Introduction

The County of Riverside (County), in cooperation with the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and participating local governments, will prepare a joint Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Statement (EIR/EIS) for the proposed Western Riverside County Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP). The County is serving as the lead agency for the EIR and the USFWS will act as the lead agency under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for purposes of the EIS.

The County and other participating jurisdictions intend to request Endangered Species Act (ESA) permits for up to 142 species including federally threatened or endangered species and unlisted species that may become listed during the term of the permit. The permit is needed to authorize take of listed species (including harm, injury, and harassment) that may result from urban and rural development in the approximately 1.26 million-acre (around 1,966.7 square mile) study area in western Riverside County. The proposed MSHCP would identify activities resulting in the incidental take of federally listed species and covered species that may become listed during the term of the permit. Moreover, the proposed MSHCP will identify those actions necessary to conserve species within a reserve system of approximately 510,000 acres, including 26 federally listed species and other species and major habitat types identified for inclusion and management during the preparation of the MSHCP.

The County intends to prepare the joint EIR/EIS in accordance with Section 15168 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines and NEPA.

A joint EIR/EIS is being prepared for the MSHCP. The first step in preparing the Draft EIR/EIS is conducting scoping in accordance with Section 15168 of the CEQA Guidelines and the Council on Environmental Quality Guidelines for implementing the NEPA (40 CFR 1500-1508). The purpose of the scoping process is to describe the proposed project and to solicit input from the general public and public agencies regarding the scope of the alternatives and analysis to be included in the EIR/EIS.

This Scoping Summary Report describes the process undertaken by Riverside County, and the USFWS to involve the public and to obtain comments on the proposed MSHCP. In addition, this document summarizes the issues and comments raised during the scoping period (August 2, 2001 to November 30, 2001) and also contains the actual comments received.

Scoping Overview

Notice of Preparation and Notice of Intent

The scoping process was initiated with the preparation and distribution of a Notice of Preparation (NOP) for MSHCP and the publication of a Notice of Intent (NOI) in the Federal Register.

A NOP was circulated to public agencies and other interested parties in compliance with Section 15082 of the CEQA Guidelines in October, 2000. The NOP is provided in Attachment 1, and the NOP mailing list is provided in Attachment 2. A NOI (Attachment 3) was published on September 7, 2001, in the Federal Register in compliance with federal regulation 40 CFR 1508.28. The NOI mailing list is provided in Attachment 4. Both the NOI and NOP are intended to inform public agencies and the public about the project and the environmental review process. Comments and suggestions were invited from all interested parties in order to ensure that the full range of issues related to the proposed improvements is addressed, and all significant issues identified, in the Draft EIR/EIS.

Public Notification

The public notice (Attachment 5) for the Public Scoping meetings was sent to the Press Enterprise and La Prensa. Public Scoping notices were published in the Press Enterprise on October 22, 2001. The Californian posted the advisory on its website and the Press Enterprise and the La Prensa both reported on the first MSHCP scoping meeting (Attachment 5). Publication dates of the notice in each publication were as follows:

• October 22, 2001, The Press-Enterprise, Public Notice
• October 19, La Prensa, Public Notice.

In addition, information about the MSHCP is available on an ongoing basis via the Internet at www.rcip.org. The Riverside County Integrated Plan (RCIP) website provides comprehensive information about the RCIP planning process, including the MSHCP studies. The RCIP website also provides an opportunity to e-mail comments and questions directly to the project team. Notices of the scoping meeting were posted on the RCIP website.

Public Outreach/Notification to Minority and Low-Income Populations

The largest minority population within western Riverside County is Hispanic, who comprise approximately 28 percent of the population in this area. Minority ethnic groups are concentrated in a few specific areas, which result in clusters of high percentage minority populations. Two examples include the community of Perris, where almost 60 percent of the population reports being of Hispanic descent, and neighborhoods in south Lake Elsinore, west of I-15, where about 50 percent of the residents are Hispanic (source: U.S. Census Bureau). To notify Spanish-speaking people within the project area, public notices in Spanish were published in La Prensa on October 19, 2001.

Public Scoping Meetings

Two scoping meetings were held in different locations within the study area in the month of October and November, 2001. The first meeting was held at the Temecula Library at 41000 County Center Drive in the City of Temecula on Monday October 29, 2001, from 4:00 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. The second meeting was held at the Perris Branch Cesar Chavez Library at 163 San Jacinto Avenue in the City of Perris, on Wednesday November 7, 2001, from 4:00 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. Between 35 and 70 people attended the two meetings. The scoping meetings included exhibits and informational handouts about the project to help participants learn about the planning and environmental review process and to consider the alternatives and issues under consideration.

The scoping meetings were conducted in an "open house" format. As participants entered the meetings, they were provided informational materials on the project and a comment card for the submittal of written comments and questions about the MSHCP. Several information stations were set up with display boards to provide information. Representatives of the MSHCP and project consultants were available throughout the meeting to answer individual questions. A seating area was provided to enable participants to complete their comment cards and to allow an opportunity to obtain additional clarification from project team members about the alternatives and the study process. An interpreter for the hearing impaired and another one for non-English speaking participants were provided.

