HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-184 CC Resolution
I
I
I
RESOLUTION NO. 03-184
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA MAKING RESPONSIBLE AGENCY FINDINGS
PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
ACT FOR THE MULTIPLE SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION
PLAN/NATURAL COMMUNITY CONSERVATION PLAN AND
APPROVING THE WESTERN RIVERSIDE COUNTY MULTIPLE
SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN/NATURAL
COMMUNITY CONSERVATION PLAN AND IMPLEMENTING
AGREEMENT, ADOPTING ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGS
PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY
ACT, AND ADOPTING A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING
CONSIDERATIONS
WHEREAS, the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (the
"MSHCP" or "Project") is a multi-jurisdictional habitat conservation plan focusing on the conservation
of both sensitive species and their associated habitats to address biological and ecological diversity
and conservation needs in Western Riverside County, setting aside significant areas of undisturbed
land for the conservation of sensitive habitat while preserving open space and recreational
opportunities; and
WHEREAS, the MSHCP boundaries ("MSHCP Plan Area") encompass approximately 1,966
square miles, consisting of approximately 1.26 million acres and include approximately 843,500
acres of unincorporated Western Riverside County land west of the crest of the San Jacinto
Mountains and extending to the Orange County line, as well as approximately 372,700 acres within
the jurisdictional areas of the following 14 incorporated cities: Banning, Beaumont, Calimesa,
Canyon Lake, Corona, Hemet, Lake Elsinore, Moreno Valley, Temecula, Norco, Perris. Riverside,
San Jacinto, and Temecula (collectively, "Cities"); and
WHEREAS, the MSHCP establishes a framework for compliance with State and Federal
endangered species regulations while accommodating future growth in Western Riverside County,
including issuance of "Take" permits for certain species pursuant to Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the
federal Endangered Species Act and Section 2800, m §!!g. of the California Fish and Game Code;
and
WHEREAS, the County of Riverside ("County"), is the lead agency pursuant to the Califomia
Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") (Public Res. Code, § 21000 et seq.) and the State CEQA
Guidelines (14 CCR § 15000 et seq.); and
WHEREAS, the County determined that a joint Environmental Impact Report! Environmental
Impact Statement ("EIRlEIS") should be prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality
Act ("CEQA") and the National Environmental Quality Act ("NEPA") in order to analyze all potential
adverse environmental impacts of the Project; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of the County of Riverside, at its regularly scheduled
public meeting on June 17,2003 reviewed and considered the Initial Study, Draft EIRIEIS, Final
EIRIEIS and other related documents in the record before it and by Resolution No. 2003-299,
certified the Final EIRIEIS and adopted environmental findings and a Statement of Overriding
Considerations; and
R:/Resos 2003/Resos 03-184
I
I
I
WHEREAS, pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines sections 15091 and 15096, sub.(h) and
CEQA, the City of Temecula ("City") is a responsible agency for the Project and must therefore
make certain findings prior to the approval of the MSHCP; and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City, at its regularly scheduled public meeting on
December 16, 2003 reviewed and considered the Final EIRIEIS and other related documents in the
record before it; and
WHEREAS, all the procedures of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines have been met,
and the Final EIRIEIS, prepared in connection with the Project, is sufficiently detailed so that all the
potentially significant effects of the Project on the environment and measures necessary to avoid or
substantially lessen such effects have been evaluated in accordance with the above-referenced Act,
Guidelines and Rules; and
WHEREAS, as contained herein, the City has endeavored in good faith to set forth the basis
for its decision on the Project; and
WHEREAS, all of the findings and conclusions made by the City Council pursuant to this
Resolution are based upon the oral and written evidence presented to it as a whole and not based
solely on the information provided in this Resolution; and
WHEREAS, prior to taking action, the City Council has heard, been presented with, reviewed
and considered all of the information and data in the administrative record, including the Draft
EIRIEIS, Final EIRIEIS and other documentation relating to the Project, and all oral and written
evidence presented to it during all meetings and hearings; and
WHEREAS, all other legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
TEMECULA AS FOLLOWS:
A. The Final EIRIEIS prepared for the MSHCP has been received by the City
Council and incorporated herein by this reference.
B.
The City Council hereby finds and determines that the Final EIRIEIS has
been completed in compliance with CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines
and, and as the decision-making body for the City of Temecula, the City
Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in the Final
EIRIEIS and related documents in the record and all of the environmental
effects of the MSHCP.
C.
The City Council concurs with the environmental findings in County
Resolution No. 2003-299 and adopts these findings, attached hereto as
Exhibit B and incorporated herein by this reference. The City Council also
finds that there are no additional feasible mitigation measures or alternatives
within its powers that would substantially lessen or avoid any significant
effects that the MSHCP would have on the environment.
D.
The City Council concurs with the statement of overriding considerations in
County Resolution No. 2003-299 and adopts the statement, and finding that
the benefits of the MSHCP outweigh the adverse environmental impacts not
R:/Resos 2003/Resos 03-184
I
reduced to below a level of significance.
E.
The City Council hereby approves the MSHCP and authorizes the Mayor to
execute the Implementing Agreement.
F.
The City Council hereby authorizes and directs that a Notice of
Determination shall be filed with the Clerk of the County of Riverside within
five (5) working days of approval of the Project.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED, by the City Council of thè City of Temecula this
16th day of December, 2003.
.
<
"-
'"
I
. Stone, Mayor
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE
CITY OF TEMECULA
)
) ss
)
I, Susan W. Jones, CMC, City Clerk of the CityofTemecula, Califomia, do hereby certify that
Resolution No. 03-184 was duly and regularly adopted by the City Council of the City ofTemecula at
a regular meeting thereof held on the 16th day of December, 2003, by the following vote:
AYES: 4
NOES: 0
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN: 0
I
R:/Resos 2003/Resos 03-184
COUNCILMEMBERS: Comerchero, Naggar, Roberts, Washington
COUNCILMEMBERS: None
COUNCILMEMBERS: Stone
COUNCILMEMBERS: None
I
I
19
20
,~
~1.2:
...J <->
i~ = 5
';2: =
I::> C'-.J
:0 <N
¡~ .-f' 6
~215 ¿" 7
Z '"") ~
28
Exhibit B
ATTACHMENT D
Board of Supervisors
County of Riverside
2
3
RESOLUTION NO. 2003-299
CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT FOR THE MULTIPLE SPECIES HABITAT
CONSERV A nON PLAN AND APPROVING THE WESTERN
RIVERSIDE COUNTY MULTIPLE SPECIES HABITAT
CONSERVATION PLAN AND IMPLEMENTING
AGREEMENT
4
5
6
7
8
WHEREAS, the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (the
"MSHCP" or "ProjeCt") is a multi-jurisdictional habitat conservation plan focusing on the
9
10
11
conservation of both sensitive species and their associated habitats to address biological and
ecological diversity and conservation needs in Western Riverside County, setting aside significant
12
areas of undisturbed land for the conservation of sensitive habitat while preserving open space and
13
14
recreational opportunities; and
15
16
WHEREAS, the MSHCP boundaries ("MSHCP Plan Area") encompass approximately
1,966 square miles, consisting of approximately 1.26 million acres and include approximately
17
18
843,500 acres of unincorporated Western Riverside County land West of the crest of the San Jacinto
Mountains and extending to the Orange County line, as well as approximately 3 72, 7ÒO acres witJùn
the jurisdictional areas of the following 14 incorporated cities: Banning, Beaumont, Calimesa,
Canyon Lake, Corona, Hemet, Lake Elsinore, Moreno Valley, Murrieta, Norco, Perris, Riverside,
San Jacinto, and Temecula (collectively, "Cities"); and
WHEREAS, the MSHCP establishes a framework for compliance with State and Federal
endangered species regulations while accommodating future growth in Western Riverside County,
including issuance of "Take" permits for certain species pursuant to Section JO(a)(1)(B) of the
federal Endangered Species Act and Section 2800, ~~. of the California Fish and Game Code;
and
WHEREAS, the County of Riverside ("County"), is the lead agency pursuant to the
RVPUB\MKS\ 652 370
{oj 11/03
15.!L
I
I
I
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
3
California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") (Public Res. Code, § 21000 et seq.), the State
CEQA Guidelines (14 CCR § 15000 et seq.) and the County of Riverside's Local Rules for
implementing CEQA; and
4
5
WHEREAS, the County determined that a joint Environmental Impact Report!
Environmental Impact Statement ("EIRÆIS") should be prepared pursuant to CEQA and the
6
7
National Environmental Quality Act ("NEP A")
in order to analyze all potenfial adverse
8
9
environmental impacts of the Project; and
10
11
WHEREAS, the County published a Notice of Preparation ("NOP") of a draft EIRÆIS on
September 7, 2001, in The Press Enterprise and La Prensa. The NOP was also distributed by the
12
County and mailed to 149 recipients and was circulated for a period of30 days, pursuant to State
13
CEQA Guidelines sections l5082(a), 15103 and 15375; and
14
15
16
WHEREAS, pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines section 15082, the County solicited
comments from potential responsible agencies, including details about the scope and content ofthe
environmental information related to the responsible agency's area of st'atutory responsibility, as well
17
18
as the significant environmental issues, reasonable alternatives and mitigation measures that the
19
responsible agency would have analyzed in the Draft EIRÆIS; and.
20
21
WHEREAS, approximately 29 written comments were received by the County in response
to the NOP, which assisted the County in narrowing the issues and alternatives for analysis in the
Draft EJR/EIS; and
WHEREAS, the Draft EIRÆIS was completed and released for public review on or about
November 14, 2002; and
RVPU8\MKS\6S2370
2
I
I
I
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors held public hearings to consider comments on the
2
. MSHCP and the Draft EIRJEIS on May 5,6 and 8,2003; and
3
4
5
WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of the County of Riverside, at its regularly scheduled
public meeting on June 17,2003 reviewed the Initial Study, Draft EIRJEIS and the Final EIRJEIS
6
7
and other related documents in the record before it; and
8
9
WHEREAS, as "Contained herein, the County, as lead agency, has endeavored in good faith
to set forth the basis for its decision on the Project; and
10
11
12
WHEREAS, all of the findings and conclusions made by the County pursuant to this
Resolution are based upon the oral and written evidence presented to it as a whole and not based
I3
14
solely on the information provided in this Resolution; and
15
16
WHEREAS, no comments made in the public hearings conducted by the County or any
additional information submitted have produced substantial new information requiring recirculation
17
or additional environmental review under State CEQA Guidelines section 15088.5; and
18
19
WHEREAS, all the procedures of CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines and the Riverside
County Rules to Implement the Act have been met, and the Final EIRJEIS, prepared in connection
with the Project, is sufficiently detailed so that all the potentially significant effects of the Project on
the environment and measures necessary to avoid or substantially lessen such effects have been
evaluated in accordance with the above-referenced Act, Guidelines and Rules; now, therefore,
BE IT RESOLVED, FOUND, DETERMINED, AND ORDERED by the Board of
Supervisors of the County of Riverside, in regular session assembled on June 17, 2003, that:
RVPUB\MKS\652370
3
A. Certain plant and animal species and habitat exist, or may exist, within Western
2 Riverside County, which are: 1) state or federally listed as threatened or endangered;
I 3 2) proposed for listing as threatened or endangered; or 3) identified as a Dalifornia
4 Department ofFish and Game ("CDFG") Species of Special Concern, a California
5 Fully Protected Species, a California Specially Protected Species, a sensitive plant
6 species as determined by the California Native Plant Society, or other unlisted
7 wildlife considered sensitive within the MSHCP Plan Area.
8
9 B. Future -growth and land development within the MSHCP Plan Area, including both
10 public and private projects, may result in the "taking" of 146 species ("Covered
11 Species"), thus requiring Take Authorization prior to the carrying out of otherwise
12 lawful activities-
13
14 C. The MSHCP establishes the conditions under which the County and Cities
I 15 ("Permittees") will receive certain long-term Take Authorizations and other
16 assurances that will allow the taking of Covered Species incidental to lawful uses
17 authorized by the Permittees; and
18
19 D. The MSHCP provides for the assembly and management of a reserve for the
20 conservation of natural habitat and their constituent wildlife populations, and
21 establishes an overall conservation strategy for Western Riverside County that will
22 guarantee the protection of the Covered Species. The conservation strategy includes
23 the conservation of the Covered Species, existing habitat, the restoration of degraded
24 habitat, managing a reserve system, and conducting biological monitoring in
25 perpetuity.
26
I 27 E. The MSHCP provides for the creation of a reserve that conserv.es and manages
28 approximately 500,000 acres of habitat comprised of 347,000 acres of existing
RVPUS\MKS\652370 4
I
I
I
26
27
28
2
3
reserves and 153,000 ad'ditional acres ("MSHCP Conservation Area"). The 153,000
acres consist of97,000 acres conserved as the local mitigation component and 6,000
4
acres conserved as mitigation for State Permittee projects. Of the 97,000 acres
conserved as the local mitigation component, 41,000 acres would be accrued
5
6
through the implementation of developer incentives and on-site set-asides
accomplished through the development review process.
7
8
F.
