleya viscida) were not included on the Narrow Endemic Plant Species list in Section 6.1.3 for reasons discussed below.
California bedstraw was incorrectly identified as a Narrow Endemic in the species accounts (page 24); this error will be corrected in the text. The range of G. californicum ssp. primum is generally described as limited to the San Jacinto Mountains (CNPS 2001; Dempster 1993; Munz 1974). Of the five known localities in the San Jacinto Mountains, four are conserved. Because this species is not expected to occur outside the San Jacinto Mountains, it was determined that Conservation of this species would not be dependent upon conserving additional locations within the broad Narrow Endemic Plant Species survey area.
Jaeger's milk vetch has a fairly scattered distribution (Vail Lake near Kolb Creek, on the south side of Aguanga Valley, in the vicinity of Sage, Temecula Canyon, in the vicinity of Castile Canyon, in a canyon west of Portrero Creek, and at the base of Agua Tibia Mountain)and is also known to occur in northern San Diego County. Of the nine localities of Jaeger's milk vetch, seven of the nine localities will be conserved: Aguanga Valley, San Jacinto Mountains, Potrero Creek, Sage, Temecula Canyon, and the core location at Vail Lake and the base of the Agua Tibia Mountains. Of the two localities not to be conserved, one is historic and probably not extant: Beaumont (dating from 1897); the remaining locality (foothills of the Agua TibiaMountains) not conserved dates from 1997. In addition, 53% (249,440 acres) of the suitable habitat for this species will be included within the MSHCP Conservation Area. Given the high level conservation of known localities and the fairly scattered distribution, it was determined that Conservation of this species would not be dependent upon conserving additional locations within the broad Narrow Endemic Plant Species survey area.
The undisputed known occurrences of sticky dudleya are concentrated within the San Mateo Wilderness Area of the Santa Ana Mountains within USFS Lands. This species is not expected to occur elsewhere in the Plan Area and therefore it was determined that conservation of this species would not be dependent upon conserving additional locations within the broad Narrow Endemic Plant Species survey area.
C-64 As indicated above in Response C-63, Section 6.1.3 - Protection of Narrow Endemic Plant Species includes a list of plants for which surveys are required within appropriate locations of the broad Narrow Endemic Plant Species survey area (Draft MSHCP, Figure 6-1). Orcutt's brodiaea, San Diego button-celery and parish's meadow foam were not included on the Narrow Endemic list for reasons explained above in Response C-63. Brand's phacelia, California Orcutt grass, many-stemmed dudleya and Hammitt's clay-cress are already identified as Narrow Endemic Plant Species in Section 6.1.3, Table 6-1 and Figure 6-1.
Regarding the listing of species in Table 6-1, the species are ordered alphabetically. The first half of the table lists the Narrow Endemic Plant Species alphabetically and the second half of the table lists the Criteria Area Survey plant species alphabetically.
C-65 The Sedco Hills are addressed in Subunit 4 of the Elsinore Area Plan and Proposed Linkage 8. Regarding the "high number of endemic plant species" in Sedco Hills, only prostrate spine flower and long-spined spine flower, neither of which are Narrow Endemics Plant Species, are known to occur in Sedco Hills. None of the Narrow Endemic Plant Species included in Section 6.1.3 are known to occur in Sedco Hills.
The target species listed in the "Species of Concern Area ID" of Figure 6-1 are correct. The comment mentions that San Jacinto Valley crownscale and thread-leaved brodiaea are not mentioned as target species in Area 3 and San Jacinto Valley crownscale and Coulter's goldfields are not mentioned as target species in Area 2. None of these species mentioned is listed as a Narrow Endemic Plant Species and therefore are not included on Figure 6-1, which depicts only the Narrow Endemic Plant Species Survey Areas overlaying the Criteria Area. Regarding Wright's trichocoronis, this Narrow Endemic Plant Species may possibly occur in the alkali wetlands near Nichols Road in the vicinity of Lake Elsinore and was therefore included in Area 2 on Figure 6-1.
As stated in Section 6.3.2, surveys are required by the MSHCP for species where additional information is necessary to determine measures that would avoid, minimize and mitigate impacts of a project. In the case of the portion of the San Jacinto River referenced in the comment and depicted on Figures 6-1 and 6-2 recent, comprehensive, property-specific survey data are available and sufficient information exists to evaluate a proposed action in this area. Since the purpose of the survey requirements has already been filled in this area, the MSHCP allows, as noted on Figures 6-1 and 6-2, that survey requirements be waived in the future if a project determined to be consistent with the criteria for the San Jacinto River project presented in Section 7.0 of the MSHCP is proposed and accepted. If this requirement is not met, survey requirements would apply in this area.
C-66 If impacts greater than 90% cannot be avoided and achievement of overall MSHCP conservation goals for the particular species have not yet been demonstrated, then a determination of biologically equivalent or superior preservation is required in accordance with Section 6.1.3 - Protection of Narrow Endemic Plant Species. The biologically equivalent or superior alternative must be determined to provide benefits with respect to MSHCP Conservation Area design and configuration and shall be considered in the context of the following factors:
Due to the stringent analysis required to make such a determination, it is not necessary to replace "avoided" with "prohibited."
C-67 The bullets referenced on page 6-40 specifically state that the biologically equivalent or superior alternative must consider "effects on Habitat with long-term conservation value to Narrow Endemic Plant Species" and "effects on populations of the Narrow Endemic Plant Species." These requirements will assure that the focus of the biologically equivalent or superior alternative is on plants.
C-68 See Response C-55.
C-69 It is acknowledged that different types of agricultural use may have differing impacts to biological resources. Habitat values on existing agricultural lands are considered in the species analyses.
C-70 The comment is overly speculative and describes events that are unlikely to occur during the Permit's term. If all habitat value is removed as a result of agricultural land conversion and Take Authorization no longer meets state and federal issuance criteria, the Wildlife Agencies have remedies identified in Section 23 of the IA.
C-71 As the comment itself recognizes, existing zoning, previous trends (see Section 7.3.2 of the MSHCP), and the number of existing legal lots makes it unlikely that applications for the development of a large number of single family homes in the Criteria Area would be submitted at any one time. For this reason, it is unnecessary for the MSHCP to specifically limit the number of single family homes that can be built within the Criteria Area. Further, as explained by the Draft MSHCP at pp. 6-17 through 6-18, the location of a single family home or mobile home on an existing legal lot is determined by a number of factors, which act to restrict where a home may be built. With this understanding, the MSHCP limits Criteria Review for the 90-day period to a determination of the location of the building footprint and necessary access roads. Because of these existing restrictions, the review process, and the low number of such applications expected, there is no need to impose any other biological restrictions upon single family housing on existing legal lots in the Criteria Area.
C-72 The comment does not offer information on how Section 6.3.2 is confusing and a more detailed response is not possible.
See the last paragraph of Response C-65 for discussion of the rationale for waiving survey requirements along a portion of the San Jacinto River. These requirements would be waived only if a project consistent with the requirements set forth in Section 7.0 of the MSHCP is proposed and accepted.
As noted in Section 6.3.2 - Additional Survey Needs and Procedures, plant species listed as Criteria Area Survey Plant Species in Table 6-1 and depicted in Figure 6-2 will require surveys within appropriate habitat in the Criteria Area. Potential habitat is defined in Table 6-1. The habitat suitability assessment procedures described in Section 6.1.3 are referenced in Section 6.3.2. Given the known distribution of these plant species, the Wildlife Agencies feel that it is appropriate to confine surveys for these plants to appropriate locations within the Criteria Area.
If impacts greater than 90% cannot be avoided and achievement of overall MSHCP conservation goals for the particular species have not yet been demonstrated, then a determination of biologically equivalent or superior preservation as described in Section 6.3.2 - Additional Survey Needs and Procedures. The biologically equivalent or superior alternative must be determined to provide benefits with respect to MSHCP Conservation Area design and configuration and shall be considered in the context of the following factors:
Due to the stringent analysis required to make such a determination, the Lead Agencies feel that this process will result in adequate Conservation for these plant species. See also Response C-66.
C-73 See Responses F-79, F-80 and F-82 for discussion of the ways in which the effects of Covered Activities are addressed in the MSHCP. The last paragraph of Response F-79 discusses the ways in which indirect effects of Covered Activities are addressed in the MSHCP. With respect to the SR-79 realignment from Newport Road to Gilman Springs Road, pages 7-25 through 7-28 of the Draft MSHCP specifically address this facility and require concurrence by the Wildlife Agencies on any alignment selected. Requirements incorporated in the MSHCP will assure that the alignment selected avoids, minimizes and fully mitigates impacts to Covered Species.
With respect to the degree that the MSHCP would "cover these projects, and would potentially not allow for further mitigation or additional listings to protect these species," it should be noted that the MSHCP requires measures to avoid, minimize and mitigate impacts to Covered Species associated with Covered Activities as required by the FESA HCP issuance criteria. With respect to Covered Species, "further mitigation" would not be needed. No features of the MSHCP would limit the ability to petition for future listings within the Plan Area.
C-74 The only location within which there is a potential to waive survey requirements is in the reach of the San Jacinto River identified in Figures 6-1 and 6-2 of the Draft MSHCP. See the last paragraph of Response C-65 for discussion of the rationale for the potential to waive survey requirements in that area.
As noted in Table -2 of the Draft MSHCP, thirteen of the plant species on the Covered Species list would not be considered to be Covered Species Adequately Conserved until certain conservation requirements are met.
C-75 The purpose of the equivalency analysis is to consider impacts to Covered Species in the MSHCP, not to analyze non-Covered Species. If additional analysis is triggered under CEQA or NEPA due to impacts on non-Covered Species, the Lead Agencies (RCTC and FHWA) would prepare such analysis prior to approval.
C-76 See Response C-75.
C-77 The analysis in Section 7.3.2 of the MSHCP concludes that an expedited review process for single family homes would not result in significant impacts to Reserve Assembly. With respect to seasonality, the habitat assessment referenced in Section 6.1.1 of the MSHCP does not relate to focused surveys for species but rather to a general assessment of habitat features of the site in order to determine appropriate placement of the structure or any appurtenant facilities. As stated in Section 7.3.2, based on historic trends and the annual review requirements incorporated in the MSHCP, the level of potential impact is not anticipated to be of a magnitude that would preclude effective assembly of the MSHCP Conservation Area consistent with MSHCP requirements. It is acknowledged that the quantitative data presented in Section 7.3.2 are based on a prediction of anticipated single family home activity and that actual activity may differ from the data presented. However, the predictions presented are based on best available data using historictrends. The referenced "monitoring and reporting" of single family home activity will be included in annual reports prepared by the RMOC as required in Sections 6.6 and 6.11 of the Draft MSHCP. The purpose of providing and reviewing this information on an annual basis is to determine if acquisition priorities should be modified in response to single family home activity in a certain area to assure that such activities do not preclude Reserve Assembly consistent with MSHCP requirements. Moreover, as part of the expedited review process, the Permittees may negotiate with the property owner to acquire the subject lot, or to provide other incentives. The Draft EIR/EIS contains an evaluation of related direct, indirect and cumulative effects. See Responses H2-5, H2-15 and H2-309 through H2-315.
C-78 See Responses C-69, F-12, F-13 and F-84. The Lead Agencies do not believe that conversion of up to 10,000 acres within the Criteria Area to agricultural use would result in the loss of "significant habitat" and, thus, it would not be appropriate or feasible to impose new requirements for the regulation of Agricultural Operations. In the highly unlikely event that this scenario occurs, the Wildlife Agencies may implement the remedies set forth in Section 23 of the IA.
C-79 Nothing in the MSHCP would preclude project-specific environmental review of the SR79 northern alignment referenced in this comment, and it is expected that the CEQA lead agency for this project will undertake such review. The Lead Agencies believe that the 60-day review period is adequate.
C-80 It is not possible to confine freeway improvements to locations outside the Criteria Area. The existing freeways that need to be improved traverse the Criteria Area. Freeway improvements will be subject to project specific review and must implement the avoidance, minimization and mitigation requirements incorporated in the MSHCP.
As with freeways, certain CETAP corridors follow existing corridors that traverse the Criteria Area and improvements would need to occur within the Criteria. In addition, for several of the potential new corridors, it has been determined that it is not possible to meet the mobility objectives of these corridors without some portion traversing the Criteria Area. As with the freeways, the CETAP corridors will be subject to project specific review and must meet the CETAP corridor-specific and the overall avoidance, minimization and mitigation requirements incorporated in the MSHCP. The Wildlife Agencies have agreed to the 90-day review period and believe it to be adequate.
C-81 The MSHCP requires that the Permittees affirmatively assemble the MSHCP Conservation Area within the San Jacinto River, through implementation of the Criteria, with or without a flood control project. The Lead Agencies believe the Conservation Strategies identified for the Covered Species identified in this comment are adequate and there are sufficient requirements in the MSHCP to assure that the Conservation Strategies identified for those species are met. Wildlife Agency concurrence is required for any flood control project that would be considered as a Covered Activity.
C-82 It is acknowledged that distribution of the species referenced in this comment is limited and therefore, mitigation may occur within a limited geographical area. Regardless of where the mitigation is located, it would need to meet the objectives for the species. Options are provided flexibility in Reserve Assembly, but would need to meet the stated objectives. The language provided in the MSHCP is sufficient to meet Permit issuance criteria for the referenced species.
C-83 Translocation of thread-leaved Brodiaea south of the I-215 is only proposed to occur if no other alternative has been successful.
C-84 The referenced statement regarding Criteria adjustments refers to the Criteria Refinement Process and MSHCP amendment processes already included in the MSHCP. If such adjustments are necessary, the San Jacinto River project would be subject to the same MSHCP requirements as other applicants for public and private development projects.
C-85 The Table of Contents text will be corrected to include the correct page number for Munz's onion.
C-86 As mentioned above in Responses C-5 and C-61, it is acknowledged that plants that may be considered to be Narrow Endemics Plant Species appear in Section 6.1.3 - Protection of Narrow Endemic Plant Species and Section 6.3.2 - Additional Survey Needs and Procedures. The rationale for dividing the lists of plants for which surveys are required was based on consideration of those plants for which surveys would be required within appropriate locations of the broad Narrow Endemic Plant Species survey area (Figure 61) and those plants for which surveys could be confined to appropriate locations within the Criteria Area (Figure 6-2). Survey methods and avoidance, minimization and mitigation requirements are the same for both lists of plants so the ways in which these plant species are addressed in the Plan do not differ based on whether they appear on the Narrow Endemic Plant Species survey list or the Additional Survey Needs and Procedures list.
See Response C-65. None of the Narrow Endemic Plant Species included in Section 6.1.3 are known to occur in Sedco Hills.
Each of the plants mentioned includes a habitat-based objective and a locality-based objective. Moreover, each of these plant species requires additional surveys in accordance with Section 6.1.3 - Protection of Narrow Endemic Plant Species and Section 6.3.2 - Additional Survey Needs and Procedures. Survey methods and avoidance, minimization and mitigation requirements as described in Section 6.1.3 and Section 6.3.2 will ensure that the species on these two lists will be adequately conserved.
C-87 The organization of the referenced table reflects the organization of survey requirements in the MSHCP and does not need to be changed. See Response C-5 for additional discussion of this issue.
As described in Response C-5, Section 6.1.2 - Protection of Species Associated with Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools will provide benefits to a number of plant species that occur in wetlands. The table is correct that surveys for California Orcutt grass will only be required as indicated in Figure 6-1 in Section 6.1.3 of the Draft MSHCP. See Response C-58 for additional discussion of this issue.
C-88 As described in the species account for many-stemmed dudleya, potential habitat for many-stemmed dudleya is considered to include chaparral, coastal sage scrub, and grasslands that occur on clay soils of the Auld, Altamont, Bosanko, Claypit, and Porterville series and within the Riverside Lowlands and Santa Ana Mountains Bioregions. The clay soils information available for purposes of the analysis was prepared by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soils Conservation Service (Knecht 1971) and the mapping was general. See the Soils Discussion and Figure 2-4 of Section 2.1.1 - Data Sources and Limitations for a discussion of soils data. Based on the clay soils mapping source, it is possible for there to be small patches of clay inclusions throughout the chaparral, sage scrub and grasslands within the MSHCP Plan Area. Therefore, the conservation analysis was based on both the vegetation communities and clay soils being conserved. This is reflected in Objective 1 of the species account.
The same circumstances are true for the other species that are associated with clay soils. The conservation analyses for these species were also based on conservation of both Vegetation Communities and clay soils.
As discussed in Response C-86 (third paragraph), the conservation analyses for the plant species include a habitat-based objective and a locality-based objective. For a few plants (e.g., Parish's meadowfoam) for which there is no acreage coverage (e.g., vernal pools habitat), the conservation analysis focused on conservation of localities. Whenever possible, based on the distribution data available, core locations were identified and these were also addressed in the conservation analyses and species objectives.
C-89 Page 3 of the beautiful hulsea species account states that at least 85,500 acres (60 percent) of the potential habitat will be conserved. The 60 percent was a minimum standard for species primarily restricted to Forest Service lands. Objective 1 states that at least 106,440 acres of suitable habitat shall be conserved, which is greater than the minimum 60 percent. The species objectives for the plant species, including beautiful hulsea, constitute the MSHCP's requirements for Conservation and, ultimately, Take Authorization.
It is acknowledged that Objective 2 indicates that at least 12 of the known occurrences shall be conserved within the MSHCP Conservation Area. However, Objective 3 indicates that this species will not receive Take Authorization until 16 localities (locality in this sense is not smaller than one quarter section) with no fewer than 50 individuals each (unless a smaller population has been demonstrated to be self-sustaining) are conserved. Based on species distribution and locality size, this level of Conservation is considered adequate for beautiful hulsea.
Objective 3 requires that 16 localities be confirmed within the MSHCP Conservation Area. Section 5.2 - MSHCP Management and Adaptive Management Programs and 5.3 Biological Monitoring Program will apply to these localities to ensure Conservation of beautiful hulsea.
With respect to forest species, see Response A-3.
C-90 As noted in the species account, Coulter's matilija poppy occurs in dry washes and canyons below 1,200 m in open, mildly disturbed sage scrub, chaparral and along rocky drainages. The quantification of suitable habitat for this species in the MSHCP is limited to elevations below 1,200 m characterized by the habitats noted, based on the uncollapsed MSHCP vegetation data base. Since the uncollapsed data base does not specifically map dry washes and canyon, it is not possible to narrow the quantification of suitable habitat further.
C-91 Objective 2 states that the three known localities of Davidson's saltscale at Salt Creek, the San Jacinto River and the San Jacinto Wildlife Area shall be conserved within the MSHCP Conservation Area. Furthermore, the Conservation Summary states that two potential locations (Nichols Road wetlands and near Murrieta Hot Springs) shall be conserved within the MSHCP Conservation Area. The comment states that "the species conservation fails to note the existing conditions, and the importance of known localities on undisturbed lands." Given Objective 2 and the Conservation Summary and the fact that all known localities and two potential localities will be conserved, it is not apparent how the species account fails note existing conditions.
Regarding the SR-79 and San Jacinto River flood control project, when these projects are proposed, a detailed analysis of how the species objectives will be accomplished.
As stated in response to the first paragraph of Comment C-91, the Conservation Summary states that the potential location near the Nichols Road wetlands (presumed to be the Alberhill locality mentioned in the comment) shall be conserved within the MSHCP Conservation Area. Regarding the mention of a core locality near Lake Skinner, if this refers to the locality near Murrieta Hot Springs, that locality is conserved within the MSHCP Conservation Area as described in the Conservation Summary. If this is a new locality, the existing database does not include this information and the Lead Agencies request that the CNPS provide information regarding this locality.
C-92 The Habitat and Habitat Associations section has been reviewed for typographical errors and spelling errors but none were found. Specific information was not provided in the comment regarding typographical errors, spelling errors or missing citations.
C-93 Munz's onion is not known to occur in Sedco Hills nor does the soils data indicate that the Narrow Endemic Plant Species Survey Area 1 should be increased to include Sedco Hills or expand Survey Area 1 west to the Santa Ana National Forest.
As described in the species account for Munz's onion, potential habitat for this species includes grasslands, coastal sage scrub, chaparral, and peninsular juniper woodland that occur on clay soils between 300 and 1,000 m within the Riverside Lowlands and Santa Ana Mountains Bioregions. The clay soils information available for purposes of the analysis was prepared by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soils Conservation Service (Knecht 1971) and the mapping was conducted on a large scale. Based on the clay soils mapping source, it is possible for there to be small patches of clay inclusions throughout the grasslands, coastal sage scrub, chaparral, and peninsular juniper woodland within the MSHCP Plan Area. Therefore, the conservation analysis was based on both the Vegetation Communities and clay soils being conserved. This is reflected in Objective 1 of the species account. Objective 2 takes into account the existing populations and requires the conservation of at least 13 of the 15 known localities.
The Conservation Summary will be revised to identify which populations will be conserved.
Regarding the possibility of conserving 21,000 acres of potential habitat and missing the actual species localities, all of the species objectives designated in the species account must be met in order for this species to receive Take Authorization. Objective 1 describes the minimum conservation of potential habitat, Objective 2 describes the minimum Conservation of known localities and Objective 3 describes the surveys required in accordance with Section 6.1.3 - Protection of Narrow Endemic Plant Species. The Wildlife Agencies have determined that Take Authorization can be met by meeting all three species objectives for Munz's onion.
With regard to the ninth paragraph, species occurrence mapping will be updated with completion of initial monitoring surveys.
The Sycamore Creek population is anticipated to be included in the MSHCP Conservation Area as noted in species-specific Objective 2 for Munz's onion. The conservation analysis for this species does not imply that 21,000 acres of survey area equates to 21,000 acres of Conservation.
Corrections to map errors will be made as part of the monitoring plan during the long-term MSHCP implementation process.
C-94 The comment states that "[t]here are currently only two extant populations of this species and one of these may have been reduced to a seed bank population. This species has not been relocated at the third site from the San Jacinto River." Objective 2 and the Conservation Summary of the Parish's brittlescale species account note that the core location, three populations at upper Salt Creek west of Hemet, will be conserved within the MSHCP Conservation Area. The Conservation Summary also notes that the San Jacinto River locality, although not believed to be extant, will also be conserved within the MSHCP Conservation Area. The Take analysis states that the Winchester Valley locality, if still extant (observed in 1996), will not be conserved within the MSHCP Conservation Area. It is unclear from the comment which population may be reduced to a seed bank.
The comment also includes a suggestion to revise Objective 1 of the Parish's brittlescale species account to require Conservation of all known localities for this species. The Wildlife Agencies have determined that Take coverage can be met through implementation of the following species objectives: Objective 1 describes the minimum Conservation of potential habitat, Objective 2 describes the minimum Conservation of known localities, Objective 3 describes the surveys required in accordance with Section 6.3.2 - Additional Survey Needs and Procedures and Objective 4 describes minimum Conservation of the San Jacinto River floodplain.
Effects of Covered Activities are addressed in the MSHCP and not in the individual species accounts. It is therefore not necessary to discuss the SR-79 project as requested in the comment.
As discussed in the first paragraph of Response C-94, the Wildlife Agencies have determined that Parish's brittlescale will be conserved through meeting the four species objectives. In addition, adaptive management and monitoring measures will be met implemented in accordance with Section 5.2 - MSHCP Management and Adaptive Management Programs and 5.3 - Biological Monitoring Program.
C-95 As described in the San Jacinto Valley crownscale species account, the conservation analysis includes a review of the known occurrences. As noted in the Species Conservation Analysis, eleven of the 12 populations constitute the three Core Areas (Mystic Lake, the San Jacinto River and the upper Salt Creek drainage), all of which will be conserved within the Criteria Area and PQP Lands. The core locations were determined, in part, on total number of plants recorded. The twelfth population at Alberhill Creek near Lake Elsinore is believed to be located in the Criteria Area. The exact location of the Alberhill Creek population is uncertain. However, implementation of the five species objectives for this species, including Conservation of the three core locations (11 populations), will ensure that this species is conserved.
It is acknowledged that survey requirements described in species Objective 3 would be waived within the portion of the Criteria Area along the San Jacinto River (as depicted on Figure 6-2), provided the proposed project is found to be consistent with the San Jacinto River project presented in Section 7.0. In addition, implementation of species Objective 4 will ensure the Conservation of San Jacinto Valley crownscale by maintaining fluvial processes along the San Jacinto River.
"Existing and continual land disturbances on private land" are not Covered Activities under the MSHCP and therefore, it is not necessary to analyze the effects of these activities in the MSHCP. In addition, as noted in the second to last paragraph of Response C-94, effects of Covered Activities are discussed in the MSHCP and not in the individual species accounts so it is not necessary to discuss the referenced projects in the species account.
C-96 The information in Table 3 of the thread-leaved brodiaea species account was the best data available at the time the conservation analysis was conducted. The Monitoring Plan provides for continual updates of the database. See Section 5.3 of the Draft MSHCP.
The thread-leaved brodiaea species account Species Conservation Analysis does address the known localities on the Santa Rosa Plateau. The species account also acknowledges that this species occurs on non-alkali soils. However, as acknowledged in the species account, there is no acreage coverage for vernal pools within the Santa Rosa Plateau. Nor was digital soils information available for the Santa Rosa Plateau area.
As discussed above in the response to the first paragraph of this comment, the information in Table 3 of the thread-leaved brodiaea species account was the best data available at the time the conservation analysis was conducted.
As discussed in Responses C-94 and C-95, the effects of individual Covered Activities are not addressed in the species accounts.
C-97 The Lead Agencies believe that effective strategies are incorporated in the MSHCP to conserve the unique flora of western Riverside County.
C2-1 While it is recognized that certain roads and other facilities exist and/or will be constructed within the Criteria Area, the rights-of-way for those facilities would be excluded from the MSHCP Conservation Area. As such, the facilities would be essentially "carved out" and would remain outside of the MSHCP Conservation Area through the completion of Reserve Assembly. Therefore, the facilities, in some cases may be adjacent to the MSHCP Conservation Area on one or both sides, but would not be counted in the total acreage of Additional Reserve Lands.
C2-2 The area where Evans/Ellis Road intersects the I-215 is outside of the Criteria Area. As stated in Section 7.1 of the Draft MSHCP, public and private Development, including construction of buildings, structures, infrastructure and all alterations of the land, that are carried out by Permittees, such as the City of Perris and Caltrans, are permitted under the Plan, subject to consistency with MSHCP policies that apply outside of the Criteria Area.
C2-3 Future facilities that may be proposed by a non-Permittee public facility provider are provided a process by which they may be considered Covered Activities, as described in Section 7.3.8 of the Draft MSHCP and Section 11.8 of the Draft IA.
C2-4 See Response C2-3.
C2-5 The Lead Agencies acknowledge the comment and believe that the suggested thresholds of significance were identified and used in the Draft EIR/EIS. The MSHCP does not propose or authorize any physical development. The MSHCP Conservation Area will be assembled from undeveloped lands. Accordingly, the Draft EIR/EIS concluded that the MSHCP will not cause the division of an established community. (Draft EIR/EIS, p. 1.5-8.) The Draft EIR/EIS includes a brief description of impacts to land use in Section 1.5.5, as required by State CEQA Guidelines section 15128.
The Lead Agencies disagree with the commentor's conclusion because the MSHCP will not negatively impact or significantly divide any established communities. The proposed Core Areas and Linkages identified in Figure 4.1.3 of the Draft EIR/EIS are only intended to describe one possible configuration of the MSHCP Conservation Area that is consistent with the Plan Criteria. (See Response F-8.) It is, by no means, a hardline determination of the MSHCP Conservation Area or the precise Linkages. In fact, Linkages cannot be identified until after the Cores are identified and assembled.
Accordingly, the Linkages do not have hardline conservation boundaries at this point in time and will be assembled in the most efficient manner possible. See Response K-8. In addition, the proposed San Jacinto River Linkage depicted in Figure 4.1.3 is a Constrained Linkage. This means that it is a constrained connection that will provide for movement of species while also considering existing patterns of use. The San Jacinto River is an existing feature in the City of Perris and the MSHCP will not alter the existing configuration of that feature nor will it preclude the referenced facilities.
C2-6 Section 7.0 of the MSHCP provides coverage of operation and maintenance of existing transportation facilities, as well as for construction of new circulation element facilities. Section 7.0 also addresses coverage for future facilities, including utilities, and provides a process for evaluation of consistency for any future facility proposed within the MSHCP Plan Area. See Response C2-3, regarding railways and utilities proposed by non-Permittees.
C2-7 A response to this comment letter will be provided to the commentor at least 10 days prior to County certification of the Final EIR.
C3-1 See Responses W2-3 and W2-4.
C3-2 See Response W2-5.
C4-1 See Response H2-252.
C4-2 As discussed in Responses to the January 28, 2003 Comment Letter (Responses N3-1 through N3-5), the vegetation map submitted by Murdock for the Outlet Mall Expansion property actually confirmed the accuracy of the MSHCP vegetation data base, and its purpose in providing a landscape-level guidance in assembly of the MSHCP Conservation Area.
Based on the Pacific Clay aerial photograph, and the property-specific vegetation map, it appears that areas of chaparral have been disturbed since the MSHCP vegetation map was prepared. The MSHCP would accommodate such changedconditionsinconjunction with review of individual projects. It also appears that some large areas shown as disturbed habitat/developed on the Pacific Clay property map indicate a discrepancy in mapping conventions that is more throughly discussed in Response H2-252.
While there are some discrepancies between the Pacific Clay vegetation map submitted by Murdock and the MSHCP vegetation database, as with the Outlet Mall Expansion vegetation map, the Pacific Clay map again confirms the purpose of the MSHCP vegetation data base in providing a landscape-level guidance in Reserve Assembly. The MSHCP fully acknowledges limitations in the data base and incorporates many features to address those limitations during the long term Reserve Assembly and MSHCP implementation process. Those features will be described in detail in the formal responses to comments as data base issues have been raised by a variety of other commentors. Some of these features are mentioned below:
The MSHCP vegetation data base for the Pacific Clay property was queried based on a property boundary provided earlier to the County by Murdock representatives. It should be noted that this property boundary appears to differ somewhat from the property boundary depicted in the March 7 letter although a general comparison can still be made. Based on review of the MSHCP vegetation data base for the property, the following general comments can be made on the quantitative vegetation comparison presented in this comment:
As discussed above, comparison of the vegetation mapping of Murdock's Pacific Clay property with the MSHCP vegetation data base confirms the accurate application of the landscape-level guidance of the MSHCP data base.
C4-3 See Responses N3-4 and N3-5. The Wildlife Agencies will make a decision on Permit issuance after the final documents have been prepared and submitted to them. The commentor's recommendations concerning future provisions and versions of the MSHCP will be submitted to the decision makers.
C5-1 It is not necessary to include the maps suggested in the comment in the Final EIR/EIS. The MSHCP is a criteria-based plan and the Criteria incorporated in the MSHCP will be applied, consistent with the policies and incentives in the MSHCP, to guide Reserve Assembly regardless of underlying land use designations and entitlements. The policies and incentives incorporated in the MSHCP provide that lands assembled for the MSHCP Conservation Area will be from willing sellers in accordance with the HANS Process included in Section 6.1 of the MSHCP. Flexibility is incorporated in the Criteria to provide for assembly of the MSHCP Conservation Area in a manner that provides the greatest benefit for Covered Species while reflecting "on the ground" conditions at the time of Reserve Assembly. Progress toward Reserve Assembly will be evaluated on an annual basis as part of the Reserve Assembly Accounting process described in Section 6.7 of the MSHCP. If certain Reserve Assembly options are constrained or potentially precluded due to existing entitlements or other factors, such circumstances will become known as part of the annual Reserve Assembly Accounting process and appropriate remedies can be identified.
C5-2 Release of water from the Hemet Dam was not identified in the MSHCP planning process as an action required to address the needs of Covered Species. Maintenance of existing hydrologic processes along the San Jacinto River is called for in the MSHCP to benefit several Covered Species such as San Jacinto crownscale.
C5-3 The following Responses C5-4 through C5-17 were prepared in response to a letter sent to the Army Corps of Engineers on the San Jacinto River Project and not the MSHCP.
C5-4 The MSHCP addresses 146 Covered Species including species associated with the San Jacinto River. Species associated with the San Jacinto River are identified as Planning Species in the applicable Area Plan Subunits of the Lakeview/Nuevo, Mead Valley and San Jacinto Area Plans and individual Conservation Strategies are identified for each of those species in the MSHCP. Criteria for inclusion of a flood control project along the San Jacinto River as a Covered Activity are presented in Section 7.3.7 of the Draft MSHCP. All of this information is contained in the Draft MSHCP which was distributed for public review on November 15, 2002.
C5-5 Section 7.3.7 of the Draft MSHCP incorporates criteria for a potential flood control project along the San Jacinto River that would also address the needs of Covered Species. A specific project is not addressed in the MSHCP. It is likely that a variety of projects could be designed consistent with the criteria in the MSHCP.
C5-6 Any future flood control project proposed along the San Jacinto River would be subject to CEQA review, separate and apart from the MSHCP, and would need to address alternatives in accordance with CEQA requirements. If such a project were determined to be consistent with the criteria for a San Jacinto River flood control project in Section 7.3.7 of the Draft MSHCP, it could be considered to be a Covered Activity under the MSHCP. Project-specific CEQA review, however, would still be required.
C5-7 The MSHCP acknowledges that portions of the San Jacinto River provide core habitat for Covered Species and calls for maintenance of existing hydrologic processes to support those species as appropriate. With the exception of southern grasshopper mouse, all of the species listed on the referenced attachment are on the MSHCP Covered Species list.
C5-8 The MSHCP recognizes the presence of alkali playa and vernal pool habitat along the San Jacinto River and in the vicinity of Hemet. Conservation in these areas is proposed in the MSHCP to meet the needs of Covered Species.
C5-9 See Response C5-7. The species noted in the comment are on the MSHCP Covered Species list and the MSHCP is intended to address direct, indirect, cumulative and growth-inducing effects to these species associated with projected growth in the Plan Area.
C5-10 Public health and safety issues associated with a flood control project along the San Jacinto River would need to be addressed as part of project-specific review of such a proposal. See Response C5-6.
C5-11 See Responses C5-4 through C5-10.
C5-12 The MSHCP does not propose or address construction of homes as referenced in the comment. See Responses C5-6 and C5-10.
C5-13 See Responses C5-4 and C5-6. The Lead Agencies disagree with the conclusion that there has been a lack of public comment of review of the MSHCP. Throughout the development of the MSHCP, the Lead Agencies have encouraged public involvement and comment. (Draft EIR/EIS, p.1.5-1) Additionally, the Lead Agencies acknowledge that additional species may be listed as endangered or threatened in the future. Accordingly, the MSHCP attempts to limit the potential effects on Plan implementation associated with newly listed species by including a large number of Unlisted Species as Covered Species. If such Unlisted Species are subsequently listed, the MSHCP will continue to be implemented in the same manner without the need to follow the procedures set forth on pages 6-103 and 6-104 of the Plan. In those narrow circumstances where there is a new listing of a species not covered by the MSHCP, an amendment to the MSHCP will be required. During the processing of the amendment, it is both logical and required by law that the Permittees and the Third Parties Granted Take Authorization not unlawfully Take such species.
