EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
ES.1 Purpose of the EIR/EIS
The purpose of this joint Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is to evaluate the potential for environmental effects from the following:
- Adoption of the Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) for western Riverside County; and
- Issuing incidental take permits for covered species pursuant to Section 10(a)(1)(B) of the federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) and the California Endangered Species Act, Section 2800, et seq., of the California Fish and Game Code (CESA).
ES.2 Introduction to the Riverside County Integrated PlanningProcess and Related Projects
The Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG) estimates that, in the year 2020, Riverside County will be home to approximately 2.8 million people, who will occupy approximately 918,000 dwelling units. This represents a doubling of the County's present population and housing stock. Another study by the California Department of Finance estimates that Riverside County (County) will continue to grow to 3.5 million people by 2030 and 4.5 million people by 2040. These residents will be located within 24 incorporated cities, as well as within numerous unincorporated areas.
The crush of the coming population boom, the challenge of balancing the associated housing, transportation, and economic needs of existing and future populations with limited natural resources, and the sensitivity of the natural environment required Riverside County to develop a unique planning model. This model, known as the Riverside County Integrated Project (RCIP), consists of three integrated regional planning efforts to determine future land use, transportation, and conservation needs for the County. The goals of the effort are threefold:
- Update the County's General Plan to describe anticipated future growth over the long term. The General Plan is meant to express the community's goals with respect to both the man-made and natural environments, and set forth the policies and implementation measures needed to achieve those goals for the welfare of those who live, work, and do business in the County. The update of the County's General Plan is presently in draft stage, and the MSHCP takes this update into account.
- Create an MSHCP for the western portion of the County, and integrate an ongoing Coachella Valley Multi-Species Habitat Conservation Plan effort into the fabric of comprehensive planning for the County. The western Riverside County MSHCP will address the potential impacts of urban growth, natural habitat loss, and plant and animal species endangerment. It attempts to ensure habitat conservation, species protection and management, program costs and development certainty to the County and cities; State and federal wildlife agencies; development, agriculture, and environmental communities; and the public at large.
- Identify transportation corridors to meet the County's future transportation needs through the Community Environmental and Transportation Acceptability Program (CETAP). CETAP is a multi-modal planning effort that considers not only highway options, but also transit and other forms of travel demand management and goods movement.
The County has prepared an EIR to address the environmental impacts of the implementation of the County's proposed General Plan. The Riverside County Transportation Commission and the Federal Highway Administration (Lead Agency for NEPA) have also prepared two EIR/EISs to address the environmental impacts of the proposed CETAP corridors.
ES.3 Project Location
The proposed MSHCP Plan Area ("Plan Area") encompasses approximately 1.26 million acres (1,966 square miles) and includes unincorporated portions of western Riverside County as well as 14 incorporated cities (Banning, Beaumont, Calimesa, Canyon Lake, Corona, Hemet, Lake Elsinore, Moreno Valley, Murrieta, Norco, Perris, Riverside, San Jacinto, and Temecula). The western boundary of the MSHCP Plan Area is defined by the Orange and San Bernardino County lines. The San Bernardino and San Diego County lines form the Plan Area's northern and southern boundaries, respectively. The eastern boundary of the Plan Area is formed by Banning Pass and the crest of the San Jacinto Mountains.
ES.4 Purpose and Need
Accommodating Riverside County's projected population increase will require the urbanization of thousands of acres of undeveloped land. Conflicts over species conservation threaten the ability of local jurisdictions to plan for and provide the infrastructure necessary to provide for a high quality of life and for economic development in Riverside County and threaten to fracture critical habitats. A continuation of the current piecemeal process of endangered species protection would likely preclude the possibility of creating a sustainable reserve system that will protect endangered and threatened species and the habitats upon which they rely.
Variation in topography, soil, and climate across the elevational range of the proposed Plan Area creates habitats for a wide variety of animals and plants, including many that are rare or endemic to Southern California. Thirty-nine species indigenous to western Riverside County have special status under the Federal Endangered Species Act (FESA) and/or the California Endangered Species Act (CESA). These include species that are listed as "endangered" or "threatened" under FESA or that have been "proposed" or are "strong candidates" for such listing. The proposed MSHCP will replace the current system of project approval and mitigation with a coordinated, comprehensive approach based on the basic conventions of biological reserve design. This approach ensures that project mitigation is directed to those areas most critical to maintenance of ecosystem function and species viability. The goal of the proposed MSHCP is to target the highest quality habitats for preservation, while allowing development of less important habitat areas.