The MSHCP will serve as an Habitat Conservation Plan ("HCP") pursuant to
Section 1 O(a)(1 )(B) of the Federal Endangered Species Act of 1973 ("FESA"), as
9
10
well as a Natural Community Conservation Plan ("NCCP") pursuant to the NCCP
Act of 2001, as amended. The approval of the MSHCP and execution of the
11
12
13
Implementing Agreement ("IA") would allow the Wildlife Agencies (United States
Fish and Wildlife Service ["USFWS"] and CDFG) to issue Take authorizations for
14
Covered Species in the MSHCP Plan Area to the signatories of the IA.
15
16
17
G.
The MSHCP will mitigate impacts to biological resources that wilI result ITom future
development. The MSHCP will not directly cause those impacts, but provides Take
18
19
Authorization for listed species through the Wildlife Agencies and would conserve
Covered Species. The MSHCP is "self-mitigating," meaning that most Project
20
21
impacts are reduced to below a level of significance as a result of implementation of
MSHCP components.
AdditionalIy, implementation of the management and
22
23
monitoring programs outlined in the MSCHP would reduce all the potential
impacts/consequences of the MSHCP to a less than significant level.
24
25
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors that the Final EIRJEIS and
the evidence in the administrative record before it confirmed that implementation of the MSHCP
would result in no significant environmental effects related to the folIowing issue areas: Aesthetics,
Air Quality, Cultural Resources, Geology and Soils, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, Hydrology
RVOUB\MK5\652370
5
I
I
I
and Water Quality, Land use (community division and HCP conflicts only), Noise, Public Services
(with the exception of fire protection and parks), Utilities, and Environmental Justice.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RVPUB\MKS\ 652 370
A.
Aesthetics
While the primary goal of the MSHCP is the protection and preservation of natural
habitats, the MSHCP would have a secondary benefit of preserving visual resources
and scenic vistas. (EIRÆIS, p. 1.5-5.) Implementation of the MSHCP would
reserve large areas of open space for habitat, habitat linkages, and hillside areas,
enhancing the overall aesthetic value of the region. (Ibid.) Because the MSHCP
does not entail physical development, implementation of the MSHCP would not
create additional sources oflight or glare. (Ibid.) Accordingly, impacts on aesthetics
are less than significant.
B.
Air Quality
The MSHCP Plan Area is located witJùn the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB).
Because there is no physical development associated with the MSHCP, its
implementation would not result in direct air quality impacts. (EIRÆIS, p. 1.5-6.)
Development outside of the MSHCP Conservation Area may be higher density
development along designated transportation corridors throughout Western
Riverside County and may indirectly result in localized air quality impacts through
the generation of carbon monoxide "hot spots" in areas of high traffic congestion.
(Ibid.) Accordingly, the MSHCP could have potential indirect air quality impacts.
However, due to the number of acres involved, the flexible nature of the MSHCP
Conservation Area's boundaries, and changing market conditions, it is speculative
to predict where future development will occur. (Ibid.) Future development
proposals must undergo environmental review and their potential air quality impacts
will be identified, analyzed and mitigated, as appropriate. (Ibid.) Thus, the impacts
ffom the MSHCP to air quality are less than significant.
6
I
I
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1l
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RVPU6\MK5\652370
c.
Cultural Resources
The MSHCP does not propose or authorize any physical development, so its
implementation will not result in any direct impacts to cultural resources. (ErMIS,
p. 1.5-6.) However, the MSHCPhas the potential to indirectly impact cultural
resources within the MSHCP Plan Area, as high density development that may occur
outside of the MSHCP Conservation Area may destroy or disturb cultural resources
in these areas. (Ibid.) Due to the number of acres involved, the flexible nature of the
MSHCP'Conservation Area's boundaries, and changing market conditions, it is
impossible to predict where future development will occur. Proposals for future
development will be subject to environmental review and potential impacts to
cultural resources at future development sites wiiI be determined, analyzed and
mitigated during project specific environmental analyses by the County and Cities in
Western Riverside County. (Ibid.)
There is also the potential that historic human burials may be present in the MSHCP
Plan Area. (EIRIEIS, p. 1.5-7.) Because the MSHCP does not authorize, approve
or contemplate any physical development, it will not have any direct impact on
historic human remains. (Ibid.) However, the MSHCP does accommodate projected
growth by providing Take Authorization for development within the MSHCP Plan
Area. Human burial sites within the MSHCP Conservation Area will be avoided, so
no indirect impacts on human remains within this area will occur. (Ibid.) However,
the MSHCP has the potential to have significant indirect impacts on human resources
within theMSHCP Plan Area outside the MSHCP Conservation Area if development
shifts to those areas. Since the MSHCP Conservation Area's boundaries are not
fixed, the MSHCP encompasses thousands of acres, and development patterns and
timing are largely dependent on market conditions and other factors, it is impossible
to speculate where future development may occur. (Ibid.) Future development
proposals will be subject to environmental review under CEQA and the potential.
7
I
I
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
E.
26
27
28
RVPUB\MKS\ 652370
impacts of specific deveiopment projects on historic human remains will be identified,
analyzed and mitigated when the site-specific projects are proposed. (Ibid.)
Accordingly, there are no significant impacts to cultural resources from the MSHCP.
D.
Geology and Soils
Because the adoption of the MSHCP does not include the development of physical
structures or facilities, it would not increase the potential for geologic/soil stability
h32ards.' (EIRÆIS, p. 1.5-7.) An indirect effect of the MSHCP could be an
increase in development pressure outside the boundaries of the MSHCP
Conservation Area, which may result in a change of density, form, and character of
development. (Ibid.) Such increased development pressure could result in increased
development on or near properties that exhibit sensitive or unstable geologic
conditions, or on soils subject to erosion or otherwise unsuitable for development.
(Ibid.) However, because the boundaries are not fixed, the MSHCP encompasses
thousands of acres, and development patterns and timing are largely dependent on
market conditions and other factors, it is impossible to speculate where future
development may occur. (Ibid.) Future development within Western Riverside
County will require environmental analyses in compliance with CEQA. Potential
impacts arising fÌ'om the unique geologic, seismic, or soil conditions at future
development sites would be dètermined, analyzed, and mitigated during project-
specific environmental analyses. (Ibid.) Accordingly, there are no significant
impacts to geology or soils fÌ'om the MSHCP.
H32ards and H32ardous Materials
The MSHCP does not alter methods utilized to generate, use, store, transport, or
dispose of h32ardous materials; change the locations of h32ardous materials sites;
change the locations where hazardous materials are generated, Ilsed, stored, or
disposed; or modifY, impair or interfere with the establishment or execution of
8
I
I
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Il
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RVOU8\MKS\652370
emergency response/evacuation plans. (ElRIEIS, p. 1.5-7.) While the MSHCP may
increase development density outside the MSHCP Conservation Area, the MSHCP
does not change the amount of growth that is anticipated to occur in Western
Riverside County. (ElRIEIS, p. 1.5-7.) Therefore, the MSHCP would not have
significant direct impacts related to hazards or hazardous materials.
The MSHCP has the potential for causing indirect impacts on hazards/hazardous
materials. (ElRIEIS, p. 1.5-8.) Since development in the MSHCPConservation
Area wiJI be precluded, the MSHCP could increase the density of development
outside of the MSHCP Conservation Area, which may increase development
pressures in the vicinity of local airports. However, it is impossible to speculate
where growth wiJI occur and whether it will occur in close proximity to airports
located within the MSHCP Plan Area. (Ibid.) Potential impacts associated with
hazardous materials and other hazards resulting from future development will be
determined during project-specific environmental analyses for those individual
projects, in compliance with CEQA. (Ibid.) Accordingly, there are no significant
impacts to hazards or hazardous materials ITom the MSHCP.
F.
Hydrology and Water Quality
The MSHCP does not alter the rate or amount of growth projected for Western
Riverside County, nor does it propose or authorize any physical construction.
(ElRIEIS, p. 1.5-8.) Since there will be no change between conditions as they
currently exist and how they wiJI exist under the MSHCP, the MSHCP will not
violate any water quality or waste discharge standards, reduce groundwater supplies,
alter existing drainage patterns, or cause any other direct impact on hydrology or
water quality. (Ibid.) Rather, the MSHCP wiJI substantially reduce the types of
activities that would increase urban runoff or result in erosion Of sedimentation.
Because implementation ofthe MSHCP would preclude development in the MSHCP
9
I
I
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RVOU8\MK5\652370
Conservation Area, the MSHCP's direct impact on water quality will likely be
beneficial. (Ibid.)
Development outside of the MSHCP Conservation Area could result in adverse
water quality impacts. (EIRÆIS, p. 1.5-8.) Land-clearing activities associated with
development increase erosion and sedimentation; runoff !ì-om developed uses
generally increase the amount of debris, dirt, grease, and petroleum products, and
pathogens in storm runoff. Because the MSHCP does not alter the amount of
development, cumulative discharges to watersheds within Western Riverside County
would be the same. (Ibid.) However, by shifting development patterns, the MSHCP
might cause indirect water quality impacts by changing the location of discharges,
which might ultimately affect overall water quality. Whether this occurs depends on
the location of future development, which would be too speculative to predict at this
time. (Ibid.) In compliance with CEQA, potential hydrology and water quality
impacts resulting from future development will be analyzed during project-specific
environmental analyses for those projects as they arise. (Ibid.) Accordingly, there
are no significant impacts to hydrology and water quality from the MSHCP.
G.
Land Use (Community Division, HCP Conflicts only)
The MSHCP does not propose or authorize any physical development. The MSHCP
Conservation Area will be assembled from undeveloped lands. (EIR/EIS, p. 1.5-9.)
Therefore, implementation of the MSHCP will not directly or indirectly result in the
division of an established community. (Ibid.) The MSHCP will not have any
significant direct or indirect impacts on adopted Habitat Conservation Plans
("HCPs") or Natural Community Conservation Plans ("NCCPs"). Rather, the
MSHCP is specifically designed to augment and complement existing HCPs and
NCCPs throughout Western Riverside County. (Ibid.) Additionally, the MSHCP
will not cause adverse cumulative impacts by conflicting with the provisions of any
10
I
I
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
I.
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RVOUB\MKS\652370
adopted HCP, NCCP or other approved local, regional, or State habitat conservation
plan either within or outside ofthe MSHCP Plan area. Rather, the MSHCP has been
written specifically to complement existing HCPs, such as the Stephens' kangaroo
rat long-term HCP. (EIRÆIS, p. 5.1-7.)
H.
Noise
Because implementation of the MSHCP will not result in development, no direct
noise impacts will occur. (EIRÆIS, p. 1.5-9.) Indirect noise impacts may occur
due to' increased development pressure and changes to the density, form, and
character of development outside the MSHCP Conservation Area. (Ibid.) Because
less land would have to accommodate more people, the intensification ofland use
could result in the siting of high-volume noise activities in closer proximity to
sensitive receptors. However, it is impossible to speculate where future development
might occur. (Ibid.) Potential noise resulting &om future development in Western
Riverside County will be determined during future project-specific environmental
analyses, in compliance with CEQA. (Ibid.) Accordingly, there are no significant
impacts to noise from the MSHCP.
Public Services (Police, Schools, Libraries, Others)
The MSHCP does not authorize or contemplate any construction, nor does it result
in the loss of existing facilities. Therefore, the MSHCP will not have any significant
direct impacts on public services. (EIRÆIS, p. 1.5-9.) Regarding indirect impacts,
the MSHCP may accommodate growth in areas outside of the MSHCP Conservation
Area and growth in these areas will result in an increased demand for police
protection, schools, and libraries, and facilities would likely be constructed in
accordance with the relevant General Plans for the County and Cities. (Ibid) It is
impossible to speculate where and when future development might occur, and, as a
result, the locations where demand for public services might be increased, and the
11
I
I
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RVPUB\HJ<S\652370
location of future facilities,cannot be determined. (Ibid.) Potential public services
impacts resulting ITom future development in Western Riverside County will be
determined during future project-specific environmental analyses, in compliance with
CEQA. (Ibid.) Accordingly, there are no significant impacts to pubJic services from
the MSHCP.
J.
Utilities
The MSHCP does not authorize or contemplate any physical development, so it will
not require the use, construction, or expansion of water facilities, wastewater
treatment facilities, storm drainage facilities, or landfill capacity. Therefore, no direct
impact on utilities would result from implementation of the MSHCP. (EIRÆIS, p.
1.5-9.) Because the MSHCP could increase pressure to develop areas outside of the
MSHCP Conservation Area and may encourage more dense or compact
development, implementation of the MSHCP could necessitate the shift of utility
facilities to areas outside ofMSHCP Conservation Area. (Ibid.) However, it is
impossible to speculate at this time where future development might occur. (Ibid.)
Potential impacts to utility facilities and service systems resulting from future
development will be determined during preparation of project-specific environmental
analyses, in compliance with CEQA. (Ibid.) Accordingly, there are no significant
impacts to utilities ITom the MSHCP.
K.
Environmental Justice
Environmental Justice issues were considered in the proposed MSHCP process.
(EIRÆIS, p. 1.5-10.) On October 20, 1998, the Riverside County Board of
Supervisors reviewed consensus "planning principles" submitted by the coalition of
interest groups, and endorsed their use as initial guidelines in the early stages of
developing the Riverside County Integrated Plan ("RCIP"). (Ibid.) Environmental
Justice issues were integrated with principles such as acknowledging the rights of
12
I
I
I
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
private property owners and offering just compensation according to federaJ and
2
State laws regarding private property reserved for public purposes.