Accordingly, the Lead Agencies do not believe that revocation of any previously granted approval is necessary or appropriate. As explained in the preceding responses, and elsewhere in the Final EIR/EIS, neither the Draft MSHCP nor the Draft EIR/EIS contain any new information or inaccuracies that require recirculation of either document. Additionally, the Lead Agencies are not aware of any facts that require revision or recirculation of the Draft EIR/EIS.
C5-14 The purpose of the MSHCP is to address cumulative and growth-inducing impacts from development throughout the Plan Area, and as such encompasses any growth-related and cumulative impacts associated with the referenced project.
C5-15 The MSHCP recognizes the presence of alkali playa and vernal See Responses C5-7, C5-8 and C5-9.
C5-16 The Sierra Club is on the list to receive MSHCP documentation as it is made available for public review.
C5-17 See Response C5-7.
C5-18 This comment appears to be an article regarding sensitive species in the San Jacinto Valley. It is assumed that the information is provided as a general reference as it makes no specific comments regarding the MSHCP. No additional response is considered to be necessary.
D-1 Responses to specific comments made by the commentor are provided in Responses D-2 through D-88. The public review period for the Draft MSHCP and Draft EIS/EIR closed on January 15, 2003. However, the NEPA review period for the Plan and EIS/EIR was reopened on February 28, 2003 and closed on March 14, 2003. The comment regarding integration of the MSHCP, General Plan and CETAP is noted. The County believes these plans are integrated as part of the overall Riverside County Integrated Project (RCIP). Since specific comments are not provided regarding integration, a more specific response is not possible.
D-2 The vision statement for the RCIP acknowledges the development pressure being experienced in western Riverside County and the resulting conflicts with species protection.
D-3 The Lead Agencies agree that the MSHCP is a large complex plan and is an enormous undertaking. The Lead Agencies believe that regional habitat conservation planning provides unique benefits to species and habitat that cannot be achieved through project-by-project mitigation scenarios. The FWS Section 10 Handbook takes a similar view. See Response H2-132. The Lead Agencies disagree that the MSHCP and the joint EIR/EIS rely upon insufficient or inadequate mitigation. To the contrary, the MSHCP provisions in essence "self mitigate" most impacts to biological resources on an extremely large scale that benefits Covered Species to the maximum extent practicable. The lands to be conserved as part of the Additional Reserve Lands are not theoretical and are set forth in substantial detail in Section 4.0 of the MSHCP. See Responses G-7 and G-8 for a discussion of the MSHCP's binding commitments to assure Reserve Assembly. Conformance with MSHCP requirements in review, approval and implementation of Covered Activities is mandatory for Permitees and Third Parties, not voluntary. Use of fees, such as the Local Development Mitigation Fees, to fund regional habitat conservation plans is not only allowed, it is common and lawful. See Response H2-11. With regard to the adequacy of funding for the MSHCP, see Responses H2-224, K-140 and Z3-17.
Regarding the literature referenced in the second sentence of this comment, the commentor inappropriately applies the conclusion of a study on Recovery Plans to Habitat Conservation Plans. FESA provides for both Recovery Plans and Habitat Conservation Plans, but identifies entirely different purposes for each. The MSHCP is not intended to meet the standards of a Recovery Plan under FESA. The MSHCP does not rely on a "theoretical reserve system premised on the voluntary actions of third parties and unsecured funding sources." See Responses G-7 and G-8 for discussion of binding requirements incorporated in the MSHCP to assure assembly of the MSHCP Conservation Area consistent with specific conservation requirements including configuration requirements incorporated in Cores and Linkages descriptions in Section 3.2.3 of the MSHCP, and the specific Conservation Strategy developed for each Covered Species as presented in Section 9.2 of the MSHCP. Conformance with MSHCP requirements in review, approval and implementation of Covered Activities is mandatory for Permittees, not voluntary.
D-4 The majority of these comments were submitted on preliminary draft work products subject to change and were clearly identified as such. The Lead Agencies believe that all issues that were raised in past correspondence have been considered and if appropriate, reflected in the EIR/EIS and the MSHCP, and that these documents fully comply with all applicable laws and regulations. With regard to the comment's statement that there is an "under-representation" of grasslands and coastal sage scrub habitats, see Responses G-16 and G-17. With regard to the other general allegations, see Responses H2-231 and M-103 regarding the MSHCP's use of the most current data available, and Responses G-7 and G-8 regarding the MSHCP's binding commitments to ensure Reserve Assembly. This comment overall lacks sufficient specificity to allow the Lead Agencies to provide any further specific response.
D-5 The Lead Agencies believe that the EIR/EIS has presented information on the MSHCP in a clear and concise manner in full compliance with CEQA and NEPA. The MSHCP is a complex document and accordingly the EIR/EIS analysis is also complex. With regard to the comment regarding how the Criteria for particular lands was developed, see MSHCP Section 3.3.1. With regard to mitigation fee and funding issues, see Section 8.0 of the MSHCP for a detailed discussion of MSHCP funding sources, and Response I-7 regarding adequacy of funding. With regard to the alternatives analysis, the Draft EIR/EIS discusses a range of reasonable alternatives in detail in Section 2 as is required by both CEQA and NEPA. (14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15126(a); 40 CFR § 1502.14; see also Response H2-18) The Final EIR/EIS and MSHCP will fully comply with all legal requirements. With regard to the other allegations in this comment, the commentor has not provided enough detailed information to allow a more detailed response.
D-6 The Lead Agencies believe the MSHCP fully complies with all applicable laws and regulations. The comment does not provide any examples of alternatives or mitigation measures to ensure more conservation and thus, no further response is required.
D-7 The Lead Agencies believe that all issues that were raised in past correspondence have been considered and if appropriate, reflected in the EIR/EIS and the MSHCP and that these documents fully comply with all applicable laws and regulations. The comment misstates the MSHCP acreage amounts - the MSHCP Conservation Area will be approximately 500,000 acres. The Additional Reserve Lands will consist of 153,000 acres and the Criteria Area is approximately 310,000 acres.
D-8 See Response D-3. The MSHCP requires that Conservation is assured throughout the entire MSHCP Conservation Area. The MSHCP adopts an accepted conservation planning approach that is consistent with the principles of conservation biology, of defining what needs to be conserved, identifying gaps in conservation, and planning a preserve to fill the gaps. The MSHCP is appropriately augmenting the existing reserves and providing the connections to ensure their biological values. The MSHCP does not provide the Permittees with "credit" for lands already in Conservation. See Section 9 of the Draft MSHCP, documenting Take and Conservation for Covered Activities. In addition, the MSHCP is providing a regional coordinating mechanism and funding for management of existing reserves. Current management entities do not have an obligation to manage existing reserves for the benefit of multiple species.
This is a criteria-based plan, and not a plan with hardline boundaries. The Conceptual Reserve Design was merely one way that the Additional Reserve Lands could be assembled, not a hardline boundary. There is no requirement that a hard line reserve be provided in a regional habitat conservation plan. See Response H2-85. The Lead Agencies disagree with the comment that the "conservation for which the public is assured" is limited. The Permittees must implement the Plan to meet these requirements, thus ensuring Conservation. With regard to use of the Public and Quasi-Public Lands, see Response J4-34.
D-9 Section 3.2.3 of the MSHCP provides a description of all existing and proposed Cores and Linkages including dimensional data and Planning Species for each Core and Linkage. The dimensional data include a target approximate total acreage, anticipated acreage of edge and interior, and perimeter to area ratio. For Cores, an anticipated distance to the next connected Core is provided.
As defined in the MSHCP, the Criteria Area is an approximately 310,000 acre area from which approximately 153,000 acres of private land will be conserved. This approach is not different than that used in other multiple-species planning efforts such as the focused planning area (FPA) concept, or the multiple species planning area concept (MHPA) incorporated in the San Diego MHCP and MSCP respectively. Those FPA and MHPA approaches define boundaries from within which various levels of Conservation are anticipated to occur - sometimes ranging from 50% to 90%, as the MSHCP Criteria Area defines the area from within which approximately 153,000 acres of land will ultimately be conserved. See Responses F-46, F-47, F-48 and F-50 for discussion of guidance and requirements incorporated in the MSHCP to assure that the Additional Reserve Lands are acquired in a manner consistent with the conservation goals of the MSHCP.
The survey requirements presented in Sections 6.1.3 and 6.3.2 of the MSHCP call for Conservation of species locations identified as a result of surveys if it is determined that those locations would contribute have long-term conservation value for the MSHCP. As stated in the MSHCP, results of surveys will also be used to identify and prioritize acquisition efforts for Additional Reserve Lands.
Contrary to the comment, the MSHCP does not have to comply with CEQA or NEPA. It is the EIR/EIS that must, and does comply with these laws.
D-10 Section 2.1.1 of the MSHCP discloses data sources used to develop the MSHCP and their limitations. As described in Section 2.1.1, features have been incorporated in the MSHCP to address limitations in the data. The existing data are adequate for purposes of the landscape-level planning conducted for the criteria-based MSHCP. As noted in Sections 2.1.1 and 5.3, preparation of an updated vegetation map will be one of the initial tasks undertaken as part of the monitoring program. With respect to species occurrences, many of the species-specific objectives call for conserving existing and newly observed species locations. For example, survey requirements for southwest willow flycatcher and western yellow-billed cuckoo require that any new observations of these species resulting from survey efforts be conserved.
The MSHCP is based on the best scientific and commercial data available, in accordance with federal and state standards for information used in considering Permits pursuant to FESA and the NCCP Act. As such, "focused surveys for species covered by the MSHCP prior to designating the Criteria Area" are not required. The Conservation and Take summaries provided in Table 9-2 of the Plan disclose species populations and habitat areas expected to be located within and outside the MSHCP Conservation Area. It is acknowledged that the MSHCP must meet issuance criteria that call for demonstration that the expected take will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of survival and recovery of Covered Species. The USFWS must address this specific issue as a part of their decision to issue the Section 10(a) Permit.
D-11 The MSHCP vegetation map documents the presence of grasslands south of March ARB. As part of Step 3 of the Conceptual Conservation Scenario portion of the conservation planning process (see Section 3.1.6 of the Draft MSHCP, pg 3-10), it was apparent that substantial areas of grassland south of March ARB had been developed since the MSHCP vegetation map was prepared. In addition, it is understood that this area was considered for inclusion as one of the SKR reserves in the SKR HCP but was not ultimately identified as an area to be conserved within the SKR HCP. The MSHCP focused on additional SKR Conservation only in portions of the MSHCP Plan Area outside the SKR HCP planning area and so this area was not considered for SKR protection in the MSHCP.
The MSHCP species occurrence data base does not indicate the presence of burrowing owl and California horned lark in this area although the remaining grassland in the area likely provides suitable Habitat for these species and conservation requirements for these species are being met in other locations planned to be included in the MSHCP Conservation Area. (For burrowing owl, the data base has very few points west of I-215 with one recent point south of Cajalco Road in the Mead Valley area and one old point on Cajalco Road. For horned lark, the data base has a number of points near Murrieta Hot Springs, on March ARB, and a couple of points in the vicinity of Cajalco Road but not points southwest of March ARB.) See Responses F-72 and G-16 for additional discussion of these species. Due to ongoing urbanization in this area and existing Habitat fragmentation, this area was not identified as important for wildlife movement and a connection between Sycamore Canyon/Box Springs and Lake Mathews/EstelleMountain was not identified as an important linkage in the conservation planning process for the MSHCP.
D-12 The comment is overly vague and prohibits a response. For a discussion of grasslands, see Response G-16.
D-13 Conservation in the Gavilan Plateau area is planned to occur as part of assembly of Proposed Linkage 3. As discussed in Section 3.2.3 of the MSHCP, this Linkage is generally comprised of upland areas in the Gavilan Hills, Harford Springs and North Peak Conservation Bank and provides a connection between proposed Core 1 and the Lake Mathews/Estelle Mountain reserve. SKR is among the Planning Species identified within this Linkage; southern California rufous-crowned sparrow has been added to the list of Planning Species for this Linkage in the Final MSHCP.
D-14 The MSHCP requires maintenance of hydrologic processes along the San Jacinto River for Narrow Endemic Plant Species. For example, species-specific Objective 4 for San Jacinto Valley crownscale states the following: "Include within the MSHCP Conservation Area the floodplain along the San Jacinto River consistent with Objective 1. Floodplain processes will be maintained along the river in order to provide distribution of species to shift over time as hydrologic conditions and seed bank sources change..." This same objective is included in the species-specific objectives for other Narrow Endemic Plant Species present in the San Jacinto River floodplain.
D-15 It is assumed that this comment is referring to the Quail Valley area located in the vicinity of Railroad Canyon and Kabian Park. These areas are incorporated in the MSHCP as part of Proposed Linkage 7. Planning Species identified for Proposed Linkage 7 include California gnatcatcher, Cooper's hawk and loggerhead shrike. Burrowing owl will be added to the list Planning Species for this Linkage in the Final MSHCP.
D-16 The Final MSHCP, Section 3 incorporates Special Linkage Areas for the San Gorgonio and Palomar-Santa Ana Linkages referenced in the comment. This information includes the following language incorporated respectively in The Pass and Southwest Area Plans:
From The Pass Area Plan:
Special Linkage Area: This Special Linkage Area will contribute to assembly of a portion of the San Gorgonio River/San Bernardino-San Jacinto Mountains Linkage. Tribal coordination regarding American Indian Lands will be necessary in this area. The San Gorgonio River/San Bernardino-San Jacinto Mountains Linkage includes locations within and outside the MSHCP Plan Area. Features of the entire linkage area are described in Missing Linkages: Restoring Connectivity to the California Landscape (Penrod, K., November 2, 2000). A copy of this report is attached as Exhibit 24 to Comment Letter D in Volume V of the MSHCP. Local Permittees will apply the following rebuttable presumption of significance, taken from Appendix G to the 1998 State CEQA Guidelines, in CEQA review of proposed public and private projects within this Special Linkage Area and apply mitigation measures as appropriate: "Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?" Draft and Final CEQA documentation prepared by Local Permittees for projects within this Special Linkage Area will be forwarded to the RCA for informational purposes to provide for MSHCP coordination regarding this area.
From the Southwest Area Plan:
Special Linkage Area: This Special Linkage Area will contribute to assembly of a portion of the Santa Ana-Palomar Mountains Linkage for the benefit of Covered Species. Tribal coordination regarding American Indian Lands will be necessary in this area. The Santa Ana-Palomar Mountains Linkage includes locations within and outside the MSHCP Plan Area. Features of the entire linkage area are described in the Santa Ana-Palomar Mountains Linkage Conservation Design Plan Working Draft (SDSU Field Station Programs and South Coast Wildlands Project, February 2003). A working draft of the Conservation Design Plan is attached to Comment Letter X3 in Volume V, of the MSHCP. Local Permittees will apply the following rebuttable presumption of significance, taken from Appendix G to the 1998 State CEQA Guidelines, in CEQA review of proposed public and private projects within this Special Linkage Area and apply mitigation measures as appropriate: "Would the project interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites?" Draft and Final CEQA documentation prepared by Local Permittees for projects within this Special Linkage Area will be forwarded to the RCA for informational purposes to provide for MSHCP coordination regarding this area.
D-17 The MSHCP vegetation map is adequate for the landscape level planning undertaken for the MSHCP and represents the best available scientific and commercial data available for regional vegetation mapping. It is not necessary to have an updated vegetation map prior to identifying a Criteria Area. Many biological factors were considered in identification of the Criteria Area, not just vegetation mapping. As described in Section 3.1 of the MSHCP, identification of the Criteria Area was the result of an iterative conservation planning process that began with assembly and review of a variety of data including vegetation mapping. These data included species occurrence data, a coastal sage scrub quality model, digitized select soils data, elevation data, wetlands mapping from a variety of sources, bioregions identification and mapping, and evaluation of existing edge conditions and fragmentation based on the existing landscape. The iterative process included a series of habitat assessment workshops with local biologists and a day-long workshop of local biologists sponsored by UCR, as well as review of species accounts and the MSHCP Alternatives Development document by the Scientific Review Panel (SRP). Wildlife Agencies biologists also participated in the iterative conservation planning process as the initial narrative Conceptual Conservation Scenario evolved into mapped schematic Conservation Analysis Units (see March 9, 2000 Technical Memorandum, DUDEK) and then into the schematic alternatives maps (see October 4, 2000 Alternatives Development Document, DUDEK). These iterations were subject to ongoing refinement and resulted in the Criteria Area identified in the Draft MSHCP.
Input from comment letters and review of project specific information as it has become available during the MSHCP planning process have generally confirmed the reliability of the vegetation map, as augmented by other MSHCP data used in the planning process, for landscape-level planning purposes and the general configuration of the Criteria Area. As noted in the Responses to Comment Letter N3, what is represented as the project-specific information in that letter generally confirms the suitability of the MSHCP data for landscape-level planning purposes. In Comment G-14, the Conservation Biology Institute states: "Despitemy reservations about these issues (reserve configuration issues noted earlier in the letter), it does appear that the conceptual reserve configuration captures the majority of high-priority biological resource areas and linkages. For example, major landscape linkages and wildlife movement corridors identified by the California Missing Linkages Project...seem generally contained within the conceptual reserve design."
The criteria-based foundation of the MSHCP allows for flexibility in Reserve Assembly to respond to new information as it becomes available, to assure acquisition of the most appropriate lands for the MSHCP Conservation Area, and to consider adjustments to the Criteria Area based on new information. The Criteria Refinement Process (CRP) described in Section 6.5 of the MSHCP provides opportunities to consider conservation options outside the Criteria Area subject to concurrence by the Wildlife Agencies. An amendment process is described in Section 6.10 of the MSHCP that could also result in adjustments to the Criteria Area as appropriate.
D-18 The MSHCP Vegetation Communities were not inappropriately collapsed. Both the collapsed and uncollapsed Vegetation Communities were used throughout the MSHCP planning. The collapsed Vegetation Communities were used to display generalized MSHCP vegetation mapping in reports and documents and to quantify generalized vegetation acreages inside and outside potential conservation boundaries as part of the alternatives development and analysis process. For the species analyses, uncollapsed Vegetation Communities and other factors such as soils, elevations and Bioregions, were used to defined suitable Habitat for individual species; species-specific definitions of suitable Habitat were combined with species occurrence data and other data, such as aerial photography where appropriate, as part of the conservation analysis for each species. In addition, the MSHCP Conservation Area description in Section 3.2 of Volume II, Section A of the MSHCP provides a complete description and analysis of the MSHCP Conservation Area based on the uncollapsed Vegetation Communities. See Response D-17 for additional discussion of the adequacy of the MSHCP vegetation map for landscape-level planning in the MSHCP.
D-19 The species occurrence data described in Section 2.1.1 of the MSHCP is the best available data. The data were assembled and digitized by UCR and augmented throughout the MSHCP planning process by data supplied by the Wildlife Agencies and herbaria data collected specifically for the MSHCP. Access to private lands was not available to conduct the focused species surveys described in the comment. Where additional survey data was determined to be needed to meet conservation requirements for individual species, survey requirements are incorporated in the MSHCP as described in Section 6.1.3 and 6.3.2 of the Plan.
D-20 See Responses G-16 and G-17 for discussion of grassland and coastal sage scrub within the MSHCP Plan Area.
D-21 As set forth in Section 15.5 of the IA, the MSHCP does not provide Take Authorization under the NCCP Act for fully protected species. There is no reason therefore to drop these species from the list of Covered Species.
D-22 It is an incorrect statement that there will be no assessment of riparian/riverine areas and vernal pool areas until development projects are proposed in those areas. Substantial attention was given to these areas in the MSHCP planning process as they provide important Habitat for Covered Species and are often key components of wildlife movement Linkages. As described in Section 2.1.1 of the Plan, a separate coverage of MSHCP mapped wetland resources was prepared as part of the conservation planning process which included data from the MSHCP vegetation map as well as surface waters data developed for the County General Plan hazards mapping and a separate riparian coverage by UCR research assistants. As also noted in Section 2.1.1, a planning level wetland delineation for the San Jacinto and Santa Margarita watersheds was completed as part of the ACOE Special Area Management Plan (SAMP) process underway in portions of those watersheds in western Riverside County and those data will be available during the MSHCP implementation process. In addition, wetlands mapping will be included in the updated vegetation mapping to be undertaken as part of the monitoring plan described in Section 5.3 of the MSHCP. These mapping efforts will occur in addition to the project specific mapping of riparian/riverine and vernal pool areas called for in Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP.
The mapping to be conducted in accordance with the requirements of Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP is likely to identify suitable Habitat for all the species listed in Section 6.1.2 that may benefit from implementation of the Section 6.1.2 requirements, including the species mentioned in the comment. As is typical for biologists during mapping, it is likely that anecdotal observations of species will be required. However, as stated in the comment, focused surveys in accordance with accepted protocols, will be required only for the six species identified in the comment, since these were the species for which it was determined focused survey data would be needed to assure that MSHCP conservation requirements are met for these species.
This Plan provides Take Authorization, not development approvals. The referenced requirements will be done when and if development is proposed and prior to impacts. It is completely unrealistic to expect a plan covering 1.26 million acres to survey and assess every riparian/riverine or vernal pool habitat, whether or not impacts will occur. A general assessment of potential Plan impacts to these resources has already occurred as part of the MSHCP analysis and in conformance with applicable state and federal law.
D-23 A four component Conservation Strategy is identified for each Covered Species in Section 9.2 of the MSHCP, including Narrow Endemic Plant Species and plant species on the Criteria Area surveys list. The strategy for these species incorporates survey requirements as described in Sections 6.1.3 and 6.3.2 of the MSHCP, recognizing that site-specific data regarding these species is required to assure that acquisition boundaries and priorities are properly defined and avoidance and mitigation measures are properly implemented. See Response C-5 regarding the definitions/differences for plant species on the Narrow Endemics and Criteria Area surveys lists. All of the species referenced in this comment are on one of these lists and would be subject to surveys according to Sections 6.1.3 and 6.3.3 with the exception of Bergia texana. This species is not a Covered Species and is not considered to be a Narrow Endemic, with a large range extending from Texas west to California and north to Washington state.
The requirements for the San Jacinto River Flood Control Project that must be met for that project to receive Take Authorization under the MSHCP are presented in Section 7.3.7 of the MSHCP. In addition to these requirements, the Project must be consistent with the Conservation Strategy, including the species-specific objectives, for Covered Species present along the San Jacinto River. As noted in Response D-14, species-specific objectives for Narrow Endemic Plant require maintenance of hydrologic processes along the San Jacinto River. See Response C-65 for additional discussion of the San Jacinto Flood Control Project.
The excerpt from the referenced December 4, 2000 USFWS letter noted that flood control activities in general could affect the species listed in the letter excerpt, not a specific project along the San Jacinto River. Although it is recognized that the San Jacinto River supports a variety of sensitive species, including Narrow Endemic and Criteria Area plant species, the species noted in the comment (least Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, arroyo toad, southwestern pond turtle, and western yellow-billed cuckoo) are not present along the portion of the San Jacinto River affected by the San Jacinto River Flood Control Project or in downstream areas that could be affected by the Project.
D-24 The MSHCP conservation analysis for coast range newt concludes that approximately 67% of the primary breeding Habitat and 70% of the secondary Habitat for this species would be located within the MSHCP Conservation Area. For purposes of analysis, suitable Habitat was defined as areas within the Santa Ana Mountains Bioregion, below elevation 1,830 m. In addition to capturing approximately two thirds of the identified suitable Habitat, species-specific objectives for coast range newt call for maintenance of ecological processes in areas occupied by the newt within the MSHCP Conservation Area, documentation of successful reproduction at 75% of the occupied areas, and maintenance of a 100 m buffer, where possible, around emergent vegetation areas. The 100 m buffer distance is considered to be a best estimate based on available information. The coast range newt is identified as a species that will benefit from implementation of the riparian/riverine mapping and avoidance and minimization requirements incorporated in Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP. These requirements will apply throughout the Plan Area, including lower elevation drainages. The combination of these features incorporated in the MSHCP will achieve the MSHCP Conservation Strategy for coast range newt.
As documented in the species account for coast range newt (Draft MSHCP, Volume II) of the suitable Habitat to be conserved for coast range newt, approximately 87% of the primary Habitat and 93% of the secondary Habitat occurs on Public/Quasi-Public Lands including Cleveland National Forest and Santa Rosa Plateau. Conservation benefitting this species resulting from the riparian/riverine requirements in Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP would occur on private lands. As required by the MSHCP, these lands will be managed for the benefit of Covered Species. Contributions for management will come from local, state and federal sources.
The reference to threats to be addressed by the Forest Service noted in the comment does not constitute deferral of mitigation. See Response A-33. To be consistent with MSHCP requirements, all lands within the MSHCP Conservation Area will be managed for the benefit of Covered Species in accordance with the Conservation Strategy for each Covered Species, including species-specific objectives and management activities identified in the MSHCP. See Response D-22 regarding deferral of mitigation.
D-25 The conservation analysis for western pond turtle used uncollapsed Vegetation Communities data, elevational data, and a 2km distance for definition of suitable upland Habitat to define overall suitable Habitat for this species in a manner reflective of the microhabitat requirements referenced in the comment. Monitoring and management activities for this species are addressed in the MSHCP and will address these microhabitat needs in greater detail. In addition to protection of suitable Habitat in specific locations, species-specific objectives for this species include protection of named riparian/wetland areas as well as overland dispersal areas. As stated in Section 6.1.2, this species will also benefit from implementation of the riparian/riverine areas policies incorporated in the MSHCP. The species-specific objectives also call for maintenance of continued use by this species at 75% of the Core Areas identified in Objective 2 as measured at 3-year intervals. Management activities identified for this species include maintenance of ecological processes in identified locations. In addition, Section 7.3.5 of the MSHCP (page7-50 of the Draft MSHCP) calls for specific features to be incorporated in the designs of wildlife crossings, including features benefitting small mammalian,reptilianandamphibian species. These features incorporated in the MSHCP will assure that the Conservation Strategy for this species is met.
D-26 The MSHCP does not "authorize destruction" of riparian habitats. The referenced portions of the conservation analyses for yellow warbler and yellow-breasted chat simply state the proportions of these Vegetation Communities anticipated to be located outside the MSHCP Conservation Area to appropriately disclose to the public areas potentially occupied by these species within Take authorized areas. However, these areas will be subject to the requirements for riparian/riverine areas included in Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP and yellow warbler and yellow-breasted chat are identified as species that would benefit from implementation of the requirements of Section 6.1.2. As stated in Section 6.1.2, existing state and federal wetland regulations would continue to apply throughout the Plan Area. See Response D-18 regarding use of collapsed and uncollapsed Vegetation Communities.
The MSHCP management plan recognizes invasion by exotics and nest parasitism as threats to yellow warbler and yellow breasted chat. General Management Measure 4 calls for maintenance of wetland Habitat within the MSHCP Conservation Area in condition similar or better that the condition of the Habitat at the time lands are conveyed to the MSHCP Conservation Area. General Management Measure 9 of the Draft MSHCP calls for directing management activities to areas disturbed due to natural or anthropogenic causes. Specific management activities identified for these species call for control of exotic plants and animals (including brown-headed cowbirds).
D-27 The MSHCP addresses the factors affecting least Bell's vireo in the Plan Area by protecting nesting Habitat within the MSHCP Conservation Area, implementing policies to avoid and minimize impacts to riparian/riverine areas and implementing management measures to address threats associated with habitat degradation and nest parasitism by brown-headed cowbirds. These are features incorporated in the MSHCP and the EIS/EIR impact analysis is based on such incorporation. Therefore, these features are not identified as mitigation measures in the EIS/EIR.
The basis for the comment that 57 percent of the recent point locations will be subject to urban development is not known. The Conservation Levels and Data Characterization discussions for least Bell's vireo in the MSHCP species account note that the MSHCP species occurrence data base includes 28 high precision data points within the last 10 years. Of these, 19 (68%) would be within the MSHCP Conservation Area. In addition to the locations recorded in the UCR species occurrence data base, as stated in the species account, the 336 pairs of this species recorded within the Prado Basin would be within the MSHCP Conservation Area.
The Arundo/Riparian Forest component was not uncollapsed from the Riparian Scrub, Woodland, ForestVegetation Community category for the least Bell's vireo conservation analysis because the MSHCP species occurrence data base has a number of data points in this category and it appears to support vireos in the Plan Area.
D-28 The MSHCP addresses the factors affecting the southwestern willow flycatcher in the Plan Area by protecting nesting Habitat within the MSHCP Conservation Area, implementing policies to avoid and minimize impacts to riparian/riverine areas, implementing management measures to address nest parasitism by brown-headed cowbirds, and most importantlythrough maintenance and restoration of riparian Habitats. The recovery plan for the southwestern willow flycatcher includes increasing and improving breeding habitat by restoring, mimicking, and/or recreating natural physical and biotic process that influence riparian ecosystems. See Response D-26 regarding the comment related to "destruction" of Habitat.
D-29 The purple martin will occur in a variety of Habitats, but potential nesting areas occur in riparian, oak woodland, and montane coniferous Habitats. Monitoring for the purple martin is included in the list of species that occur primarily at high elevation (generally Forest Service lands) as that monitoring category best fits the overall Habitat for this species. The MSHCP includes site specific considerations to conserve nest site locations, and species specific management conditions to address factors affecting the purple martin in the Plan Area. The management condition for the purple martin includes removal of house sparrows or European starlings competing for nest cavities, and the management of known and future identified nesting localities and protection of micro-Habitat in potential nesting Habitat. Management and monitoring of nesting localities would include management within oak and riparian woodlands.
D-30 The MSHCP addresses the factors affecting western yellow-billed cuckoo in the Plan Area by implementing policies to maintain or, if feasible, improve the riparian/riverine areas and vernal pool Habitats within recent documented locations of the species, implementing measures to address threats associated with habitat degradation, and by protecting nesting Habitat within the MSHCP Conservation Area. These are features incorporated in the MSHCP, and the EIS/EIR impact analysis is based on such incorporation. Therefore, these features are not identified as mitigation measures in the EIS/EIR.
D-31 Conservation for San Diego horned lizard will be achieved by preserving large blocks of suitable Habitat within the MSHCP Conservation Area, including 13 Core Areas. These Core Areas are provided with numerous connections to Existing and Proposed Cores. The MSHCP will maintain the continued use of 75 percent of the Core areas. The MSHCP considers Conservation of this species from a landscape perspective because the species is found throughout the Plan Area, and may occur in a variety of habitats. There are definable locations for focusing conservation efforts, but there does not appear to be any key populations that would be essential for Conservation of the species. The species is susceptible to adverse impacts near urbanized areas. However, the large habitat blocks provided in the MSHCP are anticipated to support viable populations.
D-32 The MSHCP conservation analysis for Belding's orange-throated whiptail includes coastal sage scrub, chaparral, desert scrub, Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub, and riparian scrub and woodland below 1,040 meters as potential Habitat for this species. These Habitats include floodplains and streamside terraces. The MSHCP includes monitoring and management actions into the Conservation Strategy for Belding's orange-throated whiptail so that suitable Habitat, including microhabitat, will be maintained within the MSHCP Conservation Area.
D-33 The MSHCP addresses the factors affecting northern red-diamond rattlesnake by preserving chaparral and coastal sage scrub primary Habitat below 1,520 feet, including 10 Core Areas, and by including Linkages between the Core Areas facilitated by upland and riparian connections. Including Linkages will address the species' susceptibility to road mortality. Management and monitoring actions will also be incorporated into the Conservation Strategy for this species so that Habitat conditions will be maintained. These are features incorporated into the MSHCP and the EIS/EIR impact analysis is based on such incorporation. Therefore, these features are not identified as mitigation measures in the EIS/EIR.
D-34 MSHCP conservation objectives for the cactus wren includes Conservation of suitable Habitat including desert scrub, Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub, and coastal sage scrub in specific Core Areas and interconnecting Linkages. In addition to protection of suitable Habitat in specific locations, Conservation of the cactus wren also requires species-specific conservation measures consisting of conserving the microhabitat for this species, which is composed of cactus patches within the Cores Areas within the MSHCP Conservation Area, via a number of methods that may include fire suppression, enhancement, or revegetation with cacti. Monitoring and management activities for this species are addressed in the MSHCP and will address microhabitat needs in greater detail and include a program to enhance and/or create cactus patches within Core Areas and baseline surveys to determine the number of acres occupied by cactus wren within each Core Area. These are features incorporated into the MSHCP and the EIS/EIR impact analysis is based on such incorporation. Therefore, these features are not identified as mitigation measures in the EIS/EIR.
The MSHCP is based on best scientific and commercial data available and as such, it is not necessary to require an updated, fine-scaled vegetation map and associated habitat suitability modeling and analysis. It is acknowledged that the MSHCP must meet issuance criteria that call for demonstration that the expected Take will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of survival and recovery of Covered Species.
D-35 Fire management will be an important factor in addressing the Conservation of southern California rufous-crowned sparrow. Large scale fires damagehabitat for a relatively long length of time, and fire may assist with providing additional suitable Habitat for this species. Conservation for the southern California rufous-crowned sparrow will preserve large areas of suitable Habitat within the MSHCP Conservation Area that will be necessary to provide refugia for birds and to supply dispersing individuals to a recovering area. Duplicate Linkages also provide for the temporary loss of function of the coastal sage scrub Habitat in the event of a fire. Response D-34 addresses the comment regarding fine scaled vegetation maps.
D-36 The coastal California gnatcatcher is a coastal sage scrub species and areas conserved for this species are reflective of the magnitude, extent and distribution of coastal sage scrub Conservation within the Plan Area. The MSHCP will conserve 77,070 acres of suitable Habitat for this species in 13 Core Areas within large blocks of Habitat in the MSHCP Conservation Area, with the remaining suitable Habitat preservation occurring in scattered patches throughout the MSHCP Plan Area. The species-specific objectives for this species require at least 13 of the Core Areas and interconnecting Linkages within nine Core and Linkage areas, and continued use of and successful reproduction at 75 percent of the Core Areas. While providing for Conservation of coastal California gnatcatcher within the Plan Area, implementation of these species-specific objectives will also provide for coastal sage scrub preservation in large habitat blocks across diverse locations within the Plan Area. Management activities forthisspecies includes particular emphasis on fire and fire suppression activities, and domestic animals.