This informal, "drop by" format of the scoping meetings was intended to provide a relaxed setting and afford interested citizens with an opportunity to comment on or question the issues as their schedules allowed. Project team members were positioned near each information station, to provide information and respond to questions. Meeting participants could stay for as long as they chose, to learn about the project at their own pace, and to pose their specific questions and concerns.

The informational handout distributed at the scoping meetings is included in Attachment 6, as well as the attendance list. The materials include information sheets, about RCIP and the environmental process, and the NOP.

The handouts provided an overview of the RCIP elements, of which MSHCP is one component, and explained the environmental review process.

Responses to the Notice of Preparation and Notice of Intent

Comments in response to the NOP received by November 30, 2001 are included in Attachment 7. Many of the comments received identified areas of concern that the commentors expected to have the County and USFWS analyze in the Draft EIR/EIS. All of the major comments will be considered by the County and the USFWS in developing the alternatives to be analyzed in the Draft EIR/EIS. Except where noted, these issues will be addressed in the appropriate sections of the Draft EIR/EIS. The comment letters have been organized into the following categories:

Federal Agencies

• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX

State Agencies

• Native American Heritage Commission
• Department of Fish and Game
• Department of Parks and Recreation, Inland Empire District

Regional Agencies

• Southern California Association of Governments
• County of San Bernardino Land Use Services Department
• California Regional Water Control Board
• Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
• County of Orange Planning & Development Services
• Department County of Riverside Transportation and Land Management Agency

Organizations

• Sierra Club, San Gorgonio Chapter, Moreno Valley Group
• Friends of the Northern San Jacinto Valley
• Ingrid Baddour & Associates, Commercial Realtors
• Friends of Live Oak Canyon
• Center for Biological Diversity
• Center for Conservation Biology, University of California, Riverside
• Jackson, DeMarco & Peckenpaugh - representing Murdock Development
• Friends of the Forest (Trabuco District) and Santa Rosa Plateau.
• California Native Plant Society
• Jackson, DeMarco & Peckenpaugh - representing Domenigoni-Barton Properties
• San Bernardino Valley Audubon Society
• Riverside Land Conservancy

Individuals

• Bryant, Judy
• Bryant, James
• Christ, Roberta
• Drummond, Paula
• Grant, GB
• Grant, Terry
• Hankins, Anthony
• Harker, Bill

Summary of Major Issues/Comments in Response to the Notice of Preparation and Notice of Intent

Letters received in response to the issuance of the NOP/NOI for the MSHCP provided valuable insights into the issues and concerns of potentially affected agencies, groups, and individuals. While many of the letters identified topics that are required to be included in the Draft EIR/EIS, the information and opinions provided in the letters identify specific issues to be addressed in the Draft EIR/EIS. Some of the major issues raised in the letters are listed below. However, for a more detailed understanding of the issues and opinions expressed, please see the complete set of the NOP/NOI response letters provided in Attachment 7.

Federal Agencies

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency: Region IX. The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency has written one letter containing both recommendations and concerns in regards to the MSHCP. Included in the comment letter are also General Scoping Comments. The following is a summary of the recommendations and concerns toward the MSHCP and its environmental analysis:

• Riverside County should consult those who developed the Orange County NCCP/HCPs regarding effective conservation and management measures, pitfalls, and public outreach techniques.
• Recommend a comprehensive evaluation of regional conservation needs, threats, and stresses and the conservation actions responding to the events.
• Recommend full integration of conservation planning with the CETAP transportation planning effort.
• EIS should discuss how the proposed MSHCP is being integrated into the pending Riverside County General Plan amendments that are also a part of RCIP.
• The potential impacts on the remaining sensitive species and habitats within the Western Riverside County, of projected growth included in the pending Riverside County General Plan should be fully evaluated in the EIS and be incorporated into mitigation measures (on non-federal and non-reserve land).
• Focus on in-fill development near existing infrastructure.
• Concerned with the long-term implications of mitigating the impacts of take through increased funding and coordination of conservation measures primarily on existing public lands.
• Advocate inclusion of specific conservation measures or non-monetary "take" mitigation measures on the land to be developed.
• The EIS should clearly and persuasively demonstrate that the Western Riverside MSHCP would result in improved on-the-ground conditions which would not otherwise be achieved through existing resource management plans.
• A shorter permit period: shorter duration would reduce potential irreversible adverse impacts to highly sensitive habitat and species, especially if growth projections, development rates, and species conservation assumptions prove to be significantly incorrect.

State Agencies

State of California, Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). The NAHC recommends that the following actions be taken in order to adequately access potential impacts to archaeological resources in the Draft EIR/EIS:

• Conduct a records search through the appropriate information center.
• If a survey is required, prepare a report that details the findings and recommendations of the records search and field survey.
• Contact the NAHC for a Sacred Lands File Check and a list of appropriate Native American contacts for consultation concerning the project site and for assistance in mitigation measures.
• Provisions for accidental discovery of archeological resources need to be included.
• Provisions for discovery of Native American human remains need to be included.

State of California, Department of Fish and Game, Eastern Sierra-Inland Deserts Region.