ES.5 Proposed Project
The proposed MSHCP is the assembly and management of a reserve for the conservation of natural habitats and their constituent wildlife populations, and the issuance of incidental take permits for covered species. The County, Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (Flood Control), Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC), Riverside County Parks and Open Space District, Riverside County Waste Management District (County Waste), California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), California Department of Parks and Recreation (State Parks), and 14 incorporated cities (Banning, Beaumont, Calimesa, Canyon Lake, Corona, Hemet, Lake Elsinore, Moreno Valley, Murrieta, Norco, Perris, Riverside, San Jacinto, and Temecula) (Applicants) have applied to seek a permit to authorize incidental take of 146 species, including unlisted species that may become listed during the term of the permit. An incidental take permit is required to authorize take of listed species during urban and rural development in the approximately 1.26 million-acre (1,966-square mile) Plan Area in western Riverside County. The proposed term of the permit is 75 years.
The proposed MSHCP contains the overall conservation strategy for western Riverside County and documents the conservation strategies that will guarantee the protection of the species it covers. The conservation strategy includes the conservation of existing habitat, the restoration of degraded habitat, managing the reserve system, and conducting biological monitoring in perpetuity. The proposed MSHCP describes the institutional mechanisms to coordinate MSHCP implementation among the County, cities, and agencies, and identifies funding sources necessary for project implementation.
The proposed MSHCP would provide for the creation of a reserve system that would protect and manage 153,000 acres of habitat for Covered Species, consisting of 97,000 acres conserved as the local mitigation component and 6,000 acres conserved as mitigation for State Permittee projects (Caltrans and State Parks). It is anticipated that the USFWS and California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), which are referred to as the Wildlife Agencies, would provide an additional 50,000 acres to help achieve conservation identified in the MSHCP. Of the 97,000 acres conserved as the local mitigation component, 41,000 would accrue through the implementation of developer incentives and on-site set asides accomplished through the development review process. The precise boundaries of the proposed 153,000-acre reserve area are not specifically identified in the MSHCP. The conservation of 153,000 acres is anticipated to occur over the first 25 years of the program and when completed, must be in a configuration to, and include the vegetation communities that, provide for the conservation of Covered Species. To accomplish this, the proposed reserve will be assembled pursuant to written criteria that describe a possible design for the 153,000-acre reserve to be established within an approximately 300,000-acre area termed the "Criteria Area." This reserve system would complement the approximately 347,000 acres of existing reserves on public/quasi-public land.
Collectively, the 146 listed and unlisted species are referred to as "Covered Species" by the MSHCP. The permit would provide take authorization for covered species identified by the MSHCP and the IA as "Covered Species Adequately Conserved." Currently, the MSHCP identifies 130118 species as "Covered Species Adequately Conserved." The remaining 1628 Covered Species would be included as "Covered Species Adequately Conserved" when the species objectives for those species are met, as provided in the MSHCP.
Covered Activities would include, but are not limited to, public and private development within the Plan Area that requires a discretionary action by a Permittee subject to consistency with MSHCP policies, two internal regional transportation facilities, safety improvements on existing roads, the Circulation Elements of the Permittees, maintenance and construction of flood control facilities, single-family homes on existing legal parcels within the Criteria Area, up to 10,000 acres of new agricultural activity within the Criteria Area, and compatible uses in the reserve. The MSHCP makes a provision for the inclusion of special districts and other non-Permittee entities in the permit with a certificate of inclusion.
ES.6 Goals of the MSHCP
The overall goal of the proposed MSHCP is rooted in the RCIP Vision Statement and supporting policy directives. The proposed MSHCP was developed to allow for maintenance of biological diversity and ecosystem processes while allowing future economic growth. Preservation of a quality of life characterized by well managed and planned growth intersected by an open space system is also a goal of the proposed MSHCP. The goal of the Plan is to provide for conservation of approximately 500,000 acres supporting the habitat and life history requirements of up to 146 species. Approximately 347,000 acres are anticipated to be conserved on existing public/quasi-public lands, with approximately 153,000 additional acres being acquired from existing private landowners. Policy directions regarding this goal were provided by the County Board of Supervisors on December 19, 2000. The MSHCP is intended to protect and sustain viable populations of native plant and animal species and their habitats in perpetuity through the creation of a reserve system, while accommodating continued economic development and quality of life for residents of western Riverside County. The overarching goals of the MSHCP are the following:
- In the MSHCP Plan Area, conserve Covered Species and their habitats.
- Improve the future economic development in the County by providing an efficient, streamlined regulatory process through which development can proceed in an efficient way. The MSHCP and the General Plan will provide the County with a clearly articulated blueprint describing where future development should and should not occur.