D-37 Bells' sage sparrow is widely but sparsely distributed throughout Riverside lowlands, Santa Ana Mountains, Desert Transition and San Jacinto Foothills Bioregions. This species is well known for using coastal sage scrub and chaparral Habitats. The species-specific objectives for this species include Conservation of at least 245,750 acres of suitable Habitat including coastal sage scrub, chaparral, and desert scrubs, and inclusion of at least 12 of 14 Core Areas and interconnecting Linkages for Bell's sage sparrow. These objectives will be monitored and analyzed to determine if they are producing the desired result, i.e., Conservation of suitable habitat. Based upon this information, the objectives will be adjusted if appropriate as new information is gathered during Plan implementation. The Adaptive Management Program will be used to identify alternative strategies for meeting the MSHCP's biological goals and objectives. While providing for Conservation of Bell's sage sparrow within the Plan Area, implementation of these species-specific objectives will also provide for coastal sage scrub preservation.
D-38 Species specific conservation objectives for the Los Angeles pocket mouse include Conservation of at least 14,000 acres of suitable habitat within specific Core Areas in the MSHCP Conservation Area and Conservation of at least 10,000 acres of suitable habitat outside of the probable Core Areas but within the Criteria Area. Additionally, surveys for Los Angeles pocket mouse will be conducted as part of the project review process for public and private projects within the mammal species survey area where suitable habitat is present. Survey and site-specific conservation efforts will continue until there is a minimum of seven Core Areas with at least 2,000 acres of suitable habitat within each Core Area. It is acknowledged that the MSHCP must meet issuance criteria that call for demonstration that the expected Take will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of survival and recovery of Covered Species.
D-39 The MSHCP addresses the factors affecting Aguanga kangaroo rat by conserving 81 percent of occupied or suitable Habitat within the historic floodplains of Temecula Creek and Wilson Creek in the MSHCP Conservation Area, and conducting surveys as part of the project review process for public and private projects within the mammal species survey area where suitable Habitat is present. Species-specific objectives also require that within the conserved Habitat, at least 75 percent of the total must be occupied and at least 20 percent of the occupied Habitat must support a medium or higher population density of the species measures across any 8-year period.
Access to private lands was not available to conduct the focused species surveys described in the comment. Where additional survey data was determined to be needed to meet conservation requirements for individual species, survey requirements are incorporated in the MSHCP as described in Section 6.1.3 and 6.3.2 of the Plan.
D-40 Species Objective 2 for the mountain lion includes Conservation of Habitat Linkages and movement corridors within the MSHCP Conservation Area between large habitat blocks. These Habitat Linkages and movement corridors allow dispersal and movement of mountain lions through the Plan Area and to areas outside of the Plan Area. The conserved habitat connections and corridors are specifically listed in Species Objective 2 and provide connection from the Santa Ana Mountains to the Palomar Range, and connection between the San Bernardino Mountains and the San Jacinto Mountains.
D-41 The MSHCP conservation analysis for western spadefoot concludes that approximately 85 percent of primary Habitat and approximately 55 percent of secondary Habitat within the MSHCP Plan Area would be conserved. General Management Measure 4 for the western spadefoot requires that Reserve Managers will revegetate or rehabilitatepotential Habitat that is degraded by infestations of exotic plants and animals and will evaluate the condition of the sites and vegetation within the Core Areas and maintain a program to enhance and/or create primary Habitats within the Core Areas which may include limiting roads or providing toad walls and culverts for safe dispersal. Successful reproduction is measured by the presence/absence of tadpoles, egg masses, or juvenile toads.
D-42 The MSHCP conservation analysis for grasshopper sparrow concludes that once Conservation of suitable Habitat has been achieved, and specific locations that support Core Areas are known, it is anticipated that this species will respond well to a landscape level of management with site-specific requirements. Because the grasshopper sparrow does not tolerate fragmentation and most of the grassland in the Plan Area will be lost, Incidental Take of this species is not included in the Permit until Conservation of the species in the Plan Area has been demonstrated by reaching Objective 2.
D-43 The California horned lark is relatively widely-distributed throughout the MSHCP Plan Area within its suitable habitat. There appear to be several Core Areas for this species including Mystic Lake/San Jacinto Wildlife Area, the grasslands within Prado Basin, Wasson Canyon area, Moreno Valley/March ARB, and Murrieta/Murrieta Hot Springs area. The MSHCP addresses the factors affecting California horned lark by conserving 153,750 acres of suitable foraging and nesting Habitat, including at least 3 Core Areas and a portion of a fourth Core Area preserving grasslands around the Prado Basin, Wasson Canyon, Mystic Lake/San Jacinto Wildlife Area, and a portion of the Core Area in the Murrieta/Murrieta Hot Springs area. Management activities for this species include managing known and future occurrences of this species for pesticide use and Habitat fragmentation and destruction. Because California horned lark is well known for using open, sparsely vegetated habitats, but has specific locations that appear to be Core Areas, it responds well to a landscape level of management with site specific requirements.
D-44 The northern harrier occurs in a widely scattered distribution predominantly throughout the lowland and foothills Bioregions but may occur sparsely within suitable habitat in the mountain Bioregions and rarely as a wintering bird within the Desert Transition Bioregion within the Plan Area. The northern harrier uses a relatively wide variety of Habitats, including agriculture lands and grasslands, playa, alkali marsh, marshlands, coastal sage scrub, chaparral, and other scrub Habitat. The MSHCP addresses the factors affecting northern harrier in the Plan Area by protecting nesting Habitat within the MSHCP Conservation Area, implementing policies to avoid and minimize impacts to riparian/riverine areas, and implementing management measures to ensure successful nesting and breeding, and to prevent Habitat loss and conversion. The northern harrier is included in the grasslands (and open fields) Vegetation Community long-term monitoring grouping. Further refinement of the groupings will occur as the MSHCP is implemented.
D-45 The MSHCP conservation analysis concluded that Swainson's hawk has a sparse and widespread distribution throughout the MSHCP Plan Area within almost every Habitat that occurs within the Plan Area. This species occurs within the Plan Area as a transient in the spring and fall and may occasionally winter within the area. It does not require specific conditions or locations for nesting because it does not nest in the region. It is an opportunistic predator that may forage anywhere in the Plan Area. Conservation for this species will be accomplished through Conservation of suitable foraging, perch, and roost Habitat within the MSHCP Conservation Area.
D-46 The MSHCP vegetation map is considered to be adequate for the landscape level planning undertaken for the MSHCP and represents the best scientific and commercial data available. It is not necessary to have an updated vegetation map prior to identifying a Criteria Area. The main areas within which this species has been observed, Prado Basin/Santa Ana River and Mystic Lake/San Jacinto Wildlife Area, will be conserved in the MSHCP Conservation Area. It is acknowledged that the MSHCP must meet issuance criteria that call for demonstration that the expected Take will not appreciably reduce the likelihood of survival and recovery of Covered Species, including ferruginous hawk.
D-47 The MSHCP conservation analysis concludes that white-tailed kite typically uses riparian scrub, forest and woodland, and oak woodland and forest for breeding and uses a wide variety of more open grassland/agriculture land and scrub habitat lands for foraging. Species-specific objectives for this species call for Conservation of suitable breeding Habitat including 10 identified core breeding areas and Conservation of suitable foraging Habitat within the MSHCP Conservation Area. The objectives also call for maintenance of 75 percent of core breeding areas, and protection and buffer for the known winter roost area along San Timoteo Creek, and any winter roost locations identified in the MSHCP Conservation Area in the future. As noted in Responses to Comment Letter N3, the MSHCP data has been confirmed for landscape-level planning purposes.
D-48 Response F-72 addresses the adequacy of the MSHCP's Conservation of the burrowing owl.
In addition to the locations mentioned in Comment D-48, burrowing owl nest locations are preserved in Existing Core A (Santa Ana River), Proposed Linkage 2, Proposed Core 5, Proposed habitat block 7, Proposed habitat block 6, and Proposed Core 3 of the MSHCP Conservation Area. One of the proposed habitat blocks is in a playa west of Hemet. Of these other preserved locations, the Santa Ana River is areas are within existing Public/Quasi-Public Lands but the others are all new proposed preserve areas. See Response D-72.
Surveys for the burrowing owl are required throughout the Plan Area within Riverside Lowlands which includes agriculture and grasslands. Additional locations for burrowing owl may be picked up in these surveys that have not been previously recorded. The MSHCP's relocation strategy for the burrowing owl follows the published methodology recommended by CDFG for mitigation for burrowing owls (CDFG Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation).
A Population Viability Analysis was not conducted for burrowing owl as there is insufficient data to conduct such an analysis. There are 82 point locations dated within the past 10 years, 38 of these are considered to have sufficient accuracy for planning purposes. The population goal of 120 provides for approximately 50 % more than the current population estimate. Surveys will be conducted in accordance with the objectives for this species as the MSHCP is implemented.
D-49 The MSHCP addresses the factors affecting San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit by conserving suitable Habitat and Habitat Linkages in the MSHCP Conservation Area. A focused survey to census the population of the species in western Riverside County has not been done. Even in principle a complete census would be difficult because of the natural population fluctuations exhibited by the species; populations may dramatically vary in size and distribution in relation to reproduction and shifting distributions and densities of food resources. The MSHCP Conservation Area includes large habitat areas and adequate habitat Linkages that will allow for the natural fluctuations in population densities and distribution of the jackrabbit.
D-50 BLM lands are included with the core reserves for SKR under the Long-Term SKR HCP. The MSHCP contemplates that such existing reserve lands, which are part of the Public/Quasi Public Lands addressed in the MSHCP, will be part of the overall MSHCP Conservation Area and managed in cooperation with the Additional Reserved Lands to be acquired by the Lead Agencies. However, as explained in Responses N-5, N-17, I4-10 and T4-7, such existing Public/Quasi-Public Lands are not counted as part of the local mitigation required to obtain Take Authorization under the Plan.
Additional funds have been raised through the collection of SKR mitigation fees to acquire SKR habitat to complete the SKR HCP. As set forth in Section 16.2 of the IA, the MSHCP does not impact or change the SKR HCP.
D-51 The analysis in the EIS/EIR is predicated on the fact that features incorporated in the MSHCP will be implemented. These features include implementation of the four component Conservation Strategy for each Covered Species that addresses assembly of the MSHCP Conservation Area as well as implementation of management and monitoring measures. Other features incorporated in the MSHCP that are a predicate of the analysis in the EIS/EIR are the avoidance and minimization measures for Covered Activities presented in Section 7.0 of the MSHCP as well as the implementation policies and procedures presented in Section 6.0 of the Plan. See Responses F-79, F-80 and F82 for discussion of the ways in which the effects of Covered Activities, including Edge Effects, are addressed in the MSHCP. The MSHCP does not defer management activities but rather includes a management and monitoring plan that will be carried out as part of MSHCP implementation.
D-52 The 75% figure referenced in the form noted in the comment is consistent with the requirements of General Management Measure 8 presented in Section 5.2 of the Draft MSHCP (page 5-7 of the Draft MSHCP). With respect to the 75% figure, General Management Measure 8 states the following: "The identified 76% threshold is the default lower limit (unless otherwise specified) and may be modified as new data are collected over time. Thresholds shall be determined by the RMOC which will meet five years after permit issuance and every year thereafter to evaluate new data and review species-specific trigger points. It is anticipated that sufficient data will be available to determine species-specific trigger points for management activities by Year 15 after permit issuance."
D-53 The MSHCP does not improperly defer CEQA analysis. See Response D-51.
D-54 Congress, the California Legislature and the Wildlife Agencies encourage local agencies to develop regional habitat conservation plans in order to establish an ecosystem-based approach to species protection. See Responses F-2 and H2-27. Project by project review of new development proposals under applicable environmental laws will not lead to the preservation of Bioregions, corridors, Linkages and other features beneficial to species that are available under a larger HCP. This point is made obvious by examining land uses vis-a-vis open space in coastal communities across the State of California. The MSHCP and the EIR/EIS provide substantial biological and other information to support the protection of Covered Species.
The MSHCP has been formulated to provide mitigation and acquisition of habitat for Covered Species to the maximum extent practicable. Nowhere does the FESA or the NCCP Act require that a 1:1 ratio be maintained. Moreover, the MSHCP must be viewed as a plan that will lead to the permanent management of more than 500,000 acres for the benefit of species and habitat in the Plan Area. The Plan integrates review of potential environmental impacts covered by CEQA and NEPA to provide maximum benefit to species and maximum efficiency to the regulated community. Nevertheless, it must be noted that CEQA and NEPA principles play a large role in implementation of the MSHCP and its consistency requirements. Moreover, avoidance and minimization and other environmentally-oriented principles remain a significant part of the process. Unique or rare habitat areas are eligible for conservation through the HANS and other MSHCP-related processes.
D-55 See Response D-54. Restoration is included as a part of future management activities pursuant to Section 5 of the Plan.
D-56 The public funding to be used to acquire and manage MSHCP Conservation Areas is not uncertain. As set forth in Section 8.0 of the MSHCP, funding will come not only from the Local Development Mitigation Fee, landfill tipping fee, sales tax revenue, and Measure A, but also from other federal, State and local sources. The Permittees thus meet the Section 10(a) requirement that they will ensure that adequate funding for the plan is provided. (See Section 10 HCP Handbook, pp. 3-34 to 3-35.) The Permittees will be legally required to collect the Local Development Mitigation Fee and use them in addition to other funding sources, for MSHCP purposes. Moreover, private landowners within the Criteria are subject to the HANS and other MSHCP processes, and a system has been established to provide substantial incentives to facilitate the acquisition of important habitats and property by the County and participating Cities. These processes have been developed by the Permittees, in consultation with the Wildlife Agencies, and are based upon successful systems used in other regional habitat conservation plans. The comment implies that no property owners will want to sell their property. To the contrary, the County has over 65 willing sellers who have already voluntarily submitted their lands for acquisition. The comment reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of the conflict resolution process in HANS. Any dispute is resolved through mediation or arbitration, not the Board of Supervisors.
D-57 See Responses F-46 through F-50.
D-58 The goals of the MSHCP would not be considered to be met if the Cores and Linkages are not assembled and managed according to the parameters presented in Section 3.2.3 of the MSHCP (as required in Global Biological Objective 1 presented in Section 9.2 of the MSHCP) and the Conservation Strategy presented in Section 9.2 for each Covered Species is not implemented. Implementation of these MSHCP requirements will ensure that populations and locations of species anticipated to be conserved in the species accounts are conserved within the MSHCP Conservation Area.
The comment references only one element of the Criteria identified for Cells and Cell Groups in Sections 3.3.2 through 3.3.17 of the MSHCP and mistakenly assumes that the geographic component of the Cell Criteria is the only requirement that must be met. In those sections, Reserve Assembly guidance is provided in the form of target acreages of Conservation for each Area Plan and Area Plan Subunit, Planning Species and biological considerations for each Area Plan Subunit and specific Criteria for each Cell or Cell Group related to assembly of the relevant Core or Linkage within which the Cell or Cell Group is located, Vegetation Communities anticipated to be conserved within each Cell or Cell Group, connectivity associated with Conservation in each Cell or Cell Group, and general geographic Conservation anticipated in each Cell or Cell Group (the "50-%-60% on the western portion" reference in the comment). See Response G-7 for additional discussion of this issue.
With respect to Narrow Endemic Plant Species, surveys are required in accordance with the requirements of Sections 6.1.3 and 6.3.2 of the MSHCP. As stated in these sections, the results of surveys for these species will guide Reserve Assembly to assure that populations are conserved and the individual Conservation Strategies for these species are met.
D-59 The descriptions of the Cores and Linkages in Section 3.2.3 of the MSHCP indicate anticipated planned land uses adjacent to the MSHCP Conservation Area for each Core and Linkage and note those areas where more intensive management may be needed to reduce Edge Effects. The MSHCP Plan map presented in Figure 3-1 depicts rural mountainous land use designations in the Plan Area to schematically indicate where these land use types may occur adjacent to the MSHCP Conservation Area; for some species, rural mountainous land uses adjacent to the MSHCP Conservation Area would provide a compatible edge. In addition, Section 6.1.4 of the MSHCP presents Guidelines Pertaining to the Urban/Wildlands Interface to assure that the MSHCP Conservation Area is treated as a "sensitive neighbor" when land uses are proposed in proximity to it; this section addresses factors such as night lighting. As discussed in Response D-25, Section 7.3.5 of the MSHCP includes guidelines for wildlife crossings that address the needs of small mammal, reptile and amphibian wildlife. See Responses F-73, F-80, and F-82 for additional discussion of Edge Effects and treatment of Covered Activities in the MSHCP.
D-60 The MSHCP contains numerous provisions to protect Covered Species and Habitat from Edge Effects and other potentially harmful effects from adjacent land uses. See Response D-59 for discussion of the ways in which the MSHCP addresses land use activities in proximity to the MSHCP Conservation Area.
D-61 As called for in the MSHCP, Conservation and management of the MSHCP Conservation Area will be assured in perpetuity through acquisition and protection of Additional Reserve Lands (Section 6) and long-term financing for management (Section 8). The MSHCP does provide conservation measures for the life of the Permits.
D-62 With respect to burrowing owl, see Responses D-48, F-15, F-72 and F-103 for discussion of this species.
D-63 This comment purports to summarize state and federal law, and the comment does not require further response.
D-64 The Modified Reserve Configuration Alternative was not carried forward because it did not constitute a feasible alternative that would substantially lessen any significant impacts and it conflicted with the MSHCP's function to streamline the permitting process while accommodating growth. For example, under the Modified Reserve Configuration Alternative the number of species to be conserved remains the same and the percentage of take is very similar. (See Volume IV, Appendix B, pp. B-5, B-7.) This alternative would also require the Conservation of significantly more private land (218,000 acres) than the Proposed MSHCP (153,000 acres). This results in the conservation of an additional 65,000 acres, more than 40% more than the MSHCP. Using these additional lands for Conservation could also represent the loss of up to 227,500 low-density residential units. (See Volume IV, Appendix B, p. B-9.) Additionally, the Modified Reserve Configuration Alternative would be infeasible because of cost. It would take at least a 40% increase in cost to acquire the additional acreage contemplated in the Modified Reserve Configuration Alternative. This additional area would also likely result in the need for additional staff to monitor and maintain the areas, resulting in additional long-term expenses. (See EIR/EIS, App. B, p. B-10). Setting aside an additional 65,000 acres for Conservation could also represent the loss of up to 227,500 low-density residential units. (See App. B, p. B-9). The loss of developable land under the Modified Reserve Alternative is relevant because one of the project objectives is to "provide incidental take authorization for the transporation, infrastructure, housing and employment base needed to accommodate projected growth in western Riverside County." Developable land is necessaryto accommodate projected growth in the County. Thus, the Modified Reserve Alternative would impair the County's responsibility to meet housing needs but would not result in the Conservation of additional species or reduce the level of Take.
Moreover, 65,000 acres of land would not pay the Local Development Mitigation Fee. Thus, the Conservation of these additional acres would directly affect the availability of local funds to finance the MSHCP and conflicts with the 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. Additionally, 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. Because the Lead Agencies must balance the number of acres to be conserved with the availability of funds to manage the MSHCP Conservation Area, the Modified Reserve Configuration Alternative was determined infeasible and screened out from further consideration as a project alternative (see Volume IV, Appendix B, p. B-10.)
D-65 See Responses D-4 and D-64. The comments and memoranda previously submitted by the Scientific Review Panel and others have been considered in the preparation of the public review draft documents. The commentor's assertion that the County only rejected the Modified Reserve Configuration Alternative because the proposed MSHCP conserved the same number of species with a similar degree of Take on less land is inaccurate. As explained above in Response D-64, the Lead Agencies rejected the Modified Reserve Configuration Alternative becausethey determined that the acquisition of an additional 65,400 acres was infeasible for financial reasons, conflicted with the MSHCP's goal to accommodate growth, and did not protect any more species or reduce Take. Thus, they concluded that the Modified Reserve Configuration Alternative would greatly increase the cost of the Plan without significantly increasing the conservation value of the MSHCP Conservation Area.
D-66 The comment purports to cite FESA and its implementing regulations, and no further response is required.
D-67 The Lead Agencies believe that the Plan's approach to Critical Habitat is acceptable. See Response A-28.
D-68 The Lead Agencies do not believe that the assurances provided by the MSHCP are unlawful. See Responses A-8 and A-28. The Lead Agencies are aware of federal case law in which it has been held that the Service failed to designate Critical Habitat within the time frames established by FESA; however, the County is unaware of case law - and no citations are provided in the comment - holding that the Service has failed "to properly implement" Critical Habitat. Accordingly, no further response is required.
D-69 The MSHCP's proposed requirements with respect to future recovery plans fully comply with applicable law. The commentor implies that, in developing future recovery plans, the Service should ignore input from Permittees. The Lead Agencies are not aware of any statutory, regulatory, or case law authority to support this contention. To the contrary, FESA specifically requires that recovery plans be subjected to public review prior to approval and mandates that the Service consider all comments received on the draft recovery plan. 16 U.S.C. § 1533(f)(4)-(5). Given that this statutory provision requires consideration of any input received from the Permittees -- and anyone else -- on future draft recovery plans, the Lead Agencies disagree with the commentor's suggestion that the Permittees' input should be ignored.
D-70 The Lead Agencies disagree that Modified Reserve Configuration Alternative was improperly rejected. See Responses D-64 and D-65. The County is currently preparing a nexus study pursuant to the requirements of California Government Code, section 66000 et seq. to justify the amount of habitat mitigation fees. The suggestion that all of the Criteria Area be zoned agricultural is infeasible and is not a function of the MSHCP. Good land use planning would not arbitrarily include all property regardless of its site characteristics and location in an agricultural zone. Moreover, the General Plan establishes land use designations, not zoning.
D-71 To the extent that the comment purports to summarize state and federal law, these laws speak for themselves. The Draft EIR/EIS provides a full analysis of all potential environmental effects of the MSHCP. See Response D-59. Edge Effects are comprehensively addressed in the discussion of Cores and Linkages (Section 3.2.3) and in the individual species analyses.
D-72 As discussed in Responses D-14 and D-23, species-specific objectives for plant species potentially affected by the San Jacinto River Flood Control Project call for maintenance of hydrologic processes to allow seed bank sources to shift over time. Based on existing available information, it is not anticipated that achievement of this objective will require preserving the entire 100-year floodplain for the river which extends essentially across the Perris Valley; however, project specific analysis will need to be completed to demonstrate that the objective of maintaining hyrdologic processes to allow seed bank sources to shift over time is met.
Edge treatments associated with the San Jacinto River Flood Control Project would be subject to the Guidelines Pertaining to the Urban/Wildlands Interface presented in Section 6.1.4 of the MSHCP and such treatments may vary depending upon the type of land use proposed in proximity to conserved areas along the river. The reference to the "analysis of Edge Effects" in the MSHCP appears to be taken from the Description of the MSHCP Conservation Area presented in Section 3.2.2 (page 3-22 of the Draft MSHCP). This information is provided for descriptive purposes and is not intended to indicate significance of Edge Effects. The referenced discussion notes that portions of the MSHCP Conservation Area within the Riverside Lowlands Bioregion, within which the San Jacinto River Flood Control Project would be located, would be the most subject to Edge Effects. The MSHCP acknowledges that management actions will need to be undertaken in these areas to minimize these effects and provide for the needs of Covered Species. See also Response D-59.
D-73 See Responses F-46, F-47, F-48, F-49 and F-50 for discussion of the ways in which reserve configuration requirements are incorporated in the MSHCP to avoid and minimize habitat fragmentation.
D-74 The descriptions of planned adjacent land uses for the Cores and Linkages in Section 3.2.3 of the MSHCP and the Guidelines Pertaining to the Urban/Wildlands Interface in Section 6.1.4 of the MSHCP recognize that Edge Effects are different based on the matrix surrounding reserves as well as the extent of uses within reserves. The species-specific Conservation Strategies, the threats to Covered Species identified in the species accounts and in Section 5.2 of the MSHCP, and the guidelines for wildlife crossings presented in Section 7.3.5 of the MSHCP recognize that these effects vary among species. Within the MSHCP Conservation Area, General Management Measure 9, presented in Section 5.2 of the Draft MSHCP, will be implemented to address disturbance regimes, including those related to fragmentation and Edge Effects. As presented in Sections 5.2 and 5.3, monitoring and management activities will be undertaken within the MSHCP Conservation Area to document continued use and successful reproduction of Covered Species. Triggers for management action are incorporated in General Management Measure 8 of the Draft MSHCP and within the species-specific objectives for Covered Species. The combination of these features incorporated in the MSHCP will provide for implementation of the Global Biological Objective of the MSHCP which is: "In the MSHCP Plan Area, Conserve Covered Species and their Habitats."
D-75 Domestic pets are identified as a threat to certain Covered Species as presented in Table 5-2 of the MSHCP. As discussed in Response D-74, configuration of the MSHCP Conservation Area in a manner consistent with the Cores and Linkages descriptions in Section 3.2.3 and implementation of the Guidelines Pertaining to the Urban/Wildlands Interface in Section 6.1.4 will address threats such as domestic pets by configuring the MSHCP Conservation Area to minimize edge to the extent feasible, and incorporating appropriate treatments in the design of land uses in proximity to the MSHCP Conservation Area. In addition, provision of Linkages as proposed by the MSHCP will maintain native predator populations.
D-76 The MSHCP recognizes the effects associated with roads and the threats to species noted in the comment. See Response D-74 for discussion of features incorporated in the MSHCP to address these threats. See Responses F-73, F-80 and F-82 for discussion of the ways in which the effects of Covered Activities, including roads, are addressed in the MSHCP. In reference to language that may be repeated in more than one species account, that language was appropriate and applicable to more than one species.
D-77 Global warming is a global phenomenon and it would be speculative to specifically analyze the effects of this phenomenon in the context of the proposed MSHCP. In a general sense, Section 6.8.3 of the Draft MSHCP addresses actions associated with identified Changed Circumstances such as flooding, fire and drought which could be indirectly related to global warming. With respect to the summary provided at the conclusion of the comment, see Responses D-73 through D-76.
D-78 As discussed in Response D-56 the MSHCP discusses the use of the Local Development Mitigation Fees, as well as other local, state and federal funds, to provide for the acquisition, management and other costs associated with MSHCP implementation meets the issuance requirements under FESA for funding assurances. According to the HCP Section 10 Handbook, the Service "must ensure that funding sources and levels proposed by the applicant are reliable and will meet the purposes of the HCP, and that measures to deal with unforseen circumstances are adequately met." (HCP Handbook, p. 7-4.) The MSHCP meets the funding assurances requirements of FESA. In addition to the provisions of Section 8.0 of the MSHCP, the particular funding requirements of the MSHCP are more particularly described in the County nexus study currently being prepared. Whether private landowners have a commitment to sell their lands for conservation is not especially relevant to the funding issue. In general terms, when existing land uses are converted to new Development, development impact fees will be due and payable. Such funds will be used to acquire MSHCP Conservation Areas and for other appropriate purposes. Until land is converted, impacts to species are not expected to occur. In the unlikely event a landowner were able to opt out of the Plan, and an amendment to the MSHCP were required, the landowner would not be entitled to Take Authorization. If listed species are nevertheless found on the landowner's property, separate FESA, CEQA and CESA mitigation would be required.
The Lead Agencies also note that it is disingenuous for the Center to argue, on pages 31 and 32 of its Comment Letter (Comment D-78), that it would be problematic from a species protection perspective to "revert to a piecemeal (i.e., project by project) approach" to conserving species, when the Center made the opposite argument in Comment D-54 on page 20 of its Comment Letter by stating that a project by project approach would lead to greater conservation.
D-79 This comment reiterates and summarizes the preceding comments, for which responses are provided. The Lead Agencies believes that the analysis of baseline, scientific and other data, alternatives, significant impacts, and mitigation measures is sufficient under all applicable laws.
D-80 The Lead Agencies disagree with each of vague and unsupported allegations made in this comment. First, the growth-inducing impacts of the MSHCP are fully discussed in Sections 5 and 6 of the Draft EIR/EIS. (See Draft EIR/EIS, pp. 5.1-6 through 5.1-10; 6.1-4 through 6.1-5.) Pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section 15126.2, the Draft EIR/EIS specifically discusses the MSHCP's potential to induce growth on pages 6.1-14 and 6.1-5 of Section 6 and also includes the growth inducing effects of the MSHCP in the discussion of cumulative impacts on pages 5.1-6 through 5.1-10. As the Draft EIR/EIS notes,the growth-inducing potential of a project would be considered significant only if it fosters growth or a concentration of population in excess of what is assumed in relevant master plans, land use plans or in projections made by regional planning agencies. The MSHCP does not itself propose any growth or development; it merely provides a regional plan to address the biological effects of existing and anticipated future market-driven growth in western Riverside County. (Draft EIR/EIS, p. 5.1-9.) Further, the Draft EIR/EIS concludes that not only will the establishment of the MSHCP Conservation Area enhance the quality of life in western Riverside County, but also that neither the proposed MSHCP nor any of the project alternatives contain components that would directly generate residential, commercial, or industrial development or induce population growth within the Plan Area. (See Draft EIR/EIS at p. 6.1-5.) Additionally, the Draft EIR/EIS also recognizes that the MSHCP would remove an impediment to growth by authorizing Take of Covered Species and allowing development outside the MSHCP Conservation Areas. (Draft EIR/EIS, p. 5.1-9.) Thus, the MSHCP is growth-accommodating, not growth-inducing. All feasible mitigation measures were considered in the Draft EIR/EIS and the commentor fails to suggest any. See Response H2-15.
Second, the Draft EIR/EIS adequately discusses air quality, water quality, loss of open space and aesthetic impacts. As supported by the evidence in the record, not all issues analyzed in the Draft EIR/EIS were significant or cumulatively considerable. Adoption of the proposed MSHCP and issuance of a Take Permit under FESA and the NCCP Act would permanently conserve portions of land in western Riverside County and would permit Take of Covered Species. Since the MSHCP does not authorize any physical Development, it was determined in the Draft EIR/EIS that implementation of the proposed MSHCP would not result in any significant environmental effects relating to the following issue areas: aesthetics, air quality, hydrology and water quality, or land use. As required by CEQA, the Draft EIR/EIS briefly discusses these insignificant environmental issues in Section 1.5.5. (State CEQA Guidelines, § 15128.) For example, because the proposed MSHCP does not entail physical development, implementation of the proposed MSHCP would not create additional sources of light or glare affecting aesthetics. Likewise, since there is no proposed development, adoption of the proposed MSHCP would not alter the rate or amount of growth projected for western Riverside County, it has no impact on water quantity or quality that can be determined at this time. The MSHCP might cause an indirect effect on water quality outside the MSHCP Conservation Area. However, the Lead Agencies cannot address these potential indirect impacts in the Draft EIR/EIS for the MSHCP because it would be speculative to try to determine where, and if, any particular future development wouldbeconstructed. CEQA does not require speculation. Additionally, State CEQA Guidelines section 15145 specifically states that speculation is not required in an EIR. Likewise, NEPA does not require an analysis of impacts that are too speculative to identify. (See, e.g., Kootenai Tribe of Idaho v. Veneman (2002) 313 F.3d 1094.) The Draft EIR/EIS discusses hydrology and water quality on page 1.5-8. Also, because the MSHCP Conservation Area will not propose any physical construction, there is no impact on open space. To the extent that it might cause an indirect effect in the future, such an analysis is too speculative to be analyzed appropriately. For this reason, there is no significant cumulative impact on aesthetics, air quality, hydrology and water quality, or open space. (See Draft EIR/EIS, pp. 1.5-5 through 1.5-11.)
Third, traffic and circulation impacts are discussed in detail in the Draft EIR/EIS in Section 3.5. If the commentor suggests a particular mitigation measure, the Lead Agencies would be able to provide a more specific response. Fourth, as explained in more detail in Responses M-14, M-16, M-34 and M-40, the MSHCP does not result in the loss of agricultural land. Finally, the Draft EIR/EIS contains adequate cumulative impact analysis. See Responses H2-5 and H2-309 through H2-314.
D-81 See Responses D-9, D-10 and D-17 for discussion of surveys, core populations and data gaps and the ways in which these issues are addressed in the MSHCP. The MSHCP recognizes the unique biodiversity in the Plan Area. Since more specific comments regarding biodiversity hot spots and source-sink populations are not provided, a more specific response is not possible.
D-82 Of the 146 Covered Species, analysis in the MSHCP concludes that 130 species would be Covered Species Adequately Conserved at the time of initial permit issuance. This coverage will be based on implementing the Conservation Strategy identified for each Covered Species which includes assembling additional species information to fill data gaps over the long-term implementation process for the MSHCP. For the remaining 16 Covered Species, it was determined that additional species information is required before these species can be considered to be Covered Species Adequately Conserved. Since more specific comments regarding the species that should be omitted from the list of Covered Species is not provided, a more specific response is not possible.
D-83 The analysis of the Modified Reserve Alternative demonstrated that an alternative that provides for the acquisition of more land for the MSHCP Conservation Area does not substantially lessen any impacts. However, such an alternative is prohibitively expensive. The MSHCP cannot bear the cost of acquiring or managing additional lands. Thus, the Lead Agencies determined that the MSHCP does reserve the maximum acreage of land practicable based on fiscal constraints and the fact that the acquisition of additional land will not in fact lead to the Conservation of more species. See Response D-64. Moreover, the MSHCP is a criteria-based plan, and as such conserves Vegetation Communities that are most likely to provide habitat for Covered Species instead of conserving arbitrary amounts of various Vegetation Communities. See Response G-15, G-16 and G-17 for discussion of Conservation of grassland anticipated under the MSHCP.
D-84 See Responses D-3 and D-17 for discussion of the Criteria Area and features incorporated in the MSHCP to alter the Criteria Area.
D-85 As discussed in Response F-59, the Guidelines pertaining to the Urban/Wildlands Interface presented in Section 6.1.4 of the MSHCP will be employed, as appropriate, to maintain lands surrounding and in proximity to the MSHCP Conservation Area based on the particular interface factor of concern.
D-86 See Response Z3-17.
D-87 No Local Development Mitigation Fee amount has yet been adopted so it cannot be raised. The nexus study being prepared by the County will be used to support an appropriate fee amount. The commentor should note that unsupportably high levels of mitigation fees could violate the requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act.
D-88 The Draft EIR/EIS complies with all applicable state and federal rules and guidelines. See Responses D-79 and D-80.
D2-1 The Lead Agencies appreciate the information provided. The MSHCP is a regional landscape-based plan. Factors considered in identifying areas desirable for Conservation include overall reserve configuration, as well as vegetation type and other factors that may contribute to habitat value. Project level vegetation mapping and information that is provided by property owners through the development application process is expected to vary from the MSHCP vegetation database in its level of accuracy and in its depiction of conditions that may have changed since the original landscaped-based mapping was completed. The MSHCP provides for a flexible Reserve Assembly process that would accommodate such changed conditions in conjunction with review of individual projects. Therefore, it is not anticipated that the changed vegetation conditions identified in this comment would adversely affect the ability to assemble the MSHCP Conservation Area in a manner consistent with the MSHCP.