(Ibid.)
3
Significant impacts will result only if implementation of the MSHCP produced
4
disproportionate significant adverse environmental or human health impacts to low-
income or minority population communities. (EIRÆIS, p. 1.5-11:> Because the
5
6
MSHCP will not directly result in any physical change to the environment, there
7
8
could be no disproportionate significant adverse impacts to minority or low-income
communities and thus no mitigation is required. (Ibid.)
9
10
II
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors that the following
environmental impacts associated with the MSHCP are potentially significant unless otherwise
indicated, but each of these impacts will be avoided or substantially lessened by the incorporated
12
13
project features:
14
15
A.
BiologicaJ Resources (Sensitive Vegetation Communities, except Native Grasslands)
16
17
1.
Impacts:
The focus of the analysis for the MSHCP is on the conservation requirements
18
19
of Covered Species, which includes the conservation of suitable habitat
vegetation types for each species. For purposes of analysis, vegetation types
are grouped into four primary communities: sensitive upland, wetland, forest,
and agriculture. (EIRÆIS, p. 4.1-12.) The MSHCP identifies species-
specific requirements for the conservation of vegetation communities that
will achieve the overall biological goaJ and species-specific objectives for
Covered Species. This species-specific approach is more appropriate for
determining impacts than targeting an arbitrary percentage for conservation
of particular Vegetation Communities. The analysis for conservation of each
vegetation community identifies representativeness of. the vegetation
community conserved, configuration ofthevegetation community conserved,
RVPUB\HKS\ 652 370
13
I
I
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RVOUB\MKS\6S2370
and .consideration of those factors with respect to species-specific
conservation requirements. (Responses G-15, G-16 and G-i7.)
For sensitive upland communities within the MSHCP Plan Area,
implementation of the MSHCP will authorize Take of 37 percent of
chaparral, 48 percent of coastal sage scrub, 66 percent of desert scrub, 72
percent of grassland (including both native and non-native grassland), and 34
percent of Riverside an alluvial fan sage scrub. (EIRÆIS, Table 4A.) For
'wetland communities within the MSHCP Plan Area, the MSHCP wiJl
authorize Take of76 percent of meadows and marshes, 15 percent ofplayas
and vernal pools, 15 percent of water, and 26 percent of riparian
scrub/woodland/forest. For forest communities wit1ún the MSHCP Plan
Area, the MSHCP wiJl authorize Take of3l percent of montane coniferous
forest, and 32 percent of woodlands and forests. (EIRÆIS, p. 4.1-12.)
Additionally, the MSHCP wiJl not cause adverse cumulative effects related
to the reduction of sensitive vegetation communities within the MSHCP Plan
Area; rather, the MSHCP is designed to preserve sufficient acreage of the
sensitive vegetation communities present in Western Riverside County.
(EIRÆIS, p. 5.1-7.)
2.
Features of the MSHCP that will reduce project impacts:
The MSHCP's components will minimize to the extent feasible potential
impacts to sensitive vegetation communities. (EIRÆIS, p. 4.1-13.) These
include assembly of an approximately 500,000-acre MSHCP Conservation
Area encompassing Conserved Habitat. (Ibid.) Conserved Habitat is land
that is permanently protected, in part by legal arrangements that prevent its
conversion to other uses. (Ibid.) The acreages of vegetation communities
14
I
I
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RVPUB\MKS\652370
not authorized for Take will be included as Conserved Habitat within the
MSHCP Conservation Area. (Ibid.)
Since the MSHCP will authorize the Take of 31 percent and 32 percent of
montane coniferous forest and woodlands and forests, respectively, the'
majority of the forest communities will be included as Conserved Habitat
within the MSHCP Conservation Area. (Ibid.) Thus, the MSHCP will not
result in a substantial reduction of these communities, and impacts are
- considered to be less than significant. (Ibid.) For the sensitive upland
communities, inclusion of 63 percent of the chaparral within the MSHCP
Conservation Area will not result in a substantial reduction of these
communities because of the large percentage of this vegetation community
that will be included as Conserved Habitat under the MSHCP, the extensive
acreage and wide distribution of this vegetation community throughout the
MSHCP Plan Area, and the relatively low numbers ofJisted species within
the MSHCP Plan Area preferring this vegetation community. (EIR/EIS, p.
4.1-14.)
For coastal sage scrub and Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub 52 percent and
66 percent of these vegetation communities, respectively, will be included as
Conserved Habitat. (EIR/EIS, p. 4.1-14.) Impacts to coastal sage scrub
and Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub due to the patchy distribution ofthese
vegetation communities in the MSHCP Plan Area and the relatively large
numbers of sensitive species occurring in these vegetation communities, will
be reduced to a less than significant level by features incorporated into the
MSHCP, including the configuration of conserved lands, as well as adaptive
management and monitoring policies which will ensure tþat the MSHCP
achieves the biological goal for each coastal sage scrub Covered Species.
15
I
I
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RVPUB\MKS\652370
(EIR/EIS, p. 4: 1-14; Response G-17.) The MSHCP could reduce desert
scrub by 66 percent; however, features incorporated into the MSHCP,
including the configuration of conserved lands, as well as adaptive
management and monitoring, will reduce impacts to desert scrub to a Jess
than significant level. (EIR/EIS, p. 4.1-14.)
The Project and its associated Take Authorization could result in impacts to
88 percent ofthe agricultural vegetation community. However, agriculture
. is not a sensitive natural vegetation community. Thus, impacts to agriculture
are not regarded as biologically significant. (EIR/EIS, p. 4.1- ]4.) Moreover,
flexibility is incorporated in the Criteria Area and the Reserve AssembJy
process to take advantage of opportunities to provide for additional
vegetation community Conservation as the MSHCP is implemented. (Ibid.)
The MSHCP also requires additional mapping of riparian, riverine, vernal
pools, and other potentially jurisdictional wetland areas as part of the CEQA
review of applications for Covered Activities within the MSHCP Plan Area.
(Ibid.) This MSHCP policy calls for avoidance and minimization of impacts
to wetland habitat throughout the MSHCP Plan Area in accordance with
existing regulatory standards that call for conservation and mitigation of
wetland functions and values. (Ibid.) Together, inclusion of substantial
acreages of wetland vegetation communities within the MSHCP
Conservation Area, and implementation of the RiparianlRiverineIV ernal Pool
policy incorporated in the MSHCP, will reduce identified impacts to wetland
vegetation communities to a level below significance. (Ibid.)
Based on features of the MSHCP itself, implementation of the MSHCP will
not have a substantial adverse impact on any wetland or other sensitive
16
I
I
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
B.
11
12
I3
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RVPUB\MKS\ 652 370
natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, or
regulations or by the Wildlife Agencies and no mitigation measures are
required. (Ibid.)
Since the MSHCP will not cause any adverse cumulative effects related to
the reduction of sensitive vegetation communities, no mitigation measures
are required. (EIRJEIS;p. 5.1-7.)
Biological Resources (Listed Covered Species only)
I.
Impacts:
The MSHCP provides Take Authorization for Covered Species resulting
from development outside of the Criteria Area, as well as those Covered
Actiì'ities that are consistent with the Criteria and permitted inside the
Criteria Area. (EIRJEIS, p. 4.1-15.) In addition, Take Authorization is also
provided for certain activities within the Criteria Area and within existing
publidquasi-public lands, including maintenance and minor improvements to
existing roads, improvements related to planned roads, and limited future
facilities, such as electrical,. gas, water, sewer, flood control, and State Park
facilities. The MSHCP includes specific criteria for locating such facilities
and provides guidelines for design of the facilities that will avoid or reduce
impacts to Covered Species. (Ibid.)
As a result of issuance of the Permits, the 146 Covered Species identified in
the MSHCP could be legally taken QY Permittees outside of the MSHCP
Conservation Area. Nineteen of the 83 covered wildlife species and 13 of the
63 covered plant species are listed under FESA or the California Endangered
Species Act ("CESA"). (EIRJEIS, p. 4.1-15.) These 19 wildlife species and
13 plant species will be directly affected by the MSHCP because they will no
17
I
I
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RVPUe\MKS\ 652 370
longer receive protection outside of the MSHCP Conservation Area. (Ibid.)
The impacts to the 32 Listed Covered Species are quantified based on the
best existing information available for known occurrences and potential
suitable habitat for each Listed Covered Species. (EIRÆIS, Table 4B). The
impacts for each species are as follows:
Vernal pool fairy shrimp-Branchinecta lynchi No known localities will
be within the area subject to Take. Approximately 4,016 acres (60%) of
. suitable habitat including playas and vernal pools will be within the area
subject to Take. (EIRÆIS,p- 4.1-15.)
Riverside fairy shrimp - Streptocephalus woottoni. Individuals occurring
outside of the MSHCP Conservation Area will be within the area subject to
Take. Approximately 5,868 acres (33%) of suitable habitat including playas
and vernal pools will be within the area subject to Take. (ElRÆIS, p. 4.1-
16.)
Quino checkerspot butterfly - Euphydryas editha quino. Approximately
41,668 acres (38%) of suitable habitat including chaparral, coastal sage
scrub, grasslands, playas and vernal pools, and woodlands and forests will be
within the area subject to Take- (EIRÆIS, p. 4.1-16.)
Delhi Sands flower-loving fly - Rhaphiomidas terminatus abdominoUs.
Individuals occurring outside of the MSHCP Conservation Area will be
within the area subject to Take. Approximately 452 acres (90%) of suitable
habitat including coastal sage scrub, Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub, and
grasslands co-occurring with Delhi soils will be within the area subject to
Take. Approximately 791 acres (82%) of restorable habitat including
18
I
I
I
agricultural lands occurring with Delhi soilswill be within the area subject to
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RVOUB\MKS\6S2370
Take. (EIR/EIS, p. 4.1-16.)
Santa Ana sucker - Catastomus santaanae. None of the core population
areas, spawning areas, dispersal, or refuge areas will be within the area
subject to Take. Approximately 540 acres (6%) of suitable habitat that
includes water habitat will be within the area subject to Take. (EIR/EIS, p.
4: 1-17.)
Arroyo toad - Bufo ca/ifornicus, Individuals occurring outside of the
MSHCP Conservation Area will be within the area subject to Take.
Approximately 296 acres (16%) of suitable breeding habitat including
meadows and marshes, riparian scrub, woodland and forest, and Riversidean
alluvial fan sage scrub will be within the area subject to Take. Approximately
2,320 acres (25%) of suitable upland habitat including agricultural lands,
chaparral, coastal sage scrub, grasslands, and woodlands and forests will be
within the area subject to Take. (EIR/EIS, p. 4.1-18.)
California red-legged frog - Rana aurora draytonii. Approximately 47
acres (6%) of suitable habitat including playas"and vernal pools riparian
scrub, Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub, and open water will be within the
area subject to Take. Approximately 9,370 acres (19%) of suitable upland
habitat including agricultural lands, chaparral, coastal sage scrub, grasslands,
and woodlands and forests will be within the area subject to Take. (EIR/EIS,
p. 41-18.)
mountain yellow-legged . frog - Rana mucosa. Individuals occurring
outside the MSHCP Conservation Area will be within the area subject to
19
I
I
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
I1
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RVOUS\MKS\ 652370
Take. ApproxÍInately 140 acres (29%) of primary habitat including riparian
scrub and woodlands and forests occurring above 1,200 feet in the San
Jacinto Mountains will be within the area subject to Take. Approximately
11,460 acres (26%) of secondary habitats including montane coniferous
forests and woodlands and forests occurring above 1,200 feet in the San
Jacinto Mountains will be within the area subject to Take.(EIR/EIS, p. 4.1-
18.)
- Southern rubber boa - Charina bottae umbratica. Incidental Take ofthe
southern rubber boa is difficult to quantifY due to limited knowledge of the
species distribution within the MSHCP 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 habitat for this species. Approximately
155 acres (5%) of primary habitat, including chaparral, grassland, montane
coniferous forest, riparian scrub, woodland and forest, and non-riparian
woodland and forest, will be within the area subject to Take. (EIR/EIS, p.
4.1-18.)
Swainson's hawk - Buteo swainsoni. Localities at Winchester will be
witJùn the area subject to Take. Approximately 257,220 acres (57%) of
suitable habitat including agriculture field crop lands, grassland,. desert scrub,
Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub, coastal sage scrub, and woodland and
forest within the Riverside Lowlands and San Jacinto Foothills bioregions
will be within the area subject to Take. (EIR/EIS, p. 4.1-19.)
mountain plover (wintering) - Charadrius montanus. Localities that will
be affected include Winchester and Double Butte. Approximately 1,160
20
I
I
I
2
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RVPUB\MKS\6S2370
acres (15%) of suitable habitat including playas and vernal pools witJùn the
Riverside Lowlands will be within the area subject to Take. (EIRÆIS, p.
41-19.)
western yellow-billed cuckoo - Coccyzus american us occidentalis.
Individuals occurring outside of the MSHCP Conservation Area will be
within the area subject to Take. Approximately 2,580 acres (22%) of
suitable habitat including southern cottonwood/willow riparian, southern
. sycamore/alder riparian, riparian scrub, riparian forest, and southern willow
scrub within the Riverside Lowlands and San Jacinto Foothills bioregions will
be within the area subject to Take. (EIRÆIS, p. 4.1-20.)
southwestern willow flycatcher - Empidonax traillii ex1Ìmus, A total of
5 of 17 localities will be within the area subject to Take Authorization;
however, the localities are located outside suitable habitat areas within
existing residentiaVurbanlexotic areas, non-native grassland, or open water.