The CDFG requests that the Draft EIR/EIS address potential impacts to riparian resources, areas occupied by threatened and endangered species, endemic plants, and rare and remaining blocks of native plant species. The CDFG has several concerns, which have been listed below:

• The Department is concerned that the existing pattern of development in Western Riverside County imposes constraints on the assemblage of a multiple species reserve system. The concern is specifically in regard to the effects of human impacts in urban and rural areas due to fires, off road vehicles, invasive plants and animals, noise and edge effects.
• Development project impacts should be analyzed relative to their effects on off-site habitats. Specifically, this should include nearby river, streams, or lakes located downstream of the project, public lands, open space, adjacent natural habitats, and riparian ecosystems. Impacts to and maintenance of wildlife corridor/movement areas, including access to undisturbed habitat in adjacent areas, should be fully evaluated and provided.
• The Department opposes the elimination of watercourses and/or their channelization or conversion to subsurface drains. All wetlands and watercourses, whether intermittent or perennial, should be retained and provided with substantial setbacks which preserve the riparian and aquatic values and maintain their value to on-site and off-site wildlife populations.

Department of Parks and Recreation - Inland Empire District.

The Department of Parks and Recreation manages the Lake Perris portion of the San Jacinto, Lake Perris (SJ/LP) core reserve. The Department has an interest and concern about potential land use changes and regional conservation planning efforts in this area because of the biotic boundaries of the core reserve which will extend well beyond its jurisdictional boundaries. The following is a list of the Department's comments and concerns.

• The selection of a preferred alternative for the EIR/EIS must (1) meet the County=s commitment as outlined in the Planning Agreement, (2) be consistent with the NCCP Act and its General Process and Conservation guidelines, and (3) meet the HCP program requirements of FESA.
• Alternative 1 does not provide for "the survival and recovery of sustainable populations" of some of the species proposed for the coverage or for their "areawide protection and perpetuation."
• A complete and accurate identification of the numerous proposed, permitted, and potential future projects within the study area needs to be completed, and assessment of their potential environmental effects needs to be completed. The preferred alternative/preserve system needs to account for and be developed in the context of these projects and their impacts. The Department of Parks and Recreation suggests that additional alternatives be developed that are more consistent with the Planning Agreement, the NCCP Act and Guidelines, and Federal HCP requirements.
• The EIR/EIS should include species surveys for each of the proposed covered species. These surveys should determine the presence, absence, distribution, habitat affinity, relative abundance, and vulnerability of each species proposed for coverage.
• The Forest Service is in the process of updating its Forest Plan. Until this plan is complete, it cannot be determined which habitats, species, and areas will be managed for conservation. The EIR/EIS needs to address this issue.
• There are areas within public lands and state parks that are not suitable for inclusion in the reserve system. These areas need to be determined in consultation with State Parks and considered in the EIR/EIS.
• A number of different entities may be seeking coverage under this plan. A complete list of these projects including proposed permitted activities and the potential environmental effects of these projects needs to be addressed in the development of plan alternatives.
• It is anticipated that state park activities associated with the ongoing operations and maintenance would be covered by this plan. At the County=s request, state parks will work with County MSHCP staff to provide the project information needed for the development of the EIR/EIS alternatives.
• Processes for the permitting of projects within reserves that are not part of ongoing operations and maintenance need to be identified in the HCP.
• The EIR/EIS needs to analyze the effects of private development projects in areas identified for conservation.
• The impacts of each potential transportation project on reserve, design, habitats and species conservation need to be determined and analyzed in the MSHCP EIR/EIS.
• The EIR/EIS needs to evaluate the potential effects of urban versus agricultural or other open space edges on reserve boundaries.
• Reserve boundary adjustments need to undergo a very rigorous process for the equivalency analysis and there should be no net acreage loss provision added.
• The EIR/EIS needs to address the potential impacts that may occur in the event that required levels of funding to complete management and monitoring obligations are not available. An alternative that included a mechanism for the funding of long-term monitoring and management would increase the certainty of adequate funding.
• We agree with the Scientific Review Panel (SRP) that the data, analytical tools, and methods used were not clearly presented. Their recommendations should be implemented.
• The vegetation database should be updated regularly, and a map of fire history should be included and updated as necessary. Surveys should be conducted as a part of the planning process to gain a more comprehensive picture of species populations and distribution. The existing soils map is too general to assess plant species distribution.
• The amount of vegetation proposed for conservation needs to be analyzed with respect to individual species and their distribution.
• The EIR/EIS needs to analyze the impacts to species that would occur in the event of a loss of existing agricultural lands.
• The proposed zoning and land use designations need to be evaluated to determine if they are consistent with and provide conservation value for the MSHCP.
• Only 26 percent of grasslands are proposed for conservation; hence it is clear that species could be at risk of local extinction at this level of conservation.
• The effects of high perimeter to area ratios and inholdings on existing and proposed reserves needs to be addressed in the EIR/EIS. Each existing and proposed reserve should be evaluated based on its size and degree of connectivity for its ability to support species and populations.
• Soule's criteria for selecting target species should be incorporated in the formation of conservation corridors for the EIR/EIS alternatives. Also, the location, number, and configuration of conservation corridors in the preferred alternative also be based on the maintenance of important ecosystem processes. It is essential that the MSHCP alternative provide linkages that allow for the regional and interregional exchange of large mammals. Several important linkages that provide for the exchange of top predators, rare species, and other vulnerable species were not included in Alternative 1 of the Alternative Development document.
• There are numerous other areas that might contribute to preserve viability in the form of corridors, potential core areas or extensions to core areas that were omitted for no obvious reason.
• The CETAP transportation corridors could significantly impact habitat linkages. These effects need to be analyzed and addressed in the development of the MSHCP Alternatives.
• The EIR/EIS should analyze the potential impacts resulting from the conversion of lands adjacent to core areas and linkages from low intensity uses to high intensity uses. The alternatives should be developed to incorporate the maintenance of low intensity land uses and buffers to core areas - this is a potentially feasible mitigation measure.
• The document needs clarification on how the conclusions of distance-based effects were reached and which edge effects/perturbations were included in the analysis? Also, how was this analysis used in the development of alternatives?