D3-1 The MSHCP Conservation Area is based on the best available scientific and commercially available information, not on parcel sizes or parcel arrangements. See Response H2-46.
D3-2 Without more specific information regarding the location of the parcel in question, it is not possible to provide a specific response related to the location of a proposed Linkage to the parcel or to provide any rationale for designation of a Linkage. Such determinations will be made if and when the property owner proposes development or approaches the RCA or other appropriate Permittee to sell the property for conservation purposes.
D3-3 See Response D3-2.
D4-1 This comment raises no issues related to the Draft MSHCP, the Draft EIR/EIS or the Draft IA, and no further response is necessary.
D4-2 This comment raises no issues related to the Draft MSHCP, the Draft EIR/EIS or the Draft IA, and no further response is necessary.
D4-3 This comment raises no specific issues related to the Draft MSHCP, the Draft EIR/EIS or the Draft IA, and no further response is necessary.
D4-4 Section 13.9c of the IA contemplates this currently.
D4-5 The suggestion that agricultural uses be retained in areas adjacent to State Parks is outside of the scope of the MSHCP. The MSHCP does not regulate land use or propose changes in land use designations as the proposed General Plan update does.
D4-6 The Lead Agencies agree that State Parks endeavors to manage its resources at similar levels to those defined in the MSHCP and that management of existing State Parks' land (absent new facilities) is an appropriate contribution to meeting the conservation goals for Covered Species. The County and other Local Permittees will support efforts by State Parks to obtain the resources needed to fund its resource management program at the needed level. With regard to the Monitoring Program, the primary role of State Parks is to provide access to State Parks' land for monitoring purposes and to provide data State Parks collects as part of its monitoring program. To the extent possible, State Parks should utilize the monitoring protocols developed as part of the MSHCP.
D4-7 The commentor suggests that the Final EIR/EIS for the MSHCP should include maps that show all of the RCIP components (land use, CETAP circulation routes, and Criteria Area) on a single map. Each of the environmental documents (and each RCIP component) is designed to be stand-alone (compatible with, but not reliant upon, the other components) and their processing is on slightly different time frames, such a map was not included as it might be misconstrued to indicate that the documents and components are not stand-alone and that they will all be approved simultaneously.
From its inception, the three components of RCIP were designed to use a common database, and to have coordinated policy direction; however, there was never any intent to adopt the General Plan, MSHCP, and CETAP simultaneously. The County created the RCIP as a model to help determine future land use, transportation, and conservation needs for the County. RCIP consists of three integrated but distinct planning efforts: (1) update the County's General Plan to anticipate future growth over the long term; (2) create an MSHCP for the western portion of the County; and (3) identify transportation corridors to meet the County's future transportation needs (CETAP). As noted in the Draft EIR, adoption of the General Plan is the sole responsibility of the County of Riverside, while adoption of the MSHCP also requires approval of 14 Cities within the western portion of the County, Caltrans, State Parks, RCTC, the California Department of Fish and Game, and US Fish and Wildlife Service. Adoption of CETAP is the responsibility of the RCTC and the Federal Highway Administration. While they are coordinated, the update of the County's General Plan, the MSHCP, and CETAP have independent utility, and could be adopted regardless of actions taken in relation to the other projects.
CEQA does not require an analysis in the EIR of "each and every activity carried out in conjunction with a project." (Native Sun/Lyon Communities v. City of Escondido (1993) 15 Cal.App.4th 892, 909-910.) In Native Sun, the court upheld an EIR for a complex development project despite a claim that the EIR failed to discuss a proposed development agreement that was "part of the project description." The court stated that the "EIR's straight forward reference to the development agreement alerted persons interested in that document to its relevance in the decision making process." Like the lead agency in Native Sun, the County has complied with CEQA and alerted the public to the importance of related documents. The commentor has not provided specifics about how the environmental analysis is inadequate or improperly defers environmental review and thus a more specific response cannot be provided.
To the extent that agricultural programs (Williamson Act, etc.) can be used to conserve agricultural lands next to the MSHCP Conservation Area, agricultural lands will provide the benefits identified by the commentor. Agricultural practices would not be restricted by the MSHCP. Some agricultural land use may be allowable within the MSHCP Conservation Area, after such land is acquired, if it benefits the species for which that particular area would be managed. The MSHCP is not a land use plan and would not re-zone land.
The proposed General Plan land use designations were developed with consideration of existing development, public input, environmental constraints including hazards and natural resources, and existing and planned transportation facilities. During the Riverside County consistency zoning that will take place subsequent to the adoption of the proposed General Plan (if it is adopted), if the MSHCP has also been adopted, low-density and/or agricultural zoning may be applied near existing and planned conservation areas consistent with the County's adopted General Plan designations.
Third, the commentor states that agricultural land can serve as a buffer to conservation areas, and can provide connectivity, foraging areas for species, and adequate habitat for some species. Many types of agricultural land in the MSHCP area do provide these benefits for certain species. However, the value of agricultural land can vary with the type of agricultural crops produced. For example, crop areas associated with dairies often provides raptor foraging habitat whereas row crops may not. As the County does not regulate which crops a farmer grows, it is not possible to ensure that agricultural lands near conservation lands (including State Park land) would provide the desired benefits for the species requiring conservation. As a result the MSHCP was designed to provide the conservation benefits for the Covered Species without it relying on the benefits of the agricultural lands for some species.
The commentor states that the potential benefits offered by agricultural lands will be lost if agricultural land designation is not used as a conservation tool. The MSHCP is designed to provide adequate habitat conservation by conserving the land within the MSHCP Conservation Area. It is anticipated that much of the land not conserved, particularly land outside the Criteria Area, would lose some or all of its habitat value. The County has provided, through policies in the MSHCP, and policies in the proposed General Plan, for the continuation of agricultural practices throughout the County. Agricultural land is not subject to mitigation requirements under the MSHCP in most instances, and will be a Covered Activity in all areas where it presently occurs, as well as all lands in the Agricultural Foundation Component in the proposed General Plan.
Finally, the commentor states that agricultural land contiguous to MSHCP Conservation Area would keep reserves connected, and would protect reserves from encroachment and invasion by non-native species. The MSHCP reserve design incorporates connectivity into the MSHCP Conservation Area configuration, through the use of Cores, Linkages, and Constrained Linkages. While some types of agricultural land can provide a degree of connectivity, this cannot be assured (due to changes in cropping patterns, construction of agricultural facilities (dairy barns, etc.) on developed agricultural land, the use of fences, presence of livestock, etc.). Furthermore, while some types of agricultural lands would potentially protect reserves from invasion by non-native species (if some non-invasives are kept out of the crop) to a greater extent than landscaped land uses adjacent to conservation areas, the "edge effects regulations" in the MSHCP would serve to ensure that non-agricultural uses adjacent to the MSHCP Conservation Area would not introduce or utilize invasive non-native species.
D4-8 Section 6.1.4 of the Draft MSHCP states that the Guidelines Pertaining to the Urban/ Wildlands Interface will be implemented by the Local Permittees in conjunction with their review of individual public and private development applications. The specific measures for each project will be specified in its environmental document.
D4-9 See Response H2-98. The Lead Agencies agree that additional vegetation mapping is needed as the basis for the Monitoring Program and it will also help inform the Reserve Assembly process. As discussed in Section 5.3 of the Plan, updated vegetation mapping will be completed as one of the first tasks in the Monitoring Plan.
D4-10 A complete rationale for coverage of each species is provided in the Draft MSHCP, which is incorporated by reference in the Draft EIR/EIS. Also as fully detailed in the Draft MSHCP, additional surveys are required for certain species because the current database does not provide the level of detail sufficient to make decisions on which specific areas within the Criteria Area are the most critical to that species and in some instances to determine the extent of presence or distribution of the species outside of the Criteria Area. Burrowing owl is an example of a sensitive grassland species that is subject to the additional survey requirements.
D4-11 See Response D4-7. The MSHCP and the proposed General Plan have been designed to be stand-alone components of the RCIP. The proposed General Plan allows for the conservation of land within the MSHCP Criteria Area to mitigate the impacts of the General Plan in the event that the MSHCP is adopted. The MSHCP does not require the adoption of the proposed General Plan.
The commentor states that the planned land use in the proposed General Plan would reduce agricultural land. While the Agricultural Foundation Component does not encompass the entire area of existing agricultural land, the proposed General Plan would not restrict agricultural use in any area in which it presently occurs. By including existing agricultural land in other Foundation Components, the General Plan allows for the option of converting the land to another use at some point in the future. The General Plan does not require this conversion. If the County were to require that all areas presently utilized for agriculture remain as agricultural lands (with no other land uses allowed), it could create significant financial hardship to landowners who could no longer economically farm their lands.
The County recognizes the commentor's request that the County improve Conservation of agricultural land as a buffer for State parks. The County has been and continues to be involved with representatives of the agricultural community of Riverside County, including the Riverside County Farm Bureau, to explore methods to conserve agricultural land and preserve the agricultural lifestyle within the County. The County will take the commentor's request into account during these discussions, and during the development of the consistency zoning following adoption of the proposed General Plan (if it is adopted).
D4-12 See Response F-2.
D4-13 As documented in Section 3.1.5 of the Draft MSHCP, habitat modeling was considered in the conservation planning process for the MSHCP, but not used because of the lack of adequate survey and population data available to accurately parameterize and validate the models. Use of existing reserves in the MSHCP is consistent with the objective of developing the most cost-efficient reserve system, and was used as a starting point for determining Conservation needs for each Covered Species. Species "hot spots" were determined based on a review of the species occurrence data, as noted in Section 3.1.3 of the Draft MSHCP.
The comment that "it appears that the configuration of the proposed MSHCP is based in large measure on development constraints" is inaccurate. Sections 2 and 3 of the Draft MSHCP discuss in great detail the data and methods used in determining areas desirable for Conservation, which do not include "development constraints."
The Draft MSHCP acknowledges the potential habitat value of agricultural lands. See Response G-16 for a complete discussion of the analysis related to grassland Conservation.
D4-14 The 600 feet referenced in the comment is not used as a basis in the MSHCP on which to analyze Edge Effects. Edge Effects vary widely depending on species and the type of effect (i.e., wildfire, noise, lighting) as discussed in Sections 3.1.4 and 6.1.4 of the Draft MSHCP. See Responses G-20 and F-46 through F-50.
D4-15 The commentor states that reserves should be large enough to support Covered Species without Linkages to other reserves. The MSHCP utilizes large Cores connected by Linkages as needed for species populations in a reserve to be a part of a meta population. This is consistent with the accepted tenets of conservation. By securing the Linkages between the reserve areas, including State Parks lands, the MSHCP increases the likelihood that State Parks' land will continue to be capable of sustaining its current biological diversity. The Planning Species were selected because they were representative of species the functions the Cores and Linkages would need to provide for one or more species. The commentor requests that the analysis of Cores and Linkages provide a specific justification for each reserve component for each of the Planning Species. The definition of the term Planning Species is included in the Definitions Section, and Section 3.2.3 of the Draft MSHCP. The analysis of individual species is based on the entire MSHCP Conservation Area, not limited to individual reserve components. A species by species analysis for each reserve component in isolation would not be informative for making decisions on the document and associated EIR/EIS.
D4-16 The commentor provides a good overview of the functions that Cores and Linkages need to provide and these are discussed in detail in Section 3.2.3 and their consideration is a part of the Reserve Assembly process. The Lead Agencies appreciate the offer of assistance and State Parks will be included in developing the information that will be compiled on methods/designs that work for maintaining habitat connectivitywhere future infrastructure traverses the Criteria Area and MSHCP Conservation Area.
D4-17 It is assumed that this comment is referring to the dimensional data provided for Cores and Linkages in Section 3.2.3 of the MSHCP (Draft MSHCP, p. 3-25). The 250-foot measurement was used to calculate subsets of acreage within the total acreages of Cores and Linkages to provide guidance for Reserve Assembly not to calculate a total area of Edge Effects. As stated in Section 3.2.3 of the Draft MSHCP, it is acknowledged that Edge Effects vary depending on species under consideration, adjacent land uses and other factors.
D4-18 See Responses F-46 through F-50.
D4-19 The Lead Agencies disagree with this comment and believe that the designation of the referenced areas as Cores is appropriate in consideration of how Cores are defined in the context of the MSHCP and the species that will be conserved in them. As is often the
case with biological systems, an area that is a Linkage for one species is core habitat for another.
D4-20 Existing Core A includes approximately 10,740 acres within Prado Basin and along the Santa Ana River including approximately 2,600 acres of grassland and agricultural habitat suitable for burrowing owl. The MSHCP species occurrence data base assembled by UCR has three high accuracy burrowing owl locations along the Santa Ana River from 1974 to 1999. The primary Vegetation Communities within Existing Core A are riparian scrub and grassland which provide suitable primary and secondary Habitat for this species.
D4-21 The Lead Agencies do not agree that Existing Core E is small or isolated. As noted in Section 3.2.3 of the MSHCP, Existing Core E is comprised of 3,010 acres including 2,730 interior acres and 280 acres of edge. It is recognized that Existing Core E includes the open water within Lake Elsinore which, of course, does not provide Habitat for burrowing owl. However, Conservation within Existing Core E is proposed to be augmented by Extension of Existing Core 3 which is comprised of 1,290 acres including 880 interior acres and 410 acres of edge. This area is comprised primarily of grassland Habitat. The MSHCP species occurrence data base has two high accuracy burrowing owl locations in this area from 1989 to 1998.
Noncontiguous Habitat Block 6 is comprised of 330 acres including 220 interior acres and 110 acres of edge. It is recognized that this Noncontiguous Habitat Block is smaller than other habitat blocks planned for Conservation and would be isolated from other conserved areas, increasing the potential for Edge Effects. However, in addition to the three recent, accurate records for burrowing owl in this area, it is proposed to be managed for vernal pool resources under the MSHCP. The level of management anticipated to be provided for the vernal pool resources would also benefit burrowing owl.
The Lead Agencies concur that mortality from vehicle collisions and domestic predators represent a threat to burrowing owl as cited in the comment. Conservation of burrowing owl within larger habitat blocks such as Existing Core A, Existing Core E plus Extension of Existing Core 3 and Existing Core F is planned to minimize these threats. Other management activities identified for burrowing owl on Table 5-2 of the MSHCP include controlling use of pesticides and rodenticides.
D4-22 As noted in Response D4-21, it is anticipated that Extension of Existing Core 3 would augment Conservation within Existing Core E. This extension is anticipated to provide
more benefit for burrowing owl than would Linkage 2 or Linkage 8. Linkage 2 consists of Collier Marsh and the portion of Linkage 8 in proximity to Existing Core 3 consists of a channelized portion of the lower San Jacinto River.
D4-23 It is assumed that the reference in the second sentence of the comment is to Existing Core E. The Lead Agencies do not agree that Existing Core F is small or isolated as apparently indicated in the comment. As noted in Section 3.2.3 of the MSHCP, Existing Core F consists of the Santa Rosa Plateau and is comprised of 8,360 acres including 7,900 interior acres and 460 acres of edge. Existing Core F includes extensive areas of grassland and vernal pool Habitat suitable for burrowing owls including 2,900 acres of grassland and 30 acres of playas and vernal pools. In addition, the MSHCP data base has three accurate occurrences of burrowing owl in this area from 1989. These characteristics support the conclusion that this area would provide long-term benefit for burrowing owl.
D4-24 The Lead Agencies concur with the comment regarding burrowing owl within Existing Core H and burrowing owl will be listed as a Planning Species for this Core in the Final MSHCP. The five occurrences for burrowing owl in Existing Core H in the MSHCP species occurrence data base range from 1972 to 1998.
With respect to cactus wren, this species is recorded within Existing Core H in the cactus wren literature and sufficient suitable habitat appears to be present, based on the MSHCP data base, to support this species. Management activities for this species identified in Table 5-2 of the Draft MSHCP call for maintenance, enhancement and/or creation of cactus patches which could provide additional habitat for this species within Existing Core H.
The MSHCP species occurrence data base does not include records of pond turtle at Lake Perris; however, suitable habitat is present for this species in that area.
D4-25 While a more robust connection in this area may be desirable, it was not found to be necessary for Conservation of Covered Species.
D4-26 The Lead Agencies concur with the comments. The PQP Lands database will be updated during implementation of the MSHCP as called for in Section 3.2.1 of the Plan.
D4-27 There is some existing Development in the area proposed for inclusion in the Criteria Area but the connection already exists and is within the area shown as PQP Lands.
D4-28 It is not clear what areas are being proposed for inclusion in the Criteria Area that are not already included. The Criteria Area within the Proposed Core 5 includes a majority of the contiguous non-developed areas, including areas south of SR-74.
D4-29 The language describing Existing Constrained Linkage C is intended to convey the fact that a constraining factor for the Linkage is Development. However, it is noted that there is intermittent Development within the area and that PQP Lands already link the areas and that much of Mystic Lake is PQP Lands. Additionally, the Department of Fish and Game has acquired through fee title or easement much of the high value habitats with Mystic Lake.
D4-30 The location of Proposed Constrained Linkage 23 is based on connections to portions of the Oak Valley Specific Plan that are proposed for Conservation as a result of a settlement agreement between the property owners and environmental groups. Since this Conservation will likely occur, there does not appear to be a need for an alternative Linkage.
D4-31 The Lead Agencies agree that connection should be made along the San Gorgonio River across I-10 and between western San Diego Riverside County and San Diego County (between the Palomar Mountains/Agua Tibia Wilderness and the Santa Ana Mountains) consistent with information contained in the referenced Missing Linkages Project report. These connections involve coordination with American Indian tribes. Additions have been made to the Criteria Area in the Final MSHCP to address these connections in the context of coordination with American Indian tribes. See Response D-16.
D4-32 See Response D4-31 and Response D-16. Additionally, since a portion of this Linkage is outside the MSHCP Plan Area, the robustness of this Linkage will be partly dependent on the North San Diego County Amendment to the San Diego Multiple Species Conservation Program being prepared by the County of San Diego.
D4-33 See Responses D4-15 through D4-32.
D4-34 This issue will be addressed in the Final MSHCP.
D4-35 See Response G-16.
D4-36 Federal permit issuance criteria does not require the MSHCP to demonstrate that it will lead to the recovery of Covered Species and State permit issuance requires that a plan provide for the Conservation of a species within the Plan Area. The Plan has been formulated to provide mitigation and acquisition of habitat for Covered Species to the maximum extent practicable and to provide for the Conservation of Covered Species within the Plan Area. The Plan will provide for the permanent protection and management of an additional 153,000 acres in a configuration which allows for the existing PQP Lands (including State Parks' land) to be more effective for Conservation of Covered Species. Together, new acquisitions and PQP Lands provide approximately 500,000 acres for the benefit of species and habitat. See Response E-3.
D4-37 The Permittee decides whether a Biologically Equivalent or Superior Determination is appropriate. In the event that the Wildlife Agencies disagree with the Determination, processes for issue resolution are provided in Section 6.6 of the Draft MSHCP. See Responses D4-38, D4-40 and D4-41.
D4-38 Maintenance of ecological processes are considerations for Conservation of certain species and where appropriate, are included in the Criteria for implementation of the MSHCP. Review of individual projects will require consideration of hydrologic processes for Narrow Endemic Plant Species where specified in the species-specific conservation objectives or in specific criteria for Covered Activities, as outlined in Section 7 of the Draft MSHCP.
D4-39 See Responses D4-7 and D4-11.
D4-40 The Lead Agencies disagree with this comment and believe that the required surveys will detect the species as anticipated in the MSHCP and achieve the conservation objectives identified for each Covered Species and meet the issuance criteria for the Permits. See Responses F-61 and F-72.
D4-41 The burrowing owl is included as one of the species for which additional surveys are required. Limitations on impacts to occupied habitat are required until conservation objectives are met. The conservation objectives established for the Covered Species are adequate to meet the issuance criteria for the Permits. See Response F-72.
D4-42 The Final MSHCP will include additional detail related to design of wildlife crossings.
D4-43 A specific flood control project for the San Jacinto River is not analyzed in the Draft MSHCP. Rather, the Plan identifies a process by which a future project may be considered a Covered Activity, subject to specific Criteria. The Lead Agencies believe that the Criteria would yield an MSHCP Conservation Area that would provide adequate Conservation for Covered Species including the Planning Species identified for the San Jacinto River area.
D4-44 The suggested wording will be included in the State Parks Section of the IA and MSHCP.
D4-45 See Response D4-44.
D4-46 See Response D4-44. With respect to maintaining "continued use of and successful reproduction" of conserved areas for certain species, these requirements are part of the overall species objectives throughout the MSHCP Conservation Area. Annual MSHCP reporting will assess the degree to which overall objectives are being met and the RMOC will address these issues on a Plan Area basis.
D4-47 See Response G-16.
D4-48 The Lead Agencies have previously responded to all specific species comments, and without further detail, are unable to provide a more detailed response.
D4-49 The species accounts for the referenced raptor species include scrub and shrub as foraging Habitats. The reference to the shrub and scrub in the species accounts is from Zeiner (1990): "Inhabits herbaceous and open stages of most habitats mostly in cismontane California. " as well as Waian and Stendell (1970) "It uses herbaceous lowlands with variable tree growth, shrubs, sparse chaparral, almost any upland with sparse cover of shrubs to grassland with a dense population of voles."
D4-50 See Response F-72.
D4-51 The Lead Agencies have previously responded to all specific EIR/EIS comments, and without further detail, are unable to provide a more detailed response.
D4-52 The commentor references a discussion and summary of surrounding conservation planning efforts contained in the introduction to the analysis of impacts. In addition to that description, the discussion of impacts related to each of the alternatives addressed in the Draft EIR/EIS contains an analysis entitled "Relationship to Adopted or Approved HCPs and NCCPs." These discussions provide the analysis requested by the commentor.
D4-53 The MSHCP is a criteria-based plan and Reserve Assembly will occur through HANS and other processes identified in the MSHCP regardless of General Plan land use designations. Therefore, there would be no inconsistencies between the MSHCP and either the existing or proposed County General Plans. With respect to the type and intensity of land use designations adjacent to the MSHCP Conservation Area, such an analysis is not possible since a map of the MSHCP Conservation will not exist until Reserve Assembly is complete. General information regarding anticipated planned land uses adjacent to identified Cores and Linkages is provided in Section 3.2.3 of the Plan to provide guidance for Reserve Assembly.
D4-54 See Response H2-15.
D4-55 See Response D4-52.
D4-56 See Response H2-15.
D5-1 This comment provides a general reference to information provided later in the letter. Responses to specific issues referenced in this comment are provided below.
D5-2 The Draft MSHCP acknowledges that site-specific mapping of resources is not expected to precisely match the landscape level of analysis performed for the 1.26 million-acre MSHCP Plan Area. As noted throughout the Draft MSHCP and these Responses, mechanisms are provided to assess conservation value on a site-specific basis, including most importantly the flexibility of the Area Plan Criteria and Reserve Assembly process. Therefore, it is anticipated that site-specific biological studies would produce more detailed and possibly varied information that would be taken into consideration as Development and Reserve Assembly proceeds. Comment D5-14 provides a map of the site consisting of an aerial photograph with a vegetation mapping overlay. The comment does not however provide any reference to actual documentation of the studies undertaken, identifying at a minimum the methodology of the surveys (standard industry practice is to document field survey methodologies including names of surveyors, times of survey, survey conditions, survey methodology such as vegetation mapping conventions/classification standards used, mapping unit used, field map used, etc.).
The commentor also suggests that since portions of the subject property have been previously cultivated, that the property be removed from its designated Cell Group and have the applicable Criteria revised. Conservation value has been determined based on a number of factors, including but not limited to vegetation coverage, species occurrence, soils composition, slope and elevation, in addition to reserve design considerations that include habitat block size, configuration and linkage. Therefore, as the comment appears to note, the fact that a site-specific biology study indicates that vegetation mapping differs from the MSHCP database would not necessarily lead to a determination that the property does not contain conservation value because factors in addition to vegetation characteristics will be considered in the overall Reserve Assembly process. The Lead Agencies believe that the most appropriate mechanism for addressing this issue is through development application review, pursuant to the process identified in Section 6.0 of the Plan.
D5-3 The commentor inappropriately draws conclusions on the anticipated outcome of a Criteria Review of the property based on an interpretation of the Criteria that does not consider all of the factors or the process for review identified in Section 3.0 of the Plan. For example, the commentor assumes that no site specific biological information would be considered in the review, and that essentially the only determination of conservation value for the property would be based on the acreage percentages contained in the Criteria. In addition, if the site-specific studies clearly demonstrate that the conservation value sought in the Criteria cannot be achieved because of 1) the absence of resources, 2) the substantial alteration to a linkage by offsite Development; or 3) other reasonable factors, then a Permittee could make a determination that Development within areas proposed for Conservation would not be inconsistent with the Criteria, regardless of the acreage percentages identified for any particular Cell or Cell Group.
D5-4 The Cell Criteria complies with both state and federal laws. See Responses D5-2, D5-3 and P2-4.
D5-5 This comment's broad invocation of the "rational nexus" constitutional standard is misplaced. The line of constitutional law cases that developed these standards is limited to certain types of exactions, and not to compliance with the mandates found under the Federal Endangered Species Act and California Endangered Species Act. The MSHCP is a vehicle of compliance with Section 10(a)(1)(b) of the FESA, the (CESA) and the NCCP Act of 2001, and not an exaction regarding a particular piece of property. This comment's reference to the case of Dolan v. City of Tigard (1994) 512 U.S. 374, 391 is misplaced. The MSHCP is a vehicle of compliance with FESA and the NCCP Act, and is not an exaction regarding a particular piece of property. See Response H2-242.
D5-6 The MSHCP Covered Species list includes bobcat as well as other unlisted mammals. See Responses D5-2 and H2-204 through H2-207.
D5-7 See Response J4-11. There is no evidence to suggest that the proposed Conservation within Proposed Core 1, Proposed Extension of Existing Core 2, or any other Conservation feature of the Plan would not be achieved through Reserve Assembly. Therefore, it is not reasonable for the MSHCP to speculate on the necessity of each Conservation feature of the Plan.
D5-8 The commentor presumes certain conclusions reached by the County in the Draft General Plan are related directly to biological resources. While the MSHCP is part of the RCIP planning process, conservation value for Covered Species was not determined based on existing or proposed General Plan land use designations. Conservation value was appropriately based on the best scientific and commercial data available related to biological considerations.
D5-9 See Response D5-2. The Lead Agencies disagree that designation of a specific Cell and Criteria are appropriate for the subject property. Section 3.3.1 of the MSHCP describes the methodology under which Cells were aggregated into a Cell Group or retained as individual Cells.
D5-10 The commentor incorrectly interprets language from the Plan to say that agricultural land "in not a type of habitat' and that "Agricultural Operations directly compete with conservation." Agricultural land is a Holland vegetation classification depicted on the MSHCP Vegetation Map. Agricultural Operations refer to land use activities and are a defined term in the MSHCP. For certain species, agricultural land can provide benefits to Conservation. See also Responses D5-2 and D5-8.
D5-11 See Response D5-2.
D5-12 See Response D5-2.
D5-13 See Responses D5-2 and D5-3.
D5-14 This comment consists of a map of the property in question and is presumed to be provided as a general reference. As it raises no specific issues related to the MSHCP, no additional response is necessary.
E-1 The comment does not raise issues that require a response. The Lead Agencies acknowledge that this MSHCP is "perhaps one of the most important in the United States."
E-2 The Lead Agencies believe that all issues raised in past correspondence have been considered, analyzed and if appropriate, reflected in the Draft EIR/EIS and the MSHCP. The allegation that "major concerns have not been incorporated" lacks sufficient specificity to allow the Lead Agencies to provide further response.
This comment summarizes several of the later comments mentioned to which responses are provided below. See Responses E-3 through E-43. The Lead Agencies believe that the MSHCP adequately complies with FESA, the NCCP Act, CEQA and all other state and federal laws.
Additional surveys are required in certain situations. (Draft MSHCP, § 6.3.2.) Criteria Area boundaries can be adjusted if warranted. (See Section 6.5 of the Draft MSHCP) The Lead Agencies do not believe condemnation is required to obtain property for Reserve Assembly. See Response Z3-17.
E-3 The comment confuses the standards for approval of a regional "habitat conservation plan" and approval of Take Authorization under Section 10(a) of FESA and the definition of the more generic term "conservation" set forth in Section 3 of FESA. Issuance criteria under Section 10(a) require that the HCP applicant "minimize and mitigate" the impacts of any incidental taking authorized by a Section 10 permit, and that the issuance of the permit not "appreciably reduce the likelihood of the survival and recovery of the species in the wild." (16 U.S.C. § 1539(a)(2)(B); Section 10 HCP Handbook, p. 3-20.) The Section 7 issuance requirements are nearly identical. (See Section 10, HCP Handbook, p. 3-20.) Based upon these standards, issuance of the Section 10 permit must not "appreciably reduce" the likelihood of survival and recovery of the species in the wild; however, this standard does not explicitly require an HCP to recover listed species nor contribute to their recovery objectives outlined in a recovery plan. (Ibid.) Instead, HCP applicants are encouraged but not required to develop HCPs that produce a net positive effect for the species or contribute to recovery plan objectives. (Ibid.)
The Lead Agencies believe the MSHCP fully complies with all applicable laws and regulations. As required by both CEQA and NEPA, the Draft EIR/EIS discusses a range of reasonable alternatives in detail in Section 2. (14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15126(a); 40 CFR § 1502.14; see Response H2-18.) The comment does not provide any examples of alternatives or mitigation measures to ensure more conservation and thus, no further response is required.
E-4 See Response D-7.
E-5 See Response D-8.
E-6 See Response D-9.
E-7 See Response D-10.
E-8 See Response D-11.
E-9 See Response D-15.
E-10 See Response D-13.
E-11 See Response D-14.
E-12 See Response D-16.
E-13 See Response D-50.
E-14 Section 7.3.7 of the Draft MSHCP discusses a process by which a flood control project for the San Jacinto may be considered as a Covered Activity. Coverage for such a project is not automatic. The Draft MSHCP does not address a single defined project, but provides a process of analysis based on specific criteria to determine if a future proposed project could become a Covered Activity under the Plan. The criteria include specific considerations for sensitive plants, including Atriplex coronata var. notatior. See Section 7.3.7 of the Draft MSHCP for additional detail regarding the criteria and process related to obtaining coverage for a flood control project in the San Jacinto River. Also please note that the entire San Jacinto River is either within existing Public/Quasi-Public Lands or within the Criteria Area.
E-15 See Response D-17.
E-16 See Response D-18.
E-17 See Responses D-19 and D-17.
E-18 See Responses G-16 and G-17 for discussion of grassland and coastal sage scrub within the MSHCP Plan Area.
E-19 See Response D-23.
E-20 See Responses D-48 and D-42, respectively.
E-21 See Responses F-106 and D-36, respectively.
E-22 See Response D-14.
E-23 The detailed analysis of each Covered Species is included in the Draft MSHCP, Volume II, Species Accounts. The Draft EIR/EIS is one volume of a four-volume set and appropriately includes a summary of that information.
E-24 The comment is overly vague and prohibits a detailed response.
E-25 See Response D-48. In addition, Response F-72 also addresses the Conservation of the burrowing owl.
E-26 See Responses D-48 and F-72.
E-27 The Cells within the Criteria Area are specifically designed to protect species, which is one of the goals of the MSHCP. See Responses F-46 through F-50. Not all known populations of every Covered Species will be protected; hence, the need for Take Authorization.
E-28 See Responses D-48 and D-58.
E-29 The comment incorrectly refers to MSHCP definitions. The Criteria Area is approximately 310,000 acres. The MSHCP Conservation Area will be approximately 500,000 acres. The rest of the comment is correct.
E-30 See Response D-63. The comment purports to cite legal requirements, and no further response is required.
E-31 The Modified Reserve Alternative would conserve an additional 65,400 acres of private land in addition to the 153,000 acres of private land conserved under the proposed MSHCP. While the additional 65,400 acres would include property identified as Critical Habitat, the alternative was found to be financially infeasible. See Responses D-64 and D-65.
E-32 See Response D-65.
E-33 See Responses D-66 and D-67. The MSHCP does not allow FWS to "evade" any duty it has under FESA regarding designating Critical Habitat. In issuing a Section 10(a) permit for the MSHCP, FWS will ensure that the constituent elements of habitat will not be altered or destroyed by proposed activities to the extent that the survival and recovery of affected species would be appreciably reduced. (See Section 10 HCP Handbook, p. 3-18.) As set forth in the Section 10 Handbook:
"It is possible to approve an HCP that authorizes land use or development activities within an area designated as critical habitat. The activities approved under an HCP could include a variety of land or natural resource use activities that modify critical habitat on a large scale without the activities being deemed an adverse modification contrary to the requirements of section 7(a)(2) [of the FESA]. The authorization of activities in critical habitat through the HCP process is possible because the adverse modification of critical habitat is analyzed by determining the effects on the entire area designated as critical habitat or an administrative part or unit of the critical habitat, not on a small scale of particular individual acres. In addition, the HCP permittee must minimize and mitigate for any effects caused by the authorized activity, which would offset or reduce the significance of adverse effects to the critical habitat. Thus, the overall net effect [sic] of authorized land use activities for a particular HCP can be brought within the range of effects which is allowable under Section 7." (Section 10 HCP Handbook, p. 3-19.)
Significantly, then, in issuing a Section 10(a) permit, FWS must examine the effects of the proposed activities on all Covered Species in the Plan, including listed and unlisted species, and determine that adequate mitigation has been provided. As part of this review process, effects on the species and their habitat will necessarily be examined.
In addition, at the time of the issuance of Take Authorization for the MSHCP, the Permittees (and Third Parties Receiving Take Authorization) will receive No Surprises assurances. Under the No Surprises Policy, the Permittees cannot be held financially responsible for any Unforeseen Circumstances related to the Plan. Thus, were FWS to designate new Critical Habitat in the Plan Area, such designation would have practical effect in limited circumstances; in most cases, even if it were found that a Permittee activity was adversely affecting such newly designated Critical Habitat, the Permittee could not be held directly financially responsible due to the No Surprises Policy. Instead, any potential adverse effects to listed species and their habitat are resolved by the MSHCP in advance, and mechanisms are put in place, such as adaptive management, so that any biological/habitats issues can be addressed as they arise during Plan implementation.
E-34 This comment does not address the MSHCP EIR/EIS. The County's proposed General Plan was developed based on a number of factors including existing land uses and entitlements, public input, review by the General Plan Advisory Committee. During development of the General Plan, the Board of Supervisors took the general position that the intensity of development would not be increased in areas important to the implementation of the MSHCP. However, the County would also not decrease density only because of potential MSHCP impacts. Less than half of the Criteria Area will be needed for conservation. Much of the remaining portion will develop to urban levels.
E-35 See Response E-34. Land uses are determined by many factors. Basing land use only on proximity to a proposed conservation area ignores the many factors that go into good land use planning. Given the size of the proposed conservation areas and their proximity to existing Development and infrastructure, a variety of lands uses must exist in proximity to conserved lands.