Approximately 3,220 acres (23 %) of suitable habitat including riparian scrub,
excluding tamarisk scrub and mule fat scrub, will be affected throughout the
MSHCP Plan Area. (EIRÆIS, p. 4.1-20.)
Peregrine falcon - Falco peregrinus. Individuals occurring outside of the
MSHCP Conservation Area will be within the area subject to Take.
However, no impacts to raptor nests will occur. Approximately 2,140 acres
(12%) of suitable habitat including open water and riparian habitat within the
Prado Basin and Santa Ana River will be within the area subject to Take.
(EIRÆIS, p. 4.1-21.)
Bald eagle - Haliaeetus leucocephalus. Two localities at Lake Riverside
21
I
I
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RVOUB\MKS\652370
and Lake Hemèt will be within the area subject to Take. Approximately
2,140 acres (] 2%) of suitable habitat including riparian habitat in the Prado
Basin/Santa Ana River and open water habitat will be within the area subject
to Take. (EIRÆIS, p. 4.1-21.)
Coastal' California gnatcatcher - Polioptila californica californica.
Localities that will be within the area subject to Take Authorization include
Norco Hills, Alessandro Hills, Quail Valley, and Rancho California east of
"I-15 to De Portola Road. Approximately 63,700 acres (45%) of suitable
habitat including desert scrub, Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub, and coastal
sage scrub will be within the area subject to Take.(EIRÆIS, p. 4.1-22.)
Least Bell's vireo - Vireo bellii pusillus. Localities at Mockingbird Canyon
would be within the area subject to Take. Approximate]y 2, 780 acres (23%)
of suitable habitat including riparian scrub, woodlands and forests within the
Riverside Lowlands and San Jacinto Foothills bioregions would be within the
area subject to Take. (EIRÆIS, p. 4.1-22.)
San Bernardino kangaroo rat - Dipodomys merriami parvus. Individuals
occurring outside of the MSHCP Conservation Area would be within the
area subject to Take. Approximately ],785 acres (32%) of suitable habitat
including coastal sage scrub and Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub would be
within the area subject to Take.(EIRÆIS, p. 4.1-23.)
Stephens' kangaroo rat - Dipodomys stephensi. Localities at March Air
Reserve Base (ARB), east Riverside, Moreno Valley, Woodcrest, Meade
Valley, Ferris, Sun City, Norco Hills, Wildomar, Mepifee, Murrieta,
Temecula, Hemet, San Jacinto, BanninglBeaumont, and Double Butte would
22
I
I
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RVPUB\MKS\652370
be within the area subject to Take. Approximately 11,850 acres (34%) of
suitable habitat including coastal sage scrub, desert scrub, grassland, and
Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub would be within the area subject to Take.
(EIRÆIS, p. 4.1-23.)
Munz's onion -Allium munzii. Two of the 15 known localities located
northeast of Alberhill and on privately-owned land would be within the area
subject to Take. Approximately 15,825 acres (42%) of primary habitat in the
"MSHCP Plan Area, including chaparral, coastal sage scrub, grassland,
peninsular juniper, and woodlands, would be within the area subject to
Take.(ElRÆIS, p. 4.1-24.)
San Diego ambrosia - Ambrosia pumila. One of the three known extant
localities (east of Lake Street in the City of Elsinore) would be within the
area subject to Take. Approximately 52,010 (70%) acres of primary habitat
in the MSHCP Plan Area, including grassland and playas and vernal pools,
would be within the area subject to Take Authorization; however, 8,940
acres of this 52,010 acres would be subject to focused surveys for San Diego
ambrosia (EIRÆIS, p. 4.1-24.)
San Jacinto Valley crownscale - Atriplex coronata var. notatjor. No
known localities would be within the area subject to Take. ApproxiñJately
1,370 acres (17%) of primary habitat, including grassland and playas and
vernal pools, would be within the area subject to Take. (EIRÆIS, p. 4.1-
25.)
Nevin's barberry - Berberis nevjnji. Three of the 52 known localities (in
the City of Riverside, Aguanga, and Temecula) would be within the area
23
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RVPUB\MKS\652370
I
I
subject to Take. Approximately 3,990 acres (33%) of primary habitat,
including chaparral and Riversidean alluvial fan sage .scrub, would be within
the area subject to Take. (EIRÆIS, p. 4.1-25.)
Thread-leaved brodiaea - Brodiaeafilifolia.. Nine of the 30 occurrences
would be within the area subject to Take. Approximately 1 ,370 acres (17%)
of primary habitat, including grassland and playas and vernal pools, would be
within the area subject to Take. (EIRÆIS, p. 4.1-26.)
Vail Lake ceanothus- Ceanothus ophiochilus. No known localities would
be within the area subject to Take. Approximately 3,350 acres (20%) of
primary. habitat, including chaparral, would be within the area subject to
Take. (EIR/EIS, p. 4.1-26.)
Mojave tarplant - Deinandra mohavensis (formerly known as
Hemizonia mohavensis). Two of eight occurrences, including along the
Barming Idyllwild Panoramic Highway and within the San Jacinto Mountains
would be within the area subject to Take. Approximately 27,850 acres
(26%) of primary habitat, including chaparral, and riparian scrub, woodland
and forest, would be within the area subject to Take. (EIRÆIS, p. 4.1-27.)
Slender-horned spine flower - Dodecahema leptoceras.
Of the 27
University of California at Riverside ("UCR") database and herbarium
records, 12 of the occurrences at Gavilan Plateau, north of Meadowbrook,
Temescal Canyon, Lake Elsinore, Valle Vista, Agua Tibia Mountains, El
Cariso, and east of State Street south of Hemet would be within the area
subject to Take. Approximately 2,950 acres (26%) of primary habitat,
including chaparral and Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub, would be witJùn
24
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RVPUB\MKS\652370
I
I
the area subject 'to Take. However, approximately 2,290 acres of the within
the area subject toTake. (ElRÆIS, p. 4.1-27.)
Santa Ana Riverwoollystar-Eriastrum densifolium ssp. Sanctorum. No
known localities would be within the area subject to Take. Approximately
910 acres (28%) of primary habitat, including Riversidean alluvial fan sage
scrub, would be within the area subject to Take.(ElRÆIS, p. 4.1-28.)
. San Diego button-celery - Eryngium aristulatum var. parishii. No
known localities would be within the area subject to Take. AJthough no
Take of known occurrences would occur as part of the MSHCP, certain
areas located outside the MSHCP Conservation Area may contain vernal
pool habitat that could support this species. (ElRÆIS, p. 4.1-2g.)
Parish's meadowfoam - Limnanthes gracilis var. parishii. No known
occurrences would be within the area subject to Take. Suitable habitat for
this species is present outside the MSHCP Conservation Area in ephemeral
. wetlands and mima mounds in forest glades and mountain areas. (EIRIEIS,
p. 4.1-28.)
Spreading navarretia - Navarretiafossalis. No known localities would be
witlùn the area subject to Take. Approximately 1,370 acres (17%) of
primary habitat, including playas and vernal pools, would be within the area
subject to Take. (ElRÆIS, p. 4.1-28.)
California Orcutt grass - Orcuttia californica. One offive localities (west
of the Santa Rosa Plateau) would be within the area 1\ubject to Take.
Approximately 1,130 acres (14%) of primary habitat, including playas and
25
I
I
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RVPUB\MKS\652370
vernal pools, wòuld be within the area subject to Take. (EIRÆIS, p. 4.1-
29.)
2.
Features of the MSHCP that will reduce project impacts:
Features have been incorporated in the MSHCP to minimize impacts to
Listed Covered Species to the extent feasible. (EIR/ErS, p. 4.1-29.) These
include assembly of an MSHCP Conservation Area that incorporates
substantial acreages of suitable habitat and known locations in a
. configuration that provides live-in and linkage habitat for a number of
species. (Ibid.) Criteria-based Reserve Assembly would occur in a manner
consistent with Rough Step policies and the Habitat Evaluation and
Acquisition Negotiation Strategy, and other implementation strategies as
described in Section 6.1.1 of the MSHCP.
In addition, the MSHCP includes policies that will provide additional
protection to some Listed Covered Species occurring outside of the MSHCP
Conservation Area. (EIRÆIS, p. 4.1-29.) The narrow endemics plant
species policy and the additional survey needs policy, described in Section
6.1.3 and 6.3.2, respectively, of the MSHCP, require surveys to be
conducted as part of the project review process for public and private
projects where suitable habitat is present. (Ibid.) The following Listed
Covered Species are subject to the narrow endemic plant species policy:
Munz's onion, San Diego ambrosia, San Jacinto Valley crownscale, Nevin's
barberry; thread-leaved brodiaea, vail lake ceanothus, slender-horned spine
flower, spreading navarretia, and California Orcutt grass. (EIRÆIS, p. 4.1-
30.) Additionally, the following Listed Covered Species are subject to the
additional survey needs policy: western yellow-billed cuckoo, least Bell's
26
I
I
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RVPU6\MK5\652370
vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, and San Bernardino kangaroo rat.
(Ibid.)
Species detected during these surveys will be conserved in accordance with
the respective applicable policy.
(EIR/EIS, p. 4.1-30.) Information
gathered as a result of species surveys will serve to fill data gaps and inform
monitoring and management for species. (Ibid.) The additional survey
requirements and information gathering efforts would be implemented until
. the MSHCP Conservation Area is assembled in a manner that is consistent
with the conservation objectives for individual species. (Ibid.)
Wetland species occurring outside of the MSHCP Conservation Area may
also receive additional protection as a result of implernentation of the
riparian, riverine, and vernal pool policy described in Section 6.1.2 of the
MSHCP. (EIR/EIS, p. 4.1-30.) As part of this policy, survey, mapping, and
documentation of riparian, riverine, vernal pool systems, and other areas that
are identified as jurisdictional under Section 1600 et seq. of the California
Fish and Game Code or Sections 401, 402, or 404 of the Federal Clean
Water Act would occur. (Ibid.) These areas may include playas and vernal
pools, open water,meadows and marshes, riparian scrub, woodlands and
forests, and other habitat types, known to occur in the MSHCP Plan Area:
(Ibid.) For areas containing riparian, riverine, or vernal pool features that are
located outside of the MSHCP Conservation Area, avoidance and
minimization measures, as required as mitigation through the CEQA process
or State/federal regulatory processes, will be imposed. The avoidance and
minimization measures will reduce impacts to wetland habitats supporting
Listed Covered Species. (Ibid.) The following Listed Covered Species will
benefit from implementation ofthe wetland policy: vernal pool fairy shrimp,
27
I
I
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
\ 26
27
28
RVPUB\MKS\652370
Riverside fairy shrimp, Santa Ana sucker, Arroyo toad, California red-legged
£Tog, mountain yellow-legged frog, western yellow-billed cuckoo,
southwestern willow flycatcher, peregrine falcon, bald eagle, least Bell's
vireo, California Orcutt grass, San Jacinto Valley crownscale, thread-leaved
brodiaea, San Diego button-celery, and spreading navarretia. (EIRÆIS, p.
4.1-30.)
Additionally, the MSHCP provides that if suitable habitat were determined
- to be present, focused surveys for the following Listed Covered Species will
be conducted: least Bell's vireo, southwestern willow flycatcher, western
yellow-billed cuckoo, verna! pool fairy shrimp, and Riverside fairy shrimp.
Localities of wetland species observed during focused surveys will be
conserved in accordance with the process of wetland conservation identified
in Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP. (EIRÆIS, p. 4.1-30.)
The Management and Monitoring Programs incorporated in the MSHCP will
be implemented to reduce to the extent feasible any significant effects
remaining after application of the MSHCP requirements. (EIRÆIS, p. 4.1-
153.) Implementation ofthe Management and MonitoringPrograms outlined
in the MSCHP will reduce all other potential impacts/consequences of the
MSHCP to a less than significant level. (Ibid.) Therefore, the MSHCP itself
has been designed to serve as mitigation for impacts resulting £Tom
development and to meet the issuance criteria for Take Authorization for
listed Covered Species. (ResponseF-120.) With the combination of impact-
reduction features incorporated into the MSHCP, including MSHCP
Conservation Area configuration adaptive management and monitoring, and
species survey and avoidance/minimization policies, impacts to Listed and
Covered Species are less than significant and nò mitigation measures are
28
I
I
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
C.
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RVOUB\MKS\ 652 370 .
2.
required. (EIRÆIS, p. 4.1-32)
In the cumulative context, the MSHCP will benefit the Covered Species by
preserving their habitat in order to address their life cycle needs. Thus, based
on the features of the MSHCP itself, cumulative impacts to Covered Species
are less than significant and no mitigation measures are required. (EIRÆIS,
p. 5.1-6.)
Biologícal Resources (Non-Listed Covered Species only)
1.
Impacts:
The Non-Listed Covered Species include 65 of the 83 Covered Wildlife
Species and 52 of 63 Covered Plant Species. The impacts to the 115 Non-
Listed Covered Species are quantified based on the best existing information
available for known occurrences and potential suitable habitat for each Non-
Listed Covered Species. (EIRJEIS, Table 4C). For certain Non-Listed
Covered Species, such as arroyo chub and San Bernardino flying squirrel, the
precise quantification of the impact is undetermined at this time due to lack
of existing available information regarding these species.
Features of the MSHCP that will reduce project impacts:
Features have been incorporated in the MSHCP to reduce impacts to Non-
Listed Covered Species to below a level of significance. (EIRJEIS, p. 4.1-
86.) These measures include assembly of an MSHCP Conservation Area
that incorporates substantial acreages of suitable habitat and known locations
in a configuration that provides live-in and linkage habitat for a number of
species. (Ibid.) The Criteria-based Reserve Assembly will occur in a marmer
consistent with Rough Step policies and the Habitat Evaluation and
Acquisition Negotiation Process described in Section 6.1.1 of the MSHCP.
29
I
I
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RVPUB\MKS\652370
In addition, theMSHCP includes policies that will afford some additional
protection to Non-Listed Covered Species occurring outside of the MSHCP
Conservation Area. (EIRÆIS, p. 4.1-86.) The narrow endemics plant
species policy and the additional survey needs policy, described in Section
6.1.3 and 6.3.2, respectively, of the MSHCP, require surveys to be
conducted as part of the project review process for public and private
projects where suitable habitat is present. (Ibid.)
. Species detected during these surveys will be conserved in accordance with
the respective applicable policy (EIR/EIS, p. . 4.1-87.) Information
gathered as a result of species surveys will serve to fin data gaps and inform
monitoring and management for a species. (Ibid.) The additional survey
requirements and information gathering efforts will be implemented until the
MSHCP Conservation Area is assembled in a marmer that is consistent with
the conservation objectives for individual species. Wetland species occurring
outside of the MSHCP Conservation Area may also receive additional
protection as a result of implementation of the riparian, riverine, and vernal
pool policy described in Section 6. 1.2 of the MSHCP. (Ibid.) As part Of this
policy, survey, mapping, and documentation of riparian, riverine, vernal pool
systems, and other areas that are identified as jurisdictional under Section
1600 et seq. of the California Fish and Game Code or Sections 401, 402, or
404 of the Federal Clean Water Act will occur. (Ibid.) These areas may
include playas and vernal pools, open water, meadows and marshes, riparian
scrub, woodlands and forests, and other habitat types, known to occur in the
MSHCP Plan Area.
For areas containing riparian, riverine, or vernal pool features that are ]ocated
outside of the MSHCP Conservation Area, avoidance and minimization
30
I
I
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
D.
25
26
27
28
RVPUB\MKS\652370
measures, as required as mitigation through the CEQA process or
State/federal regulatory processes, will be employed. The avoidance and
minimization measures will reduce impacts to wetland habitats supporting a
number of Non-Listed Covered Species, including 10 plant species and 22
wildlife species.
(Ibid.) The management and monitoring programs
incorporated in the MSHCP will be implemented to reduce to the extent
feasible any significant effects remaining after application of the minimizing
measures incorporated in the MSHCP.
(EIRÆIS, p. 4.1-153.)
. Implementation of the Management and Monitoring Programs outlined in the
MSCHP will mitigate all other potential impacts/consequences of the
MSHCP to a less than significant level. (Ibid.) With the combination of
impact-reduction features incorporated into the project itself, including
MSHCP Conservation Area configuration adaptive management and
monitoring, and species survey and avoidance/minimization policies, direct
and indirect impacts to Non-Listed Covered Species are less than significant
and no mitigation measures are required. (EIRÆIS, p. 4.1-88.)
In the cumulative context, the MSHCP will benefit the Covered Species by
preserving their habitat in order to address their life cycle needs. Thus, based
on the features of the MSHCP itself, cumulative impacts to Covered Species
are less than significant and no mitigation measures are required. (EIRÆIS,
p. 51-6.)
Biological Resources (Cores and Linkages only)
1.
Impacts:
The MSHCP Conservation Area comprises a variety of existing and
proposed cores, extensions of existing cores, linkages, constrained linkages,
and non-contiguous habitat blocks. (EIRÆIS, p. 4.1-95; see also EIRÆIS,
31
I
I
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
E.
24
25
26
27
28
RVPUB\MKS\652370
Figure 4.1.3.) ÀJI of the cores and linkages depicted in Figure 4.1.3 of the
EIRÆIS will be incorporated in the MSHCP Conservation Area. (EIRÆIS,
p. 4.1-96.) The MSHCP provides for the movement of native resident and
migratory species and protects established wildlife corridors and genetic
flow. (Ibid.) The MSHCP also protects the use of native wildlife nursec-
sites. (Ibid.) Likewise, the MSHCP will not cause adverse cumulative
effects related to interference with the movement of any native resident or
migratory fish or wildlife species or obstruction of genetic flow for the
"identified Planning Species. (EIRÆIS, p. 5.1-7.) Part of the purpose and
goals of the MSHCP is to use regional planning efforts to assemble a
MSHCP Conservation Area that will preserve contiguous blocks of habitat
in large enough areas to ensure that the MSHCP Conservation Area will
allow movement of species and flow of genetic information.
(Ibid.)
Therefore, direct, indirect and cumulative impacts related to cores and
linkages resulting trom the MSHCP are less than significant. (EIRÆIS, p.
4.1-99.)
2.
Features of the MSHCP that will reduce project impacts:
Based on features of the MSHCP itself, impacts to cores and linkages are
less than significant and no mitigation measures are required.
Biological Resources (Edge Effects only)
1.
Impacts:
Edge effects could occur to species and habitats within the MSHCP
Conservation Area if proposed land uses and activities in take authorized
areas occur in proximity to the MSHCP Conservation Area. (EIRÆIS, p.
4.1-103.) It is assumed that edge effects resulting trqm construction
activities include dust, noise, and general human presence that may
32
I
I
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RVPUS\MKS\652370
temporarily disrupt species and habitat vitality and construction-related soil
erosion and runoff. (Ibid.) It is also assumed that edge effects resulting fro¡n
development or land use practices in proximity to the MSHCP Conservation
Area, includes long-term presence of un shielded noise-generating land uses
in proximity to the MSHCP Conservation Area; unshielded night-lighting
directed within the MSHCP Conservation Area; use of exotic landscape plant
materials that may invade native vegetation communities within the MSHCP
Conservation Area; discharge of uncontrolled or unfiltered urban runoff
. toward the MSHCP Conservation Area, including potential toxics; and
uncontrolled access, dumping or trespass within the MSHCP Conservation
Area. (Ibid.) For those cores and linkages with higher perimeter-to-area
ratios, edge effects will be considered to have a greater effect on Conserved
Habitat and Covered Species than for the larger cores and linkages
incorporated in the MSHCP Conservation Area. (EIRÆIS, p. 4.1-103; see
also EIRÆIS, Table 4E.)
2.
Features of the MSHCP that will reduce project impacts:
A variety of features have been incorporated into the MSHCP thàt will
minimize edge effects. These include the following: Implementation of
standard Best Management Practices (Appendix C of the MSHCP);
Implementation of the Land Use Guidelines Pertaining to the
Urban/Wildlands Interface (Section 6.1.4 of the MSHCP); and
Implementation of the siting, design, construction, operations, and
maintenance guidelines for Covered Activities within the Criteria Area and
Allowable Uses within the MSHCP Conservation Area (Section 7.0 of the
MSHCP). Therefore, based on features of the MSHCP itself, the MSHCP's
edge effects are less than significant and no mitigation meaSl.1res are required.
(Ibid.)
33
F. Agricultural Resources
I 2 I. Impacts:
3 The County determined that the MSHCP would have a significarÌt effect if
4 it would result in the conversion of agricultural land to non agricultural use.
5 To thoroughly analyze the possibility of both direct and indirect impacts to
6 agriculture, three different categories of agriculture are identified: existing
7 utilized agricultural land, land zoned or designated under the Cities' existing
8 or the County's Draft General Plans and State Designated Farmland.
9 '(EISÆIS, § 4.2)
10
11 There are no significant impacts to existing actively used agricultural lands
12 because there is no conversion of Existing Agricultural Operations to non-
13 agricultural uses. Existing Agricultural Operations are considered a Covered
14 Activity arid will not only be permitted to continue under the Plan, but will
I 15 also receive Take Authorization. Under the MSHCP, Existing Agricultural
16 Operations can continue indefinitelv. even within the Criteria Area. Because
17 Existing Agricultural Operations are a Covered Activity under the MSHCP,
18 no direct or indirect impact would occur. Additionally, the MSHCP is not
19 a land use document and does not cause the conversion of any land.
20
21 Impacts to zoned or General Plan designated agricultural land are considered
22 insignificant because the MSHCP does not conflict with any zoning or
23 General Plan designations. The MSHCP is not a land use document and
24 does not establish any land use categories. The MSHCP expressly authorizes
25 the continuation of Existing Agricultural Operations.
26
I 27 The MSHCP does not result in the conversion of State Designated Farmland
28 to non-agricultural use, Of the 99,090 acres of State Designated Farmland
RVPUB\MKS\652370 34
I
I
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
G.
25
26
27
.28
RVPUB\MKS\652370
in Western Riverside County, approximately 18,653 acres are in the Criteria
Area and upto 10,419 acres of Designated Farmland, including 6,564 acres
of Designated Farnùand.that have already been incorporated into existing
reserves, may be conserved during Reserve Assembly. Additionally, the
MSHCP expressly aJlows the continuance of Existing Agricultural
Operations. To the extent that State Designated Farmland is not being
actively used for agricultural production, the MSHCP will not cause its
"conversion" to non-agricultural use.
The MSHCP allows the Take Authorization to apply to up toIO,OOO acres
of New Agricultural Land within the MSHCP Criteria Area and unlimited
new agricultural land outside the Criteria Area, this will more than offset any
impacts from Reserve Assembly. The MSHCP also provides a mechanism
for considering future increases to the New Agricultural Land Cap permitted
within the Criteria Area. Accordingly, no cumulatively significant impact to
agricultural resources will occur. (EIR/EIS, p. 5.1-8.) Based on features
incorporated into the MSHCP, direct, indirect or cumulative impacts to
agricultural land are insignificant.
2.
Features of the MSHCP that will reduce project impacts:
Based on features of the MSHCP itself, impacts to agriculture are less than
significant and no mitigation measures are required.
Population Housing and Employment
1.
Irnpacts:
The MSHCP includes 120,200 acres within the County and 14,800 acres
within the cities of West em Riverside County that are cuIT.ently designated
for housing units. (EIRÆIS, p. 4.3-2.) It also includes 3,200 acres in the
35
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RVOUB\MKS\652370
I
I
County and 2,9ÒO acres within the cities of Western Riverside County that
are currently designated for employment use. Implementation ofthe MSHCP
will likely cause dwelling units and employment facilities previously planned
for development within the Criteria Area to be shifted into areas that are not
to be conserved. (Ibid.)
Implementation of the MSHCP will not reduce or increase the amount of
development allowed pursuant to local land use controls. (EIRÆIS, p. 4.3-
'2.)
The MSHCP does not authorize or contemplate any growth,
construction or development, -(Ibid.) Implementation ofthe MSHCP may
change the location of development and possibly site-specific density within
Western Riverside County. (Ibid.) To address this change to housing and
employment, the County and cities within Western Riverside County will
utilize a variety of planning techniques, including zoning overlays, general
plan amendments, zoning ordinance amendments, the clustering of
development, and density bonuses. (Ibid.)
The MSHCP, therefore, will not have a significant direct impact on
population, housing, and employment. (EIRÆIS, p. 4.3-3.) The MSHCP
will not displace substantial numbers of housing units or persons;
implementation wiJl only restrict where future development could occur.
(Ibid.) Additionally, implementation of the MSHCP will not exacerbate the
jobs to housing imbalance within Western Riverside County and cities.
Implementation of the MSHCP will have the same effect on employment
facilities as housing units, which is merely to modify future locations and
densities of development. (Ibid.) Therefore, the MSHCP will not have a
significant impact on population, housing, and employment. (Ibid.)
36
I
I
I
2
3
4
5
6
H.
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RVOUB\MKS\652370
2.
Featt¡res of the MSHCP that will reduce project impacts:
Based on features of the MSHCP itself, impacts to Population Housing and
Employment are less than significant and no mitigation measures are
required. (E1R/EIS, p. 4.3-3.)
Public Services (Fire protection and Parks only)
1.
Impacts:
The MSHCP will not directly result in additional development, nor will it
"involve the expansion of wildlands. Thus, the risk of wildland fires will not
increase, as the urban-wildland edge will not change.(EIR/EIS, p. 4.4-1.)
However, the MSHCP will accommodate growth in areas outside of the
MSHCP Conservation Area. Thus, indirect effects could occur as
development in the non-conserved regions approaches the edges of the
MSHCP Conservation Area. Adequate fire protection facilities will be
provided to accommodate the increased development at the time such
development occurs. (Ibid.) Furthermore, as existing fire protection facilities
are located in public/quasi-public lands, and as additional fire protection
facilities are allowed to be constructed within MSHCP Conservation' Area,
the configuration ofMSHCP Conservation Area will not limit fire protection
access in the MSHCP Plan Area. Thus, no existing or planned fire protection
facilities will require deletion or relocation as a result of the MSHCP.
(E1R/EIS, p. 4.4-2.) Setting aside areas for conservation within larger
natural areas will allow cities and the County to plan appropriate land uses
along the anticipated urban-wildland border. (Ibid.) This could indirectly
result in decreased risk ofwildJand fire damage by placing compatible land
uses and necessary buffer areas along the edges of the MSHCP Conservation
Area.
(Ibid.)
Additionally, the Project's cumulative. impact on fire
protection will be beneficial because the establishment of the MSHCP
37
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RVPUB\MKS\652370
I
I
Conservation Area will allow the RCA, County and the Cities to plan land'
uses with the knowledge of where the likely wildland-urban boundaries will
be located, and to plan for fire-safe development. (EIR/EIS, p. 5.1-10.)
Accordingly, no adverse cumulative effects will occur. (Ibid.)
Additionally, no impact will occur to existing park facilities or recreation.
Planned park facilities that are located within the MSHCP Conservation Area
will be subject to potential restrictions contained in the Reserve Criteria for
. the cell in which the park is located. (EIR/EIS, p. 4.4-3.) Recreational use
is considered to be a conditionally compatible use within the MSHèp
MSHCP Conservation Area. Five planned park facilities are proposed within
the MSHCP Conservation Area ofthe MSHCP. (Ibid.) All ofthese parks
are located near edges of the MSHCP Conservation Area, which will
facilitate public access. Thus, the MSHCP will not require the deletion or
relocation of pi armed parks. (Ibid.) The preservation of natural land will
also provide additional opportunities for recreation. (Ibid.) As recreational
use is included as a conditionally compatible use within the MSHCP
Conservation Area, the protected areas may result in higher-quality natural
areas for public enjoyment. (Ibid.) Thus, planned park facilities may be
supplemented by recreational opportunities available in the MSHCP
Conservation Area.
(Ibid.)
Likewise, no adverse direct or indirect
cumulative impacts will occur as aresu)t of the MSHCP. (EIR/EIS, p. 5.1-
10.)
2.
Features of the MSHCP that will reduce project impacts:
Based on features of the MSHCP itsel~ impacts to Public Services are less
than significant and no mitigation measures are required.
38
I
I
I
I.
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RVPUB\MKS\652370
Transportation and Cirtulation
1.
Impacts:
There are several existing roadways within public/quasi-public lands,
including interstates, freeways, State highways, city- and County-maintained
roadways, as well as local roads, which are not city- or County-maintained,
that provide property access. (EIRÆIS, p. 4.5-1 - 4.5-2.) This latter
category of roadways is generally maintained by the adjacent property
owners, either individually or collectively. (Ibid.) Necessary operation and
. maintenance activities conducted for safety purposes will be permitted within
public/quasi-public lands. Therefore, there will be no significant impacts on
existing roadways and emergency access within public/quasi public lands
under the MSHCP. (Ibid.)
Some of the existing County/City-maintained unpaved roads may be paved
within the existing roadbed as future traffic, safety and/or environmental
conditions warrant. (EIRÆIS, p. 4.5-2.) Safety improvements to other
publicly maintained existing roadways within public/quasi-public lands are
Covered Activities. under the MSHCP. (Ibid.) Therefore, there will be no
significant impact on existing roadways and emergency access within
public/quasi public lands for roadways owned by the County. (Ibid.)
Maintenance activities on roadways maintained by others are also provided
limited coverage, subject to the submittal of an application for Certificate of
Inclusion. (Ibid.) Therefore, there will be no significant irnpact on existing
roadways and emergency access within public/quasi public lands for privately
owned roadways. (Ibid.)
Planned roadways are proposed within the County and Cities to facilitate
planned growth. Plarmed roadways identified in Section 7.3.5 of the
39
I
I
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RVPUB\MKS\ 652 370
MSHCP are Còvered Activities within the Criteria Area. Roadways other
than those identified in Section 7.3.5 of the MSHCP are not covered without
an amendment of the MSHCP. The MSHCP includes design and sitting
guidelines for planned roadways. The implementation of these guidelines will
ensure that planned roadways are designed and constructed in a manner
consistent with the objectives of the MSHCP, while providing for the
efficient passage of persons and goods through Western Riverside County,
the alleviation of traffic congestion, the maintenance of level of service
, standards, and continuation of adequate emergency access/evacuation routes.
Since the operation, maintenance and construction of existing and planned
roadways are covered activities within the MSHCP Conservation Area,
potential transportation-related impacts resulting from implementation ofthe
MSHCP will be less than significant.
Further, since the MSHCP does not authorize or contemplate any physical
development, it will not have significant cumulative direct impacts on
transportation because it wj] not decrease the level of service or increase
traffic on any roadway. (EIRÆIS, p. 5.1-10.) Additionally, although the
MSHCP accommodates development in accordance with regional growth
projections, it wj] not result in any cumulatively significant indirect decrease
in the level of service or increase in traffic on any roadway. (Ibid.)
Therefore, cumulative impacts related to transportation issues will be less
than significant. (Ibid.)
2.
Features of the MSHCP that will reduce project impacts:
Based on features of the MSHCP itself, impacts to Transportation and
Circulation are Jess than significant and no mitigation measures are required.
(EIRÆIS, p. 4.5-5.)
40
I
I
20
21
22
23
24
25
I
26
27
28
BE IT FURTHERRESOL \'ED by the Board of Supervisors that the following impacts
potentially resulting from the adoption of the MSHCP will be only partially avoided or lessened by
2
3
Project design features and a statement of overriding findings is therefore included herein:
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
B.
RVPUB\HKS\652370
A.
Biological (Native Grasslands Vegetation Communities)
1.
Impacts:
The Project could reduce grassland. (including native and non-native
grassland) by up to 72 percent. Species-specific analyses for grassland
. species and raptors, .for which it is important to maintain grassland, are
presented in the individual species accounts. (EIRÆlS, pp. 4.1-14, 6.1-3.)
The species accounts conclude features incorporated in the MSHCP
including habitat Conservation, MSHCP Conservation Area configuration,
achievement of species-specific objectives and implementation of monitoring
and management measures that will achieve the overall MSHCP biological
goal for each grassland Covered Species which is: "In the MSHCP Plan
Area, Conserve Covered Species and their Habitats." (Response G-16.)
However, as the vegetation coverage does not ~istinguish between native and
non-native grassland, impacts to sensitive native grassland cannot be
quantified independently, and significant impacts to this vegetation
community have been determined to be significant. (EIR/EIS, p. 6.1-3.)
2.
Features ofthe MSHCP that will reduce project impacts:
No feasible mitigation exists for this impact that would substantially lessen
Project impacts. (EIR/EIS, p. 6.1-3.)
Biological (Non Covered Species)
1.
Impacts:
Through the MSHCP process, a total of 255 species were identified as
41
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 C.
RVOUB\MKS\652370
I
I
having the potential to exist within the MSHCP Plan Area. (EIR/EIS, p. 4.1-
88.) The list of 255 species encompasses all species for which adequate
information is available to conduct an impact analysis under CEQA and
NEP A. (Ibid.) Analysis of species other than the 255 identified will involve
speculation that is not required by CEQA or NEPA. Of these 255 species,
the MSHCP does not include 109 of these species as Covered Species.
(EIR/EIS, Table 4D [discusses the species not covered under the MSHCP
and provides a brief explanation for each species].) While it is assumed that
- the Conservation provided underthe MSHCP could potentially benefit Non-
Covered Species that occur within the MSHCP Conservation Area, it is not
possible to quantify the level of Conservation because of the lack of
information available for these species or because the species are not known
to occur within the MSHCP Plan Area. (Ibid.) However, the MSHCP
contains several features that will contribute to the conservation of Non
Covered Species, including the maintenance of cores and linkages and impact
avoidance and minimization policies. In addition, mitigation of adverse
effects offered through the Adaptive Management and Monitoring Programs
will provide overall benefits to habitats that could result in a certain level of
conservation for Non Covered Species. (Ibid:) However, even with the
benefits offered by the MSHCP, impacts, including impacts resulting from
Covered Activities, have been determined to be potentially significant.
(EIR/EIS, p. 4.1-89.)
2.
Features of the MSHCP that will reduce project impacts:
No feasible mitigation exists for this impact that would substantially lessen
Project impacts. (EIRÆIS,pp. 4.1-89,6.1-3.)
Biological (Edge Effects Cumulative)
42
I
I
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
D,
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RVPUB\MKS\652370
I.
Impacts:
The MSHCP could cause adverse significant cumulative effects associated
with the introduction of land uses immediately adjacent to the MSHCP
Conservation Area. (EIRIEIS, p. 5.1-7.) Cumulative effects associated with
the proposed Take Authorization will involve direct loss of habitat and
species associated with ground disturbance. (Ibid.) Cumulative indirect
effects could occur to species and habitats within the MSHCP Conservation
Area associated with proposed land uses and activities in proximity to the
. MSHCP Conservation Area. (Ibid.) Cumulative significant indirect impacts
associated with edge effects and increased development pressure outside the
MSHCP Conservation Area and other MSHCPs or HCPs proposed in areas
adjacent to Western Riverside County are considered cumulatively
significant. (EIRÆIS, p. 5.1-8.)
2.
Features of the MSHCP that will reduce project impacts:
No feasible mitigation exists for this impact that would substantially lessen
Project impacts.
Extractive Resources (Mineral Resources)
I.
Impacts:
Implementation of the MSHCP will not result in development or mineral
extraction. (EIRÆIS, p. 4.2-19.) Thus, no land-use incompatibilities will
occur. The MSHCP could accommodate growth and development as well
as natural resource conservation throughout the MSHCP Plan Area, and will
further the goals of the general plans and community plans of the
jurisdictions participating in the MSHCP. Thus, no significant impacts will
occur. (Ibid.)
43
I
I
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RVPUB\MJ(S\6S2370
Implèmentation' of the MSHCP could result in up to 4,300 acres ofland with
known potential to be used for mineral extraction being set aside for
conservation. (EIR/EIS, p. 4.2-16.) This represents approximately 22
percent of such lands within the MSHCP Plan Area, Areas set aside for
conservation wi ] not be available for mineral extraction use. As 1O, 900
acres (2.5 times the number of acres currently used in mineral resource
extraction) of land designated as Mineral Resource Zone 2 will remain
available for use, the MSHCP will not result in a significant loss of a
. regionally valuable resource. (Ibid.) The existing extraction sites are also
locally important resources, and wi ] not be affected under the MSHCP.
(EIRÆIS, p. 4.2-18.) The sites currently in use will not be restricted in any
way. The potential for establishment of additional mineral extraction sites in
the future may, however, be restricted in some areas. By applying the
estimated growth rate of 68 percent (from the Riverside County General Plan
build out land use designations) to each area, and comparing the acres
needed for growth to the acres of MRZ-2 available after project
implementation, potential impacts to local resources were determined (for
cities with land classified as MRZ-2). (Ibid.) There will be sufficient
available acres ofMRZ-2land to accommodate anticipated future growth in
mineral extraction throughout the MSHCP Plan Area because the amount of
MRZ-2 land available is greater that the anticipated regional growth rate,
with the exception of the City of Lake Elsinore. Mineral extraction growth
within Lake Elsinore will be restricted to 55 percent, which is less than the
anticipated regional growth rate of 68 percent. (EIR/EIS, Table 4Z.)
Accordingly, impacts to locally important resources will be restricted to the
City of Lake Elsinore.
Impacts pertaining to conflicts and land-use
incompatibilities will be less than significant. (EIRÆIS, p.. 4.2-20.)
44
I
I
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
14 E.
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RVPUB\MKS\652370
In the cumulative context, the loss of any portion of such an MRZ, when
taken with similar losses that may result from the implementation of other
projects (such as from assembling the existing reserves) represents a
cumulatively significant and unavoidable impact. (EIR/EIS, p. 5.1-8.) The
MSHCP will not have any other significant direct or indirect cumulative
impacts on mineral resources, because implementation of the MSHCP will
not result in the loss of a locally important mineral resource recovery site, as
delineated on a General Plan or other land use plan. (Ibid.)
2.
Features of the MSHCP that will reduce project impacts:
No feasible mitigation exists for this impact that would substantially lessen
Project impacts. (EIR/EIS, p. 4.2-20.)
Housing Population, and Employment (Indirect and Cumulative Impacts only)
1.
Impacts:
Although the MSHCP itself does not provide any housing, employment or
development, the MSHCP will remove impediments to growth and
development within the MSHCP Plan Area outside the MSHCP
Conservation Area. Therefore, out of an abundance of caution, the MSHCP
is deemed to have significant indirect impacts on Population, Housing,and
Employment. Likewise, the MSHCP may have significant cumulative
impacts on Population, Housing, and Employment. (EIR/EIS, p. 5.1-9.)
2.
Features of the MSHCP that will reduce project impacts:
No feasible mitigation exists for this impact that would substantially lessen
Project impacts.
45
I
I
I
28
2
BE IT FURTHER RESOLvED by the Board of Supervisors that, pursuant to State CEQA
. Guidelines (Section 15126.2 subd. (d», the EIRÆIS discussed how the MSHCP could directly or
3
4
indirectly lead to economic, population, or housing growth.
5
Growth Inducing Impacts
A.
6
The MSHCP will not directly generate residential, commercial, or industrial
7
development or induce population growth within the MSHCP Plan Area. (EIRÆIS,
p. 6.1-5:) The MSHCP may, however, remove existing impediments to growth
8
9
because it will authorize Take oflisted species in accordance with the terms of the
10
11
MSHCP and the IA. (EIS/EIS, p. 4.3-3.) The intent of the MSHCP is for the
Wildlife Agencies to grant Take Authorization to local jurisdiction for otherwise
lawful actions such as development that may Take Covered Species outside of the
12
13
MSHCP Conservation Area, in exchange for each jurisdiction's support for the
assembly of a coordinated MSHCP Conservation Area. (EIRÆIS, p. 6.1-5.) Thus,
14
15
the MSHCP will remove existing impediments to growth outside the MSHCP
Conservation Area but within the MSHCP Plan Area. As a result, the MSHCP could
16
17
redistribute growth in the region, as development demand may occur in areas where
18
it is not currently anticipated. (Ibid.) Accordingly, the MSHCP may indirectly
induce growth. (EIS/EIS, p. 4.3-3.) Although implementation of the MSHCP will
19
20
not cause growth in Western Riverside County to exceed regional growth
21
projections, out of an abundance of caution, the Project's indirect growth-inducing
22
23
impacts are deemed to be significant. No feasible mitigation exists for this impact
that would substantially lessen Project impacts. (EIRÆIS, p. 4.2-20.)
24
25
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors that it has considered and
rejected as infeasible the alternatives identified in the EIR and described below. CEQArequires that
26
27
an EIR evaluate a reasonable range of alternatives to a project, or to the location of the project,
which: (I) offer substantial environmental advantages over the project proposal, and (2) may be
RVOUB\MKS\652370
46
I
I
24
25
I
26
27
28
2
3
feasibly accom~lished in a ~uccessful manner within a reasonable period of time considering the
economic, environmental, social and technological factors involved. An EIR must only evaluate
reasonable alternatives to a project which could feasibly attain most oflhe project objectives, and
4
evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives. In all cases, the consideration of alternatives is
to be judged against a "rule of reason." The lead agency is not required to choose an alternative
5
6
identified in an EIR if the alternative (1) does not substantially reduce significant environmental
impacts; or (2) does not meet project objectives; or (3) there are social, economic, technological or
7
8
9
other considerations which make the alternative infeasible.
10
The EIRÆIS identified the County's objectives for the Project, which are:
11
12
13
1.
To assemble a criteria based conservation area that will assist in the
conservation of Covered Species while allowing flexibility in the assembly
14
15
and location of the MSHCP Conservation Area. (EIRÆIS, p. 1.2-4.)
16
17
to the maximum extent possible, streamline development authorizations
2.
under the FESA and CESA. (EIRÆIS, p. 1.2-4.)
18
19
3.
Through regional habitat planning, conserve habitat in functional blocks,
rather than on a piecemeal ad hoc basis.(EIRÆIS, p. 1.2-4.)
20
21
22
23
4.
Provide Take Authorization for the transportation, infrastructure, housing
and employment base needed to accommodate projected growth in Western
Riverside County. (EIRÆIS, p. 1.2-4.)
5.
Coordinate and maximize the value of expenditures of iimited public and
private funds in such a manner that assures assembly and maintenance of a
RVOUB\MKS\652370
47
I
I
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
A.
24
25
26
27
28
RVPUB\MKS\652370
MSHCP Conservation Area that conserves the Covered Species pursuant to
state and federal law. (EIRÆIS, p. 1.2-4.)
6.
Develop a fee-based funding plan that will generate sufficient revenue to
contribute to the MSHCP Conservation Area's funding needs. (EIRÆIS, p.
1.2-4.)
7.
1'0 the maximum extent practicable, eliminate surprises by providing
. certainty to Permittees and Third Parties that the Take Authorizations will
cover additional species that may be listed while the Permits are in effect.
(EIRÆIS, p. 1.2-4.)
8.
To the extent legally possible, provide assurances that private parties will not
be required to mitigate biological i91pacts except as specified in the MSHCP.
(EIRÆIS, p. 1.2-4.)
9.
Expand the conservation value of existing public and quasi-public resources
for the benefit of Covered Species. (EIRÆIS, p. 1.2-4.)
10.
Comply with all federal and constitutional requirements. (EIRÆIS, p. 1.2-
5.)
Listed, Proposed, and Strong Candidate Species Alternative
1.
Descriotion
This alternative only addresses the 39 listed, proposed, and strong candidate
species in Western Riverside County. Under this alternative, a total of
approximately 465,860 acres would be conserved, including approximately
346,530 acres within existing reserves and approximately 119,300 acres of
48
I
I
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RVPUB\HJ<S\ 652 370
currently private land outside existing reserves. (EiRlEIS, p. ES-5; Table
ES-A.)
2.
Finding
This alternative fails to meet basic project objectives, would not substantially
reduce significant environmental impacts and wouJd result in increased
impacts.
3.
. Supporting Explanation
This alternative does not meet project objectives. Because it covers only 39
species, this alternative does not provide the maximum possible certainty that
the Take Authorization will cover additional species that may be listed while
the permits are in effect. Likewise, because this alternative covers only 39
species instead of 146, it does not provide assurances that, to the maximum
extent legally possible, private parties will not be required to further mitigate
impacts under FESA and CESA. Further, this alternative fails to conserve
habitat in functional blocks because it does not incorporate several cores and
linkages that are necessary to create a criteria based reserve. (EIRIEÜS, p.
4.1-114.)
Moreover, this alternative does not include any additional features or
mitigation that would reduce the Project's significant and unavoidable
impacts. (EJRÆIS, Table ES-B.) This alternative will also have a significant
and unavoidable impact on Biology, Mineral Resources, and Population
Housing and Employment. (EIRÆIS, Table ES-B.) The failure of this
alternative to conserve certain cores and linkages will actually cause a greater
impact to the environment than the Project. Failure to incorporate necessary
cores and linkages would have significant effects with respect to the
49
I
I
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28 B.
RVPUB\MKS\652370
conservation of 'certain species and would impede the overall function of the
MSHCP. (EIR/EIS, p. 4.1-114.) The exclusion of the Cactus VaI]ey
(proposed Core 4) ITom the MSHCP Conservation Area would adversely
affect the function of the MSHCP Conservation Area by riot providing a
connection from Diamond Valley LakelLake. Skinner to National Forest
lands to the east. Absence of this linkage would isolate the existing multi-
species reserve from conserved lands to the east. Thus, by isolating existing
resources instead of linking them, this alternative also fails to expand the
. conservation value of existing public and. quasi-public resources.
Additionally, Take authorized in this area would adversely affect planning for
species identified for this Core, such as the Quino checkerspot butterfly.
(EIRÆIS, pp, 4.1-114 - 4.1-115.) The reduction in cores and linkages also
results in this alternative having significant and unavoidable edge effects
greater than the Project. (EIR/EIS, p. 4.1-116.)
Further, this alternative increases impacts by reducing the conservation of
suitable habitat and species localities at T emescal Wash, Vail Lake, Temecula
Creek, Wilson Creek, Anza Valley, Badlands and Reche Canyon. (EISÆIS,
p. 4.1-107.) The impacts of this alternative would generally be much greater
in magnitude compared to the Project because of the reduction in conserved
habitat. (EIRÆIS, p. 4.1-106.)
Therefore, the County finds that the Listed, Proposed, and Strong Candidate
Species Alternative does not substantially reduce environmental impacts,
results in increased impacts and fails to meet project objectives and therefore
rejects it. (EIRÆIS, p. 2.2-1.)
Listed and Proposed Species Alternative
50
I
I
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RVOUB\MKS\652370
I.
Description
This alternative only addresses the 32 listed and proposed candidate species.
Under this alternative, a total of approximately 440,370 acres would be
conserved, including approximately 346,530 acres within existing reserves
and approximately 93,840 acres of currently private land outside existing
reserves. (ErRÆIS, p. ES-5; Table ES-A.)
2.
Finding
- This alternative fails to meet basic project objectives, would not substantially
reduce significant environmental impacts and would result in increased
impacts.
3.
Supporting Explanation
This alternative places less emphasis on broad-based ecosystem conservation,
conserves less habitat and fewer species than the Project. (EIRÆIS, pp. ES-
5; 6.1-6.) Because it covers only 32 species, this alternative does not provide
the maximum possible certainty that the Take Authorization will cover
additional species that may be listed while the permits are in effect.
Likewise, this alternative does not provide assurances that, to the maximum
extent legally possible, private parties will not be required to mitigate impacts
under FESA and CESA except as required in the Plan.
This alternative fails to meet project objectives because it does not conserve
habitat in functional blocks. A reduced level of conservation of suitable
habitat and species localities at Ternescal Wash, Vail Lake, Ternecula Creek,
Wilson Creek, Anza Valley, Badlands and Reche Canyon is anticipated under
this alternative when compared to the Project. (EIRÆIS,.p. 4.1-124.) It
would not provide large habitat blocks in the Badlands for foraging raptors
51
I
I
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
C.
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RVPUB\MKS\6S2370
2.
or mammals to connect to the Nationa] Forest lands. (EIRIEIS, p. 4.1-128.)
This alternative will not reduce any significant impacts of the Project to
below a level of significance.
(EIR/EIS, Table ES-B.) In fact, this
altemativewill have a greater significant and unavoidable irnpact on Biology,
Mineral Resources, and Population Housing and Employment than the
Project. (EIR/EIS, Table ES-B.) Impacts to Non-Listed Covered Species
would be much greater in magnitude when compared to the Project because
. this alternative conserves significantly less habitat: (EIRIEIS, p. 4.1-122.)
Additionally, all of the proposed cores and linkages and extensions of
existing cores and linkages would be absent fTom this alternative. Existing
cores would remain isolated and the reduction in cores and linkages would
also result in this alternative having significant and unavoidable edge effects.
(EIRIEIS, p. 4.1-129.) Moreover, the option to connect these areas in
future may be compromised if development occurs within the cores and
linkages. Therefore, the County finds that the Listed and Proposed Species
Alternative results in increased impacts, fails to meet project objectives and
therefore rejects it.(EIRIEIS, p. 2.2-1.)
Existing Reserves Alternative
1.
Description
Under this alternative, conservation activities would be focused on existing
reserves only. The federal and State permit authorizing Take would only
apply to species adequately conserved on existing reserves. (EIRÆIS, p.
ES-5; Table ES-A.)
Finding
52
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RVOUB\MKS\652370
I
I
This alternative fails to meet basic project objectives, would not substantially
reduce significant environmental impacts and would result in increased
impacts.
3.
Supporting Explanation
This alternative conserves far less habitat and fewer species than the Project.
Habitat would be conserved on an ad hoc basis - if at all - rather than in
functional blocks. This alternative fails to expand the value of existing public
. and quasi-public resources and fails to eliminate surprises to the maximum
extent possible. This alternative does not provide a streamlined approach to
development; instead, impacts resulting from development activities would
continue to be subject to a variety of local, state and federal regulatory
processes. (EIRÆIS, p. 4.3-6.) Nor would this alternative include mitigation
for future development or a funding plan that would finance the management
of the existing reserves.
Under this alternative, fewer species and less habitat will be conserved
because the federal and State permit authorizing Take will only apply to
species adequately conserved on existing reserves. (EIRÆIS, p. ES-5.) Of
the 32 species currently listed or proposed for listing, only two bird species,
the peregrine falcon (Fa/co peregrinus) and western yellow-billed cuckoo
(Coccyzus americanus occidentalis), would be "protected" under this
alternative. Only one mammal species, Stephens' kangaroo rat (Dipodomys
stephensi), would be conserved based on the existing HCP; however,
protection would not be expanded to populations outside the existing HCP
area. Additionally, two amphibian species, mountain yellow-legged frog
(Rana muscosa) and California red-legged frog (Rana aurora draytonii), and
one plant species, San Diego button-celery (Eryngium aristulatum var.
53
I
I
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
. 25
26
27
28
RVPUB\MKS\652J70
parishii), could be considered to be protected based on conservation on
Santa Rosa Plateau and on United States Forestry Service lands. The
remaining 26 listed and proposed species would not be considered protected
under this alternative. (EIRJEIS, p. ES-5; Table ES-A.)
Under the Existing Reserves Alternative, land will be conserved on a project-
by-project basis, and there will be no coordinated system for management or
MSHCP Conservation Area configuration. Conservation of species and
. habitats provided through mitigation and compensation under the existing
regulatory framework will likely result in a pattern of conservation that is
fragmented, and managed in a piecemeal fashion.
Under the Existing Reserves Alternative, there will not be a coordinated
system oflinkages provided to connect conservation areas. This will cause
the isolation of existing cores and result in increased edge effects. (EIRJEIS,
p. 4.1-136.) Edge effects will be exacerbated because of.the loss of cores
and linkages and increased human interaction with wildlife. (EIR/EIS, p.
4.1-137.) The ability to provide linkages through project-by-project
mitigation may be precluded overtime through continued development which
would result in the isolation of existing reserves.
This alternative will also have greater impacts than the Project and
significant and unavoidable impacts on Sensitive Natural Vegetation
Communities, Listed Covered Species, Non-Listed Covered Species, Non-
Covered Species, Cores and Linkages, the relationship to adopted or
approved HCPs and NCCPs and Edge Effects. (EIRJEIS, Table ES-B.)
Additionally, significant impacts to adopted and approved HCPs and NCCPs
are anticipated under this alternative, due to the failure to maintain critical
54
I
I
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
D.
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RVOUB\MKS\652370
2.
linkage components present in other adopted HCPs and NCCPs. (EIRÆIS,
p. 4.1-136.)
Under the Existing Reserves Alternative, new species will continue to be
listed in the future, and regulation of those species and their habitats will be
applied under the current regulatory processes; however.. historical data
demonstrates that application of current regulations and policies will not
avoid the decline of species in the MSHCP Plan Area nor will these policies
. meet the project objective of conserving species or eliminating surprises and
providing certainty to Permittees. Moreover, this alternative was not
designated Environmentally Superior to the MSHCP. (EIRÆIS, p. 6.1-6.)
Therefore, the County finds that the Listed and Proposed Species Alternative
results in increased impacts, fails to meet project objectives and therefore
rejects it.(EIRÆIS, p. 2.2-1.)
No Project Alternative
1.
Description
With the No Project Alternative, land use changes and policies that are being
contemplated to implement the MSHCP will not occur. However, planning
currently being conducted under the Riverside County Integrated Project for
the General Plan and Countywide circulation element could still be adopted.
Implementation of the various elements of those plans resulting in Take of
listed species and regulated habitats will need to be permitted separately
under the applicable State and federal processes. (EIRÆIS, p. ES-6.)
Finding
55
I
I
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RVPUB\MKS\652370
This alternative fails to meet project objectives, would not substantially
reduce significant environmental impacts and would result in increased
impacts.
3.
SuDDorting EXDlanation
Under this alternative, the objectives of the Project would not be met. Under
the No Project Alternative the MSHCP would not be approved Or
implemented. Therefore, there would be no process in place to provide Take
. Authorization or mitigation lands for the transportation, infTastructure,
housing and employment base needed to accommodate projected growth in
Western Riverside County. A criteria-based reserve that would assist in the
conservation of Covered Species would not be assembled. This alternative
will not facilitate growth in Western Riverside County. (EIRÆIS, p. 4.2-20.)
This alternative does not provide a streamlined approach to development;
instead, impacts resulting fTom development activities would continue to be
subject to a variety of local, state and federal regulatory processes.
(EIRÆIS, p. 4.3-6.) Habitat would be conserved on an ad hoc basis - if at
all - rather than in functional blocks. There would be no fee based funding
plan that would generate .funds necessary to support conservation and the
value of existing public and quasi-public resources would not be expanded.
This alternative was not designated Environmentally Superior to the
MSHCP. (EIRÆIS, p. 6.1-6.)
Private parties win be required to mitigate biological impacts on a project -
by- project basis resulting in inconsistent conservation, Conservation of
species and habitats provided through mitigation and compensation und~rthe
existing regulatory fTamework will likely result in a pattern of conservation
that is fragmented, and managed in a piecemeal fashion. (EIRÆIS, p. ES-
56
I
I
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
E.
27
28
RVOU8\MKS\652370
6.) Under the No Project Alternative, activities involving the Take of State
and/or federally listed species will require individual permitting on a project"
by-project basis.
The No Project Alternative will not provide Take
Authorization to Existing Agricultural Operations. (EIRJEIS, p, ES-6.)
This alternative will have a significant and unavoidable impact on Sensitive
Natural Vegetation Communities, Listed Covered Species, Non-Listed
Covered Species, Non-Covered Species, Cores and Linkages, and the
. relationship to adopted or approved HCPs and NCCPs. (ElRÆIS, Table
ES-B.)
Under the No Project Alternative, there will not be a coordinated system of
linkages provided to connect conservation areas, and the ability to provide
linkages through project-by-project mitigation may be precluded over time
through continued development. (ElRÆIS, p. ES-6.) Edge effects would
be exacerbated because of the loss' of cores and linkages and increased
human interaction with wildlife. The ability to provide linkages through
project-by-project mitigation may be precluded over time through continued
development. Additionally, significant impacts to adopted and approved
HCPs and NCCPs are anticipated under this alternative, due to the failure to
maintain critical linkage components present in other adopted HCPs and
NCCPs. therefore, the County finds that the Listed and Proposed Species
Alternative results in increased impacts, fails to'meet project objectives and
therefore rejects it. (EIR/EIS, p. 2.2-1.)
Narrow Endemic Plant Species Alternative
I.
Descriotion
57
I
I
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
II
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RVPUB\MKS\652370
This alternative would focus on the conservation of narrow endemic plant
species.
2.
Finding
This alternative fails to meet project objectives and would not substantially
lessen project impacts.
3.
Supporting Explanation
'The Narrow Endemic Plant Species Alternative conflicts with Project
Objectives. Because this alternative covers only 22 species, it does not
provide the maximum possible certainty that the Take Authorization will
cover additional species that may be listed while the Permits are in effect.
Also, the Narrow Endemic Plant Species Alternative will not streamline
development authorization under FESA and CESA to the maximum extent
practicable. Likewise, the Narrow Endemic Plant Species Alternative would
not provide assurances that, to the extent legally possible, private parties will
not be required to mitigate impacts under FESA and CESA except as
required in the Plan. (EIR/EIS, p. 2.8-2.) The Narrow Endemic Plant
Species Alternative is also infeasible due to economic considerations since
it will not be able to develop a fee based funding plan that would support the
conservation area.
This alternative would not reduce or avoid any ofthe Project's significant
environmental impacts. Thus, the Narrow Endemic Species Alternative was
screened out from further consideration as an alternative to the Plan.
However, elements from this alternative protecting endemic species were
incorporated into the Project, as proposed, as additional survey requirements.
By incorporating these features, the Project takes advantage of the species
58
benefits that would have been provided by the Narrow Endemic Species
I 2 Alternative: Therefore, the County finds that the Narrow Endemic Plant
3 Species Alternative is infeasible and fails to meet project objectives and
4 therefore rejects it. (EIRÆIS, p. 2,2-1.)
5
6 F. Modified Reserve Configuration Alternative
7 1. Description
8 This alternative seeks to conserve up to 146 species and 218,600 acres of
9 "habitat on private lands within the MSHCP Planning Area. The number of
10 species to be conserved remains the same as the Project: 32 listed and
11 proposed species, and I 1 5 sensitive species.
12
13 2. Finding
14 This alternative fails to meet project objectives, does not substantially reduce
I 15 project impacts and is infeasible.
16
17 3. Supporting Explanation
18 The Project as proposed is preferable to the Modified Reserve Configuration.
19 Alternative, because this alternative is infeasible, conflicts with Project
20 objectives, and would not avoid or substantially lessen the Project's
21 significant environmental impacts. The Modified Reserve Configuration
22 Alternative conflicts with Project Objectives. Under the Modified Reserve
23 Configuration Alternative, the number of species to be conserved remains the
24 same and the' percentage of Take is very similar but the amount of
25 developable land is reduced. (See Appendix B, pp. B-5, B- 7.)
26
I 27 Because the Modified Reserve Configuration Alternative would conserve the
28 same number of species as the Project but requires the purchase of an
RVOUB\MKS\652370 59
I
I
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
RVPUB\MKS\652370
additional 65,4ÒO acres of private lands, it is economically infeasible and it
conflicts with the Project Objective requiring that the preferred alternative
include a fee-based funding program that will generate sufficient revenue to
contribute to the reserve's funding needs. This alternative also conflicts with
the MSHCP's function to streamline the permitting process while
accommodating growth by requiring the Conservation of significantly more
private land (218,000 acres) than the Proposed MSHCP (153,000 acres).
This results in the Conservation of an additional 65,000 acres, more than
. 40% rnore than the MSHCP. Using these additional lands for Conservation
could represent the loss of up to 227,500 low-density residential units. (See
Appendix B, p. B-9.) Additionally, the Modified Reserve Configuration
Alternative would be infeasible because of cost. It would take at least a 40%
increase in cost to operate and manage the Modified Reserve Configuration
Alternative; yet, this alternative reduces the amount ofIand that is subject to
the Local Development Fee by 65,000. Thus, the Conservation of these
additional acres would directly affect the availability ofIocal funds to finance
the MSHCP and conflicts with the objective requiring that the preferred
alternative include a fee-based funding program that will generate sufficient
revenue to contribute to the reserve's funding needs.
Additionally, the Mõdified Reserve Configuration Alternative would conflict
with project objectives because it would not be economically efficient, and
it would not limit the expenditure of public and private funds to the amount
necessary to maintain a viable reserve. Based on these considerations, the
Modified Reserve Configuration Alternative was screened out from further
consideration as an alternative to the proposed Project. (EIRÆIS, p. 2.8-4.)
60
I
I
I
12
13
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors that it has balanced the
benefits of the MSHCP against the unavoidable adverse environmental effects thereof, and has
2
3
determined that the following benefits outweigh and render acceptable those environmental effects:
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
14
15
16
17
18
19
D.
E.
RVOUB\HKS\&S2370
A.
Because the County is one of the largest and fastest growing counties in the United
States, the Project is necessary to address local environmental, transportation and
land use needs with the goal of anticipating and shaping the pattern of growth within
the County to maintain and enhance the quality of life for its residents.
B
The Project addresses the potential impacts of urban groWth, natural habitat loss and
species endangerment, and creates a plan to reduce the potential loss of Covered
Species and their habitats due to the direct and indirect impacts of future
development on both private and public lands within the MSHCP Plan Area.
C.
The Project provides the County and the Cities with the ability to control local land
use decisions and maintain economic development flexibility while providing a
coordinated MSHCP Conservation Area and implementation. program that will
facilitate the preservation of biological diversity, as well as enhancing the region's
quality ofIife.
The Project will provide for the assembly of an approximately 500,000 acre criteria-
based MSHCP Conservation Area that will support the habitat and life history
requirements of up to 146 Covered Species, while allowing flexibility in the assembly
and location of the MSHCP Conservation Area. (EIRÆIS, p. ES-4.)
The Project will maintain long-term environmental productivity through the assembly
and management of a biologically-sound MSHCP Conservation Area. (EIRÆIS, p.
6.1-7.)
61
F. The Project will facilitate the development of necessary infrastructure, future
I 2 development and improve future economic development in the County by providing
3 an efficient streamlined regulatory process though which development can proceed
4 and by providing local jurisdictions with Take. (EIRÆIS, p. ES-4, 6.1-5.)
. 5
6 G. The Project will provide a coordinated and comprehensive framework for the
7 assembly of contiguous parcels of habitat that will provide functional habitat blocks
8 to a~sist in the conservation of species while expanding the conservation value of
9 existing reserves through the conservation of cores and linkages. (EIR/EIS, p. 2.1-
10 1)
11
12 H. The Project establishes conditions under which the Permittees will receive £Tom the
13 USFWS and the CDFG certain long-term Take Authorizations and other assurances
14 that will allow the taking of Covered Species incidental to the development of
I 15 transportation, infrastructure, housing and employment needed to accommodate
16 projected growth in Western Riverside County and other lawful uses authorized by
17 the Permittees.
18
19 1. For the benefit of public and private property owners and other project proponents
20 within the MSHCP boundaries, the Project will transfer Take AuthofÌ2ation received
21 £Tom the Wildlife Agencies through the land use entitlement process, issuance of
22 Certificate of Inclusion or other appropriate mechanism to the Permittees.
23
24 J. The Project will provide for permanent open space, community edges, and
25 recreational opportunities, which contribute to maintaining the community character
26 of Western Riverside County. (EIR/EIS, p. ES-4,6.1-8.)
I 27
28
RVPUB\MKS\6S2370 62
I
I
I
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
K.
The MSHCP will give the County and the Cities the ability to control local land use
decisions and maintain economic development flexibifity while providing a
2
3
coordinated MSHCP Conservation Area and implementation program that will
4
5
facilitate the preservation of biological diversity, as well as enhancing the region's
quality oflife.
6
7
1.
Urban quality and design of the built environment would be permanently changed to
8
9
reflect a better quality oflife, including permanent open space, community edges, and
recreational opportunities.
10
11
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors that it has reviewed and
considered the EIRÆIS, and all other applicable documents in the record, in evaluating the Project,
12
13
that the EIRÆIS is an accurate and objective statement that complies with the California
EnVironmental Quality Act and reflects the County's independent judgment, and that the EIRÆIS
14
15
16
is incorporated herein by this reference.
17
18
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors the documents and other
materials that constitute the record of proceedings/administrative record for the County's approval
of the Project are located at 4080 Lemon Street, Riverside, and the custodian of these records is the
Clerk of the Board of Supervisors.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors that it hereby CERTIFIES
the EIRÆIS, adopts the MSHCP and authorizes the Chair of the Board of Supervisors to enter into
the Implementing Agreement.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors that staff shall file a Notice
ofDetermination with the County of Riverside within five (5) working days offinal Project approval.
RVPUB\MKS\652370
63
Adopted by the Board of Supervisors of the County of Riverside this 17th day ofJune, 2003.
I 2 ROLL CALL
3 Ayes: Buster, Tavaglione, Venable, Wilson and Ashley
4 Noes: None
Absent: None
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
I 15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
I 27
28
RVPUB\MKS\652370 64
<01 n 103 15. 1.:.