Regional Agencies

SCAG responded to the NOP as the area wide clearinghouse for regionally significant project. Ths activity is based on SCAG's responsibilities as a regional planning organization pursuant to state and federal regulations. SCAG has requested that the EIR/EIS specifically cite appropriate SCAG policies and addresses the manner in which the MSHCP is consistent with applicable core policies or supportive of applicable ancillary policies.

• Address the Growth Management Chapter of the Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide.

1. Current SCAG growth forecasts
2. Timing, financing and location of public facilities, utility systems, and transportation systems
3. Encourage patterns of urban development and land use that reduces costs on infrastructure
4. Minimize cost of infrastructure
5. Preserve Open Space
6. Protect wetlands, woodlands, production lands, and land containing endangered species
7. Protect archaeological resources
8. Discourage development in areas of steep slope, high fire, flood, and seismic hazards
9. Encourage mitigation that reduces noise impacts on biological and ecological resources
10. Support sustainable communities

• Address the Regional Transportation Plan

1. Transportation investments
2. Transportation Control Measures
3. Maintain existing transportation system

• Address Air Quality Chapter

1. Consider air quality effects of the proposed plan

• Address Water Quality Chapter

1. Encourage watershed management
2. Protect sustain ability of wetlands
3. Encourage water reclamation

• Address Open Space Chapter

1. Maintain open space for the adequate protection of human lives
2. Minimize potential hazards of development in hillsides, canyons, areas that flood, earthquakes, wildfire, and other known hazards
3. Maintain adequate resource production lands
4. Develop well-managed viable ecosystems of known rare, threatened and endangered species, including wetlands.

County of San Bernardino Land Use Services Department. San Bernardino County is also pursuing the preparation of a MSHCP for the Valley portion of San Bernardino County (Chino Hills to Yucaipa). Many of the wildlife corridors, open space, and habitat areas are located along the contiguous County boundary. Hence, San Bernardino County looks forward to coordinating the planning, development, and implementation of the MSHCPs for these conservation/preserve areas and wildlife transportation corridors.

California Regional Water Quality Control Board. The California Regional Water Control Board has written a letter containing recommendations for the creation of preserves.

The MSHCP should take into consideration the creation of preserves that effectively protect the beneficial uses of water that riparian, aquatic, or flood dependent federal and state listed species require. This will require that:

1. The preserves are of adequate size.
2. There is a linkage between the preserves.
3. The buffer areas are created to protect water quality and prevent erosion surrounding the preserves.
4. Development around the preserves must be managed to not impact the waters of the preserves.

Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD). There are two comment letters from this agency. The first letter contains several comments on CETAP and the General Plan for Riverside County. In addition, the following comments in regards to MSHCP were the same in both comment letters.

• MWD's participation in the establishment, management, and funding of these reserves has been independent of a regional reserve system. MWD will express severe concern with any overall regional reserve plan that assumes to assimilate these reserves without prior consultation directly with MWD.
• Several wildlife corridors are planned to provide connectivity between the various existing and proposed core reserves. Many of these corridors appear to parallel, cross, and/or connect to MWD properties and facilities. In general, MWD would be opposed to such corridors because of their potential incompatibility with the operation and maintenance of these facilities. MWD may be willing to negotiate limited use on or across our rights-of-way, so that some form of connectivity can ultimately be achieved.

Attached to this correspondence is a copy of "Guidelines for Development in the Area of Facilities, Fee Properties, and/or Easements of the Metropolitan Water District of Souther California."

County of Orange Planning & Development Services Department. The County of Orange has no comment at this time, but would like to receive a complete copy of the Draft EIR/EIS when it becomes available.

County of Riverside Transportation and Land Management Agency. The County of Riverside requests that the USFWS extend its public comment period on the NOI.

Organizations

Sierra Club, San Gorgonio Chapter. The Sierra Club submitted two letters, which provide comments and outline several areas of concerns.