E-36 This comment references a publication regarding small mammals and burrowing owls to support the recommendation provided in Comment E-35. No additional response is required.
E-37 See Response D-70. The Proposed Riverside County General Plan does propose higher density mixed use centers to reduce urban sprawl and the loss of rural lands as well as to aid in the development of transit. The proposed General Plan attempts to balance the need for housing opportunities to meet the needs of our future residents while supporting preservation of rural areas, the conservation of species and their habitats, and improving mobility within the region by both building new roads and encouraging transit alternatives.
E-38 The Draft EIR/EIS provides a full analysis of all potential environmental effects of the MSHCP in Sections 4.0 and 5.0. The specific issues raised in the comment with regards to Edge Effects, domestic pets, roads and increased air pollution on plants and animals are addressed in Responses E-39 through E-42. Moreover, the guidelines pertaining to the Urban/Wildlands Interface are applicable to virtually all new Development in the Plan Area and will be used to address and limit indirect impacts and Edge Effects. (See MSHCP, § 6.1.4. and Response D-59)
E-39 See Response D-74.
E-40 See Response D-74.
E-41 See Response D-74.
E-42 This comment provides information and references regarding Edge Effects related to domestic pets. Domestic pet predation is identified in Section 5 of the Draft MSHCP as a management issue for species that are particularly susceptible to such impacts, such as coastal California gnatcatcher. Management plans will includes measures to address the management activities identified in Section 5.
E-43 The Lead Agencies disagree with the comment that the funding for the MSHCP is speculative. See Response D-78 with regard to funding issues. See also Response E-29.
E-44 See Responses D-9, D-10 and D-17 for discussion of surveys, core populations and data gaps and the ways in which these issues are addressed in the MSHCP. The MSHCP recognizes the unique biodiversity in the Plan Area. Since more specific comments regarding biodiversity hot spots and source-sink populations are not provided, a more specific response is not possible.
E-45 See Response D-82.
E-46 See Response D-83.
E-47 See Responses D-3 and D-17 for discussion of the Criteria Area and features incorporated in the MSHCP to alter the Criteria Area.
E-48 See Response D-85.
E-49 See Response D-86.
E-50 No Local Development Mitigation Fee has yet been adopted so the amount cannot be raised. The nexus study being prepared by the County will be used to support an appropriate fee amount. It should be noted that unsupportably high levels of mitigation fees could violate the requirements of the Mitigation Fee Act.
E2-1 The County has met with the EVMWD regarding the referenced projects, and has been presented with information on the projects prior to release of the Draft MSHCP and the Draft EIR/EIS. The County and its consultants have a general understanding of the projects, including the proposed locations and character of the facilities, as well as the basic operational aspects of the projects. The County is not, however, in possession of any site specific biological information for the projects and has not conducted a thorough environmental review of the proposed projects at this time.
E2-2 The Draft MSHCP and the accompanying IA contemplate the need for future facilities that are proposed by non-Permittees, such as the projects proposed by EVMWD, and provides a mechanism for such future facilities to receive Take Authorization pursuant to Section 11.8 of the IA.
E2-3 As noted, the MSHCP considers conservation values from Public/Quasi-Public Lands, and provides mechanisms for coordination of management of such lands with the overall MSHCP Conservation Area. However, the MSHCP is a locally initiated Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan and cannot control the action of federal agencies except as may be agreed to.
E2-4 The MSHCP supports a Permit that would be issued under Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA). Section 10(a)(1)(B) of FESA provides for Take of federally listed species related to non-federal actions. Projects that involve federal actions that may have an effect on federally listed species are not permitted Take Authorization through Section 10(a)(1)(B), and must pursue Take under Section 7 of FESA. Therefore, a project that involves a federal action that may affect federally listed species would be subject to the federal consultation process outlined in Section 7 of FESA. Under the current proposed structure of the Draft MSHCP and the Draft IA, assuming the District requires Take Authorization for listed species under FESA, it may elect to either obtain such Take Authorization through the MSHCP or through independent FESA Section 10 (a) or 7 processes. If the District elects not to pursue Take Authorization through the MSHCP, it would not be subject to the requirements of the MSHCP.
E2-5 See Response E2-4.
E2-6 This comment states an accurate interpretation of provisions for Participating Special Entities.
E2-7 The suggested clarifications will be made in Section 7.0 of the Final MSHCP.
E2-8 The comment merely purports to quote from the IA and MSHCP and as such, this comment does not require any further response.
E2-9 If EVMWD seeks to become a Participating Special Entity, a mutually agreeable mitigation program would need to be negotiated. If EVMWD did not agree that the mitigation was reasonable, they could choose not to utilize the MSHCP, and could seek Take Authorization independently from the appropriate agencies.
E2-10 References to the term "practicable" in Section 7.0 of the Draft MSHCP will be made consistent with the defined term "Feasible" in the Final MSHCP.
E2-11 See Response E2-1.
E3-1 As noted in the Draft MSHCP, the Criteria Area represents the area within which the Criteria will be applied, and is larger than the actual area desired for Conservation. It is acknowledged that agricultural lands occur within the Criteria Area. Conservation will only be sought for those areas described in the Criteria. The Draft MSHCP describes the process by which development projects will be reviewed against the Criteria to determine consistency.
E3-2 See Response E3-1.
E3-3 This comment consists of information related to the two properties addressed in this letter. See Response E3-1.
E4-1 Section 3.2.1 of the MSHCP calls for verification of PQP Lands within the existing database. The Lead Agencies will work with the District to determine the precise boundaries of the referenced property, to determine its status with respect to the PQP Lands database, and to adjust the PQP as provided for in the Plan. Furthermore, EMWD is not a Permittee under the MSHCP, and as such, is not subject to its requirements. If EMWDowns lands identified as desirable for Additional Reserve Lands, such Additional Reserve Lands would only be acquired from willing sellers in accordance with the processes incorporated in the MSHCP. However, EMWD may receive Take Authorization through the MSHCP, if it so desires, in accordance with the provisions outlined in Section 7.0 of the Plan.
E4-2 The Permittees would be happy to work with EMWD to coordinate land acquisitions and management that would be mutually beneficial to both conservation plans. As noted in Response E4-1, EMWD could choose to receive Take Authorization for their activities through the MSHCP if it so desires.
E4-3 See Responses E4-1 and Response E4-2. The Lead Agencies do not believe that the requested actions are necessary to meet EMWD's stated objectives given the information provided in the referenced responses.
E4-4 See Response E4-3.
E5-1 The Lead Agencies welcome the involvement of OCWD during the long-term MSHCP implementation process. The MSHCP provides for the Conservation of Covered Species through the assembly, management and monitoring of the MSHCP Conservation Area. The MSHCP incorporates a comprehensive Adaptive Management Plan along with the monitoring activities referenced in the comment.
E5-2 This comment describes the purpose and service parameters of OCWD, and as it raises no issues related to the Draft MSHCP, IA or EIR/EIS, no further response is necessary.
E5-3 This comment raises no issues related to the Draft MSHCP, IA or EIR/EIS, and no further response is necessary.
E5-4 The Lead Agencies acknowledge the great contributions of OCWD to conservation efforts in the Santa Ana River. This comment however, raises no issues related to the Draft MSHCP, IA or EIR/EIS, and no further response is necessary.
E5-5 See Response E5-1.
F-1 Individual responses to the concerns identified in the letter and referenced in the comment are provided for each individual numbered comment below.
F-2 The Lead Agencies believe that the IA Recitals accurately reflect the purposes and benefits of the MSHCP. With regard to the comment that the MSHCP Conservation Area was "outcome driven," see Response G-6. The Plan is intended to address the impacts associated with, and provide mitigation for, public and private development in the Plan Area. This includes regional infrastructure development. In contrast to project-specific or "low effect" habitat conservation planning efforts, the HCP Section 10 Handbook explicitly contemplates that applicants have flexibility when drafting regional or multi-species HCPs. Indeed, the Handbook affirmatively states that: "a second guiding principle of this handbook is that FWS and NMFS will continue to encourage state and local governments and private landowners to undertake regional and multi-species HCP efforts as appropriate and will assist such efforts to the maximum extent practicable." (HCP Handbook, p. 1-15 emphasis in original.) To this end, the benefits of regional or multi-species HCPs include: (1) providing maximum flexibility and available options in developing mitigation programs; (2) reducing the economic and logistic burdens of these programs on individual landowners by distributing their impacts; (3) reducing uncoordinated decision making, which can result in incremental habitat loss and inefficient project review; (4) providing the permittees with long-term planning assurances and increase the number of species for which assurances can be given; (5) bringing a broad range of activities under the permit's legal protection; and (6) reducing the regulatory burden of FESA compliance for all affected participants. (HCP Handbook, pp. 1-14 to 1-15.)
The Lead Agencies disagree that the Plan could not meet issuance criteria. The Service encourages HCP applicants to consider as large and comprehensive a plan area as is feasible and consistent with their land or natural resource use authorities. (HCP Handbook, p. 3-11.) Identification of the most comprehensive range of activities within the Plan Area to receive Take Authorization, whether those activities are project-based or land use activity based, is also encouraged. (Ibid.; HCP Handbook, p. 3-12.) Inclusion of such a broad range of activities and Take Authorization allows for the analysis of a wider range of factors affecting listed species, maximizes flexibility needed to develop innovative mitigation burdens, and minimizes the burden of individual project review under FESA by replacing it with comprehensive, area-wide review. (HCP Handbook, p. 3-11.) In addition, inclusion of such a broad range of activities maximizes the permittees' long-term planning assurances, broadens legal coverage, and minimizes the possibility that some future activity will not be covered by an issued permit. (HCP Handbook, p. 3-12.) Moreover, the FESA Section 10 requirement that the HCP minimize and mitigate the impacts of the taking, "to the maximum extent practicable" is a more flexible concept in the context of regional or multi-species plans. According to the Handbook: When the Service evaluates an HCP, "[t]his finding typically requires consideration of two factors: adequacy of the minimization and mitigation program, and whether it is the maximum that can be practically implemented by the applicant. To the extent that the minimization and mitigation program can be demonstrated to provide substantial benefits to the species, less emphasis can be placed on the second factor." (HCP Handbook, p. 7-3.) The Lead Agencies believe that the Draft EIS/EIR and Plan have mitigated potential impacts in full compliance with CEQA, NEPA, FESA and the NCCP Act. Moreover, certain mitigation requirements will continue even after assembly of the MSHCP Conservation Area has occurred. See Responses M-21 and H2-37. For these reasons, the Lead Agencies do not believe it is appropriate to change the language of the referenced recital.
F-3 Section 3.99 of the IA references the State assurances found in the NCCP Act of 2002. Similar to the "No Surprises" provision in FESA, CDFG will not require additional mitigation unless jeopardy could occur to a Covered Species or as required by law, and thus, NCCP Permit revocation or suspension would result. This is not "double dipping" as referenced in the comment. Instead, this is an assurance that is available to Permittees through the NCCP process. Moreover, in issuing the NCCP Permit, CDFG will be required to make certain findings including that the Plan provide for the protection of habitat, natural communities and species diversity through the creation and long term management of habitat reserves or other equivalent measures. Prior to issuing the NCCP Permit, CDFG will also be required to make a finding that the Plan's Conservation Strategy fully complies with the NCCP Act, including determinations that adequate mitigation has been imposed.
F-4 The Lead Agencies do not believe it is appropriate or necessary to amend the definition of Urban/Wildlands Interface to include agriculture. As noted in MSHCP Section 6.1.4 "the [Urban/ Wildlands Interface] presented in this section are intended to address indirect impacts associated with locating development in proximity to the Conservation Area, where applicable" (page 6-41). [Emphasis Added.] The intent of the guidelines pertaining to the Urban/Wildlands Interface is to address effects that are associated with locating Development near the MSHCP Conservation Area, not agriculture. As explained in Response F-15, ongoing agricultural operations are not necessarily incompatible with species and habitat conservation. Finally, in most instances the County and the Cities do not regulate ongoing agricultural uses. The commentor fails to provide adequate detail on the intent of the suggested language "other human uses and development occur..." referenced in the comment, and no further response is possible.
F-5 The Lead Agencies disagree with the proposed change, as there is no conflict in the sentences. However, to clarify the intent of this section, the following change will be made: "Approximately 56,000 acres will be acquired and approximately 41,000 acres otherwise conserved through the development review process."
F-6 Applicants that comply with the terms of the MSHCP will receive Take Authorization through the Permittees as specified in the IA. Therefore, granting such authorization would not be an incentive under HANS, but instead would be the result of MSHCP compliance.
F-7 The comment identifies a typographical error, and the IA will be revised to say "affected conservation subunits."
F-8 A draft nexus report has been prepared by the County pursuant to the requirements of Government Code section 66000 et seq., as well as all other applicable legal requirements. This report will assist in the determination of the Local Development Mitigation Fee by the County Board of Supervisors. Prior to approval of the amount of the MSHCP, the County and Cities will make findings as required by California Government Code Sections 66000 et seq., namely that there exists a "reasonable relationship" between the "fees" that will be imposed and the impacts related to land development or use. Further, findings must be made that there is a "reasonable relationship" between the fees and the cost of land acquisition. The nexus report will be available for public review prior to County Board of Supervisors' final consideration of the Plan.
F-9 Most Existing Agricultural Operations have been farmed for at least one of the past five years. As noted in Response F-10, the RCA has defined requirements to determine the validity of requests to be included in the Existing Agricultural Database. If the Agricultural Operations are clearly "bogus," then the requirements for being placed in the Existing Agricultural Operations Database would not be met. The RCA therefore has the ability to prevent property from being added to the Database. See Response F-10 for a discussion of how the requirements will to determine the "veracity" of such a claim. The requirement was not written based upon the premise that farming for four of the past five years was standard practice, but based simply on the premise that farmers do not always farm parcels every year or even for multiple years but such operations are still legitimate agricultural operations. It is inappropriate to compare the MSHCP with the San Diego MSCP because that document does not establish rules or requirements for other MSHCPs outside San Diego County. There is no evidence that the MSHCP requirements for agricultural operations are inappropriate for Western Riverside County.
F-10 The Agricultural Commissioner is not beholden to agricultural producers but is rather an independent County department. It is inappropriate and without merit to claim that a County department is biased or subjective. In order to verify the location of Existing Agricultural Operations, as defined pursuant to Section 6.2(A) of the MSHCP, the County will be responsible for establishing an Existing Agricultural Operations Database that includes such lands. The County will not inspect every parcel but will take all necessary steps to fulfill its obligation to create the Database pursuant to the defined criteria.
After the compilation of this initial Database, any landowner wishing to have property included in the Database must proceed according to the provisions of Section 6.2(D of the MSHCP). The RCA will ensure the veracity of the information concerning land proposed for inclusion in the Database and conduct a thorough review of the detailed information provided prior to adding property to the Database. First, a property owner must submit a request to be added to the Database. (Draft MSHCP p. 6-56.) This written request must be submitted to the RCA within 36 months of the Effective Date of the agreement. The MSHCP states specifically that the information must be supported by "adequate factual evidence" which may include, but is not limited to:
(See Draft MSHCP, p. 6-56.)
The burden for establishing that land should be included in the Database is "solely upon the property owner, operator or other appropriate party." (Ibid. p. 6-57.) If the County or the RCA cannot determine that a particular parcel of land meets the requirements for Existing Agricultural Operations, it will not issue the Certification of Inclusion to the responsible party until such time as "adequate factual evidence" is provided. If the County or the RCA determines that information provided by a responsible party is inadequate, then "adequate factual evidence" does not exist to support a party's request to be issued a Certificate of Inclusion, and the County or the RCA would deny the request.
F-11 Within the Criteria Area, a limited amount of acreage (10,000 acres during the 75-year term of the MSHCP) may be designated as "New Agricultural Lands." These lands could consist of new farming activities that do not require a discretionary permit or action. To constitute New Agricultural Lands, a farmer must complete the process set forth in Section 6.2(f) of the MSHCP and show: (1) submission and approval of an Agricultural Grading/Clearing Exception Form as set forth in Ordinance No. 457; and (2) either an execution of a Williamson Act contract or City or County approval of any other mechanism providing for equal or better assurance that the proposed New Agricultural lands will in fact be used for agricultural purposes. A Certificate of Inclusion must be issued prior to beginning Agricultural Activity that could have species impacts. Outside the Criteria Area, Agricultural Operations may expand without any limitation. See Response M-47 regarding the New Agricultural Lands Cap.
F-12 The Lead Agencies disagree that the New Agricultural Lands Cap precludes Reserve Assembly. The Criteria Area is approximately 310,000 and is significantly larger than the Additional Reserve Lands requirement of 153,000 acres. Therefore, a maximum of 10,000 acres of New Agricultural Land in a Criteria Area consisting of over 300,000 acres will not preclude assembly of the MSHCP Conservation Area. Rather, the vast majority of the Criteria Area will still be available for Reserve Assembly. Moreover, although the New Agricultural Lands Cap is 10,000 acres, this amount of land may never be farmed. The recent data indicate that very little land is currently being converted to agricultural uses. Within the Criteria Area, approximately 270 acres annually are converted to agricultural uses. Finally, agricultural operations that may occur on New Agricultural Lands may, in many instances, be compatible with habitat conservation and/or may be temporary in nature. Thus, the comment is speculative and without evidentiary support.
The Pre-approved Mitigation Area referenced in the comment is not equivalent to the Criteria Area. The Pre-approved Mitigation Area essentially represents what a hardline reserve might look like in areas with a Pre-approved Mitigation Area. As noted in the MSHCP, the Criteria Area is an approximately 310,000-acre area from which approximately 153,000 acres of Additional Reserve Lands will be assembled.
F-13 See Response F-12. The Lead Agencies disagree with the commentor's assertion that there will be "total and unrestricted exemption" for Agricultural Lands within the Criteria Area. In fact, the Farm Bureau believes the 10,000-acre cap is much too restrictive and should be significantly increased. See Response F-9 for a discussion of the requirements to be deemed an Existing Agricultural Operation. See Response F-12 regarding the impact that the 10,000- acre New Agricultural Lands Cap will have on the goals of the MSHCP.
F-14 This comment, by referencing a "5-year minimum for agricultural use," appears to be referring to the Plan's requirement that development would be restricted on New Agricultural Land. The Lead Agencies believe that the five-year limitation is adequate and will discourage "bad actors" who attempt to use the agricultural provisions of the MSHCP to benefit future development. Given current farming patterns and practices in Riverside County, a ten-year provision would be unduly burdensome to legitimate farmers.
The MSHCP specifically addresses this comment's concern regarding determining "true hardship" by conditioning any hardship exemption from development restrictions when there is a "documented" showing of "severe economic hardship," that is "beyond the control of the property owner or operator as determined by the appropriate Permittee." (Draft MSHCP, p. 6-58.) Therefore, if a land speculator "plants inappropriate crops" or is not "farming well," presumably to be able to invoke the "true hardship" exemption, such exemption would not be granted because such activity is apparently within that land speculator's control.
F-15 To clarify, expansion of Agricultural Operations outside the Criteria Area requiring discretionary or certain City ministerial approvals will be subject to many of the terms and conditions of the MSHCP. See Section 11.3.5 of the IA. The Lead Agencies have concluded that expansion of Agricultural Operations outside the Criteria Area without the need for a discretionary approval will not, in most instances, have adverse impacts on Covered Species. Many types of agriculture contribute to Conservation for certain Covered Species. For example, agriculture benefits some widely distributed grassland species such as California horned lark and provides foraging for raptors such as the merlin. The MSHCP species accounts identify agriculture as a prime habitat for these, and other, species. Agriculture is also identified in the MSHCP Species accounts as a secondary habitat for burrowing owl. See Response F-72. Additionally, historic trends show that very little acreage is being converted to agricultural uses; rather, farmers are converting their land to residential and commercial development. It will be the responsibility of the Wildlife Agencies to determine whether Permit issuance is appropriate based upon the analysis in the MSHCP. See Section 7.3.3 of the Draft MSHCP for an analysis of the 10,000 acres of New Agricultural Land allowed in the Criteria Area.
F-16 The Lead Agencies believe that the baseline information is adequate and complies with applicable laws. To increase the New Agricultural Lands Cap from 10,000 acres, a Minor Amendment must be granted but only if it meets the requirements for a Minor Amendment pursuant to Section 6.10.2 of the MSHCP and Section 20.4 of the IA and if it can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Wildlife Agencies that such an increase does not: (1) preclude Reserve Assembly, (2) significantly increase the cost of MSHCP Conservation Area management or assembly, and (3) preclude achieving Covered Species conservation and goals. (IA, section 11.3.7) These requirements will ensure that even with an increase in acreage, the New Agricultural Lands will not adversely impact the MSHCP Conservation Area. Therefore, the recommended language change is not necessary.
F-17 The Funding Plan starts with the projection of what funds are necessary for Reserve Assembly and management called for by the MSHCP. The Conservation of 103,000 acres and funding for the long-term management and monitoring of these lands plus 55,000 acres of conservation lands already under local control provide mitigation under the MSHCP for activities covered under the Plan. These costs are allocated to the entities that will benefit from and/or receive Take Authorization under the MSHCP. Roughly speaking, one-half of the local costs for implementing the MSHCP will come directly from new Development and one-half will come from other capital and infrastructure projects that will utilize the MSHCP for mitigation. Transportation projects generally have mitigated less than the proposed 3% to 5%. Therefore, like new residential and commercial development, infrastructure will be paying as much or more than they have in the past to mitigate for environmental impacts. Section 8.6 acknowledges that should funding expectations not meet the projections or the implementation costs exceed projects, the Permittees would re-evaluate funding sources and may make adjustments. The proposed funding plan equitably distributes the costs for MSHCP over as broad a base as possible.
F-18 The mitigation fees paid by new Development will be established by the Cities and the County after receiving the nexus study required by the Mitigation Fee Act set forth in Government Code Section 66000 et seq. It is anticipated that a per acre fee will apply to commercial projects, to certain regional infrastructure projects, and local capital construction projects. These projects (generally buildings) will have impacts similar to a private commercial projects.
F-19 The MSHCP and IA will be revised to eliminate the third and fourth options. The County and Cities maintain control over their public projects and will determine appropriate mitigation. The MSHCP does not transfer such control to the Wildlife Agencies or the RCA. Moreover, the County and Cities, by signing the IA, adopting ordinances and resolutions, and taking other relevant actions, are agreeing to implement the terms and conditions of the MSHCP. The County and Cities are also legally required to comply with the provisions of CEQA. The Wildlife Agencies will be notified of all public and private projects and will have the opportunity to provide comments. In the event the Wildlife Agencies believe any of the Permittees have not met their obligations under the Plan, the Wildlife Agencies have the duty to take appropriate action pursuant to the documents and state and federal law.
F-20 See Response F-17. The Flood Control District, working with the RCA, will make the determination of what, if any, offset there should be allowed on an individual project. It is the Permittee's responsibility to fund their mitigation. The Wildlife Agencies should not interfere in local funding decisions. If the Local Permittees do not meet their obligations under the IA, the Wildlife Agencies have a responsibility to take appropriate actions as provided in the Plan and under state and federal law.
F-21 See Response F-17. County Parks can choose to mitigate using the alternatives listed in amended Section 13.5B of the IA. As a Permittee, the Parks District is responsible for their compliance with the Plan.
F-22 The Caltrans contribution of 2,000 acres in the eastern portion of the Plan Area and 1,000 acres in the western portion of the Plan Area were determined to be an appropriate contribution based upon total impacts of approximately 1,500 acres resulting from its Covered Activities.
F-23 The Lead Agencies agree with this statement. In addition, the right of the Federal Government to purchase or protect additional land for the benefit of species, whether or not there are unforseen circumstances, is set forth in 50 C.F.R. § 17.22(a)(6).
F-24 FESA does not require that all mitigation land needed to offset impacts associated with a regional or multi-species HCP be set aside in advance of any development. (See Section 10 Handbook, p. 3-22.) As stated therein, "the HCP applicant may need to conduct activities prior to the time when replacement habitats can be provided. This is acceptable so long as the HCP provides legal or financial assurances that the permittee will fulfill the HCP's obligations... Mitigation funds have often been used in regional HCPs in which the responsible party for habitat mitigation under the HCP is a state or local government agency... In such cases, the responsibilities of individual contributors may end with the payment, and any additional performance requirement would either be waived or would belong to the permitted agency." (Ibid.) Accordingly, Third Party Take Authorization is properly granted under the MSHCP once the Local Development Mitigation Fee is paid and all other requirements of the MSHCP are fully satisfied by that third party.
F-25 The commentor appears to be adding a requirement that Third Parties may only retain Take Authorization after an amendment or other revision to the MSHCP with Wildlife Agencies' and Permittee approval. This is not the intent of Section 17.4 of IA. Rather, the intent is to provide assurances to Third Parties that provided they fully comply with MSHCP, amendments or other revisions to the MSHCP that occur after granting of Third Party Take Authorization shall not affect the Take conferred or the level of compensation without the approval of the Third Party. There is no legal requirement to make the change suggested by the commentor.
F-26 The Lead Agencies disagree with this comment. Lands annexed into the jurisdiction of participating Cities would have previously been within the County, and thus already subject to the MSHCP requirements. It is unclear from the comment how simply shifting jurisdictional lines could preclude Reserve Assembly or achieving conservation goals.
F-27 See Response F-26. Additionally, the Lead Agencies are unclear why the commentor would be against annexing as much property as possible into the Plan Area, thereby ensuring habitat conservation and species protection.
F-28 The Lead Agencies believe that the language of this Minor Amendment is sufficient to limit its applicability to very restricted circumstances, i.e., only applicable to those situations where topographical conditions may preclude keeping the entire graded slope area within the anticipated right-of-way. Moreover, if situations arise where the use of this Minor Amendment will result in "abuse," then the requirements of the MSHCP would not be met and the Wildlife Agencies would take appropriate action.
F-29 Concurrence as a Minor Amendment is required for the Cajalco Road Improvements, State Route 79 Road Improvements and the San Jacinto River Project. The Lead Agencies disagree that concurrence is or should be required for the other Minor Amendments. The listed Minor Amendments will have minimal, if any, impacts to the Covered Species and thus, Wildlife Agency concurrence for any such amendment is merely bureaucratic and provides few biological benefits. The Wildlife Agencies have a two-month period to submit comments and institute the meet and confer process of Section 23.6 of the IA if they have serious concerns.
F-30 The MSHCP gives the Permittees the right to terminate the MSHCP. (See IA, Section 22.1.) Moreover, the MSHCP and the IA contain assurances that Conservation will be achieved. Indeed, the IA contains the following binding commitment: "In the event of termination, consistent with the requirements of 50 Code of Federal Regulations sections 17.32(b)(7) and 17.22(b)(7), the Permittees will remain obligated to fulfill any existing and outstanding minimization and mitigation measures required under the terms of the Permits for Take that occurs prior to such termination and such minimization and mitigation measures as may be required pursuant to the terms of this Agreement and the MSHCP." (IA, § 21.2.) FESA allows for the termination of a permit when activities authorized thereunder cease, provided certain requirements are met. (See 50 C.F.R. § 17.22(b)(7).) Of course, Take of Covered Species would then be prohibited. (Ibid.) Moreover, minimization and mitigation measures conducted to that point would be reviewed by the Service to ensure they were commensurate with the amount of Take that occurred during the term of the Permit. (Ibid.; HCP Handbook, p. 6-30.) If the Take occurred during the initial stages of implementing the Permits, but the minimization and mitigation measures occur throughout the term of the Permit, the Service is required to ensure that the remainder of those measures are implemented before the Permit is terminated. (Ibid.) There is no evidence that termination would be used as a method of avoiding responsibilities since the Permittees are still obligated under Section 21.2 of the IA. Additionally, the IA sets forth an accounting mechanism and other actions that would be triggered upon termination of the Permit. (IA, § 21.)
F-31 Section 21.2 of the IA does not allow Permittees to "renege" on their commitments. (See Response F-30.) If a Permittee terminates Plan participation before any Take has occurred, then there is no nexus for the imposition of measures to mitigate such Take.
F-32 See Responses F-30 and F-31. The majority of the property acquisitions will occur in the first 25 years of the Permits, so it is highly unlikely that withdrawal of a Permittee late in the Permit term would have significant adverse results. Moreover, as previously noted, Section 21.2 of the IA would not allow a Permittee to renege on Reserve Assembly obligations if it has received Take Authorization. Based on the language of Measure A, a Local Permittee who withdraws will not lose funds previously allocated, but lose any future funds. It is important to note that Measure A funds will not be allocated until 2008, at the earliest.
F-33 See Responses F-30, F-31 and F-32. Section 22.2 of the IA specifically prohibits parties from reneging on their commitments.
F-34 The relevant provision of the IA states: "[F]or those Covered Activities within th[e Terminating] Permittee's jurisdiction that have been issued a grading permit or have commenced grading activities or have been issued a Certificate of Inclusion, Take Authorization shall continue under the Permits provided all relevant obligations have been met pursuant to the MSHCP, this Agreement and the Permittee's land use entitlements." (IA, § 22.2.) Once an individual developer has paid the Local Development Mitigation Fees and met the remaining obligations of the MSHCP, Take Authorization would be granted and remain valid pending completion of his/her project. The section does not allow for any illegal grading, as individual land use jurisdictions maintain separate legal requirements for grading permits, which are not affected by the MSHCP. "Default" under the MSHCP refers to a breach of material provisions, while termination refers to voluntary return of Take Authorization meeting the requirements of the IA and FESA. The Lead Agencies will propose adding the following to the second sentence: "...or have commenced legal grading activities..." for the purpose of clarification.
F-35 The Lead Agencies disagree with the comment because many of the mitigation obligations associated with the MSHCP will continue even if one or more Permittees terminate their participation in the Plan. See Responses F-30 to F-34.
F-36 First, the fee ordinances and resolutions attached to the IA are in draft form only and may be revised. Second, Section 1J of Exhibit G merely states that "to ensure fair implementation of the development impact fees established in the Ordinance, it may be necessary for the City to defer or waive such fees in special cases as may be permitted in accordance with procedures and guidelines established by the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority." Because the RCA has not been formed, such procedures and guidelines have not yet been developed. After formation, it is expected that there will be standards for fee waiver or deferral, including funding issues, in the relevant procedures and guidelines.
F-37 The Mitigation Fee Act requires that mitigation fees in most instances may only be collected prior to final inspection or certificate of occupancy. See Government Code Section 66007. It is anticipated that any requirement to pay the adopted fee would be imposed upon issuance of the building permit not upon issuance of a grading permit and that payment of such fee would be required prior to final inspection or certificate of occupancy. That being said, there is nothing that prohibits developers from paying fees at the building permit stage.
F-38 The secondary unit fee exemption states as follows: "The following types of construction shall be exempt from the provisions of this ordinance:...Secondary residential units, constructed on developed residential property and meeting all stateand Cityrequirements for such units."[Emphasis added.] This exemption contemplates that these types of projects will not have any impacts to biological resources as they are limited to developed residential property.
F-39 Section 10E states that the fee will not be imposed on "Development on a Project Area that is currently or has been previously improved." As with the secondary units addressed in Response F-38, such projects will not impact biological resources. These exemptions do not limit the fee to impacts on pristine areas but instead carve out a very narrow number of exemptions for certain projects with limited impacts. Agricultural land converted to other uses will be subject to the fee just like any other development. (See Response M-22) The Permittees will consider at the time of fee adoption whether a reduced fee would be appropriate for infill, redevelopment and reuse projects.
F-40 Section 11 states: "Any Local Development Mitigation Fee credit that may be applicable to a Development Project, or any partial or full waiver of a Local Development Mitigation Fee that may be applicable to a Development Project, shall be determined by the City only in accordance with such authority, rules, and procedures as may be established by the Regional Conservation Authority." If the RCA does not authorize a fee credit or waiver, then no credit or waiver shall be issued by the City. The RCA shall establish appropriate procedures and guidelines that will consider fee credits and waiver, and related funding issues.
F-41 Both ordinances and resolutions are legally binding and have the same force and effect. (See, Guyton v. Phillips (9th Cir. 1981) 532 F.Supp. 1154, 1162. "[r]esolutions are legislative enactments entitled to the same recognition as ordinances"].) Exhibits H and I are offered as proposed boilerplate documents for the Cities to use depending on the individual City's practice and do not otherwise differ in their enforcement power. Moreover, upon execution of the IA, the Cities are bound to enforce the Plan.
F-42 As defined in Exhibit H, a "Project" means any action or activity that is subject to the City's ministerial or discretionary approval, or any action or activity undertaken directly by the City, for the purpose of developing or improving real property. The list of examples is merely illustrative and not exclusive. See Response F-37.
F-43 The Lead Agencies disagree with the comment. The Permittees are public entities whose actions are subject to public and judicial review. Further, Permittees are required to comply and implement the terms of the MSHCP. If a Permittee fails to comply with the MSHCP, the IA or the Permits, the Permittee's Take Authorization will be revoked. To ensure that the requirements of the MSHCP and the IA are properly met, a Joint Project/Acquisition Review Process will be instituted by the RCA. The purpose of the Joint Project/Acquisition Review Process is to allow the RCA to facilitate and monitor implementation of the MSHCP. The Wildlife Agencies will be notified of all projects within the Criteria Area and will meet with RCA on a quarterly basis.
F-44 See Response F-2.
F-45 See Responses G-15, G-16 and G-17 for a detailed discussion of Conservation of grassland and coastal sage scrub anticipated under the MSHCP.
F-46 The reference to the text on page 3-117 under "Results," excerpts the end of a sentence which states that the MSHCP is intended to result in a reserve configuration as cited in the comment. The preamble to that phrase in the sentence referenced in the comment states: "Implementation of the Reserve Assembly guidance incorporated in the MSHCP including the guidance provided in the descriptions of the MSHCP Conservation Area, the Cores and Linkages, the Area Plan Subunit Biological Issues and Considerations and Planning Species, and the Cell and Cell Group Criteria are intended to result in a reserve configuration..." These referenced sections of the MSHCP contain extensive guidance as to the ways in which the MSHCP Conservation Area is to be assembled to achieve the stated objective of a reserve configuration that "provides significant blocks of habitat, minimizes internal fragmentation and edge effects, and maximizes the ratio of surface area to perimeter." Examples of this guidance are the target acreages for Cores and Linkages presented in Section 3.2.3 of the Draft MSHCP. Section 3.2.3 also calls out approximate interior and edge acreages, approximate perimeter to area ratios, and approximate distances to the nearest connected core for each Core and Linkage. These conservation targets for Cores and Linkages are specifically referenced on page 3-18 of the Draft MSHCP which states: "Achievement of the conservation targets as part of the overall Reserve Assembly process will be an important measuring and monitoring tool for the MSHCP." Further examples of Reserve Assembly guidance referenced in the text on page 3-117 may be found in the identification of Biological Issues and Considerations for each Area Plan Subunit. As an example, the Biological Issues and Considerations for Subunit 1 of the Elsinore Area Plan identify issues such as: "Maintain core habitat for bobcat; maintain core and linkage habitat for Stephens' kangaroo rat east of I-15; maintain core and linkage habitat for Quino checkerspot butterfly..." In addition to these features, the MSHCP includes specific conservation and management objectives for each Covered Species. When Reserve Assembly guidance is provided in the MSHCP that refers to specific species, further guidance may be found in the species-specific conservation objectives included in the MSHCP.
