Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) - Volume 5

Location: MSHCP > VOLUME 5 > COMMENT LETTERS

Comment Letter A - San Bernardino Valley Audubon Society, 15 January 2003

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.

Comment Letter A² - City of Lake Elsinore, January 15, 2003

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.

Comment Letter A³ - Jerry Geller on behalf of Upper Santa Margarita Alliance, January 14, 2003

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.

Comment Letter A⁴ - Bennett Realty Group, February 28, 2003

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.

Comment Letter A⁵ - KB Homes, February 11, 2003

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.

Comment Letter B San Bernardino Valley Audubon Letter, January 9, 2003

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.

Comment Letter B²-City of Murrieta, January 15, 2003

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.

Comment Letter B³ - Anne E. DeBevoise-Abel, January 15, 2003

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.

Comment Letter B⁴ - Grainger, March 3, 2003

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.

Comment Letter B⁵ - Friends of the Northern San Jacinto Valley, March 4, 2003

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.

Comment Letter C - California Native Plant Society, January 15, 2003

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:

effects on Habitat with long-term conservation value to Narrow Endemic Plant Species
effects on the populations of the Narrow Endemic Plant Species
effects on Linkages and function of the MSHCP Conservation Area.

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:

effects on conserved habitats supporting the identified species
effects on the populations of the identified species
effects on habitat linkages and function of the MSHCP Conservation Area
effects on MSHCP Conservation Area configuration and management.

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 co

WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTYMULTIPLE SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN

Comment Letter A - San Bernardino Valley Audubon Society, 15 January 2003

Comment Letter A2 - City of Lake Elsinore, January 15, 2003

Comment Letter A3 - Jerry Geller on behalf of Upper Santa Margarita Alliance, January 14, 2003

Comment Letter A4 - Bennett Realty Group, February 28, 2003

Comment Letter A5 - KB Homes, February 11, 2003

Comment Letter B San Bernardino Valley Audubon Letter, January 9, 2003

Comment Letter B2-City of Murrieta, January 15, 2003

Comment Letter B3 - Anne E. DeBevoise-Abel, January 15, 2003

Comment Letter B4 - Grainger, March 3, 2003

Comment Letter B5 - Friends of the Northern San Jacinto Valley, March 4, 2003