• What are the biological criteria for selecting and maintaining each and every one of the "up to 164 covered species"?
• What are the scientific methods used to locate, count, and find all occupied and unoccupied habitats? These data and maps need to be included.
• How did/will you decide which lands will be purchased?
• Since the fringed-toed lizard and Stephens' kangaroo rat (SKR) HCP are hampered due to lack of money and adequate management, how will you guarantee this will not be the case for this plan - both near and distant future?
• How and when will you give the public a timetable with milestones to judge the adequacy of funding and management of this plan?
• How will this plan be integrated with the SKR HCP and SKR Recovery Plan?
• Will the preserves and protected habitat be functional for the long term? What criteria will be used?
• Will the resulting building on unprotected habitat put any of these species at risk?
• What connectivity will be provided for species that do not use riparian habitat?
• How wide will the connectivity be between protected habitats? Will you have maps to show this, and what species will use it?
• If a reserve or necessary habitat becomes nonfunctional for a protected species, will other lands be acquired?
• Will all lands have the necessary personnel and materials for management?
• Why has the County worked so intensely on integrating plans for freeways with adjacent counties, but maps end at county lines for habitat and connectivity?
• What happens if a new listing is needed for species not protected under this plan?
• If you decide to protect less than 164 species, what happens to the others? What happens to projects which impact these non-protected species?
• The reserves and protected habitat must be shown and analyzed as if Riverside County has realized its ultimate 100-year build out. How will Riverside County urbanization in the second half of the century affect reserves, corridors, and protected lands and the 164 species?
• Do you plan to relocate any threatened species/endangered species - plants/animals in the hope they will survive? To which species would this apply?
• The service signed off on the SKR HCP with the idea that connectivity between SKR reserves would be realized through the multi-species HCP. How are you fulfilling this commitment? Maps need to show these connections, and they must contain adequate SKR habitat.
• Where are all the historic vernal pools - including those within the San Jacinto River's historic flood plain?
• What protection is being provided each and every one of these vernal pools? Some generic protection plan is not acceptable.
• How will a causeway at the Ramona Expressway/San Jacinto River and again at I215/San Jacinto River benefit the threatened and endangered plant species found within the historic 100- to 250-year floodplain? One alternative must include maximum connectivity between reserves and protected habitat. How will you coordinate this EIR/EIS with those highway corridors.
• How are you following through on the implementation of connectivity/wildlife corridors between reserves mentioned in the final SKR documents?
• How will you integrate the MSHCP with the SKR HCP?
• How much water is needed for each species?
• How much water is available for each species and what is the source of that water? What happens to these sources of water and to the animals/plants that depend on them during drought years?
• How will the MSHCP protect water sources for all species as the State implements the new law requiring 20 years of water for new 500-unit projects?
• How would a causeway at the Ramona Expressway and I-215 aid the plants and animals that depend on the unique hydrology/soils of the San Jacinto River?
• What substantial scientific evidence do you have on each endangered or threatened species?
• At the build out of the proposed new land uses, and build out of all city and County approved projects, what other plants/animals/insects will at some point be expected to be added to those that are endangered or threatened? What maps or overlays do you have to support your conclusions? What scientific evidence do you have prior to your conclusions? How will the MSHCP include these species as they become listed? What money will be provided at the time of their listing?
• How will the MSHCP provide the necessary money for management and materials to maintain the habitat? Will these be non-wasting accounts which increase by the COLA? Since local, state, and federal agencies have their monies cut at times, how will you insure that these agencies always maintain the necessary funding for the survival of species requiring protection?

Friends of the Northern San Jacinto Valley. The Friends of the Northern San Jacinto Valley requested that the following issues be included in the EIR/EIS:

• Draft EIR/EIS needs to include a copy of the proposed Multi-Species Conservation Plan Implementation Agreement pursuant to Section 10(a) of the ESA, NCCP, and the California Endangered Species Act (CESA).
• Draft EIR/EIS needs to include a copy of the USFWS "Biological Opinion" for the MSHCP pursuant to Section 7 of the ESA.
• Request the ESA 10(a) and California NCCP/CESA Implementation Agreement to include a specific provision allowing for citizen suit should the federal and/or state Trustee Agencies fail to properly enforce the implementation agreements.

Ingrid Baddour & Associates, Commercial Realtors. This commercial real estate broker stated that the scoping meetings and document reviewing locations may meet the minimal legal requirements for public disclosure but under any consideration, this minimizes the laws requiring open and meaningful meetings to solicit public input.

• Inadequate Public Scoping Meeting locations: needs to have one in the Coachella Valley.
• Needs to have additional locations in the Coachella Valley to review scoping documents.

Friends of Live Oak Canyon. Live Oak Canyon is bordered by I-10, the Redlands City line, and San Timoteo Canyon.

• No development of the inner canyon which will remove more than a small patch of vegetation. A 5-acre minimum housing density should be maintained to keep "open space," scenic values, low activity level, and maintain natural fire and flooding.
• Many areas of the canyon need further study before any construction approval is released.
• Recommended that a formal plan be put into action to hook up this canyon to San Timoteo Canyon and the Santa Ana riverbed for recreational activities. Such a plan would make the best use of the area without extensive environmental deterioration.
• All future development should have a significant setback. Keep development away from the woodlands to maintain low activity levels around breeding areas and wildlife cover.