- Provide for permanent open space, community edges, and recreational opportunities, which contribute to maintaining the community character of western Riverside County.
ES.7 Alternatives
Both CEQA and NEPA require that this document describe the Proposed Project/Action and the alternatives to the Proposed Action. The alternatives should be reasonable to achieve the need that the Proposed Action is intended to address. The MSHCP is a comprehensive program that defines actions that the federal, State, local governments, and the private sector must undertake to assure the continued vitality of sensitive species and the ecosystems that they depend upon in western Riverside County. These actions include land protection, habitat restoration, land management, biological monitoring, compliance monitoring, and funding of the program.
A range of alternatives has been included that would attain most of the basic objectives of the project, but would avoid or substantially lessen significant effects of the project. In addition to the proposed Plan, four alternatives are analyzed in detail in the Joint EIR/EIS. (Two alternatives were considered but eliminated from further analysis because they did not meet the objectives of the MSHCP [Appendix B].) The four analyzed alternatives are described as follows:
Listed, Proposed, and Strong Candidate Species Alternative
This alternative was developed to depict a potential conservation scenario that would address listed, proposed, and strong candidate species. In addition to the 32 species listed or proposed for listing in western Riverside County, this alternative also considers conservation needs for the seven species identified as "strong candidates" for listing. The focus of conservation for this alternative is these 39 listed, proposed, and strong candidate species. 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 currently private land outside existing reserves (Table ES-A).
Listed and Proposed Species Alternative
This alternative would address the 32 species currently listed and proposed for listing that occur in the MSHCP Plan Area. This alternative focuses largely on the conservation of the 32 listed and proposed species within the MSHCP Plan Area, with less consideration of the broad-based NCCP biological concepts.
While large habitat blocks and broad linkages are incorporated in this alternative in some areas, less emphasis is placed in this alternative on broad-based ecosystem conservation. 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 private lands currently outside existing reserves (Table ES-A).
Existing Reserves Alternative
Under this alternative, conservation activities would be focused on existing reserves only. Under this scenario, the federal and State permit authorizing incidental take would only apply to species adequately conserved on existing reserves (see Table 2L in Section 2.0 of this document). The level of conservation within existing reserves would be dependent upon activities within the reserves and resource protection efforts undertaken by the reserve managers. It is assumed that enhanced conservation and management would occur within the existing reserves, in addition to that currently occurring or what might occur in the future with implementation of the U.S. Forest Service (USFS) Southern California Conservation Strategy.
Of the 32 species currently listed or proposed for listing, only two bird species, the peregrine falcon (Falco peregrinus) and western yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus occidentalis), would be considered to be "protected" under this alternative. 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. parishii), could be considered to be protected based on conservation on Santa Rosa Plateau and on USFS lands. The remaining 26 listed and proposed species would not be considered to be "protected" under this alternative.
No Project Alternative
With the No Project Alternative, land use changes and policies that are being contemplated to implement the MSHCP would not occur. However, planning currently being conducted under the RCIP 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 would need to be permitted separately under the applicable State and federal processes. Existing reserves would be retained with existing management strategies under this alternative (Table ES-A).
Under the No Project Alternative, activities involving the take of State and/or federally listed species would require individual permitting on a project-by-project basis, as is currently the case. Incidental take permits would not be issued to Riverside County or cities within western Riverside County except on a project-by-project basis.
Impacts resulting from development activities are currently subject to a variety of local, State, and federal regulatory processes. Under this alternative, these existing processes and the resulting project modifications and mitigation are anticipated to result in some conservation of habitats and species within the MSHCP Plan Area. Biological resources that are afforded the greatest level of protection under existing regulations and policies are those species that are listed as threatened or endangered, and those species and habitats associated with wetland systems.
Conservation of species and habitats provided through mitigation and compensation under the existing regulatory framework would likely result in a pattern of conservation that is fragmented, and managed in a piecemeal fashion. There would 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.
In the absence of a comprehensive MSHCP, the current regulations and policies would continue to be applied throughout the Plan Area. History has demonstrated that application of these regulations and policies would not avoid the decline of species in the Plan Area. Based on historic trends, it is anticipated that, under this alternative, new species would continue to be listed in the future, and regulation of those species and their habitats would be applied under the current regulatory processes.