It is not correct that terms like core habitat are never defined in terms of configuration. Definitions for Core Area, Linkage and other relevant terms are provided in the Definitions section of the MSHCP, Volume I and in the introduction to the cores and linkages discussion on page 3-23, Section 3.2.3 of the Draft MSHCP. As an example, the definition for Core Area calls for "a block of habitat of appropriate size, configuration (emphasis added), and vegetation characteristics to generally support the life history requirements for one or more Covered Species." The definition of Linkage calls for "a connection between Core Areas with adequate size, configuration (emphasis added), and vegetation characteristics to generally provide for Live-In Habitat and/or provide genetic flow for identified Planning Species." Live-In Habitat is defined as "habitat that contains the necessary components to support key life history requirements of a species; e.g., year-round habitat for permanent residents or breeding habitat for migrantspecies." These definitions clearly refer to configuration factors to be considered in the assembly, design and management of Cores and Linkages.
The MSHCP is a layered and sequential criteria-based plan with planning units generally ranging from the overall MSHCP Conservation Area, to the Cores and Linkages, the Area Plans, the Area Plan Subunits, and finally, the individual Cells and Cell Groups. The Cell Criteria referenced as the crux of the problem in the comment are the last step in the sequential Reserve Assembly guidance provided in the MSHCP. Initial guidance is provided by the description of the overall MSHCP Conservation Area provided in summary fashion in Section 3.2.2 of the MSHCP and in detail in Section A of the MSHCP Reference Document - Volume II of the MSHCP. Among the factors described that relate to fragmentation are those such as patch size and edge affected land after completion of Reserve Assembly (see pages 3-21 and 3-22 of the Draft MSHCP). Similar guidance is provided in the conservation targets for Cores and Linkages and Biological Issues and Considerations for Area Plan Subunits as described above. These guidance features are specifically referenced in the Cell Criteria identified as a concern in the comment. In addition to the "conservation to range from 40% to 60%" factor referenced in the comment, the Criteria for each Cell and Cell Group make specific reference to the Core or Linkage within which the Cell or Cell Group is located. A typical example is: "Conservation within this cell will contribute to assembly of Proposed Core 1." As described in the MSHCP, this guidance within the Cell Criteria is intended to refer the reader to the description of conservation targets for Proposed Core 1. (As noted above, conservation targets for each Core and Linkage are presented in Section 3.2.3 of the MSHCP.) The next two components of the Criteria for each Cell or Cell Group focus on the type of habitat to be conserved within the Cell or Cell Group and connectivity issues associated with the Cell or Cell Group. A typical example is: "Conservation on this cell will focus on riparian scrub, woodland and forest habitat associated with Alberhill Creek and recovery of adjacent coastal sage scrub habitat. Areas conserved within this Cell will be connected to coastal sage scrub, riparian scrub, woodland and forest habitat proposed for conservation in Cell Groups L to the north and O to the east." These components of the Cell Criteria are intended to address the fragmentation concerns related to reserve configuration referenced in the comment. As noted above, similar guidance is provided for each Area Plan Subunit and this guidance is to be used in combination with the Criteria for Cells and Cell Groups during the Reserve Assembly process.
The comment expresses concern that the RCA may allow "scattered roads, driveways and estate lots within the conservation area." Uses such as these are not addressed in the Reserve Assembly guidance provided throughout the MSHCP, as noted above, but rather in the guidance for Covered Activities/Allowable Uses included in Section 7.0 of the MSHCP. As described in Section 7.0, Covered Activities must be designed, maintained and operated in accordance with the requirements of the MSHCP. Those requirements are intended to avoid and minimize fragmentation and Edge Effects potentially associated with Covered Activities. Applications for Covered Activities will be reviewed by the Permittees for consistency with the requirements of the MSHCP and will be submitted to the RCA for review as part of the Joint Review Process as called for in Section 6.6 of the MSHCP.
F-47 See Response F-46. Reserve Assembly guidance is provided throughout the Plan. Guidance regarding the configuration of the overall MSHCP Conservation Area is provided in Section 3.2.2. Guidance regarding configuration of Cores and Linkages is provided in Section 3.2.3 of the MSHCP. Guidance regarding Biological Issues and Considerations and Planning Species for each Area Plan Subunit is provided in Sections
3.3.2 through 3.3.17 of the MSHCP. Guidance regarding habitat conservation and connectivity is provided for each Cell and Cell Group in the Cell Criteria in sections 3.3.2 through 3.3.17.
F-48 See Responses F-46 and F-47. Appropriate guidance for Reserve Assembly is provided in the MSHCP. Oversight to ensure that Reserve Assembly is occurring in accordance with the Reserve Assembly guidance provided throughout the Plan is provided through several features incorporated in the MSHCP including the Reserve Assembly Accounting procedures described in Section 6. 7 of the Plan and the Annual Review and Oversight requirements in Section 6.11 of the Plan. The Reserve Assembly Accounting procedures state the following: "The MSHCP Additional Reserve Lands will be assembled over time and when assembly is completed, must be in a configuration and contain key Vegetation Communities (both location and acres) that provide for the Conservation of Covered Species." The procedures further go on to state that as the MSHCP Conservation Area is assembled, the Parties and the public must be able to determine that lands being conserved support habitats necessary for Covered Species; development on lands within the Criteria Area is not reducing opportunities to assemble Additional Reserve Lands in accordance with the guidance provided in the Plan; and acquisition priorities are appropriately focused. The Reserve Assembly Accounting procedures divide the Plan Area into eight Rough Step Analysis Units and identify key Vegetation Communities within each Rough Step Analysis Unit for which conservation targets are established to ensure that Conservation and loss of key Vegetation Communities is occurring in rough step proportionality according to the rough step parameters defined in Section 6.7. Section 6.7 states (page 6-92), "If the Rough Step rule is not met during any analysis period, the Permittees must conserve appropriate lands supporting a specified Vegetation Community within the Analysis Unit to bring the Plan back into the parameters of the rule prior to authorizing additional loss of the Vegetation Community for which the rule was not achieved." Section 6.7 defines the analysis period as annually and Section 6.11 (page 6-113) requires that "Documentation of Reserve Assembly activities in relationship to the Rough Step formulas presented in Section 6.7" be included in annual reports. Additional oversight is called for in Section 6.6.2 F.2 (page 6-81) of the Plan which calls for status meetings with the Wildlife Agencies as follows: "During the first three (3) years of implementation of the MSHCP, Regional Conservation Authority staff and Wildlife Agencies representatives shall meet every ninety (90) days, at a minimum, to review the status of Plan implementation." This additional oversight requirements will occur during the initial three year period when it is anticipated key Reserve Assembly activities will be underway. In summary, the MSHCP includes both extensive and appropriate Reserve Assembly guidance and extensive and appropriate oversight requirements to ensure that Reserve Assembly occurs according to the guidance provided.
F-49 See Responses F-46, F-47 and F-48. The Reserve Assembly guidance provided in the MSHCP and referenced in these responses is available to inform Participants, mediators, and arbitrators during the HANS Process.
F-50 See the third paragraph of Response F-46. Guidance regarding conservation of habitat blocks and minimization of internal fragmentation and Edge Effects is specifically provided in the Cell Criteria. The Criteria for each Cell and Cell Group specifically identify the Core or Linkage within which the Cell or Cell Group is located and conservation targets for each Core and Linkage identify approximate acreage targets for interior and edge area for each Core and Linkage, perimeter to area ratio for each Core and Linkage, and distance to nearest connected core for each Core and Linkage.
F-51 See the second paragraph of Response F-46. Definitions for cores and linkages are provided in the Plan. The dimensional data for each Core and Linkage provided in Section 3.2.3 of the Plan also provide guidance regarding approximate interior to edge dimensions and perimeter to area ratios targeted for each Core and Linkage. With respect to prohibition for "internal pods of development" it should be noted that private development is not a Covered Activity within the MSHCP Conservation Area. According to Section 7.4 of the Plan, allowable uses within the MSHCP Conservation Area are limited reserve management, monitoring and scientific research activities; emergency safety and public services; and public access and recreation. Internal pods of development are not a covered activity within the MSHCP Conservation Area and would not occur.
F-52 Sections 13.27 and 13.28 of the Code of Federal Regulations provide that the Service may suspend or revoke all or part of the privileges authorized by a Take permit if the Permittee does not comply with the conditions of the permit or with applicable laws and regulations governing the permitted activity, or if fees, penalties, or other costs owed to the Federal Government are not paid. (See also, IA § 23.5.) That only certain activities may be listed as potential grounds for revocation or suspension of the Plan does not preclude the Service from exercising the discretion it retains by law to suspend or revoke permits.
F-53 Language regarding criteria consistency review requirements and findings has been included in Section 3.3.1 of the Final MSHCP.
F-54 The Annual Report will include information regarding configuration and meeting the overall conservation goals.
F-55 See Response F-6.
F-56 The text in the Final MSHCP has been revised to clarify the intent of this discussion that successful mediation would result in the mediated resolution being complied with.
F-57 The text in the Final MSHCP has been revised to reflect the commentor's suggestion.
F-58 The text in the Final MSHCP has been revised to reflect this comment.
F-59 As noted in the comment, the issue of buffers for riverine/riparian/vernal pool areas is addressed in the MSHCP through the Guidelines Pertaining to the Urban/Wildlands Interface presented in Section 6.1.4 which call for sensitive edge treatments for all conserved areas. Rather than impose arbitrary quantitative standards that may or may not apply in project-specific situations, the guidelines presented in Section 6.1.4 are intended to address the indirect effects that may adversely affect conserved wetlands and other conserved areas. These potential indirect effects, as identified on page 6-23 of the Draft MSHCP, include lighting, noise, trash/debris, urban and stormwater runoff, toxic materials, exotic plant and animal infestations, dust, trampling and unauthorized recreational vehicle use. The guidelines presented in Section 6.1.4 recognize that these indirect effects may be related to uses both adjacent to and in proximity to conserved areas and may need to be addressed in a broader context rather than through application of an arbitrary, quantitative buffer standard. For example, the drainage guidelines in Section 6.1.4 notes the potential effects of urban runoff from development "in proximity to" the MSHCP Conservation Area and calls for stormwater runoff containing urban pollutants to be directed away from the MSHCP Conservation Area. This guideline takes into consideration issues that would not necessarily be addressed by a quantitative buffer requirement.
For riparian/riverine/vernal pool areas conserved outside the MSHCP Conservation Area, the guidelines presented in Section 6.1.2 would apply. These guidelines call for imposition of mitigation requirements in accordance with CEQA. Section 6.1.2 (page 6-22) states that applicants must focus first on avoidance alternatives and make findings of equivalency in an avoidance alternative is determined to be infeasible. If the avoidance alternative is selected, Section 6.1.2 states that: "measures shall be incorporated into the project design to ensure the long-term conservation of areas to be avoided, and associated functions and values." Section 6.1.2 (page 6-22) further states that the Guidelines Pertaining to the Urban/Wildlands Interface will be applied to riparian/riverine/vernal pool areas to be avoided outside the MSHCP Conservation Area.
The avoidance, minimization and mitigation approach incorporated in Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP, along with the requirement to incorporate measures in design of avoidance alternatives that ensure long-term conservation of areas to be evaluated, maintenance of associated functions and values, and incorporation of appropriate edge treatments in project designs, is equivalent to the no net loss approach cited in the comment. Further, the MSHCP acknowledges that "Projects that affect wetland Vegetation Communities will be required to comply with the applicable regulatory standards related to wetlands functions and values." (Draft MSHCP, page 6-24).
F-60 As noted in Response F-59, the avoidance, minimization and mitigation approach incorporated in Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP is equivalent to the no net loss approach. With respect to determination of biologically equivalent or superior preservation, as stated on page 6-23 of the Draft MSHCP, such determinations will be made only for projects for which avoidance has been determined to be infeasible. To make the biologically equivalent or superior preservation findings, the alternative project must be determined to be equivalent or superior to the avoidance alternative that was determined to be infeasible. Since the MSHCP includes and equivalent no net loss standard for the avoidance alternative, this standard would also apply to the project alternative determined to be biologically equivalent or superior.
F-61 The comment correctly notes that the Narrow Endemic Plant Species subject to the Protection of Narrow Endemic Plant Species requirements in Section 6.1.3 of the MSHCP are Group 3 species. Species-specific conservation objectives are identified for the Group 3 species that go beyond landscape level thresholds or a fixed number of localities. It is assumed that this comment is specifically referring to the portion of Section 6.1.3 (Draft MSHCP, p. 6-39) which states: "For Narrow Endemic Plant Species populations identified as part of the survey process, impacts to 90% of those portions of the property that provide for long-term conservation value of the identified Narrow Endemic Plant Species shall be avoided until it is demonstrated that the Conservation goals for the particular species are met. Individual species Conservation goals are presented in Section 9.0 of this document." This statement indicates that all of the species-specific conservation goals (identified as objectives in Section 9.0) must be met for the particular species prior to discontinuing surveys. A review of the species-specific conservation objectives for these species in Section 9.0 of the MSHCP reveals that these objectives go beyond "solely" landscape level thresholds. Examples are provided below and a review of the species-specific objectives in Section 9.0 of the MSHCP will reveal similar approaches to all of Narrow Endemic Plant Species identified in Section 6.1.3. In addition, language has been added to Sections 6.1.3 and 6.3.2 of the Final MSHCP to require review by the RMOC and MPA of findings supporting conclusions that species-specific conservation objectives have been met and surveys may be discontinued.
F-62 See Response F-19.
F-63 See Response F-20.
F-64 See Responses F-19 and F-21.
F-65 See Response F-17.
F-66 See Response F-9.
F-67 See Response F-10.
F-68 See Response F-11.
F-69 The Lead Agencies disagree with the comment's conclusion that the provisions allowing development of New Agricultural Lands within the Criteria Area (Draft MSHCP, Section 6.2(F)) means that Reserve Assembly is no longer assured. See Response F-12. The commentor suggests that the development of New Agricultural Lands within the Criteria Area should be based on a factual finding that Reserve Assembly options are "not appreciably reduced on an individual and cumulative basis." This factual finding is not necessary because of the limited amount of land that can be converted to New Agricultural Lands within the Criteria Area (10,000 out of 310,000 acres, or about 3%). See Section 7.3.3 of the Draft MSHCP.
The provisions of 6.2(F) already provide that for a Certificate of Inclusion to be granted allowing Take Authorization, there must either be the execution of a Williamson Act contract or an equivalent assurance of agricultural intent by the respective City or the County. This should prevent the "bogus" clearing of land.
The Western Riverside County MSHCP and the San Diego MSCP are different plans with different provisions. The City of San Diego and County of San Diego IAs both generally state that the agricultural landowner must apply to the City for a certificate of inclusion which must be accompanied by a map including the parcel number, acreage and owner. The only areas covered by this provision are the lands mapped as agriculture on the MSCP map. Total mapped agricultural land in the MSCP is 28,000 acres of a total undeveloped area of 367,000 acres. The small amount of land available for New Agricultural Lands will not hinder Reserve Assembly. See Response F-12. Regarding the 5-year minimum for agricultural use, see Response F-14. Regarding the application of Take Authorization to Agricultural Operations, and the statutory requirements for mitigation, see Response F-15.
F-70 See Response F-16.
F-71 A determination of biologically equivalent or superior preservation will examine a variety of factors, including the amount of acreage to be gained and lost for a given project. The Lead Agencies fully expect that there will be no net loss of acreage associated with the determination in most cases; however, in some cases, biologically equivalent or superior preservation may be able to be achieved through preservation of areas of more sensitive or better habitat, even if those areas are smaller in size than the area to be impacted. Indeed, in some cases, preservation of smaller, but better habitat may be preferred. For this reason, the MSHCP has been written to provide sufficient flexibility to allow appropriate "on the ground" decisions to be made.
F-72 The comment correctly notes that the species for which additional survey requirements are identified in Section 6.3.2 of the MSHCP are Group 3 species. Species-specific conservation objectives are identified for Group 3 species that go beyond landscape level thresholds. It is assumed that this comment is specifically referring to the portion of Section 6.3.2 (Draft MSHCP, p. 6-63) which states: "For locations with positive survey results, 90% of those portions of the property that provide for long-term conservation value for the identified species will be avoided until it is demonstrated that Conservation goals for the particular species are met. Individual species Conservation goals are presented in Section 9.0 of this document." This statement indicates that all of the species-specific conservation goals (identified as objectives in Section 9.0) must be met for the particular species prior to discontinuing surveys. A review of the species-specific conservation objectives for these species in Section 9.0 of the MSHCP reveals that these objectives go well beyond "arbitrary" landscape thresholds referenced in the comment. Examples are provided below and a review of the species-specific objectives in Section 9.0 of the MSHCP will reveal similar approaches to all of the species identified for additional survey requirements in Section 6.3.2. In addition, language has been added to Sections 6.1.3 and 6.3.2 of the Final MSHCP to require review by the RMOC and MPA of findings supporting conclusions that species-specific conservation objectives have been met and surveys may be discontinued.
• For burrowing owl, species-specific objectives call for Conservation of 49,590 acres of primary and secondary habitat in at least five core areas. Core areas are specifically identified along with target acreages and include Lake Skinner/Diamond Valley Lake, playa west of Hemet, San Jacinto Wildlife Area/Mystic Lake, Lake Mathews, Santa Ana River. The MSHCP Conservation Area will include at least 27,470 acres of suitable primary Habitat for the burrowing owl including grasslands. Objective 3 calls for the Conservation of at least 22,120 acres of suitable secondary Habitat for the burrowing owl including playas and vernal pools, and agriculture outside of the Core Areas identified above. Areas where additional suitable Habitat could be conserved include west of the Jurupa Mountains, near Temescal Wash (i.e., vicinity of Alberhill), near Temecula Creek, within the Lakeview Mountains, Banning, the Badlands, Gavilan Hills, and Quail Valley. (Appendix E, p. E-9). These identified core areas are to support a combined total breeding population of 120 burrowing owls with no fewer than five pairs in any one core area. The conservation objectives further require that known nesting locations specifically identified in Objective 4 are included in the MSHCP Conservation Area.
This species is also on the Additional Survey List. (EIR/EIS, p. 6.3.2) Surveys for this species will be conducted prior to disturbance for all public and private projects where suitable habitat is present. Surveys for the burrowing owl are required throughout the Plan Area within Riverside Lowlands which includes agriculture and grasslands. (Appn. E, p. E-9). Additional locations for burrowing owl may be picked up in these surveys that have not been previously recorded. The MSHCP's relocation strategy for the burrowing owl follows the published methodology recommended by CDFG for mitigation for burrowing owls (CDFG Staff Report on Burrowing Owl Mitigation). Burrowing owl localities found as a result of survey efforts shall be conserved in accordance with the procedures described in Section 6.3.2 of the MSHCP. (EIR/EIS, p. 4.1-4.6). For locations with positive survey results, 90% of those portions of the property that provide for long-term conservation value for the burrowing owl will be avoided until it is demonstrated that species-specific conservation objectives are met. Findings of equivalency shall be made demonstrating that the 90% standard has been met. If it is determined that the 90% threshold cannot be met, the Permittee(s) must make a Biologically Equivalent or Superior Determination (Appn. E, p. E-9).
Pre-construction presence/absence surveys for burrowing owl within the survey area where suitable Habitat is present will be conducted for all Covered Activities through the life of the Permit (Appn. E, p. E-9). Surveys will be conducted within 30 days prior to disturbance. Take of active nests will be avoided. Passive relocation (use of one way doors and collapse of burrows) will occur when owls are present outside the nesting season. (Ibid.) Objective 7 calls for translocation sites for burrowing owl to be created within the MSHCP Conservation Area for the establishment of new colonies. Features of these objectives that go beyond "arbitrary" landscape thresholds include conservation of specifically identified core areas and nest locations, identification of a minimum population in each core area, and identification of a minimum total breeding population. Reserve Managers will consult with the Wildlife Agencies regarding site selection prior to translocation site development. These site-specific conservation objectives are consistent with the approach to be taken for Group 3 species as identified in the MSHCP.
Moreover, the Lead Agencies have concluded that Agricultural Operations will not, in many instances, have adverse impacts on Covered Species, including the burrowing owl. Agricultural Operations and vegetation can actually contribute to Conservation for burrowing owl. The MSHCP species accounts identify agriculture as a secondary habitat for burrowing owl, and other species. (MSHCP, Table 5.21 EIR/EIS, Table 4C).
• For southwestern willow flycatcher, species-specific objectives call for Conservation of 10,580 of habitat within six specifically identified core areas with interconnecting linkages. Target acreages are identified for the core areas along with a requirement to conserve at least 100 meters of undeveloped landscape adjacent to conserved riparian woodland and scrub habitat. Objective 3 calls for demonstration that at least 2 core areas contain a minimum of ten successful breeding pairs and at least 4 additional Core Areas support 5 breeding pairs. Objective 4 calls for continued use of and successful reproduction within the 75% of identified Core Areas at least once every three years. Features of these objectives that go beyond "arbitrary" landscape thresholds include Conservation of specifically identified Core Areas, identification of a minimum population in each Core Area, and requirements to demonstrate successful reproduction at 3 year intervals. These site-specific conservation objectives are consistent with the approach to be taken for Group 3 species as identified in the MSHCP.
• For Los Angeles pocket mouse, species-specific objectives call for Conservation of 14,000 acres of habitat including at least 2,000 acres within each of seven specifically identified Core Areas, as well as an additional 10,000 acres outside the Core Areas. Objective 4 calls for demonstration that each of the seven Core Areas supports a stable or increasing population that occupies at least 4,200 acres as measured over any 8-year consecutive period. Features of these objectives that go beyond "arbitrary" landscape thresholds include conservation of specifically identified Core Areas, and requirements to demonstrate presence of a stable or increasing population in each of the Core Area at 8-year intervals. These site-specific conservation objectives are consistent with the approach to be taken for Group 3 species as identified in the MSHCP.
• For red-legged frog, species-specific objectives call for Conservation of 766 acres of occupied and historic breeding habitat, plus 9,028 acres of Core Area in two specifically-identified locations, plus 30,964 acres of intervening lands between the Core Areas, plus 39, 147 acres of upland habitat adjacent to occupied or suitable breeding habitat in specifically-identified locations. Objective 5 calls for maintenance or, if feasible, restoration of ecological processes in a minimum of six locations. Objective 6 calls for determination as to whether successful reproduction is occurring once a year for the first five years and at minimum 8-year intervals following. Features of these objectives that go beyond "arbitrary" landscape thresholds include conservation of specifically identified Core and Linkage areas, maintenance of ecological processes, and determination as to whether successful reproduction is occurring. These site-specific objectives are consistent with the approach to be taken for Group 3 species as identified in the MSHCP.
• For San Jacinto Valley crownscale, species-specific objectives call for Conservation of 6,900 acres of habitat in three specifically-identified Core Areas. Objectives 4 and 5 call for maintenance of floodplain processes along the San Jacinto River and Salt Creek. Features of these objectives that go beyond "arbitrary" landscape thresholds include conservation of specifically identified core areas and requirements to maintain floodplain processes. These site-specific objectives are consistent with the approach to be taken for Group 3 species as identified in the MSHCP.
• For arroyo toad, species-specific objectives call for Conservation of 1,602 acres of suitable breeding habitat, plus inclusion of at least nine specific Core Areas and 7,005 acres of necessary suitable upland Habitat. Objective 5 calls for maintenance or, if feasible, restoration of ecological processes in occupied Habitat and suitable new areas within the Criteria Area. Objective 6 calls for maintenance of breeding populations at a minimum of 80 percent of the conserved breeding locations as measured by the presence/absence of juvenile toads, tadpoles, or egg masses across any five consecutive years. Features of these objectives that go beyond "arbitrary" landscape thresholds include Conservation of specifically identified Core Areas, maintenance of ecological processes, and maintenance of successful reproduction. These site-specific objectives are consistent with the approach to be taken for Group 3 species as identified in the MSHCP. With respect to the perceived "arbitrary" nature of the conservation "thresholds," it should be noted that a number of the species-specific conservation objectives call for documentation of species presence and continued use at 75% of identified locations as measured at 8-year intervals. This conservation objective is also identified as General Management Measure 8 on page 5-7 of the Draft MSHCP. General Management Measure 8 recognizes that this threshold may need to be refined as more information is gathered during the long-term implementation process for the MSHCP. As stated on page 5-8 of the Draft MSHCP: "The identified 75% threshold is the default lower limit (unless otherwise specified) and may be modified as new data are collected over time. Thresholds shall be determined by the RMOC which will meet five years after initial permit issuance and every year thereafter to evaluate new data and review species-specific trigger points. It is anticipated that sufficient data will be available to determine species-specific trigger points for management activities by Year 15 after permit issuance."
With respect to references to the San Diego MSCP, it is incorrect to state that the MSHCP permits discontinuation of survey requirements once reserve assembly criteria are met. As noted above, the species-specific conservation objectives for the relevant species must be met before surveys may be discontinued and the species-specific conservation objectives require more than achievement of Reserve Assembly criteria. With respect to burrowing owl, Objective 6 for this species states: "Pre-construction presence/absence surveys for burrowing owl within the survey area where suitable habitat is present will be conducted for all Covered Activities through the life of the permit (emphasis added). Surveys will be conducted within 30 days prior to disturbance. Take of active nests will be avoided. Passive relocation (use of one way doors and collapse of burrows) will occur when owls are present outside the nesting season." Objective 7 calls for creation of translocation sites within the MSHCP Conservation Area. These requirements are equivalent to the requirements from the San Diego MSCP cited in the comment. In addition, language has been added to Sections 6.1.3 and 6.3.2 of the Final MSHCP to require review by the RMOC and MPA of findings supporting conclusions that species-specific conservation objectives have been met and surveys may be discontinued.
F-73 Section 6.5 of the Draft MSHCP includes the Wildlife Agencies in the notification process for Criteria Refinements with a 60-day review and response period and a 30-day meet and confer period, if needed. As noted on page 6-71, Wildlife Agencies concurrence is required for Criteria Refinements proposed to develop new Criteria outside the Criteria Area.
F-74 The Lead Agencies appreciate the commentor's recommendation. The Lead Agencies and CDFG have discussed the project review period in depth and feel that the current deadlines are both realistic and achievable. Moreover, these deadlines help further the goal of the MSHCP to provide a streamlined approach to project approval. This encourages stakeholder support and facilitates the project approval process.
F-75 The MSHCP process encourages public participation. The RCA will hold regularly scheduled public meetings in compliance with the Ralph M. Brown Act Open Meeting requirements to encourage public participation and review of the MSHCP. (Draft MSHCP, p. 6-77.) Additionally, findings made by the Permittees are public records and are available to the public for their review and comment as are the required reports. Comments may be made either in writing or orally at the meetings. Further, for all public and private projects within the MSHCP Conservation Area that are subject to CEQA, and a negative declaration or EIR is prepared, the public has the opportunity to comment and participate in the process. The Lead Agencies agree that a standardized form is appropriate and will recommend that such a form be developed by RCA staff.
F-76 If all project approvals have been granted, there is no mechanism for a Permittee to impose fees.
F-77 Minor Amendments are amendments to the MSHCP of a minor or technical nature where the effect on Covered Species, levels of Take and Permittees' ability to implement the MSHCP are not significantly different than those described in the MSHCP as originally adopted. A list of minor amendments is included in the IA in Section 20.4.1 and Section 6.10.2 of the MSHCP. Moreover, existing roads within the Criteria Area are not anticipated to be included in the total acreage of Additional Reserve Lands. (Draft MSHCP, p. 3-16.) Therefore, the Lead Agencies anticipate that the listed Minor Amendments will have minimal, if any, impacts to the Covered Species and thus no increase in the MSHCP Conservation Area is necessary for the minor extension of cut or fill slopes outside of the right-of-way limits for covered roadways.
F-78 The Lead Agencies agree that the review opportunities raised in the comment should be added to Section 6.11 of the MSHCP.
F-79 The Covered Activities discussed in Section 7.0 of the MSHCP are those for which Take of Covered Species would be authorized under the MSHCP. The MSHCP authorizes only Take of Covered Species associated with the Covered Activities. Any other environmental impacts associated with construction of the Covered Activities would be addressed as part of project-specific review of those activities.
The effects of Covered Activities on Covered Species for which Take will be authorized in the MSHCP have been addressed in a variety of ways. All Covered Activities would be subject to the requirements of the MSHCP and the Permittee authorizing the Covered Activities would need to comply with MSHCP requirements including design of projects consistent with the MSHCP Criteria, survey and other requirements. In addition, Section 7.0 of the MSHCP incorporates measures to avoid and minimize effects of Covered Activities on Covered Species both within and outside the Criteria Area. Within the Criteria Area, siting, design, construction, operations and maintenance guidelines are presented for Covered Activities to ensure that they are designed and operated in accordance with MSHCP requirements. For roads that are considered to be Covered Activities within the Criteria Area but not within PQP Lands, acreage estimates for those activities have been quantified and netted out of the Additional Reserve Lands criteria and calculations to ensure that Additional Reserve Lands are acquired for conservation and are not used for construction of Covered Activities. For Covered Activities within PQP Lands, a tradeout provision is incorporated in the MSHCP that requires that acreage be added to the MSHCP Conservation Area to compensate for any acreage reductions associated with construction of Covered Activities on PQP Lands. A similar tradeout provision is incorporated in MSHCP Section 7.0 for future facilities that may be proposed within the Criteria Area but cannot be defined at this time. Covered Activities both inside and outside the Criteria Area will be required to comply with the Narrow Endemics, riparian/riverine/vernal pools, and additional survey needs and procedures requirements of the MSHCP. In addition to these features incorporated in the MSHCP, Section 4.1 of the MSHCP EIR/EIS discusses the effects of Covered Activities on biological resources with respect to Vegetation Communities, listed Covered Species, non-listed Covered Species, non-covered species, Cores and Linkages, relationship to adopted or approved HCPs and NCCPs and Edge Effects. See also Response G-5.
F-80 Net reserve acreage was adjusted for planned road and trail facilities for which it was possible to develop quantitative estimates at this time. These net reserve acreages are shown in Tables 7-4, 7-5, 7-6, 7-7, 7-8, 7-9, 7-10, 7-11, 7-12 and 7-18 of the MSHCP. Planned facilities for which it is not currently possible to develop quantitative estimates are defined as future facilities in Section 7.3.8.
The comment refers to a table on page 7-6 of the Draft MSHCP and notes references to 12 feet of graded shoulder and other factors on that table. The hard-copy published draft MSHCP does not include a Table on page 7-6 but rather a discussion of maintenance of existing roads within PQP Lands. The Plan allows ongoing maintenance of existing roads within existing rights-of-way within PQP Lands and within the Criteria Area subject to guidelines included in Section 7.3.5. Effects on biological resources associated with these existing roadways are not expected to change from existing conditions due to maintenance activities conducted according to the guidelines in the MSHCP.
Since acreage of known planned facilities has been netted out of the Additional Reserve Lands calculations and a tradeout provisions for PQP Lands is incorporated in the MSHCP for future facilities, over-counting referenced in the comment would not occur.
The comment also makes reference to "edge-impacted areas" that should be netted out of the Additional Reserve Lands acreage. This issue is addressed in the MSHCP in several ways. For those planned facilities for which acreages could be quantified and an acreage netted out of the Additional Reserve Lands, rights-of-way larger than actual disturbance areas were assumed in the acreage calculations. In addition, the Final MSHCP Section 7 includes additional language for specific facilities within areas where Edge Effects are particularly important considerations. For future facilities for which a tradeout provision is incorporated in the MSHCP, the analysis would focus on both direct and indirect effects. In addition, guidelines for siting, design, construction, operation and maintenance of Covered Activities include factors to address indirect effects such as Edge Effects.
F-81 As noted in the first paragraph of Section 7.2.3, this section addressing a potential Cajalco Road realignment and widening was added to disclose the fact that the transportation agencies are considering this option as part of the ongoing analysis of CETAP Alternative 1.
It is acknowledged that this alignment would bisect the existing Lake Mathews multi-species reserve and could affect wildlife movement. For this reason, Section 7.2.3 does not identify the Cajalco Road realignment and widening as a Covered Activity but rather "outlines the proposed process to include the Cajalco Road realignment and widening as a Covered Activity" in the future. The process as defined in Section 7.2.3 would address the concerns expressed in the comment including effects on species, effects on connectivity and effects on the existing Lake Mathews reserve. The process also acknowledges, as referenced in the comment, that project-specific mitigation for Cajalco Road "will require Conservation of land in addition to the Additional Reserve Lands" (Draft MSHCP, page 7-11). The language in the Final MSHCP with respect to demonstrating equivalency has been changed from the "will" language referenced in the comment to "shall," to make it clear that a pre-decisional conclusion has not been made. The analysis of coverage provided in the MSHCP does not constitute or circumvent the CEQA/NEPA process for CETAP.
F-82 A comparison of the MSHCP to the ways in which future facilities are addressed in the Orange County and San Diego NCCPs is not valid due to the fact that the referenced NCCPs are hard-line plans with a reserve boundary defined at the outset while the MSHCP is a criteria-based plan. The MSHCP appropriately addresses future facilities in two ways. Section 7.2.4 addresses future facilities within PQP Lands and Section 7.3.8 addresses future facilities inside the Criteria Area. Future facilities within PQP Lands may be considered to be analogous to future facilities within a defined hard-line reserve area and, as discussed, in Section 7.2.4, concurrence by the Wildlife Agencies is required for such future facilities. Future facilities within the Criteria Area addressed in Section 7.3.8 take into consideration the fact that the 153,000 acres of Additional Reserve Lands are anticipated to be assembled from within the approximately 310,000 acre Criteria Area. Given this context, a variety of future facilities could be located within the Criteria Area that would not affect the MSHCP Conservation Area. In fact, since such facilities would not be allowable uses within the MSHCP Conservation Area (see the last paragraph of Response F-46), they could not result in fragmentation nor could the MSHCP Conservation Area be considered to be a "convenient dumping ground" for such projects.
F-83 Section 7.3.2 acknowledges that single-family home construction should be evaluated to ensure that Reserve Assembly options are not precluded by such construction. As noted in the last paragraph of Section 7.3.2, and in Section 6.11, reporting of the accumulated single-family home construction will occur on an annual basis to "insure that appropriate assembly of the MSHCP Conservation Area is occurring." Given the existing trends reported in Section 7.3.2, it was determined that this frequency of reporting and monitoring would be sufficient to evaluate the accumulated effects of such single-family home construction and adjust Reserve Assembly priorities if determined to be appropriate. With respect to the fragmentation issues raised in the comment, see Response F-46 for discussion of the ways in which fragmentation and configuration will be addressed during the Reserve Assembly process.