Center for Biological Diversity. This agency centers around protecting endangered species and wild plants of Western North America and the Pacific. Their recommendations and concerns are as follows:

• HCPs must minimize and mitigate the impact of take to the maximum extent practicable.
• HCPs must ensure survival and contribute to recovery of covered species.
• HCPs must minimize any harmful effects of permitted take.
• HCPs must contain measurable biological goals and objectives.
• The rarest and/or narrowest range covered species require a higher standard of conservation than more common wider ranging covered species.
• HCPs must include species and reserve area specific protective management and monitoring plans.
• Take of covered species must be commensurate with implementation of promised conservation.
• Existing reserve lands must not count towards HCP conservation goals absent improved conservation management.
• HCP reserve lands must include a hard-line component.
• HCP reserve lands must be free from all harmful land use.
• HCP and related documents must be subject to independent scientific review.
• Biological opinions on HCP should be released for public review and comment.
• HCP funding must be assured.
• HCP must specify any harmful effects of permitted take.
• HCP compliance must be monitored and the take permit revoked in the event of non-compliance.
• The permitted activity must be incidental to an otherwise lawful activity.

Center for Conservation Biology, University of California, Riverside. The scientific review panel has reviewed the Alternatives Development Document for Western Riverside MSHCP. The panel has written an eight-page letter offering several critical evaluations for the County of Riverside to consider.

Jackson, DeMarco & Peckenpaugh - representing - Murdock Development. Murdock Development owns property in the County which may be subject to the MSHCP. Murdock Development believes that the NOP for the MSHCP EIR/EIS is inadequate for the following reasons:

• The project description is incomplete and inaccurate.
• The project location is vague and inaccurate.
• The NOP omits several probable significant impact areas associated with the implementation of the MSHCP.
• The scope of the proposed project alternatives cannot be determined.

The County must at a minimum analyze the following potentially significant adverse impact areas resulting from implementation of the MSHCP:

• Potentially significant air quality and noise impacts must be analyzed.
• Potentially significant aesthetics impacts must be analyzed.
• Potentially significant geology and soils impacts must be analyzed.
• Potentially significant hydrology and water quality impacts must be analyzed.
• Potentially significant utilities impacts must be analyzed.

MSHCP Process, in its present form, violates CEQA.

• The MSHCP process constitutes illegal "piece-mealing."
• The MSHCP process constitutes illegal "rubber-stamping."
• The MSHCP process is inconsistent with the objectives of CEQA.

The MSHCP process as conceived is excessive, adds additional regulations, violates constitutional rights, and should be slowed down.

• The MSHCP goal of preserving approximately 153,000 acres of privately-owned land is excessive, and the MSHCP will regulate property outside the core area.

1. The MSHCP covers numerous species presently not protected.
2. MSHCP coverage of non-jurisdictional waters.
3. Narrow endemic plant species.

• The MSHCP attempts to create additional regulation unauthorized by federal or state law.

1. The MSHCP exceeds the Federal Endangered Species Act requirements.
2. The MSHCP exceeds the California Endangered Species Act requirements.
3. If the MSHCP is not a voluntary program, it exceeds the requirements of the NCCP program.
4. The MSHCP exceeds the requirements of the Clean Water Act and Fish and Game Code.

• More study and public review is required due to the MSHCP=s complexity and costs.
• Various MSHCP provisions may be an unconstitutional taking of private property.

1. Mandatory conservation of core area property.
2. Even informal designation of the core area may lead to unconstitutional pre-condemnation blight.
3. Funding of acquisition of core land through development fees must be constitutionally proper.

• The MSHCP processing framework is flawed.

1. Application of criteria.
2. The acquisition process must be revised.
3. Can MSHCP processing satisfy the mandatory time frames established under state law?
4. The effectiveness of "Adaptive Management" is questionable.
5. The MSHCP provides inadequate assurances to landowners.

• The MSHCP must provide protection to existing uses.
• The MSHCP restrictions in the Lake Elsinore area should be revised.

Friends of the Forest (Trabuco District) and Santa Rosa Plateau (FOF [TD] SRP). This nonprofit corporation is dedicated to the protection, preservation, and monitoring the environmental integrity of the Trabuco District of the Cleveland National Forest and the Santa Rosa Plateau. The FOF (TD) SRP has the following comments:

• Implications of two or more projects proposed for the same site with the same schedule: Cleveland National Forest Management Plan vs the MSHCP.
• The EIR/EIS should address the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission plan to build hydroelectric project within the Trabuco District.
• FOF suggests that a wider habitat area must be considered and evaluated much like a watershed or airshed.
• FOF suggests that the Nature Conservancy make their management plan subservient to the MSHCP.
• FOF would like to see a cooperative management agreement between the management agencies for the MSHCP in the link.
• FOF suggests an over rigid implementation plan or mechanism to "lock out" some other mechanism not originally contemplated, to the overall detriments of the long range goals.
• FOF requests that the documentation which accompanies the EIR/EIS will be sufficiently detailed to permit those who have not participated in the day-to-day planning to get up to speed and make their own assessment
• FOF recommends that the approval process includes a provision for both monitoring and reporting.

California Native Plant Society (CNPS). This private organization has several issues regarding botanical resources that should be addressed in the MSHCP EIR/EIS.