ES.8 Issues Raised
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 by law to be included in the Draft EIR/EIS, the information and opinions provided in the letters identified specific issues to be addressed. For a more detailed understanding of the issues and opinions expressed, refer to the complete set of the NOP/NOI response letters provided in Appendix A, Attachment 7. Some of the major issues raised in the letters include the following:
- Biological selection criteria;
- Need or demand for the Plan;
- Timetable to judge the adequacy of Plan funding and management;
- Land acquisition, Plan boundaries, and surrounding land influence;
- Consistency and integration of the Plan with others;
- Long-term function and management of reserves 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 and quality of life issues;
- Relationship between the Proposed Action and transportation corridors being planned for western Riverside County; and
- Public outreach and input efforts.
| Table ES-A - Summary of Alternatives | |||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Vegetation Community | Total Acres in Plan Area | Total Acres Conserved/Percent Conserved | |||||||||
| Proposed MSHCP | Listed, Proposed, and Strong Candidate Alternative | Listed and Proposed Alternative | Existing Reserve Alternative | No Project Alternative | |||||||
| acres | % | acres | % | acres | % | acres | % | acres | % | ||
| Agriculture | 169,480 | 20,020 | 12% | 26,380 | 16% | 26,380 | 16% | 11,480 | 7% | 11,480 | 7% |
| Chaparral | 434,950 | 272,280 | 63% | 246,390 | 57% | 234,390 | 54% | 207,380 | 48% | 207,380 | 48% |
| Cismontane Alkali Marsh | 1,260 | 40 | 3% | <5 | <1% | <5 | <1% | <5 | <1% | <5 | <1% |
| Coastal Sage Scrub | 156,450 | 81,720 | 52% | 73,740 | 47% | 64,390 | 41% | 34,560 | 22% | 34,560 | 22% |
| Desert Scrub | 14,570 | 4,990 | 34% | 1,470 | 10% | 1,310 | 9% | 1,310 | 9% | 1,310 | 9% |
| Grassland | 154,140 | 42,820 | 28% | 38,030 | 25% | 34,020 | 22% | 22,810 | 15% | 22,810 | 15% |
| Meadows and Marsh | 1,020 | 510 | 50% | 430 | 42% | 410 | 40% | 330 | 32% | 330 | 32% |
| Montane Coniferous Forest | 29,910 | 20,500 | 69% | 20,510 | 69% | 20,510 | 69% | 20,480 | 68% | 20,480 | 68% |
| Playa and Vernal Pools | 7,910 | 6,750 | 85% | 5,850 | 74% | 5,850 | 74% | 2,920 | 37% | 2,920 | 37% |
| Riparian Scrub, Woodland and Forest | 15,030 | 11,190 | 74% | 9,370 | 62% | 9,070 | 60% | 7,270 | 48% | 7,270 | 48% |
| Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub | 7,940 | 5,230 | 66% | 4,440 | 56% | 4,420 | 56% | 2,060 | 26% | 2,060 | 26% |
| Woodlands and Forests | 34,300 | 23,500 | 69% | 22,520 | 66% | 22,360 | 65% | 20,770 | 61% | 20,770 | 61% |
| Water | 12,210 | 10,340 | 85% | 10,090 | 83% | 10,010 | 82% | 9,150 | 75% | 9,150 | 75% |
| Developed or Disturbed Land | 218,260 | 4,780 | 2% | 4,780 | 2% | 4,780 | 2% | 4,780 | 2% | 4,780 | 2% |
| Unknown | 1,350 | 1,240 | 92% | 1,240 | 92% | 1,240 | 92% | 1,230 | 91% | 1,230 | 91% |
| Total | 1,258,780 | 505,910 | - - | 465,830 | - - | 439,140 | - - | 346,530 | - - | 346,530 | - - |
| Source: Western Riverside County MSHCP, November 2002. | |||||||||||
ES.9 Summary of Environmental Impacts/Consequences
Table ES-B summarizes the significance of direct and indirect impacts under each alternative after the incorporation of mitigation measures for each resource area discussed in this EIR/EIS. Cumulative impacts are discussed in Section 5.0.