F-84 As discussed in Section 7.3.3, effects on Reserve Assembly associated with the potential conversion of 10,000 acres of New Agricultural Lands within the Criteria Area will be evaluated on an annual basis using a comprehensive digital data base of existing agricultural lands developed by the County and review of digital aerial topography that can be compared with the existing agricultural lands data base. This approach incorporates the necessary technical information to identify and characterize new agricultural uses on an annual basis. Annual review was determined to be an appropriate interval for review base on current trends in new agriculture and the size of individual agricultural operations in western Riverside County. In addition, agricultural activities that could result in addition of substantial structures or other uses that may permanently degrade resources would likely require discretionary approvals by the County and would therefore be subject to the terms and conditions of the MSHCP. It is recognized that such new agriculture could occur in areas later acquired for the MSHCP Conservation Area and that management strategies may need to be employed to assure conservation value. These factors would need to be considered at the time such lands were evaluated for Reserve Assembly. The adaptive approach to Reserve Assembly would provide opportunities to adjust for appropriate reserve design considerations. The 50% assumption referenced in the comment was based on the relationship of the acreage of Additional Reserve Lands (153,000 acres) to the acreage of the Criteria Area (310,000 acres). It is recognized that agricultural activities often occur on more gently sloping, lowland areas but not all these areas are proposed to be conserved.
F-85 The referenced maintenance activities would occur within rights-of-way that have been analyzed and accounted for in the MSHCP Plan and would not reduce acreage of the MSHCP Conservation Area. As noted in Table 7-3 of the Draft Plan, of the 1,393 miles of existing roads within the Criteria Area, only approximately 33 miles are unpaved. Paving would occur within rights-of-way that have been analyzed and accounted for in the Plan. Paving would not result in changes to the classifications of these roads and substantial increases in trips are not anticipated to occur. Given these factors, impacts associated with paving are anticipated to be negligible and are accounted for in the Plan.
F-86 It is assumed that this comment references the second bullet on page 7-41 which refers to replacement with equivalent conservation lands of any portion of any Orange County/Riverside County corridor alignment that affects PQP Lands. This bullet simply refers to general criteria for this corridor and is not intended to imply that fragmentation by highways through the MSHCP Conservation Area can be compensated by simple replacement. The specific criteria/considerations for each corridor alignment presented later in the discussion provided in the Plan would need to be addressed in the consistency determinations in addition to the general replacement criterion referenced in the comment.
F-87 The non-tunneled portions of the identified alignments are generally outside of the MSHCP Conservation Area.
F-88 Whether amendment of the Central/Coastal NCCP would be required to facilitate the projects addressed on pages 7-41 to 7-42 of the Draft MSHCP is an issue to be resolved by the permittees involved in that NCCP process and the Wildlife Agencies, not the Permittees under the MSHCP.
F-89 It is unclear what the commentor's reference to a "conceptual consistency findings" refers. Numerous provisions have been included in the MSHCP to ensure that the Permittees and Third Parties Granted Take Authorization avoid, minimize and mitigate adverse impacts associated with their activities. (See MSHCP, Section 6.0 et seq.) Indeed, in order to issue Take Authorization under the Plan, USFWS must find that the Permittees will, to the maximum extent practicable, minimize and mitigate the impacts of any Take. (See 16 U.S.C. § 1539(a)(2)(B)(ii).)
The Lead Agencies believe that the Plan adequately self mitigates impacts through its provisions including, acquisition of Additional Reserve Lands, restraints on impacts to sensitive species and areas, and the other conditions and requirements set forth in the MSHCP to fully offset any adverse impacts on Covered Species. Moreover, the Wildlife Agencies hands are not "tied." The Wildlife Agencies will ultimately determine whether the MSHCP meets state and federal Take Permit issuance criteria.
F-90 As stated in Section 7.3.7, siting options for flood control facilities are limited since the locations for these facilities are largely dictated by drainage features and topography. Efforts will, however, be undertaken to avoid and minimize impacts in the siting, design, construction, operation and maintenance of flood control facilities. The current and routine activities referenced in the comment are addressed in a maintenance agreement between RCFCWCD and CDFG. The maintenance agreement is currently in the process of being updated and extended and is referenced in the Final MSHCP.
F-91 New electric transmission lines would be regarded as future facilities. As discussed in Response F-82, future facilities would be subject to a tradeout provision.
F-92 At 310,000 acres, the Criteria Area is approximately double the 153,000 acres of Additional Reserve Lands. Development is anticipated to occur in those portions of the Criteria Area not acquired as Additional Reserve Lands and such Development would need to be supported by infrastructure. Therefore, it is not reasonable to require that future facilities be located outside the Criteria Area as a first priority.
F-93 See the last paragraph of Response F-80 for discussion of the ways in which Edge Effects of Covered Activities, including recreational and interpretive facilities, have been addressed in the MSHCP. As also discussed in the first paragraph of Response F-80, estimated acreages for such recreational and interpretive facilities have been netted out of the Additional Reserve Lands.
F-94 It is recognized that equestrian and mountain bike uses may have effects on resources in the MSHCP Conservation Area. For this reason, the guidelines on page 7-75 call for equestrian and mountain bike use, to be limited and call for development of an access control system if mountain bike use becomes heavy and problematic. This issue will need to be addressed by Reserve Managers, as will the issue of pets, if it becomes a problem.
F-95 The LDMF will still be required after completion of Reserve Assembly. Fees collected may be used to retire debt resulting from land acquisitions, or to fund capital expenditures associated with management activities.
F-96 The assembly of the reserve system to allow effective and efficient management is anticipated. However, given the location of remaining habitat and the need to provide linkages to new and existing Core Areas, management costs should not be underestimated.
F-97 See Response F-6.
F-98 The use of the incentive programs is intended to account for a portion of the Conservation called for in the Plan. The commentor's observations do not take into account the ability to use acquisition to stitch together rural lands into a coherent configuration to meet the criteria and reserve design objectives. Further, Section 8.6.4 recognizes the potential for the Conservation resulting from one or more of the "Conservation Tools" or incentives to fall short of projections. If this occurs, the funding plan will need to be adjusted to offset the shortfall. Conservation through the use of incentives is a critical element of the MSHCP and should be encouraged.
F-99 Caltrans' contribution to the Plan is consistent with the overall funding plan for local mitigation of new Development. Mitigation for new Development, including Caltrans and State Parks, will result in the conservation and management of 103,000 acres. Caltrans represents an important component of the funding plan, not only in terms of total dollars but also in the potential for early funding to bank mitigation. Funding available in the early years of implementing the Plan will be especially important both in terms of meeting property owner expectations and also in lessening the impacts of inflation by purchasing lands earlier rather than latter. Caltrans will also contribute to the Management and Monitoring Program either by providing staff or funding.
F-100 See Response F-17. Overall, the 3% to 5% proposed represents more than projects have historically paid in mitigation. The reduction in the time to complete environmental review may partially offset the increase in mitigation. However, exceeding 5% would make mitigating under the MSHCP problematic by further reducing funding for the planning, design and construction of critical infrastructure. The proposed funding plan accomplishes the implementation of the MSHCP. See Sections 8.6.1 to 8.6.5 of the Draft MSHCP for additional funding information.
F-101 See Responses F-59 and F-60 for discussion of the relationship of the MSHCP to the "no net loss" concept referenced in this comment. It is not correct to state that surveys could be discontinued for southern willow flycatcher when it is determined that 40 pairs are protected. See Response F-72 for discussion of the circumstances under which surveys for willow flycatcher could be discontinued. In addition, language has been added to Sections 6.1.3 and 6.3.2 of the Final MSHCP to require review by the RMOC and MPA of findings supporting conclusions that species-specific conservation objectives have been met and surveys may be discontinued.
With respect to the Riverside fairy shrimp, while it is accurate that an approximately 33 percent of Riverside fairy shrimp habitat would be located outside MSHCP Conservation Area and subject to Take, 85 percent of existing vernal pool and playa habitats would be preserved within the MSHCP Conservation Area. It should be noted that a majority of the habitat subject to Take is located along the San Jacinto River in an area consisting mainly of playa habitat, not vernal pool habitat. Take would occur, but approximately 5/8 of the known population would be preserved.
With respect to tri-colored blackbird, the 74% reference in the comment is an excerpt from the conservation analysis for this species that is misleading when considered in isolation. The Take discussion for tri-colored blackbird in Table 9-2 states that Take of the tricolored blackbird is difficult to quantify due to limited knowledge of its distribution and abundance within the Plan Area. The MSHCP conservation analysis for this species acknowledges this lack of information and designates tri-colored blackbird as a Group 3 species for which species-specific conservation objectives are required. Among these are objectives to include five Core Areas in the MSHCP Conservation Area, maintain at five year intervals continued use and reproduction within at least one of the identified Core Areas, ensure habitat support functions by maintaining hydrologic processes in the identified Core Areas, and including within the MSHCP Conservation Area 100-foot buffers around any known nesting locations. The conservation analysis notes that this species has specific primary habitat requirements for breeding (dense emergent vegetation) and uses a wide variety of open habitats as secondary habitat for foraging. This species breeds in colonies in unpredictable locations so the extent and location of secondary habitat used by the species cannot be specifically located or quantified. The 74% reference in the comment refers to the portion of the Take statement that describes the acreage of available secondary habitat that would be outside the MSHCP Conservation Area. This acreage includes the wide variety of open habitats that could be used by tri-colored blackbird for foraging including agriculture, a Vegetation Community that is not a focus for Conservation in the MSHCP. In fact, of the 193,180 acres of secondary habitat for this species identified in the Take discussion as being outside the MSHCP Conservation Area, 101,090 acres are agriculture, as shown in the conservation analysis for tri-colored blackbird in Volume II, Section B of the MSHCP. The Take discussion in Table 9-2 goes on to note that only 60 acres, or 13%, of the identified primary habitat for this species would be located outside the MSHCP Conservation Area, and these areas would be subject to the Section entitled Protection of Species Associated with Riparian/Riverine Areas/Vernal Pool policies in Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP. It is a consideration of all of these factors that results in the determination that this species will be conserved under the MSHCP.
F-102 See Responses F-61 and F-72 for discussion of the circumstances under which survey requirements may be discontinued. The disposition of lands conserved as a result of surveys that could be "released" if and when survey requirements are discontinued would be determined on a case-by-case basis. It should be noted that the extent of such lands is anticipated to be minimal due to the fact that the thresholds for Conservation of such lands are based on the determination that such lands would have long-term conservation value. This indicates that most of the lands conserved as a result of surveys would also be determined to be desirable for acquisition for the MSHCP Conservation Area. Conservation of disjunct populations is not considered to be of value to long-term conservation. The approach to surveys and the circumstances under which survey requirements could be discontinued in combination with achieving species-specific conservation objectives have been determined in the species-specific conservation analyses to be adequate for Conservation of the relevant Covered Species and additional avoidance or mitigation has not been determined to be necessary to offset the Take authorized under the MSHCP. In addition, language has been added to Sections 6.1.3 and 6.3.2 of the Final MSHCP to require review by the RMOC and MPA of findings supporting conclusions that species-specific conservation objectives have been met and surveys may be discontinued.
Participation in the MSHCP does not relieve Permittees of their obligation to review projects under CEQA, nor does it usurp the Permittees' ability to control the CEQA process for the projects they are considering. However, it is the Lead Agencies' position that the impacts of future projects to Covered Species within the MSHCP Plan Area will be reduced below a level of significance through the MSHCP. This includes impacts to Narrow Endemic and "additional survey" species.
F-103 See Response F-72 for discussion of burrowing owl, arroyo toad and Aguanga kangaroo rat. In addition to the specific discussion of burrowing owl at the beginning of the response, the response notes that Objective 6 of the conservation analysis for the burrowing owl calls for pre-construction surveys in perpetuity 30 days prior to grading within suitable habitat for burrowing owl and passive relocation of any owls observed. This would avoid the possibility that animals could be "bulldozed in their burrows." It is acknowledged that majority of primary and secondary habitat for the burrowing owl would be outside the MSHCP Conservation Area under the MSHCP. However, this species is designated a Group 3 species with species-specific conservation objectives and management actions because it is recognized that specific actions will be necessary for this species to persist in the Plan Area.
F-104 See Response F-102.
F-105 See Responses G-15, G-16 and G-17 for discussion of conservation of grassland anticipated under the MSHCP. Rural Mountainous areas outside the MSHCP Conservation are not used as partial justification for coverage for any species. Rural Mountainous areas outside the MSHCP Conservation Area are depicted on the MSHCP Plan map (Figure 3-1) and quantified in the tabular summaries for individual species analyses in Volume II, Section B of the Plan to provide context in understanding the types of land uses that might be located adjacent to the MSHCP Conservation Area. No assumptions regarding conservation within these areas are made in the MSHCP and it is not assumed these areas would contribute to Conservation of Covered Species. With respect to California horned lark, the Take discussion for this species referenced in the comment reflects the fact that this species is widely distributed throughout the Plan Area in open habitats. As with the discussion of tri-colored blackbird in Response F-101, this factual excerpt from the Take statement needs to be considered in the context of the overall conservation analysis for this species, which indicates that the species appears to occupy several core areas within the Plan Area and respond well to landscape level management. Three of the identified core areas and a portion of the fourth core area would be conserved for this species as would other identified locations including Lake Elsinore grasslands, Santa Rosa Plateau and Wilson Valley. The conservation analysis for this species notes that it appears to be present repeatedly in these conserved locations and is expected to persist in these areas if they are managed as part of the overall MSHCP Conservation Area.
As with California horned lark, the Take discussion for loggerhead shrike referenced in the comment needs to be considered in the context of the overall conservation analysis for this species. This species is widely but patchily distributed throughout the lower elevations of the Plan Area and uses open habitats, including agriculture. Of the 318,540 acres of open habitat outside the MSHCP Conservation Area identified in the conservation analysis for this species, 143,320 acres (or 44%) are agriculture. Despite this loss of open habitat suitable for this species, it is considered to be conserved under the MSHCP because the MSHCP Conservation Area would include 167,590 acres of suitable habitat for this species and would conserve at least 6 of 12 identified breeding areas. In addition, Objective 3 for this species requires maintenance of continued use and reproduction at 75% of the Core Areas as measured at 8-year intervals. Recommended management actions include management of linkages between Core Areas to allow for dispersal and movement of loggerhead shrike throughout the Plan Area and to locations outside the Plan Area.
Similar considerations apply to the conservation analysis and Take discussion for a grasshopper sparrow as for California horned lark and loggerhead shrike. In addition, as stated in conservation analysis summary for this species in Table 9-2, this species will not be considered to be a Covered Species Adequately Conserved until the requirements of Objective 2 for this species have been met. These requirements include demonstration of conservation and occupation of seven Core Areas. Three of the seven Core Areas must contain a minimum of 2,000 acres of grassland and the remaining four Core Areas must contain a minimum of 500 acres of grassland. The larger Core Areas must be demonstrated to support at least 20 grasshopper sparrow pairs. Meeting these thresholds will be required before Take for grasshopper sparrow is authorized within the Plan Area.
F-106 The focus of the conservation analysis summaries in Table 9-2 is primarily to describe the Conservation proposed for the species in the MSHCP and then to disclose the anticipated level of Take, not to justify the loss of Habitat such as is referenced in this comment. In the Biological Opinion analysis to be undertaken by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service prior to permit issuance, the focus of the analysis will be on assessing the Take associated with the proposed action and then determining if the measures incorporated in the Plan adequately offset the impacts of the Take. With respect to Quino checkerspot butterfly, such an analysis might begin with the recognition that Take of Quino checkerspot butterfly would be authorized within 38% of identified potential Habitat within the Plan Area and at 32% of the point locations identified for this species in the species occurrence data base. This Take is proposed to be offset in the MSHCP by inclusion of 67,493 acres of managed Habitat in the MSHCP Conservation Area, supporting 7 core populations, and 12 satellite occurrence complexes in 6 areas, in a configuration that provides for connectivity between occurrence areas. In addition, Reserve Managers will document the distribution of Quino within the MSHCP Conservation Area on an annual basis and will undertake an adaptive program to maintain and/or enhance Quino habitat to increase the value of the Habitat for Quino. The conservation analysis for this species in the MSHCP concludes that this level of Conservation will achieve the overall biological goal of the Plan for each species which is: "In the Plan Area, Conserve Covered Species and their Habitats."
F-107 Analyses completed for the MSHCP do not indicate that Conservation of additional grassland, coastal sage scrub, riparian and woodland is necessary to make the findings for species coverage. With respect to grasslands and coastal sage scrub, see Responses G-15, G-16 and G-17. Regarding riparian and woodland communities, inclusion of 74% of these communities within the MSHCP Conservation Area coupled with the requirements for protection of riparian/riverine areas in Section 6.1.3 of the Plan and species-specific Conservation requirements were determined to be adequate to address Covered Species associated with these Habitats. To the extent that the referenced "sensitive species" are on the MSHCP Covered Species list, the MSHCP will serve as mitigation under CEQA for direct, indirect and cumulative effects to those species associated with buildout of the Plan Area. Species not on the Covered Species list would need to be addressed on a case by case basis.
F-108 Table 9-2 presents substantial information in addition to the "broad brush use of potential suitable habitat" referenced in the comment. The Conservation Analysis Summary and Species Objectives columns refer to specifically named core areas and point locations. As an example, the Conservation Analysis Summary column for Bell's sage sparrow discloses that 12 of 14 Core Areas for this species will be conserved and notes the locations of the Core Areas. It also states that 34 recent and high precision locations will be conserved. The Take column discloses point locations anticipated to be located outside the MSHCP Conservation Area based on the MSHCP species occurrence data base. The Management Activities Summary column presents a brief description of management activities recommended for this species. In addition to the summary information presented in Table 9-2, the complete species accounts and conservation analysis for each species are presented in Volume II, Part B of the MSHCP, The Reference Document.
F-109 See Response D-54.
F-110 The Lead Agencies disagree with the comment. As required by both CEQA and NEPA, the Draft EIR/EIS discusses a range of reasonable alternatives in detail in Section 2. (14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15126(a); 40 CFR § 1502.14.) The County and the Service, as Lead Agencies, have the discretion to determine how may alternatives constitute a reasonable range. (See Citizens of Goleta Valley v. Board of Supervisors (1990) 52 Cal. 3d 553, 556.) Although an infinite number of alternatives and variations could be identified, neither EIRs nor EISs are required to evaluate all possible alternatives or "consider an alternative whose effects cannot be reasonably ascertained and whose implementation is considered to be remote and speculative." (14 Cal. Code Regs. § 15126(d)(5)C; 40 CFR § 1502.14(a).) As a result, the alternatives analysis in the Draft EIR/EIS focuses on those options that could be implemented and which, if implemented, would have the potential to reduce or avoid any significant adverse environmental effects associated with the proposed project. The selection of alternatives is discussed in the Alternatives Screening Document (Appendix B to the Draft EIR/EIS). The Alternatives analyzed in the Draft EIR/EIS are: the Listed, Proposed and Strong Candidate Species Alternative; the Listed and Proposed Species Alterative; the Existing Reserves Alternative; and the No Project Alternative. The four alternatives identified in the Draft EIR/EIS were chosen to foster informed decision-making and public participation.
The Lead Agencies disagree with the comment that the "Modified Alternative" should have been discussed in more detail in the Draft EIR/EIS. The Draft EIR/EIS does discuss a Modified Reserve Configuration Alternative, which contemplated the Conservation of 165 species. However, this alternative was "screened out" prior to preparation of the document. See Response D-64. The Lead Agencies 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. (See Draft EIR/EIS, Appendix B.) The Lead Agencies are unaware of any stated goal "to produce the smallest reserve possible and still obtain species coverage." Instead, it is the goal of the MSHCP to enhance and maintain biological diversity and ecosystem processes while allowing future economic growth.
F-111 The commentor's assertion that the levels of impact to various Vegetation Community is "significantly beyond" impacts authorized under other Southern California NCCPs is somewhat misleading. The commentor is relying on the percentages of acres impacted as compared to conserved. The 1.26 million-acre Plan Area and 500,00- acre MSHCP Conservation Area proposed by the MSHCP are considerably larger than other Southern California NCCPs and the absolute acreage of protection of various Vegetation Communities is generally greater than in other NCCPs in Southern California. See Responses G-15, G-16, and G-17.
See Response F-59 for discussion of the MSHCP's compliance with the "no net loss" of wetlands standard referenced in the comment.
F-112 As shown in Table 9-1, the MSHCP vegetation map includes 1,020 acres of meadows and marshes within the Plan Area of which 510 acres would be located within the MSHCP Conservation Area and 510 acres would be located outside the MSHCP Conservation Area. Of the acreage located outside the MSHCP Conservation Area, virtually all of the mapped areas are located within private inholdings in the San Bernardino National Forest in the eastern portion of the Plan Area. The majority of this acreage is Lake Hemet.
F-113 See Responses G-15, G-16, and G-17 for a discussion of Conservation of grassland and coastal sage scrub anticipated under the MSHCP. See also Response F-111. The Lead Agencies believe that the MSHCP reduces impacts to Covered Species, including grassland-dependent species and raptors, below a level of significance through the MSHCP's self-mitigating components. Therefore, no mitigation is required. See Response F-102.
F-114 See Responses F-61, F-72, and F-102 for discussion of the circumstances under which survey requirements could be discontinued. As discussed in these Responses, the full range of species-specific conservation requirements would need to be met prior to discontinuing survey requirements for Narrow Endemic Plant Species and additional survey species. These conservation requirements are to be met within the MSHCP Conservation Area and the species conservation analyses in the MSHCP do not assume or rely on permanent conservation of Covered Species outside the MSHCP Conservation Area. Therefore, the EIS/EIR need not analyze the effects of discontinuation of survey requirements for these species. In addition, language has been added to Sections 6.1.3 and 6.3.2 of the Final MSHCP to require review by the RMOC and MPA of findings supporting conclusions that species-specific conservation objectives have been met and surveys may be discontinued.
With respect to the MSHCP Section 6.1.2 riparian policies referenced in the comment, protection of riparian areas conserved in accordance with Section 6.1.2 is assumed to be permanent. As stated in Section 6.1.2 (Draft MSHCP page 6-22), "If an avoidance alternative is selected, measures shall be incorporated into the project design to ensure the long-term Conservation of the areas to be avoided, and associated functions and values, through the use of deed restrictions, conservation easements, or other appropriate mechanisms." Permanently conserving these areas will provide for Conservation of species in these areas documented and conserved as a result of survey efforts in accordance with the species-specific conservation requirements for those species. For the three fairy shrimp and for least Bell's vireo these requirements call for permanent Conservation of 90 percent of the occupied portions of the property that provide for long-term conservation value. For southwestern willow flycatcher and western yellow-billed cuckoo, these requirements call for permanent Conservation of 100 percent of the occupied portions of the property that provide for long-term conservation value. See Response F-102 for discussion of the disposition of lands conserved as a result that could be "released" if and when species objectives are met. Sections 6.1.3 and 6.3.2 of the Final MSHCP incorporate language requiring review by RMOC and the MPA if proposals are brought forward to release 90% conservation areas resulting from surveys if and when species objectives are met.
F-115 With respect to Delhi fly, the species-specific conservation objectives in the Final MSHCP have been revised to require Rough Step proportionality between Conservation and loss of fly habitat if Objective 1A is selected and surveys with required Conservation for positive survey results if Objective 1B is selected. See Response F-114 for discussion of conservation measures for southwestern willow flycatcher.
F-116 See Response F-83 for discussion of the single-family home issue and Response F-46 for discussion of Reserve Assembly.
F-117 See Response F-84.
F-118 As discussed in Section 7.3.3 of the Draft MSHCP, certain agricultural activities do not require discretionary approvals by the County or Cities and it would therefore not be possible to make a finding that Reserve Assembly options are not precluded on an individual basis. Instead, this will be done on an annual basis as called for in Sections 7.3.3 and 6.11 of the Draft MSHCP. See Response F-12. Because the Draft EIR/EIS concludes that the proposed MSHCP would result in the most Conservation and would provide more organized and usable habitat conservation than the Existing Reserves Alternative and the No Project Alternative, it is the Environmentally Superior/Environmentally Preferable Alternative per CEQA and NEPA (Draft EIR/EIS, p. 6.1-6). The MSHCP will not result in significant impacts to agriculture that require mitigation under CEQA or NEPA. Additionally, the MSHCP provides a process to ensure that New Agricultural Operations are in fact bona fide agricultural operations. See Section 6.2 of the Draft MSHCP and Responses F-11, F-12 and F-14. The Lead Agencies determined that five years was a significant time period to ensure that bad actors would be discouraged from taking advantage of the protections afforded Agricultural Operations under the MSHCP. See Response H2-18.
F-119 See Response F-114 for discussion of the discontinuation of surveys in the Final EIS/EIR. In addition, language has been added to Sections 6.1.3 and 6.3.2 of the Final MSHCP to require review by the RMOC and MPA of findings supporting conclusions that species-specific conservation objectives have been met and surveys may be discontinued.
The conclusion that impacts to non-listed Covered Species is less than significant is supported by the analysis presented in the EIS/EIR and the information presented in the MSHCP and the MSHCP Reference Document. These documents describe in detail the impact avoidance and minimization features incorporated in the MSHCP, which the EIR/EIR concludes would reduce potential impacts to non-listed Covered Species to a level below significance.
F-120 The MSHCP has been designed to serve as mitigation for impacts resulting from Development and to meet the issuance criteria for Take Authorization for listed Covered Species. For reasons described in Table 4D on pg. 4.1-89 of the Draft EIR, impacts to the non-Covered Species could not be considered fully mitigated by the Plan. As Development is proposed, subsequent environmental review will serve to indicate whether significant impacts to non-Covered Species will occur. Because compliance with the MSHCP may not be sufficient to mitigate impacts and it is impossible to determine potential impacts with any specificity at this time, it was concluded that significant impacts to non-Covered Species could occur even if the provisions of the MSHCP were fully implemented.
F-121 The referenced area is comprised of 1,500-2,000 acres and is within the Elsinore Area Plan. This area is overlain with the Rural Mountainous land use designation and would be subject to Riverside County General Plan guidelines with respect to such lands. In addition, this area is isolated from the remainder of the Plan Area by Cleveland National Forest and access to this area is provided from the Verdugo Canyon area of Orange County. Future use of this area will therefore be guided by both the land use designations in the Riverside County General Plan and ongoing planning efforts on adjacent lands in Orange County.
F-122 See Response F-80 for discussion of conservation acreages and Edge Effects associated with Covered Activities.
F-123 The 1:1 mitigation ratios for biological resources are not policies in the Draft County General Plan. The mitigation ratios are proposed mitigation measures in the EIR that analyzed the impacts of the Draft General Plan. The mitigation is proposed for impacts to habitat for, and direct mortality of, individuals of listed, proposed, or candidate species or loss of habitat occupied by such species and is as follows:
"Preserve habitat at minimum of 1:1 replacement ratio in locations that provide long-term conservation value for impacted resource. This could involve acquisition of habitat occupied by the affected species, acquiring a key parcel that fills in a missing link or gap in a reserve that provides conservation for the species, or acquisition of credits in a mitigation bank (endorsed by the USFWS and/or CDFG) that has been established to provide conservation value for the species. Implementation of the mitigation measure shall include provisions for the preservation of such areas in perpetuity."
F-124 The Lead Agencies do not believe that a larger MSHCP Conservation Area would reduce the potential impacts from housing and population. Instead, any potential impacts from intensification of Development outside the MSHCP Conservation Area could be increased.
F-125 Specific impacts from Development outside the MSHCP Conservation Area will be analyzed on a project-by-project basis. It would be too speculative at this time to analyze the impacts from Development that has not occurred, in a location as yet undecided at a time to be determined at some point in the future. It is partially for this reason that the Draft EIR/EIS states that future development proposals will undergo environmental review and the project's potential environmental impacts will be identified, analyzed and mitigated. (Draft EIR/EIS, p. 1.5-6.) See Response D-80.
F-126 See Response F-95. The Local Development Mitigation Fee that may be adopted are the result of a general legislative enactment, and are not imposed to "conveniently to fit a predetermined reserve size" as purported by the comment. A nexus study is currently being prepared for the Local Development Mitigation Fee. Prior to approval of the MSHCP, the County and Cities will make the findings required by California Government Code Sections 66000 et.seq., namely that there is a "reasonablerelationship" between the "fees" that will be imposed and the impacts related to land development or use. Further, findings will have to be made that there is a "reasonable relationship" between the fees and the cost of land acquisition. Neither the MSHCP nor the EIR/EIS anticipates reducing the amount of the Local Development Mitigation Fee or counting the Additional Reserve Lands as mitigation for projects that do not participate in the MSHCP.
F-127 See Responses G-15, G-16 and G-17 for discussion of issues pertaining to grasslands conservation and foraging habitat for raptors. The Lead Agencies believe that the MSHCP and EIR/EIS adequately address cumulative impacts to raptor species through Conservation provided in the Plan.
F-128 The Lead Agencies believe that the loss of developable land under the Modified Reserve Alternative is relevant because one of the project objectives is to "provide incidental take authorization for the transportation, infrastructure, housing and employment base needed to accommodate projected growth in western Riverside County." Developable land is necessary to accommodate projected growth in the County. The Modified Reserve Configuration Alternative was not carried forward because it did not constitute a feasible alternative that would substantially lessen any significant impacts and it conflicted with the MSHCP's function to streamline the permitting process while accommodating growth. For example, under the Modified Reserve Configuration Alternative the number of species to be conserved remains the same and the percentage of Take is very similar. (See Appendix B, pp. B-5, B-7.) This alternative would also require the Conservation of significantly more private land (218,000 acres) than the Proposed MSHCP (153,000 acres). This results in the Conservation of an additional 65,000 acres, more than 40% more than the MSHCP. Using these additional lands for Conservation could also represent the loss of up to 227,500 low-density residential units. (See Appendix B, p. B-9.) Additionally, the Modified Reserve Configuration Alternative would be infeasible because of cost. It would take at least a 40% increase in cost to operate and manage the Modified Reserve Configuration Alternative. Moreover, 65,000 acres of land would not pay the Local Development Mitigation Fee. Thus, the Conservation of these additional acres would directly affect the availability of local funds to finance the MSHCP and conflicts with the 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. Additionally, 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. Because the Lead Agencies must balance the number of acres to be conserved with the availability of funds to manage the MSHCP Conservation Area, the Modified Reserve Configuration Alternative was determined infeasible and screened out from further consideration as a project alternative. (See Appendix B, p. B-10.)
F2-1 The Lead Agencies are aware of the facts stated in this comment.
F2-2 This comment expresses a concern that the designation of Cells pursuant to the implementation structure of the MSHCP will affect future operations of WMWD. The Draft MSHCP Sections 6.6 and 7.3.8 and the Draft IA, Section 11.8 provide a mechanism whereby a non-Permittee public facility provider may elect to participate in the MSHCP and thus receive Take Authorization for Covered Species when found to be in compliance with the MSHCP. Non-Permittees that do not wish to participate in the MSHCP and require no discretionary or certain City ministerial approvals from the Local Permittees are not subject to compliance with the MSHCP.
F2-3 This comment does not raise issues relevant to the MSHCP, and therefore no further response is required.
F2-4 See Response F2-2.
F2-5 See Response F2-2.
F2-6 This comment provides detail on the activities of WMWD, which is noted.
F2-7 See Response F2-2.
F2-8 WMWD is under no obligation to participate in the MSHCP. See Response F2-2. WMWD could choose to obtain Take Authorization under the MSHCP rather than from the Wildlife Agencies under separate processes.
F3-1 The commentor appears to be addressing the County's General Plan. While the General Plan is not the subject of the MSHCP EIR/EIS, it should be noted that the General Plan has been the subject of fourteen Planning Commission hearings and three days of hearings before the Riverside County Board of Supervisors. Additionally over 2,000 written comments have been received. The General Plan has been revised in response to the public input received to date.
The development of the MSHCP and other RCIP components has been an in-depth and multi-year process. Throughout the development of the MSHCP, the Lead Agencies have encouraged public involvement and comment. (Draft EIR/EIS, p. 1.5-1.) Public involvement is an essential element of preparing a regional HCP such as the proposed MSHCP. To ensure that the proposed MSHCP reflects the priorities and vision of the County's residents, a community outreach program was a major focus of the MSHCP planning process. The County gathered initial community input throughout 1999 with public meetings and surveys. Several series of forums were also presented to residents of the County throughout 1999 and 2000. The County also arranged a web site (http:\\www.rcip.org) to serve as an information portal for the public to learn about the status of the MSHCP, upcoming meetings, and to read and/or download documents produced during the planning process. There were numerous workshops, which were open to the public and advertised widely, before the Riverside County Board of Supervisors. Numerous presentations were made at City Council meetings. Each of the fourteen City Councils and residents of each of the fourteen Cities were given the opportunity to comment on the formation of the MSHCP, as well as other elements of RCIP.
The RCIP documents are not "anti-agriculture." To the contrary, the MSHCP provides unprecedented coverage for Agricultural Operations. The MSHCP expressly allows all existing agricultural lands in the entire MSHCP Conservation Area to continue to be used for agriculture indefinitely, including agricultural lands within the Criteria Area. As a result of implementation of the MSHCP, Existing Agricultural Operations will gain the added benefit of Take Authorization for ongoing Agricultural Operations. Additionally, Existing Agricultural Operations are exempt from the payment of Local Development Mitigation Fees or other measures. Moreover, at least 10,000 acres of New Agricultural Land can be converted within the Criteria Area. Thus, the RCIP documents, including the General Plan and the MSHCP, are clearly not anti-agriculture.
F3-1 The Plan specifically states that the RCA does not usurp local land use controls. (See Draft MSHCP, § 6.6.2.) In fact, both the MSHCP and the IA both state that the RCA "shall not limit County or City local land use authority, or prevent a Permittee from approving a Discretionary Project." (See Draft MSHCP §§ 6.5 and 6.6.2.) Accordingly, the Lead Agencies do not believe that the County is gaining "too much control" or that local land authority will be compromised by implementation of the MSHCP. (See Response H2-40; Draft MSHCP, § 6.2.2.)