• CNPS is concerned that highly significant sensitive localities have been overlooked.
• CNPS suggests that the plan is attempting to preserve the wrong habitat for sensitive target species.
• CNPS believes that there are errors in the data characterization/distribution section of the species accounts, therefore, affecting the development of an accurate plant species reserve area plan.
• CNPS suggests that many more plant species should have been considered in the planning process.
• CNPS is concerned that some of the alternatives proposed would result in an inadequate reserve system.
• CNPS requests that an improvement be made regarding the downloading of documents to streamline data and document retrieval via the internet.
• CNPS states that this document must identify the mechanisms for funding, acquiring, maintaining the proposed reserves.
• CNPS request that this document notes procedures for preventing the loss of biological resources within the reserve boundaries before acquisition.
• CNPS requests that the proposed reserve boundary be formally mapped.
• The EIR/EIS should indicate the known critical populations for plant species, and how reserves will protect the most important populations.
• Proposed or potentially designated critical habitats by the USFWS should be described in the document, and the exhibit should be developed overlaying the critical habitat with the proposed reserve localities.
• The EIR/EIS needs to list where conservation goals and other County plans conflict, especially for corridors connecting the reserves.
• It is requested that a detailed table be developed noting the benefit to each species by alternative proposed in the document.
• A thorough review of the potential impacts of the lack of monitoring and management could have on these species should be conducted.
• What are the potential impacts of urbanization along the margins of the reserves?
• How would alteration in hydrology affect a number of the major drainages addressed in this plan?
• How could corridors be more effectively implemented in the course of continuing urbanization?

Jackson, DeMarco & Peckenpaugh -representing - Domenigoni-Barton Properties. Domenigoni-Barton Properties owns land in the County which may be subject to the MSHCP. There were two letters sent in regards to the MSHCP. The first letter is requesting that the public comment period be extended. The second letter states that Domenigoni-Barton believes that before releasing the MSHCP EIR/EIS, the work products should be revised to:

• Relieve regulatory burdens to private property owners - not add new regulations beyond those that exist under State and federal laws as currently proposed;
• Streamline project approvals - not lengthen the regulatory processes beyond the existing time frames;
• Establish a voluntary, incentive based program that rewards and compensates landowners who dedicate land to the MSHCP Reserve- not a regulatory program that restricts the use of privately-owned property and exacts it for the reserve;
• Provide certainty of timely compensation to landowners whose land is needed for the Reserve- not impose a cloud on hundreds of thousands of acres of private property throughout the County;
• Rectify technical deficiencies of the MSHCP which have been criticized by the MSHCP Science Review Panel, among others.
• The NOP should be revised to disclose additional potential environmental impacts, including the cumulative effects of all three elements of the RCIP, impacts to agriculture, and related economic impacts.

1. Notice of Preparation Deficiencies
   1. Incomplete project description - the NOP refers to incomplete documents that are supposed to describe the project.
   2. The NOP omits several probable significant impacts associated with the implementation of the MSHCP, including cumulative impacts of the entire RCIP and potentially significant agricultural impacts.
2. The MSHCP should be revised prior to the releasing the draft EIR/EIS. The revisions should include:
   1. Instead of relieving regulatory burdens, the MSHCP imposes greater restrictions and requirements than currently exist.
      1. The exactions currently proposed by the MSHCP exceed constitutional restrictions.
      2. The MSHCP exceeds the requirements of CEQA.
      3. The MSHCP imposes buffers on private property outside of the reserve.
      4. The MSHCP would require surveys and conservation of narrow endemic plant species beyond the requirements of existing law.
      5. The MSHCP exceeds the requirements of the Federal Endangered Species Act.
      6. The MSHCP exceeds the California Endangered Species Act requirements.
      7. Since the MSHCP, as proposed, is not a voluntary program, it exceeds the requirements of the NCCP program.
      8. The MSHCP exceeds the requirements of the Clean Water Act and the Fish & Game Code by requiring conservation of the non-jurisdictional waters.
      9. The MSHCP acquisition process must be revised.
      10. The MSHCP acquisition process fails to satisfy the mandatory time frames established under State Law.
      11. The MSHCP provides inadequate assurances to landowners.
   2. There is inadequate scientific basis justifying the reserve location and size.

• Attached to this correspondence are the Domenigoni's comment letters (see Attachment 7) in regard to MSHCP work products 1 and 3. The letters are dated May 16, May 24, June 28, and July 27, 2001.

San Bernardino Valley Audubon Society. The San Bernardino Valley Audubon Society has expressed several concerns and has requested that the EIR/EIS comply and include the following requirements.

• The final document must comply with both the federal ESA and NEPA.
• The final document should include and discuss in detail the Section 7 Biological No Jeopardy Opinion by the USFWS.
• The final document must make clear that all parties who are California public agencies must fully comply with CEQA before any part of the document may be implemented, including but not limited to the federal endangered species take permit.
• Both the State and federal take permits must be based on the latest scientific information regarding each species, not mere speculation or future studies.
• A moratorium on all lands considered for purchase under the plan must be in place, so that the plan can actually be implemented.

Riverside Land Conservancy. The San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board has identified a vital need to restore the Lower Warm Springs Creek. Attached are two study area maps. The Conservancy's intent is to ensure the following concerns are addressed:

• How do the constrictions in "study area 1" and "study area 2" both separately and in concert, affect the functionality of the Warm Springs Creek wildlife corridor as a whole?
• What species would likely use the wildlife corridor if both "study areas" were returned to a more natural state by widening the channel and restoring riparian and wetland habitat?
• What species would likely use the wildlife corridor if only "study area 1" was returned to a more natural state by widening the channel and restoring riparian and wetland habitat?
• What are the minimum physical requirements of the above species as far as habitat, if sections of the creek were to be restored to minimum functionality for the subject species?

Individuals

Bryant, Judy. She would like the largest amount of land possible set aside. The growth that this plan provides for cannot be accommodated in this area. Growth should be minimized including no new roads, and that federal dollars should be used for a commuter rail system. Riverside County needs a much stronger right to farm law. It needs to allow farmers to continue operating over the objections of new housing development neighbors. She suggests that farmers could leave their land to the forest service, who will find people to farm the land so that it will always remain farm land.

Bryant, James. Included in the proposed alternatives should be a "No further development" alternative. This is the only alternative that can logically be assumed to provide the greatest assurance of protection for all listed species. There is no scientific foundation that any of the listed species could survive on less habitat than what presently exists, nor whether reclamation efforts are successful. The County's biological infrastructure should be as large an obligation as transportation or socioeconomic infrastructures. Owners of undeveloped lands should be required to demonstrate that any activities are in compliance with ESA. It must be recognized that very little is known about successful management of species and their habitat. We can expect to be much more successful if we seek primarily to limit the development of land. A more detailed analysis should be performed of the public services and socioeconomic effects of the MSHCP. Public services should be heavily impacted, as habitat management/ preservation should become a major obligation of County resources. It is time for the County and local residents to do their part and commit their assets to the preservation of the region's natural legacy, to designate critical lands, and acquire them. These resources should not be allowed to dribble away through a piece meal "criteria based approach." Any analysis of the economic effects of implementation has been focused on the costs associated with the reserve system and should also be equally focused on the benefits of the reserve system. Economic benefits would be realized in the following areas: safety, health, conservation, tourism, and recreation.

Christ, Roberta. Tenaja Community Services District governs 6,400 acres of prime habitat located between the Santa Rosa Plateau Preserve and The Cleveland National Forest. The Nature Conservancy has bought 20 percent of this district, which is zoned 5-acre minimum residential and contains about 60 homes. Property taxes are very high, but no services are provided. Please put our community on your priority list for working with the community and consider incentives like property tax relief to stimulate a positive wildlife friendly response.

Drummond, Paula. Please include the American Indian archeological site located at Mocking Bird Canyon Road and Harley John (also known as lot 63 tract 9842) which is owned by Riverside County. It not only has an "Indian kitchen," dwelling place, and petroglyph site, but is home to the gnatcatcher, butterflies, frogs, and lizards.

Grant, G.B. Public transportation will only become popular when the average individual cannot afford their own transportation. So don't look for support while that condition does not exist. USFWS must create a program whereby propagation of endangered species is qualified and verified. Land for conservation is not the answer, population control is.

Grant, Terry. I have lived in the Anza area of Riverside County for over 20 years. We do not need to save any more rats, bugs or endangered species, just people. In the past years you have not given this area any services, we do just fine without you. Please stay out of this area and do not take our land.

Hankins, Anthony. Wildlife should not be limited to reserves away from the general populace. Wildlife should be encouraged to stay in the cities as well. Some people, including farmers plow their fields completely leaving no home for wildlife. They should be encouraged by law to only plow what is necessary for firebreaks. Leave us the owl, falcon, rabbits, squirrels, snakes, and tarantulas, etc. I believe it makes mankind richer to be in touch with everyday nature.

Harker, Bill. People come first. The purpose of MSHCP is to facilitate the involvement of people. That should be the first priority. Therefore, the routing should be designed to move people in the most quickest manner, taking topography and cost effectiveness into consideration. Special attention should be paid to property rights. Species, wetlands, habitats, etc. should receive secondary priority.

Conclusions

Responses to the NOIs and NOPs identified a number of issues that will be addressed in the Draft EIR/EIS for the MSHCP. Some of the key issues included the following:

• Biological selection criteria
• Need/demand for the project
• Timetable to judge the adequacy of plan funding and management
• Land acquisition, project boundaries, and surrounding land influence
• Consistency and integration of the plan with others
• Consulting those who developed the Orange County NCCP/HCPs
• Long-term function, management of preserves and protected land
• Threatened and endangered species relocations
• Connecting wildlife habitats and corridors
• Potential impacts to wetlands and aquatic resources
• Potential conflicts with the existing biological water supply
• Protection of vernal pools
• Future listings of species requiring protection
• Regulation of take permits
• Adequate scientific knowledge of species requiring protection
• Project costs, efforts and adequacy
• Potential impacts to existing land uses and communities, including residential neighborhoods, schools, development and businesses
• Consistency with adopted plans
• Property values, quality of life
• Relationship between the proposed project and transportation corridors being planned for Western Riverside County
• Broader public outreach and input efforts.

The responses received during the scoping process will be considered in the preparation of the Draft EIR/EIS and addressed to the greatest extent possible based upon the plans developed to date. All respondents and meeting participants will be included in the MSHCP public mailing lists to ensure their involvement throughout the project development.

Alternatives Suggested During Scoping

The following discussion is a summary of alternatives suggested during the public scoping process. In some cases, the alternatives suggested include alternatives that were considered earlier in the MSHCP planning process, but were eliminated from consideration. In other cases, the suggested alternatives include new alignments.

• No further development.
• Most biologically robust.