| Table ES-B - Summary of Significance of Impacts after Incorporation of Mitigation Measures | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Impact Category and Issue | Alternatives | ||||
| Proposed Action/ Proposed MSHCP | Listed, Proposed, and Strong Candidate Species | Listed and Proposed Species | Existing Reserves | No Project/No MSHCP | |
| Biology | |||||
| Sensitive Natural Vegetation Communities | |||||
| • Sensitive Upland (chapparal, coastal sage scrub, desert scrub, grasslands, Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub) | Significant and unavoidable | Significant and unavoidable | Significant and unavoidable | ignificant and unavoidable | ignificant and unavoidable |
| • Wetland Communities (meadows and marshes, playas and vernal pools, water and riparian scrub/woodland/forest) | Less than significant | Less than significant | Less than significant | ||
| • Forest Communities (montane coniferous forest, peninsular juniper woodland and scrub, woodlands and forest) | Less than significant | Less than significant | Less than significant | ||
| Listed Covered Species | Less than significant | Less than significant | Less than significant | Significant and unavoidable | Significant and unavoidable |
| Non-Listed Covered Species | Less than significant | Less than significant | Less than significant | Significant and unavoidable | Significant and unavoidable |
| Non-Covered Species | Significant and unavoidable | Significant and unavoidable | Significant and unavoidable | Significant and unavoidable | Significant and unavoidable |
| Cores and Linkages | Less than significant | Significant and unavoidable | Significant and unavoidable | Significant and unavoidable | Significant and unavoidable |
| Relationship to Adopted or Approved HCPs and NCCPs | Less than significant | Significant and unavoidable | Significant and unavoidable | Significant and unavoidable | Significant and unavoidable |
| Edge Effects | Less than significant | Significant and unavoidable | Significant and unavoidable | Significant and unavoidable | Less than significant |
| Agricultural and Extractive Resources | |||||
| Agriculture | |||||
| Conflict with existing agricultural designations for land within the MSHCP Plan Area or a Williamson Act contract. | Less than significant1 | Less than significant1 | Less than significant1 | Less than significant | Less than significant |
| Result in the conversion of Prime, Unique, or Statewide Important farmland (collectively, "Designated Farmland") as shown on maps prepared by the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program, to non-agricultural uses. | Less than significant1 | Less than significant1 | Less than significant1 | Less than significant | Less than significant |
| Involve other changes in the existing environment which, due to their location or nature, could result in the conversion of Designated Farmland to non-agricultural use. | Less than significant1 | Less than significant1 | Less than significant1 | Less than significant | Less than significant |
| Mineral Resources | |||||
| Results in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the State. | Less than significant | Significant and unavoidable | Significant and unavoidable | Less than significant | Less than significant |
| Results in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan. | Less than significant | Significant and unavoidable | Significant and unavoidable | Less than significant | Less than significant |
| Directly conflicts or results in land use incompatibility with adjacent existing and planned land uses or with the environmental goals of the general plans and community plans of the jurisdictions participating in the proposes MSHCP. | Less than significant | Significant and unavoidable | Significant and unavoidable | Less than significant | Less than significant |
| Population, Housing, and Employment | |||||
| Existing population and housing projections are substantially exceeded. | Significant and unavoidable | Significant and unavoidable | Significant and unavoidable | Less than significant | Less than significant |
| Displaces substantial numbers of residential units, requiring the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. | Less than significant | Less than significant | Less than significant | Less than significant | Less than significant |
| Displaces substantial numbers of persons, necessitating the construction of replacement housing. | Less than significant | Less than significant | Less than significant | Less than significant | Less than significant |
| Exacerbates the jobs-to-housing imbalance in western Riverside County or the Cities of western Riverside County. | Less than significant | Less than significant | Less than significant | Less than significant | Less than significant |
| Public Services (Fire Protection and Parks) | |||||
| Results in relocation or deletion of existing or planned fire protection facilities, adversely affecting the ability of local jurisdictions to provide fire protection in an adequate manner. | Less than significant | Less than significant | Less than significant | Less than significant | Less than significant |
| Results in the relocation or deletion of existing or planned park facilities, adversely affecting the ability of local jurisdictions to provide park facilities in an adequate manner. | Less than significant | Less than significant | Less than significant | Less than significant | Less than significant |
| Transportation and Circulation | |||||
| Cause an increase in traffic that is substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections) | Less than significant | Less than significant | Less than significant | Less than significant | Less than significant |
| Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways | Less than significant | Less than significant | Less than significant | Less than significant | Less than significant |
| Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment) | Less than significant | Less than significant | Less than significant | Less than significant | Less than significant |
| Result in inadequate emergency access | Less than significant | Less than significant | Less than significant | Less than significant | Less than significant |
| Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs supporting alternative transportation (e.g., bus turnouts, bicycle racks) | Less than significant | Less than significant | Less than significant | Less than significant | Less than significant |
| Note: 1 If Section 7.3.3 of the MSHCP is implemented, conversion of natural lands to agricultural use, as defined and outlined in those sections of the MSHCP, will be allowed as a covered activity within the Criteria Area, up to an established threshold of 10,000 acres over the life of the plan (the "New Agricultural Lands Cap"). If Section 7.3.3 of the MSHCP is not implemented, then there would be a significant unavoidable adverse impact on agricultural lands. |
|||||