F3-2 Every effort has been made to make the Draft EIR/EIS and the MSHCP clear and understandable. It is, however, a large plan that is complex. The Lead Agencies disagree with the implication that public comment has been discouraged. In fact, to ensure that the proposed MSHCP reflects the priorities and vision of Riverside County's residents, a community outreach program was a major focus. (See Draft EIR/EIS, § 1.5.1.) In addition to the substantial public and stakeholder participation that has occurred during the preparation of the MSHCP, the IA, the associated joint Draft EIR/EIS and related documents (see Response F3-1) the public will continue to have meaningful input and review in the post-MSHCP adoption planning process. The RCA, which will oversee implementation of the MSHCP, will be a joint powers authority and will hold regularly scheduled public meetings in compliance with the Brown Act open meeting requirements. (See Draft MSHCP, § 6.6.2.) Public participation will be permitted and encouraged at these meetings, as well as through the public processes held by the Permittees as part of the normal individual development review application process. See Responses F-43, F-75 and F-78.
F3-3 An EIR is required to evaluate only the environmental impacts of a project. (Pub. Res. Code, § 21100.) See Response L-1. There are no anticipated impacts to recreation; however, the development of a specific project may have an impact on recreation. Therefore, future development proposals will undergo environmental review and the project's potential environmental impacts will be identified, analyzed and mitigated. (Draft EIR/EIS, pp. 1.5-6.)
F3-4 The MSHCP covers an area of approximately 1.2 million acres. Approximately 347,000 acres of this area is already in public ownership. With the addition of the Mitigation Lands, the Plan will mitigate for impacts to Covered Species from future Development of the remaining portion of western Riverside County, both public infrastructure and private Development. It is anticipated that the acquisition of these lands will occur through the HANS Process and will be obtained from willing sellers.
F3-5 The comment is unclear as to what the other "cost" is. To the extent that the other cost is the management of the MSHCP Conservation Area, those costs are addressed in the MSHCP funding plan.
F3-6 Management of the MSHCP Conservation Area will be shared by local, state and federal governments. The local lands may be managed by County Parks or other public or private entity selected by the RCA made up of elected officials from the County and fourteen western Riverside County Cities.
F3-7 One of the stated objectives of the MSHCP is to minimize the existing regulatory burden by streamlining development authorizations under FESA and CESA. (Draft EIR/EIS, p. 1.2-4.) Compared to the current process where a property owner must negotiate with local, state and federal agencies at numerous points in the development process to address endangered species issues and obtain appropriate permits, the MSHCP provides a "one-stop" approach. The Plan also provides limited actions that will be required, including the requirements within the Criteria Area, that are necessary to enable issuance of Take Authorization under FESA and the NCCP Act. See Responses H2-193 and M-19.
F4-1 The County has met with Farm Bureau representatives on numerous occasions. The County believes that the Farm Bureau's major concerns have been addressed.
F4-2 The statement that the proposed MSHCP Criteria Area represents a moratorium on Development does not accurately characterize the Implementing Mechanisms proposed in the Draft MSHCP. Section 6 of the Draft MSHCP clearly establishes a process whereby applications for Development within the Criteria Area will be expeditiously processed. Under no circumstances will Development be held in abeyance for lack of funds to purchase property.
F4-3 The MSHCP provides great benefits to agriculture when compared with any other multiple species HCP. The MSHCP also provides more benefits to agricultural land owners than to any other class of property owners under the MSHCP. The MSHCP provides virtually automatic Take Authorization for all Existing Agricultural Operations in western Riverside County including within the Criteria Area. Contrary to the comment, the MSHCP provides Take Authorization for unlimited New Agriculture outside the Criteria Area. Additionally, 10,000 acres of New Agricultural Operations can occur within the Criteria Area.
F4-4 An in-depth response has been prepared to the comments submitted by the Farm Bureau and other property owner groups, including but not limited to, Comment Letters M, L, H2, I2 and H4. As set forth in those letters, the Lead Agencies believe that the Plan does encompass the majority of the goals of the Planning Agreement. The Lead Agencies look forward to working with and resolving any outstanding issues with the Farm Bureau and other interested parties.
F5-1 This comment raises no issues related to the Draft MSHCP, the Draft EIR/EIS or the Draft IA and no further response is necessary.
F5-2 See Response J4-2.
F5-3 See Response J4-2.
F5-4 See Response K-13.
F5-5 See Responses K-2 and K-3.
F5-6 See Response J4-7.
F5-7 See Responses J4-3 through J4-13.
F5-8 See Responses J4-3 and J4-8.
F5-9 It is not clear what is meant by the "prognosis...for Existing Core J's conservation efforts." Existing Core J provides Conservation for those Covered Species identified in Section 3.2.3 of the Plan as discussed in the analysis of the those species contained in Volume II of the MSHCP. In addition, the Plan describes the function of Existing Core J and explains the rationale for inclusion of additional land in Proposed Extension of Existing Core 6, as a means for providing connectivity between existing Conservation to the north and west. As noted in Section 3.1 of the Plan, Conservation proposed by the Plan is of an estimated quantity of land and generally proposed to be configured in a manner that would provide for the most efficient MSHCP Conservation Area possible. None of the Additional Reserve Lands are considered to be a "luxury that would be nice to have."
Regarding the comment that "the Plan does not provide any analysis of these or any other alternatives" is unclear, as no alternatives are mentioned. The Plan does however provide an analysis of alternatives considered in the Plan development process (Draft MSHCP, Section 3.1). In addition, the cited acreage figure for Proposed Extension of Existing Core 6 is an estimate provided in the context of other estimated dimensional information for this conservation feature to provide guidance in Reserve Assembly. As noted throughout the Plan, considerable flexibility has been provided in the Reserve Assembly process to allow for variation in the ultimate configuration of the MSHCP Conservation Area, provided that the stated conservation objectives are met.
F5-10 Proposed Extension of Existing Core 5 and Proposed Extension of Existing Core 6 provide entirely separate connectivity functions, and therefore a comparative analysis of the two proposed conservation features would not be meaningful. Proposed Extension of Existing Core 5 would ultimately contribute to connectivity between Proposed Core 2, via Existing Constrained Linkages A and E to Johnson Ranch in the northern and western portion of the Johnson Ranch parcels, and then to the western Lake Skinner area. Proposed Extension of Existing Core 6 provides connectivity from the eastern end of the Johnson Ranch parcels to the southern portion of the Lake Skinner area. Both of these features are considered to be important in maintaining connectivity within the area noted, and are not duplicative in function.
F5-11 A discussion of avoidance and minimization of impacts related to Covered Activities, including proposed circulation element roadways, is contained in Section 7.0 of the Plan. See also Response F5-9 regarding Reserve Assembly flexibility.
F5-12 See Responses J4-3 through J4-13.
F5-13 See Responses K-4 and K-5.
F5-14 See Response K-6.
F5-15 See Response K-6.
F5-16 See Responses K-7 and K-8.
F5-17 See Response J4-19.
F5-18 See Response J4-19.
F5-19 See Response J4-19.
F5-20 See Response K-9.
F5-21 See Response K-10.
F5-22 See Response K-11.
F5-23 See Response K-12.
F5-24 See Response J4-22.
F5-25 See Response J4-24.
F5-26 See Response J4-25.
F5-27 See Response J4-26.
F5-28 See Response J4-26.
F5-29 See Responses J4-27 and J4-28.
F5-30 See Response J4-29.
F5-31 See Responses F5-9 and F5-10.
F5-32 See Response J4-30.
F5-33 See Responses J4-29 and J4-30.
F5-34 See Response J4-32.
F5-35 See Response J4-32.
F5-36 See Responses K-7 and K-8. The purpose of the Criteria is to provide guidance in Reserve Assembly as lands are proposed for Development, or are offered for purchase. The Criteria are not intended to be used to assemble a map of the MSHCP Conservation Area prior to Reserve Assembly.
F5-37 See Response J4-32.
F5-38 See Response J4-33.
F5-39 See Response J4-33.
F5-40 See Response J4-33.
F5-41 See Response J4-34.
F5-42 See Response K-18.
F5-43 See Responses K-19 through K-21.
F5-44 See Response K-22.
F5-45 See Response K-25.
F5-46 See Response K-26.
F5-47 See Response K-27.
F5-48 See Response K-28.
F5-49 See Response K-29.
F5-50 See Response K-30.
F5-51 See Response K-31.
F5-52 See Response K-32.
F5-53 See Response K-33.
F5-54 See Response K-34.
F5-55 See Responses K-35 through K-37.
F5-56 See Response K-38.
F5-57 See Responses K-39 through K-42.
F5-58 See Response K-43.
F5-59 See Response K-44.
F5-60 See Response K-45.
F5-61 See Response K-46.
F5-62 See Response K-47.
F5-63 See Response K-48.
F5-64 See Response K-49.
F5-65 See Response K-50.
F5-66 See Response K-51.
F5-67 See Response K-52.
F5-68 See Response K-53.
F5-69 See Response K-54.
F5-70 See Response K-55.
F5-85 See Response K-70.
F5-86 See Response K-71.
F5-87 See Response K-72.
F5-88 See Response K-73.
F5-89 See Response K-74.
F5-90 See Response K-75.
F5-91 See Response K-76.
F5-92 See Response K-77.
F5-93 See Response K-78.
F5-94 See Response K-79.
F5-95 See Response K-80.
F5-96 See Response K-81.
F5-97 See Response K-82.
F5-112 See Response K-97.
F5-113 See Response K-98.
F5-114 See Response K-99.
F5-115 See Response K-100.
F5-116 See Response K-101.
F5-117 See Responses K-51 and K-93.
F5-118 See Response K-103.
F5-119 See Response K-104.
F5-120 See Response K-105.
F5-121 See Response K-106.
F5-122 See Response K-107.
F5-123 See Response K-108.
F5-124 See Response K-109.
F5-125 See Response K-110.
G-1 Specific responses to the general statements in this comment are provided in response to the individual comments below.
G-2 The process used to develop the biological components of the Plan is described in Section 3.1 of the Plan and the supporting documents referenced in Section 3.1. See also Responses R-19, R-20, R-21, and R-25 for additional discussion of the process used to develop the biological components of the Plan. It is uncertain what the comment is referring to with respect to the process used to analyze the Plan. With respect to Covered Species, the species accounts presented in Volume II, Section B of the Plan and in summary fashion in Section 9.0 of the Plan provide the conservation requirements for the Covered Species and describe the ways in which those conservation requirements are met by features incorporated in the Plan. In addition, the MSHCP Conservation Area Description presented in Volume II, Section A of the Plan and in summary fashion in Section 3.2.2 of the Plan describes the ecosystem features incorporated in the Plan including factors such as representativeness of Bioregions, Vegetation Communities, soils, patch size of conserved areas and edge affected land after Reserve Assembly. Analysis of the degree to which the Plan meets legal requirements is properly included in the findings supporting ultimate Permit issuance. Since specific comments are not given on the perceived shortcomings of the process used to develop and analyze the Plan, a more detailed response is not possible.
G-3 See Response G-2 regarding information in the Plan on the methods used to develop and analyze the MSHCP Conservation Area. It is acknowledged that the Plan is a criteria-based plan and does not include a reserve design map. This is an acceptable approach for a multiple species HCP and/or NCCP. See Response D-8. Specific requirements to assure reserve integrity are incorporated in the Plan. In particular, a four-component Conservation Strategy for each Covered Species was developed as described in Section 9.2 incorporating a global biological goal, global biological objectives, species-specific objectives, and monitoring and management activities. These requirements are binding for each Covered Species. In addition, Section 6.0 of the Plan includes detailed implementation measures, many of which address specific biological issues, that are binding on the Permittees. Since specific comments are not given on the assumptions, methods and policy implications, a more detailed response is not possible.
G-4 See Responses G-2 and G-3 for discussion of features incorporated in the Plan that describe the conservation planning and analysis process. Since specific comments are not given regarding input from the Scientific Review Panel that was not considered, a specific response to that comment cannot be provided. See also Scientific Review Panel Correspondence - Review of: Final Draft Western Riverside County MSHCP Document, April 2003.
G-5 See Responses F-79 and F-80 for discussion of the ways in which direct and indirect effects of Covered Activities were considered in evaluating levels of Take under the Plan. With respect to the "new roads" referenced in the comment, a new Table 7-4 will be included in Section 7.0 of the Final MSHCP that demonstrates that the vast majority of road improvements within the Criteria Area are anticipated to involve improvements to existing roadways and not construction of new roadways. Fragmentation and Edge Effects associated with the existing roadways already exists within the Plan Area. In some cases, roadway improvements may provide opportunities to improve existing roadway designs for the benefit of Covered Species.
See Response R-20 for discussion of the process used to arrive at the approximately 500,000 acre size for the MSHCP Conservation Area.
Analysis in the Plan is not limited to "gross habitat acreages inside the conceptual reserve design" but rather on specific requirements identified for Cores and Linkages and for species-specific conservation objectives. For Cores and Linkages, specific conservation targets are identified for total acres, interior and edge areas and perimeter to area ratios. For species conservation objectives, requirements for suitable total suitable habitat to be conserved are given along with number, location and size of Core Areas, as appropriate, populations or localities of species to be conserved, and measurements of reproductive success.
Since specific comments are not provided on the species for which levels of conservation are "unjustifiably low" a specific response cannot be provided. Specific conservation requirements are identified for each Covered Species as noted in Response G-3.
G-6 See Responses R-19, R-20, R-21 and R-25 for discussion of the process used to determine the 500,000 acre size of the MSHCP Conservation Area. This was not a top-down process but rather a process that began with stakeholder direction to develop an initial Conceptual Conservation Scenario that would conserve the maximum number of species on species lists developed by the Wildlife Agencies in concert with the MSHCP Advisory Committee and address NCCP requirements. The initial Conceptual Conservation Scenario represented a first-cut "bottoms-up application of the principles of reserve design and the requirements of the species and habitats in question" that was refined over time through analysis and stakeholder direction and resulted in the reserve design incorporated in the Draft MSHCP.
As noted in Section 3.1.3, the conservation planning process described in Section 3.1 of the Plan incorporates 1) identification of overall MSHCP goals; 2) compilation of existing data; 3) identification of applicable conservation planning principles; 4) review of reserve selection models and methods; 5) development of an initial Conceptual Conservation Scenario; 6) completion of an informal gap analysis; 7) identification of alternatives and selection of a proposed alternative; 8) development and refinement of the Conceptual Reserve Design/Criteria -Based Plan. This is a typical planning approach and is consistent with many conservation planning processes. Since specific comments are not provided on accepted standards and precedents of regional conservation plans, a more specific response cannot be provided.
G-7 Section 3.2.3 of the Plan targets total acreages, edge and interior acreages, and perimeter to area ratios for the Cores and Linkages to be incorporated in the MSHCP Conservation Area. In addition, for each Area Plan presented in Sections 3.3.2 through 3.3.17, an acreage target is provided for the entire Area Plan, and for each Subunit within the Area Plan. Planning Species and Biological Issues and Considerations are also defined for each Area Plan Subunit. These parameters will specifically direct Reserve Assembly. See Responses F-46, F-47, F-48 and F-50 for additional discussion of the Reserve Assembly process. The MSHCP Conservation Area Description and Species Accounts in Volume II, Sections A and B, respectively, of the Plan are based on achieving the conservation targets for Cores and Linkages and Area Plans and Area Plan Subunits noted in Sections 3.2.3 and 3.3.2 through 3.3.17. As noted in Response G-3, a specific Conservation Strategy isidentified for each Covered Species and binding implementation policies are incorporated in the Plan. Section 3.1.5 of the Plan discusses reserve selection models and methods and the relationship of those models and methods to the conservation planning process for the Plan.
G-8 See Response F-46, F-47, F-48 and F-50 for discussion of the ways in which assurances are incorporated in the Reserve Assembly process. As noted in Response G-7, standards to be met are incorporated in the Cores and Linkages descriptions in Section 3.2.3 of the Plan, in the Conservation Strategy for each Covered Species, and the implementation measures in Section 6.0 of the Plan, not in the Area Plan Criteria referenced in the comment.
G-9 The Core and Linkage map presented in Section 3.2.3 is based on the evolution of the Conceptual Conservation Scenario presented in the August 9, 1999 MSHCP Draft Proposal (DUDEK, 1999) which was followed by preparation of a March 9, 2000 Technical Memorandum that included identification of initial Conservation Analysis Units. As described in Section 3.1.7 of the Plan, this process included an informal gap analysis that was biologically based and did not consider planned land uses. Ongoing refinements incorporated the Conservation Analysis Units into Alternative 1 as presented in the MSHCP Alternatives Development Document (DUDEK, October 4, 2000). These various iterations all referenced Cores and Linkages which were ultimately represented on the schematic Cores and Linkages map presented in Figure 3.2.3 of the Plan. This process was biologically based and reflected existing conditions on the ground, including existing land uses. Planned land uses were not a factor in the identification of Cores and Linkages.
With respect to identification of particular areas included or excluded, and the implications on species protection, this information is available for review in several ways. The range of alternatives presented in the Alternatives Development Document depicts alternative conservation scenarios that exclude certain Cores and Linkages and the implications on species protection are clearly noted in the document. This information is expanded upon in Section 4.1 of the MSHCP EIS/EIR along with a discussion of the relationship of the proposed Plan to the missing linkages identified in the California Wilderness Coalition report (November 2000).
G-10 The Draft MSHCP analyses incorporated the use of the best scientific and commercial data available. No additional data is provided in this comment that could potentially affect the analyses performed. See Response D-17. Data sources and limitations used to develop the Plan are described in Section 2.1 of the Plan. As noted, these data included substantial information in addition to "vegetation communities broadly lumped together" and these lumped Vegetation Communities are not used as proxies for species habitats or distributions. These data sources include a coastal sage scrub habitat quality model developed specificallyfor the Plan Area; uncollapsed Vegetation Community data that were used in many sub-analyses in the species accounts; specific soils and elevation data that were used in many of the sub-analyses for the plant species accounts; and species occurrence data from a wide variety of sources. As described in Section 2.1.2, Bioregions were specifically identified and mapped for the Plan Area and used in the analysis process to evaluate the representativeness of various alternative scenarios.
G-11 Requirements for baseline surveys and ongoing data collection regarding habitat conditions and Covered Species presence and reproductive success are incorporated in the Monitoring Plan presented in Section 5.3 of the Plan. Surveys conducted as part of the Monitoring Plan will be conducted for the term of the Permit as described in Section 5.3 See Responses F-61 and F-72 regarding the circumstances under which survey requirements by public and private applicants for development projects may be discontinued. In addition, language has been added to Sections 6.1.3 and 6.3.2 of the Final MSHCP to require review by the RMOC and MPA of findings supporting conclusions that species-specific conservation objectives have been met and surveys may be discontinued.
G-12 The MSHCP is a criteria-based plan and therefore, a specific reserve map is not included in the Plan. However, guidance and requirements are incorporated in the Plan to assure that Reserve Assembly occurs in accordance with the requirements of the Plan and that the Conservation Strategy for each Covered Species is met. See Responses G-7 and G-8 for additional discussion of this issue.
There was no policy decision to not explicitly map biological resource distributions. Summary biological resource maps are presented in Sections 2.0, 3.0 and 9.0 of the Plan in Volume II Sections A and B. Species occurrence maps for the Covered Species are not presented in the Plan due to the volume of the data and the difficulty in portraying it in a readable fashion. Digital species occurrence data were publically available during the MSHCP planning process on the UCR MSHCP website.
G-13 PQP Lands are comprised of many different ownerships. In some instances, the lands are currently managed under existing HCPs. Only limited (if any) additional management may be required for these lands to contribute to the MSHCP Conservation Area. The majority of the PQP Lands are in the National Forests. The County, USFWS, and CDFG have discussed with the Forest Service the desirability for their new Forest Management Plans to reflect the conservation objectives of the MSHCP. The Forest Service is obligated under the National Forest Management Act to manage their lands for the benefit of species. Moreover, the Lead Agencies will work with the Forest Service to develop and enter into an MOU regarding management of Forest Service land. Other PQP Lands are held by public entities that may have different responsibilities to manage their lands consistent with the goals of the MSHCP. A responsibility of the RCA once formed will be to work with these entities to achieve agreements on how their lands will be managed. The Lead Agencies fully expect that MOUs or other agreements will be utilized to document the way lands are to be managed in the future. Management and Adaptive Management funds may be made available to these entities when agreement is reached on how they will manage their lands.
It is important to realize that the lands identified as PQP are highly unlikely to be developed in the future and currently provide habitat value to a wide variety of species. It is unlikely that these lands will be materially altered to the point that they would lose their current value to species.
G-14 The Lead Agencies concur with the comments regarding reserve design capturing "the majority of high-priority biological resources areas and linkages." Responses to the remainder of the comment are more specifically addressed below.
G-15 The focus of the conservation analysis for the MSHCP is on the conservation requirements of the individual Covered Species and not on achieving particular percentage targets for Vegetation Communities. As discussed in Response R-33, the individual species analyses incorporate a variety of species requirements including Conservation of suitable Habitat, Conservation of core populations and other localities, reserve configuration issues and management issues such as addressing known threats. See Responses G-16, G-17 and G-18 for discussion of specific Vegetation Communities mentioned in this comment. As discussed in Responses G-2, G-3, G-4, G-6, G-7 and G8, the conservation planning process for the MSHCP was not based on arbitrary efforts to capture a particular percentage of Habitats or Vegetation Communities but rather involved initial identification of a Conceptual Conservation Scenario addressing the needs of multiple species from a species list developed by the MSHCP Advisory Committee in concert with the Wildlife Agencies. This initial Conceptual Conservation Scenario was refined through an iterative review and analytic process involving the application of NCCP tenets and conservation biology principles that culminated in the criteria-based plan presented in the Draft MSHCP.
G-16 As discussed in Response G-15, the conservation planning process for the MSHCP was not based on achievement of particular percentage targets for Vegetation Communities. Specifically, the process did not consider percentages of particular Vegetation Communities conserved in other multiple species plans and set those as targets for the MSHCP. This approach would not take into consideration the unique characteristics of the planning areas for various multiple species plans and their suites of habitats and species. It is not appropriate or meaningful, for example, to compare grasslands Conservation in the MSHCP to the San Diego MHCP or the MSCP. The MSHCP Plan Area is much larger than the planning areas for these two programs and, in absolute acreages, is conserving four to six times more grasslands than these programs; the percentage of habitat conservation is less relevant to species conservation than the amount and distribution of the grasslands conserved. In terms of available habitat for grassland species, which on a crude scale and without regard to spatial distribution should support larger populations, it can be argued that the MSHCP provides for more conservation than do MHCP and MSCP. The focus of the analysis in the MSHCP is how much Habitat is conserved, in what configuration, and what species can be supported, not on an arbitrary percentage. The analysis for Conservation of grasslands in the MSHCP incorporated a variety of factors including representativeness of the grasslands conserved, configuration of the grasslands conserved, and consideration of those factors with respect to species-specific conservation requirements for grassland species. These factors are summarized below. The information provided herein is not new information, but rather a summary and focused presentation of information contained in the Draft MSHCP.
Representativeness of grasslands was examined in several ways including the following: evaluation of anticipated grassland Conservation within the lower elevation Bioregions Riverside Lowlands and San Jacinto Foothills; evaluation of grasslands and agriculture Conservation using the uncollapsed vegetation coverage (agriculture was analyzed in addition to grasslands because these areas may provide foraging habitat for raptors); evaluation of grasslands inside and outside the MSHCP Criteria Area; and evaluation of grasslands Conservation based on areas that appear to have been developed since the MSHCP vegetation map was prepared (see Step 3, Draft MSHCP, page 3-10).
Table G-16A summarizes anticipated grasslands Conservation within the Riverside Lowlands and San Jacinto Foothills Bioregions as compared to the entire Plan Area. As shown, grasslands Conservation within the MSHCP Conservation Area would be representatively distributed between the lower elevation Riverside Lowlands and San Jacinto Foothills Bioregions and the remaining upper elevations Bioregions with about 79% (33,600 acres) of the total grasslands Conservation occurring in the lower elevation Bioregions. This percentage is generally consistent with the existing distribution of grasslands in the Plan Area with about 80% (123,755 acres) of the existing grasslands located in the lower elevation Bioregions.
Table G-16B summarizes anticipated grasslands and agriculture Conservation within the MSHCP Plan Area based on the uncollapsed MSHCP vegetation map (see Section 2.1.2 of the MSHCP for discussion of collapsed and uncollapsed vegetation communities mapping). As shown, approximately 96% of the mapped valley and foothill grassland would be within the MSHCP Conservation Area along with 27% of the mapped nonnative grassland. Of the total 20,020 acres of mapped agriculture within the MSHCP Conservation Area, approximately 17,185 acres (86%) are within the field croplands category. This category is regarded as having the greatest value for raptor foraging when compared with the other agriculture categories - dairy/livestock/feedyards and grove/ orchard. The focus of grasslands and agriculture Conservation are therefore on the higher value valley and foothill grasslands category and the higher value (for raptor foraging) field croplands agriculture category.
| TABLE G-16A - SUMMARY OF GRASSLANDS CONSERVATION IN THE RIVERSIDE LOWLANDS AND SAN JACINTO FOOTHILLS BIOREGIONS | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bioregion | Total MSHCP Plan Area (Acres) | Inside MSHCP Conservation Area | Outside MSHCP Conservation Area | |||||
| Additional Reserve Lands (Acres) | Public/Quasi- Public (Acres)1 |
Total Within MSHCP Conservation Area (Acres) | Rural Mountainous (Acres) | American Indian Lands (Acres) | Outside MSHCP Conservation Area and not Rural Mountainous or American Indian Lands (Acres) | Total Outside MSHCP Conservation Area (Acres) | ||
| Riverside Lowlands | 111,490 | 12,815 | 14,645 | 27,460 | 5,645 | 1,545 | 76,840 | 84,030 |
| San Jacinto Foothills | 12,265 | 4,655 | 1,485 | 6,140 | 1,350 | 465 | 4,310 | 6,125 |
| Remainder of Plan Area | 30,380 | 2,540 | 6,675 | 9,215 | 5,225 | 5,255 | 10,685 | 21,165 |
| TOTALS | 154,135 | 20,010 (13%) |
22,805 (15%) |
42,815 (28%) |
12,220 (8%) |
7,265 (5%) |
91,835 (59%) |
111,320 (72%) |
| 1 Includes 600 acres mapped as grasslands on the MSHCP vegetation map under the Lake reserve category, but now under the Public/Quasi-Public category | ||||||||
| TABLE G-16B - SUMMARY OF UNCOLLAPSED GRASSLAND AND AGRICULTURE CONSERVATION IN THE MSHCP PLAN AREA | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Vegetation Type | Total MSHCP Plan Area (Acres) | Inside MSHCP Conservation Area | Outside MSHCP Conservation Area | |||||
| Additional Reserve Lands (Acres) | Public/Quasi- Public (Acres) |
Total Within MSHCP Conservation Area (Acres) | Rural Mountainous (Acres) | American Indian Lands (Acres) | Outside MSHCP Conservation Area and not Rural Mountainous or American Indian Lands (Acres) | Total Outside MSHCP Conservation Area (Acres) | ||
| Grassland | ||||||||
| Non-native Grassland | 151,400 | 19,705 | 20,485 | 40,190 | 12,135 | 7,265 | 91,810 | 111,210 |
| Valley & Foothill Grassland | 2,735 | 305 | 2,320 | 2,625 | 90 | -- | 20 | 110 |
| TOTAL | 154,135 | 20,010 (13%) |
22,805 (15%) |
42,815 (28%) |
12,220 (8%) |
7,265 (5%) |
91,835 (59%) |
111,320 (72%) |
| Agricultural Land | ||||||||
| Dairy & Livestock Feedyards | 5,855 | 335 | 200 | 535 (9%) |
100 | -- | 5,220 | 5,320 (91%) |
| Field Croplands | 124,875 | 7,250 | 9,935 | 17,185 (14%) |
820 | 1,105 | 105,765 | 107,690 (86%) |
| Grove/Orchard | 38,745 | 955 | 1,345 | 2,300 (6%) |
6,400 | 10 | 30,035 | 36,445 (94%) |
| TOTAL | 169,475* | 8,540 (5%) |
11,480 (7%) |
20,020 (12%) |
7,320 (4%) |
1,115 (1%) |
141,020 (83%) |
149,455 (88%) |
| * Includes 3,330 acres mapped as agriculture and 600 acres mapped as grassland on the MSHCP vegetation map but now within Diamond Valley Lake. | ||||||||
Table G-16C summarizes anticipated grasslands Conservation inside and outside the MSHCP Criteria Area. The Criteria Area includes the area with the highest biological value and from within which the MSHCP Conservation Area will be assembled. Flexibility is incorporated in the MSHCP to adjust acquisition from within the Criteria Area to respond to conservation priorities during the long-term MSHCP implementation process. As shown in Table G-16C, approximately 62,720 acres (43%) of the total grassland within the MSHCP Plan Area is located within the Criteria Area, providing opportunities to increase the level of grasslands Conservation as Reserve Assembly progresses.
| TABLE G-16C - SUMMARY OF GRASSLANDS CONSERVATION INSIDE AND OUTSIDE OF THE MSHCP CRITERIA AREA |
||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Vegetation Type | Total MSHCP Plan Area (Acres) | Total American Indian Lands (not a part of the MSHCP) (Acres) | Net MSHCP Plan Area (less American Indian Lands) (Acres) | Inside Criteria Area | Outside Criteria Area (and not American Indian Lands or PQP Lands) (Acres) | |||
| Criteria Area (Acres) | PQP Lands Inside & Outside Criteria Area (Acres)* | Total Inside Criteria Area and/or PQP Lands (Acres) | ||||||
| Valley & Foothill Grassland | 2,740 | - 0 - | 2,740 | 405 | 2,320 | 2,725 (99%) |
15 (1%) |
|
| Non-native Grassland | 151,395 | 7,335 | 144,060 | 39,555 | 20,440 | 59,995 (99%) |
84,065 (1%) |
|
| TOTAL | 154,135 (100%) |
7,334 (5%) |
146,800 (95%) |
39,960 (27%) |
22,760 (16%) |
62,720 (43%) |
84,080 (57%) |
|
| * Includes 600 acres mapped as grassland on the MSHCP vegetation map but now within Diamond Valley Lake. ** 100% net total for comparison to columns to the right |
||||||||
Table G-16D summarizes anticipated grasslands Conservation based on the MSHCP vegetation map with adjustments based on assessment of areas apparently developed since preparation of the MSHCP vegetation map (up to 1998/99 - date of baseline data for RCIP). As shown, it appears that approximately 14,325 acres of grasslands have been developed since preparation of the MSHCP vegetation map including approximately 12,095 acres (84%) outside the MSHCP Conservation Area and approximately 2,230 acres (16%) inside the MSHCP Conservation Area.
| TABLE G-16D - COMPARISON OF GRASSLAND CONSERVATION IN THE MSHCP PLAN AREA BASED ON MSHCP VEGETATION MAP (1995) AND AREAS DEVELOPED SINCE PREPARATION OF MSHCP VEGETATION MAP (1998) | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Vegetation Type | Total MSHCP Plan Area (Acres) | Inside MSHCP Conservation Area | Outside MSHCP Conservation Area | |||||
| Additional Reserve Lands (Acres) | Public/Quasi-Public (Acres) | Total Within MSHCP Conservation Area (Acres) | Rural Mountainous (Acres) | American Indian Lands (Acres) | Outside MSHCP Conservation Area and not Rural Mountainous or American Indian Lands (Acres) | Total Outside MSHCP Conservation Area (Acres) | ||
| MSHCP Vegetation Map | 154,135* | 20,010 (13%) |
22,805 (15%) |
42,815 (28%) |
12,225 (8%) |
7,265 (5%) |
91,830 (59%) |
111,320 (72%) |
| MSHCP Vegetation Map Incorporating Developed Areas (1998)** | 139,810 | 18,850 | 21,735 | 40,585 (29%) |
11,705 | 7,160 | 80,360 | 99,225 (71%) |
| * Includes 600 acres mapped as grassland on the MSHCP vegetation map but now within Diamond Valley Lake. ** See Step 3 (pg.3-10 of MSHCP) for process used to assess areas developed between 1995 and 1998. |
||||||||
In summary, anticipated grasslands Conservation within the MSHCP incorporates representativeness among Bioregions and focuses on higher value native grasslands and higher value agriculture (for raptor foraging). Flexibility is incorporated in the Criteria Area and the Reserve Assembly process to take advantage of opportunities to provide for additional grasslands Conservation as the MSHCP is implemented. Development since the MSHCP vegetation map was prepared appears to have occurred primarily in areas not identified for Conservation in the MSHCP.
Configuration of grasslands Conservation was also a consideration in development of the MSHCP with a focus on conserving the larger polygons of grassland that could best support grassland species. The Stephens' kangaroo rat (SKR) is a grassland species and the existing SKR core reserves form a good foundation for grasslands Conservation in the Plan Area because identification of potential reserve areas in the SKR HCP was keyed to areas with substantial grasslands. The existing core reserves that conserve some of the largest polygons of existing grassland in the Plan Area include the Lake Mathews/Estelle Mountain reserve, the Southwestern Riverside County Multi-Species Reserve, Sycamore Canyon, the San Jacinto Wildlife Area/Lake Perris and Steele Peak. While it no longer supports SKR, the existing Santa Rosea Plateau reserve also has substantial grassland. These areas will be augmented by new Core Areas with substantial grassland including Proposed Core 3 in the Badlands Area (24,940 acres total with about 10,000 acres of grassland in Potrero Valley), Proposed Core 6 in Anza Valley ( 4,290 acres total, nearly all grassland), Proposed Core 2 in the French Valley area (5,050 acres total with about 1,500 acres of grassland) and a portion of Extension of Existing Core 3 adjacent to Lake Elsinore which includes substantial several hundred acres of grassland (Cores 2 and 3 are not known to be occupied by SKR but do have substantial grassland supporting other grassland species. Grassland that occurs in a mosaic with other habitats such as coastal sage scrub will also be conserved throughout the Lake Skinner/Lake Mathews linkage (Proposed Linkage 8) and within Proposed Core 7 in the Vail Lake/Wilson Valley/Sage Aguanga area. The planned total acreages of Proposed Linkage 8 and Proposed Core 7 are 5,470 acres and 50,000 acres respectively. These mosaics provide habitat for a variety of grassland species such as SKR, grasshopper sparrow, red-diamondrattlesnake and many raptors. Additional grasslands Conservation will occur within Proposed Linkage 14 which includes a portion of the Cactus Valley area (the total planned area of this Linkage is 4,320 acres). While it is recognized that substantial areas of grassland, albeit mostly fragmented by existing land uses, will be lost, particularly in the Riverside Lowlands Bioregion, these existing and planned locations for Conservation represent key remaining grassland areas in the Plan Area.
Species-specific analyses for grassland species and raptors, for which it is important to maintain grassland and open vacant lands such as agricultural lands for foraging, are presented in the individual species accounts. The species accounts conclude that features incorporated in the MSHCP including habitat Conservation, reserve configuration, achievement of species-specific objectives and implementation of monitoring and management measures would achieve the overall MSHCP biological goal for each grassland Covered Species which is: "In the MSHCP Plan Area, Conserve Covered Species and their Habitats." Some examples are provided below: