Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutItem No. 14 Supplemental Info 1 k /� s,�� P FISMWgm,FE U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service California Department of Fish and Wildlife 9F"""E Palm Springs Fish and Wildlife Office Inland Deserts Region 777 East Tahquitz Canyon Way, Suite 208 3602 Inland Empire Blvd.,Suite C-220 Palm Springs,California 92262 Ontario,California 91764 760-322-2070 909-484-0167 FAX 760-322-4648 FAX 909-481-2945 In Reply Refer To: FWS/CDFW-WRIV- 17BO424-18CPA0051 November 28, 2017 Sent by email Mr. Richard J. MacHott Planning Manager City of Lake Elsinore Planning Division 130 South Main Street Lake Elsinore, CA 92530 Subject: Final Environmental Impact Report for the East Lake Specific Plan Amendment No.I 1 Project, City of Lake Elsinore. SCH#2016111029. Response to Wildlife Agency Comments. Dear Mr. MacHott: The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service(USFWS; Service)and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW; Department), hereafter collectively referred to as the Wildlife Agencies, have reviewed the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) for the East Lake Specific Plan Amendment No.I 1 Project(ELSP, SCH No. 2016111029). The FEIR has been prepared to identify the proposed project's direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts,to discuss alternatives, and to propose mitigation measures that avoid,minimize, or offset significant environmental impacts. The primary concern and mandate of the Service is the protection of public fish and wildlife resources and their habitats. The Service has legal responsibility for the welfare of migratory birds, anadromous fish, and endangered animals and plants occurring in the United States. The Service is also responsible for administering the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (Act), as amended(16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). The Department is a trustee agency under the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA) and is responsible for ensuring appropriate conservation of fish and wildlife resources including rare, threatened, and endangered plant and animal species, pursuant to the California Endangered Species Act, and administers the Natural Community Conservation Planning Program (NCCP). The Wildlife Agencies are providing the following comments as they relate to the project's consistency with the Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP)and the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA). The ELSP is the primary guide for development within the approximately 2,950-acre specific plan area; located in the City of Lake Elsinore on the southeasterly shore of Lake Elsinore within southwestern Riverside County. The proposed Project is generally bound by Lakeshore Drive to the north, Mission Trail and Corydon Road to the east, Union Street to the South, and Lake Elsinore to the north and northwest. The ELSP prescribes the types and arrangements of land uses designations, design guidelines, infrastructure, and Richard MacHott(FWS/CDFW-WRIV-17B0424-18CPA0051) 2 zoning and development standards for the specific plan area. Ten amendments have been made to the ELSP since it was originally prepared in 1993. The East Lake Specific Plan Amendment No. 11, changes some residential and open space uses to sports and recreation oriented uses. The proposed amendment includes zoning for a mix of sports and recreational uses, commercial uses, hotels, open space,residential, industrial, and accessory industrial uses, on-site infrastructure improvements, and offsite improvements related to connecting and/or upgrading offsite utility and roadway infrastructure. ELSP Phase 1 includes features that are expected to be completed within five years (July 1, 2022). These features include the extension of Malaga Road/Sylvester, Cereal and Lucerne Streets into Planning Area 6, related infrastructure (water, sewer and dry utilities), improvements to the existing permeable earthen berm to make it impermeable for better hydrologic control of the Back Basin and Lake water levels, and to complete the conservation of 770 acres in the Back Basin. The berm modifications include reconstructing and repairing the existing berm along a portion of the northern and western boundary, installation of new low permeability (clay or soil cement) berms in several locations, revegetation along the berm, and localized areas of rip rap installation to prevent erosion of the berm. Phase 2 proposes the completion of all developments by 2040. The Wildlife Agencies acknowledge that the project is a specific plan and that additional environmental review will be undertaken on a project-by-project basis. The Wildlife Agencies found the FEIR to be largely responsive to our comments and appreciate the reduction in roads, the agreement to coordinate with the Wildlife Agencies on a Back Basin (770-acre) management plan, clarifications on outstanding mitigation obligations, and inclusion of the requested additions to Mitigation Measures Bios 4, 7, 8 and 9. However, we have a few outstanding concerns which we request that the City address via minor adjustments to the FEIR text, as detailed below. COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Hardening of Berm Surrounding 356-acre Wetlands The Wildlife Agency Draft EIR letter did not comment on the EIR's proposed hardening of the berm because the Draft EIR provided no detail on the location of the hardening or changes to the hydrology; thus, the Wildlife Agencies did not understand that potential impacts to natural resources under our jurisdictions would result from this activity. However, after discussions with City staff and further review of revisions to RDEIR Sections 3 and 5, the Wildlife Agencies have concerns regarding the improvements intended for the berm bordering the 356- acre wetland mitigation area. Section 3, Project Description, briefly refers to the improvements as"making an existing permeable earthen berm/levee impermeable for better hydrological control (pp. 3-35)." Section Richard MacHott(FWS/CDFW-WRIV-17B0424-18CPA0051) 3 5 (Table 5.8-5) further describes improvements as"renovation of existing berms along the southern boundary of PA 6 is proposed to protect properties against the 25-year storm event (pp. 5.8-37)."Neither of these statements, nor the survey information in Appendix H-1 and H-2, provide information on the purpose of the berm hardening or specifics on the dimensions and location of the berm modification. Our understanding is that the berm is supposed to redirect flows into the 356-acre Wetland to maintain water levels there. This will also modify and confine the existing flow path and dewater areas in the Back Basin, which currently receive these flows. If the proposed berm improvements do not avoid changes to existing flow patterns, any loss of functions and values to habitat modified by the changes in the Back Basin hydrology will need to be mitigated. Additionally, these may require notifications to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife Lake and Streambed Alteration Program and the United States Army Corp of Engineers 404 Program, State Water Resource Control Board 401 Program and an MSHCP Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation. Further, portions of the proposed berm appear to be within the boundaries of the conservation easement held by CDFW for the 356-acre Wetland Area.Any activity within the conservation easement must be consistent with the terms of the conservation easement. Clarification of Mitigation Areas and Approved Uses Response to Comments 27-5 and 27-6: The Wildlife Agencies appreciate the City's inclusion of requested edits to Section 5.3.6.11 of the DEIR in regards to the 770-acre mitigation in the Back Basin. However, we are still unclear on the biological/ecological resources, acreage, and location of the additional land proposed for mitigation. We request a map that clearly identifies mitigation areas (with acreage)that have been agreed upon (i.e. 356-acre wetland, 130-acre Lake Elsinore Inlet Channel, 10-, 25-, and 71-acre Summerly sites etc.) and those that are being proposed as additional mitigation areas by the City. The map should also include an expansion of the detail given in the FEIR that states the MSHCP resource values (habitat type and function)and the associated connectivity to mitigation lands. Within the description of the additional proposed mitigation areas,the City should include any relevant activities, maintenance that would occur within or affect the mitigation area. We also have concerns that use of lost storage volume areas dispersed across project sites and open space areas as contribution towards the 770-acre goal will result in piecemeal conservation that does not have the MSHCP resource values and/or connectivity to the adjacent mitigation areas. As discussed in the 2013 Back Basin History letter from CDFW to the City, (enclosed), any potential lands for conservation should include areas that were targeted for Reserve Assembly as described in the MSHCP(based on the written cell criteria) and/or provide connectivity to lands that are conserved and/or proposed for conservation. The lands should target lands that benefit shorebirds or wetland/marsh associated species, vernal pool species, sensitive plant species, and/or Planning Species for Subunit 3 and Proposed Extension of Existing Core 3, as described in the MSHCP. The areas that are to contribute to the 770 acres Richard MacHott(FWS/CDFW-WRIV-17B0424-18CPA0051) 4 should support the appropriate resources and be evaluated for connectivity to existing conservation areas. In addition to the detailed map and description of proposed mitigation areas, we request a meeting with the City, Wildlife Agencies, and the RCA to discuss the proposed additions of mitigation lands to meet the 770 Back Basin acreage goals. The Wildlife Agencies approve of Response to Comment 27-6, statement"all open space areas will be required to set aside an endowment for woody invasive species removal in perpetuity in order to meet this managed open space requirement," and suggest that seeding of native species be added to help suppress non-native species. The re-establishment of a native seed bank will help impede non-native species establishment and promote native biological diversity not just in open space areas but in surrounding conservation/mitigation areas as well. The City should manage the open space areas for all invasive species that suppress native vegetation that can aid in the overall ecological and biological lift of the Back Basin mitigation areas. We request that the statement be changed to "all open space areas will be required to set aside an endowment for invasive species removal and seeding of native species to further encourage native biological diversity in perpetuity in order to meet this managed open space requirement". Additionally, we have concerns in regards to the addition of trails that may extend into open space/mitigation areas.All trails should match the MSHCP approved trails and the City should consult with the Wildlife Agencies on proposed trail locations to ensure consistency with the MSHCP. If the City intends to place trails within the ELSP that are not covered under the MSHCP approved trails then we recommend that all trails be interior to the developed portions of the ELSP. Mitigation Measures Response to Comment 27-13: In response to the our Comment 27-13 on the Draft EIR, the City expanded ELSPA No. 11 Section 2.5.4.2 to include additional language, and modified the text of Draft EIR MM BIO-9 (which became MM BIO-10 in the Final EIR). The Wildlife Agencies appreciate the City's addition and clarification of ELSP No. 11 Section 2.5.4.2. We recommend a minor adjustment to the wording of FEIR MM 1310-10 to reflect the fact that—while tamarisk trees and shrubs are currently the most abundant non-native invasive plant species in the Back Basin—there may be some project sites or mitigation parcels which may need removal of other invasive species in addition to tamarisk(e.g., giant reed or a future as yet unknown invasive species), in order to for native vegetation and wildlife habitat to replace the invasive plant cover dominating the site. Therefore, we recommend making a minor adjustment to the text of FEIR MM 1310-10, as follows: "MM BIO-10: Mitigation for each future implementing development project will be completed prior to or concurrently with each project's implementation (may require grading to occur to establish the mitigation area) and will be consistent with the 770 Plan currently developed for the Back basin as well as other requirements as described in section 2.5.4.2 of ELSPA No. 11. Richard MacHott(FWS/CDFW-WRIV-17B0424-18CPA0051) 5 Removal of tamarisk scrub vegetation and other invasive species(including Arundo donax) will be considered a benefit to the Back Basin and no mitigation will be required by the City, provided the Tamarisk is invasive species are eradicated in perpetuity. This means that development of a site that is graded, paved, etc. such that Tamarisk and any other invasive species cannot survive, does not need mitigation. If a portion of Tamarisk scrub or other invasive plant species remains on a project site,the project proponent will be required by the City to establish an endowment to remove/eradicate the TannarislE invasive species in perpetuity. Impacts to riverine and riparian resources will be mitigated in the Back Basin, elsewhere in the Lake Elsinore area, or other agency- approved mitigation banks or in-lieu fee programs within the MSHCP. Impacts to riparian resources will be compensated at a minimum ratio of 2:1 preservation in the Back Basin, elsewhere in the Lake Elsinore area, or other agency- approved mitigation banks or in-lieu fee programs within the MSHCP." Response to Comment 27-24: In our letter commenting on the Draft EIR, the Wildlife Agencies noted that DEIR MM BIO-8 stated that compensatory mitigation for impacts to Waters of the State are recommended at a minimum 1:1 ratio and impacts to wetland and riparian waters are recommended at a minimum 2:1 ratio. The Final EIR Response to Comment#27-24 incorrectly stated that"The [Wildlife Agencies'] comment recommends compensatory mitigation for impacts to Waters of the State at a minimum 1:1 ratio and for impacts to wetland and riparian waters at a minimum 2:1 ratio." Response 27-24 subsequently states that"the Wildlife Agencies' recommended ratios"—which are actually the developer's recommended ratios, not ours—"may not be appropriate for historic lakebed areas"that are currently disturbed or are currently dominated by non-native vegetation ("ruderal vegetated areas"; "Much of these areas support ruderal and/or invasive plant species"), and goes on to justify extremely low mitigation ratios that do not reflect the goals of equivalent or superior mitigation for MSHCP riparian/resources or the mitigation policies of CDFW. Prior to control of the Lake's level and development-related disturbance of the lake bed, Lake Elsinore functioned ecologically as a giant vernal pool, with the lake's water levels, boundaries, and native vegetation in a constant state of flux from year to year. The various types of native wetland and riparian plant communities would have shifted their locations frequently in response to the lake's boundaries and the relative frequency of seasonal inundation. Seasonally dry native wetland vegetation communities dominated by herbaceous plant species (mostly annuals) are capable of shifting their locations very rapidly to adjust to dry conditions with only occasional flood years, as well as to contrasting wetter conditions. Prior to human lake-level control, these native vernal wetland plant communities would have occupied the"historic lake bed" during the numerically dominant dry years lacking prolonged periods of inundation. Areas of the historic lake bed which are currently disturbed or'dominated by non-native (e.g., "ruderal") plant species do have value and can be restored to native vegetation, including the diverse communities of native annual and shrub plant species that inhabit the dry end of the Richard MacHott(FWS/CDFW-WRIV-17BO424-18CPA0051) 6 hydrologic regime associated with the San Jacinto Watershed's wetland and riparian communities. As we stated in our letter on the Draft EIR, mitigation should be sufficient to reduce project impacts to Waters of the State and MSHCP Riparian/RiverineNernal Pool Resources to equivalent or superior to avoidance,based on consideration of factors such as the net loss of habitat, uncertainty of successful habitat restoration, relationship between the impact site and the mitigation site, vegetation community differences between the impact site and the mitigation site, and the temporal lag between the time of the impact and the establishment of replacement habitat. The Wildlife Agencies cannot recommend or prescribe blanket mitigation ratios. The current discussion of ratios and the lengthy and detailed list of mitigation ratios included in FEIR MM BIO-9 (including Tables 5.3-18 and 5.3-19, as well as most of the preceding text)provides misleading information to project proponents and could result in unnecessary delays in permitting for impacts to Water of the US, Waters of the State, and MSHCP Riparian/RiverineNernal Pool Resources. To avoid misleading future project proponents in the ELSPA and avert unnecessary conflicts over mitigation, the Wildlife Agencies recommend that the City shorten and simplify FEIR MM BIO-9 to read as follows: "MM BIO-9: Mitigation for each future implementing development project will be completed prior to or concurrently with Project implementation, and will be consistent with the 770 Plan currently developed for the Back Basin. Impacts to Corps jurisdiction below elevation 1246' and CDFW jurisdiction below elevation 1265' shall be compensated for by the preservation of waters below elevation 1246' and/or 1265' in the confines of the Back Basin or Lake Elsinore. Appropriate mitigation will be identified in discussion with USACE and CDFW, during the respective regulatory permitting process as appropriate for each future implementing development project. Mitigation for non-elevation- related impacts to jurisdictional-features may be combined with mitigation for impacts to the elevation-bound jurisdictional lakebed due to the significant overlap in these areas in the acreage calculations in the previous sections." Minor Amendment The Wildlife Agencies appreciate the City's reduction in roads and compliance with MSHCP Section 7.5.1. In order to count the gain or savings from the change in road configurations the reduction must be memorialized in a minor amendment to Figure 7-1 of the MSHCP. We request that the City submit a minor amendment to the RCA and Wildlife Agencies before grading of road infrastructure within the ELSP begins. Conclusion We thank the City for its responsiveness to our comments and the meetings and discussion that lead up to those responses. We have requested the inclusion of a detailed map, description of mitigation areas and the removal and additions to language within the FEIR prior to adoption Richard MacHott(FWS/CDFW-WRIV-17B0424-18CPA0051) 7 by the City. We have also requested a meeting with the City, Wildlife Agencies, and RCA to discuss the additional proposed mitigation lands and expect that we can have or begin that discussion at our scheduled January meeting. We appreciate the opportunity to provide comments on this Final EIR. If you have any questions or comments regarding this letter please contact James Thiede of the Service at james_thiede@fws.gov (or 760-322-2070, extension 419) or Heather Pert of the Department at heather.Pert@wildife.ca.gov or 858-395-9692. Sincerely, Digitally signed by KARIN KA R I N )n CLEARY-ROSE 0B0o° ".z8,6:38:36 CLEARY-ROSE for Kennon A. Corey Leslie MacNair Assistant Field Supervisor Inland Deserts Region U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Regional Manager CA Department of Fish and Wildlife Enclosure (1) cc: Jim Mace, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Jason Bill, Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board Jeff Brandt, CDFW, Region 6 Headquarters Kim Romich, CDFW Lake and Streambed Alteration Program State Clearinghouse Enclosure Summary& Timeline of Back Basin Conservation Area Prepared by California Department of Fish and Wildlife October 17,2013 A. In 2003, prior to the adoption of the Western Riverside Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP), there were a series of meetings between the County of Riverside (County), Jim Bartel of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Ron Rempel of the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (Department, formerly known as Department of Fish and Game), and others to discuss conservation measures within the East Lake Specific Plan in the back basin of Lake Elsinore to provide consistency with the MSHCP. B. On October 9, 2003 the East Lake Specific Plan MSHCP Consistency Analysis (referred to herein as the East Lake Specific Plan Conservation Proposal) was prepared by Vandermost Consulting Services, Inc. on behalf of Laing-CP Lake Elsinore (Laing) and the City of Lake Elsinore (City) for the Laing-CP Elsinore Site. The document described 770 acres of proposed conservation within the East Lake Specific Plan area located within the Back Basin and described its consistency with the MSHCP conservation goals and objectives. The areas proposed for conservation in the East Lake Specific Plan (Figure 1. East Lake Preservation Areas) are summarized as follows: East Lake Specific Plan Conservation Proposal Acreage Description 356 acres Lake Management Plan (LMP) Wetlands Mitigation. Condition of original Corps LMP Section 404 Permit and California Department of Fish and Wildlife 1600 permit. Conservation easement held by the Department. 155 acres Adjacent to LMP Wetlands, condition of original Corps LMP Section 404 Permit 130 acres Lake Elsinore Inlet Channel 71 acres Open Space on the Laing-CP Lake Elsinore Site 33 acres City of Lake Elsinore Open Space, contains known vernal pool 25 acres Historic San Jacinto River on the Laing-CP Lake Elsinore Site 770 acres Total Conservation C. The East Lake Specific Plan MSHCP Consistency Analysis was submitted to Joe Monaco at Dudek and Associates and to Richard Lashbrook at the County for review. As described in two letters (Dudek dated December 17, 2003 and the County dated February 3, 2004), the East Lake Specific Plan Conservation Proposal was a "suitable framework for determining consistency with the MSHCP" for the Back Basin (Attachments 1 & 2, respectively). Summary&Timeline of Back Basin Conservation Area D. Early 2004, The East Lake Specific Plan was approved by the City (prior to adoption of the MSHCP) E. On June 22, 2004 the MSHCP was adopted. It did not reflect the East Lake Specific Plan Conservation Proposal. F. Late 2004, the Department received a Notification for Streambed Alteration Agreement for Laing-CP Lake Elsinore Project (East Lake Specific Plan Amendment 6, "Laing/Summerly project"). At that time, Leslie MacNair(Department Staff Environmental Scientist)requested confirmation from Ron Rempel (Deputy Director with Department at that time) that the Department had previously agreed to this alternative conservation proposal. Ron Rempel confirmed that they had agreed that the conservation configuration identified in the East Lake Specific Plan Conservation Proposal would be acceptable to the Department provided a minimum of 770 acres is conserved within the Back Basin. He also indicated that all projects in the Back Basin would be required to demonstrate compliance with MSHCP species survey and conservation requirements. Therefore, additional conservation in the Back Basin may be required to meet the additional species requirements. G. In January 2005, the Department issued Streambed Alteration Agreement ("Agreement"; No. 1600-2004-0130-R6), pursuant to Section 1600 of the Fish and Game Code, for the Laing/Summerly Project. The Agreement incorporated conservation and mitigation requirements based on the East Lake Specific Plan Conservation Proposal. H. During 2006 through 2008 discussions took place between the Wildlife Agencies (Department and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service), RCA, and the City. It was determined that some lands in East Lake Specific Plan Conservation Proposal were not within the City's ownership. Therefore, it was determined that these lands could not be identified for conservation to meet the minimum requirement of 770 acres in the Back Basin. The maps were revised by Dudek(on behalf of RCA) to reflect only those lands in City ownership that would be available at that time to meet the goal of 770 acres. 1. During the summer of 2010 emails and maps of potential lands were exchanged between the RCA, City, and the Department. However, because of discrepancies in acreages and lack of staff at the City to resolve the differences, the maps were not finalized. J. In 2013, the Department reviewed the properties again with the assistance of the RCA. The Department revised the original list of properties form the East Lake Specific Plan Conservation Proposal to include only lands that are already in conservation or those currently owned by the City. The Department also included additional lands in the Back Basin that are identified for mitigation and conservation that were not identified in the East Lake Specific Plan Conservation Proposal. K. Below is a description of the properties the Department has determined as acceptable to contribute -towards the 770 acres of conservation in the Back Basin at this time (Figure 2. Lake Elsinore Back Basin/Conservation & Mitigation Properties). Also included below is a 2 Summary&Timeline of Back Basin Conservation Area description of whether the lands may be attributed towards Public/Quasi Public lands or Additional Reserve Lands. 1)356-Acre Wetland Area At meetings, the Department agreed that the 356-acre wetland area would contribute to the MSHCP Conservation Area as Public/Quasi Public lands. Because this area served as mitigation for projects impacted prior to the MSHCP, these lands would not count towards the MSHCP requirements for Additional Reserve Lands. 2)28-Acre Area This area is located just south of the 356-acre wetland described above. This area was targeted for conservation in the MSHCP. This 28-acre area is a subset of the 155-acre area proposed in Vandermost's East Lake Specific Plan Conservation Proposal. Because 127 acres is privately owned land and has not been offered for conservation at this time, it is not being included in this letter as Conservation under the MSHCP. Therefore, the 127 acres of privately-owned land was deducted from the original 155 acre, thereby leaving 28 acres that may be counted toward Additional Reserve Lands under the MSHCP. A conservation easement would need to be placed over the 28 acres and the land would need to be managed consistent with the requirements of the MSHCP for it be counted towards the MSHCP Conservation Additional Reserve Lands. 3) 115-Acre Inlet Channel Area subset of 130 acres in original East Lake Specific Plan Conservation Proposal) This area is the inlet channel to Lake Elsinore which includes the San Jacinto River channel from Lakeshore Avenue (south of I-15 ) to where it outlets into Lake Elsinore. This area was identified for conservation in the MSHCP. The area was intended for Proposed Linkage 8. The City owns 115 acres. The remaining 7 acres are owned by Riverside County Flood Control District and Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District. In the East Lake Specific Plan Conservation Proposal, a total of 130 acres was originally proposed for conservation; however, only 115 acres are being documented for conservation by this letter because the lands that are not currently controlled by the City are deducted out of the total. The 8 acres of privately-owned land and the 7 acres owned by Riverside County Flood Control District and Elsinore Valley Municipal Water District were deducted from the original 130 acre area, thereby leaving 115 acres that can be counted toward MSHCP Conservation Additional Reserve Lands. 4)25-Acre Historic San Jacinto River Channel. This 25-acre strip of land that covers the historic San Jacinto River channel was conserved for MSHCP by Laing/Summerly project (1600-2004-0130-R6, Conditions 5A & 513). A portion of this area was previously conserved by a conservation easement as mitigation for the Levee project (Agreement No. 5-671-88). However, as part of Laing/Summerly project, the easement was lifted from the area so that a larger 25-acre area could be restored and conserved, in perpetuity. As mitigation for Laing/Summerly project, Laing lowered the river channel and will be replanting the area. Within the channel, mitigation identifies the creation of 9 acres riparian habitat including 4.36 acres southern willow scrub and 4.64 acres mulefat. When restoration is complete, it will provide wetland, 3 Summary&Timeline of Back Basin Conservation Area riparian, and upland habitats. A conservation easement over the 25 acres is required. Mitigation needs to be completed as required by permits and the conservation easement must be recorded before the 25 acres can be counted as MSHCP Conservation Additional Reserve Lands. 5) 10-Acre West Ede of Lain /S urnmerly Project(New-not in on inal East Lake S pecific Plan Conservation Proposal This 10-acre parcel was provided by Laing as mitigation for the Laing/Summerly Project (Agreement No. 1600-2004-0130-R6, Condition 5C) and is proposed to be created as a river corridor vegetated with wetlands, riparian and an upland habitat along the western edge of the Laing/Summerly Project. This area was also identified in Corps permits (2005-0422-RSS, 88-00215-RSS, and 2004-00748-RSS). A conservation easement is required. Once the habitat creation is completed as required by permits and the conservation easement has been recorded, the land can be counted as MSHCP Conservation Additional Reserve Lands. 6)71-Acre Buffer Mitigation Area This area was provided by Laing as conservation for the MSHCP and as mitigation for the Laing/Summerly project. It is located along the southern edge of the Laing/Summerly project. The mitigation and conservation of this site was also made a condition of their permits with the Department (Agreement No.1600-2004-0130-R6, Condition 5D) and Corps (Permit #2004-00748-RRS). This 71-acre area will serve as a buffer between the Laing/Summerly project and the 356-acre wetland area. Laing will restore 61.3 acres of the 71-acre site by planting alkali weed, saltgrass, mulefat, and California Buckwheat site as mitigation. The remaining 9.4 acres will consist of water quality wetlands. Once restoration is completed, the site will include water quality wetlands and native grassland/scrub habitat. Mitigation needs to be completed as required by permits and a conservation easement must be recorded before it can be counted as MSHCP Conservation Additional Reserve Lands. 7)33-Acre Vernal Pool Mitigation Area This area was provided by Laing as conservation for the MSHCP and as mitigation for the Laing/Summerly project required by the Department (Agreement #1600-2004-0130, Conditions 5F & 5G). The site preserves an existing vernal pool, known as the Australia pool, with Riverside fairy shrimp. The site was also to include mitigation for smooth tarplant for Laing/Summerly project. Smooth tarplant mitigation has been installed and monitoring of the mitigation site is still in progress. The placement of a conservation easement over the site was to be completed once the smooth tarplant mitigation and monitoring is complete. Laing's mitigation must be completed, including the monitoring and maintenance, and approved by the Department, and a conservation easement must be placed on it before it can be counted as MSHCP Conservation Additional Reserve Lands. In addition, the Watersedge project submitted a proposal that would impact approximately four acres of this site as part of their proposed Borrow/Mitigation site located immediately west to this site. If the City approves this impact to the 33-acre site, replacement lands in 4 Summary&Timeline of Back Basin Conservation Area the Back Basin would be required that replaces the habitat to make the 33-acre mitigation whole for the Laing/Summerly permit. 8) 11.66-Acre Tract 30846 Mitigation Area(New-not in East Lake Specific Plan Conservation Proposal) This area was provided as mitigation for development of Serenity Estates, Tract 30846 by KB Homes Coastal Inc. It satisfies mitigation requirements for ACOE Section 404 Permit No. 200500053 JPL and the Department's Agreement No. 1600-2003-5108-R6. The property is owned by Madison-Fairfield Homeowners Association and the conservation easement is held by Riverside Land Conservancy. These lands would count towards the MSHCP requirements for Additional Reserve Lands. 9)Borrow Site 53.5 acres (New-not in East Lake Specific Plan Conservation Proposal) Within the 53.5 acre Borrow site, 5.75 acres are located as mitigation requirements for Department's Agreement No. 1600-2007-0210-R6, Lake Elsinore Boat Ramp. The Boat Ramp mitigation must be completed, including the monitoring and maintenance, and approved by the Department, and a conservation easement must be placed on it before it can be counted as MSHCP Conservation Additional Reserve Lands. In order for the remaining 47.75 acres of the Borrow Site to be counted towards MSHCP Conservation Additional Reserve Lands, any area used for borrow should be restored and a conservation easement would need to be placed over the land and the land would need to be managed consistent with the requirements of the MSHCP. Note: In order for any of the lands identified above to be counted as Additional Reserve Lands, they would need to be conserved and managed consistent with the requirements of the MSHCP. Summary The above land totals 703.16 acres. In order to meet the goal of 770 acres of conservation (ARL and/or PQP) agreed to by the Department, an additional 66.84 acres needs to be conserved in the Back Basin. All lands would need to be managed consistent with the MSHCP and protected, in perpetuity. Potential lands for conservation should include areas that were targeted for Reserve Assembly as described in the MSHCP (based on the written cell criteria) and/or provide connectivity to lands that are conserved and/or proposed for conservation. The lands should target lands that benefit shorebirds or wetland/marsh associated species, vernal pool species, sensitive plant species, and/or Planning Species for Subunit 3 and Proposed Extension of Existing Core 3, as described in the MSHCP. Also, projects within the Back Basin are still required to demonstrate compliance with MSHCP species survey and conservation requirements. Therefore, additional conservation beyond the 770 acres in the Back Basin may be required to meet the additional species requirements. 5 L '• Ji •� _r �`f.-- ."a. 'ram-- es._� �� �-r ;�•: ��- ..� r ~ s-^ � _ _ems-•. .may'• Y�'tr.;�,za,., .:r•� - -��_ - �-� p.r:}'-_ .-�' ��- z� ,,r�;.6a•�. �-�+"y�' +�': •irT'3`- ��C .tea-�.n1�.:� 1r F! ;'•.y,^`.' •'._ __ '•7•iy�4'-1 Cc - k.� .- ...•� } L' -.ram� -` �'ti�'� � _ z _•e + _ R,ppp _;iy'�p_w��...1 0-. - _� _ .�8i F f rs "- 4 y �? ` �.• ey� ♦ ♦ ♦ • Attachment 1 Engineering,Planning, Corporate Office: Environmertla!Sciences and 605 Third Street 760.94Z5147 & ASSOCIATES,INC. Prv/e.,�and Tkams ro.ca.nP<<:a leca Management Services Encinitas,California 92024 Fax 760.63Z0164 December 17, 2003 Mr.Richard Lashbrook COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE 4080 Lemon Street, 7th Floor P.O.Box 1605 Riverside, CA 92501 Su&ject: Laing CP 706-acre Development,Lake Elsinore Dear Richard: We have reviewed the biological information prepared by Glen Lukos and Associates and the MSHCP consistencyanalysis prepared by Vandermost Consulting Services,for the 706-acre Laing CP property located east of Lake Elsinore,within the City of Lake Elsinore. It is our understanding that while that, under the MSHCP,the City of Lake Elsinore would have the authority to determine MSHCP consistency for the project,the property owner has requested that the County of Riverside review the consistency analysis and provide their opinions. - Within the context of our review, we believe that the areas proposed for conservation, provide for r substantial conformance to the requirements of the MSHCP. The primary conservation objectives of the MSHCP appear to be achievable with the proposed plan. In addition,the biological technical report contains specific mitigation measures and requirements that provide compensation forthe loss of resources that were identified on the site. In reviewing the material provided,we believe that the majority of mapping and survey work that is required at the project level to determine consistency with the MSHCP has been completed,with noted exceptions.The biological technical report recommends additional wet season surveys for vernal pool fairy shrimp. We concur with that recommendation. In summary,we believe that the information provided provides a suitable framework fordetermining consistency with the MSHCP. We would be happy to discuss additional details relating to our review at your request. Very truly yours, DUDEK&ASSOCIATES, INC. Monaco Senior Project Manager Attachment 2 COUNTY OF RIEVERSUDE 3f_ o TIUN,SPORTA27ONAND LAND MANAGEMENTAGENCY LAW r er i Richard K Lashbrook Agency Director J�wa J.dltllsr Gaw,�a.L J.4.M,ti l.� Dlne�i �le�dlrr Rais�[G 1.�.sw. Dirw-l�v February 3,2004 Michael Filler John Laing Homes � 31900 Mission Trail,Suite 225 Lake Elsiaere,CA 92530 Subject.: Eastlake Specific Plan and Laing CP 706-acre Development,Lake Elsinore Dear Mr.Filler: On Gctobcr 9, 2003, we received documentation,Pram Vxndermost Consulting Scrvices, Inc..analyzing the 3,000-acre back basin Eastlake Specific PIan in the Gan-text of the West= Riverside Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP)_ The documentation includes a consistency analysis and serial photo&7aph depicting 770 acres of conservation area within the beck basin, proposed to provide compliance with the MSHCP cell criteria, goals and objectives. The submittal of the consis'teacy nanlysi.s and conscrvation anew graphic was the culmination of mectings and discassions with ffie County,Jim Bartel of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Servica, Ron R=npel of the California Dcpa tment of Fish and Game, and others, regarding how coasavatioti meas>sns within the back basin of Lake ElsiD=could provide consistency with the MSHCP. In addition, a biological technical report for the 706-acre Laing CP development was included to provide specific survey infor x&on and coP=rvaticn treasures to comply with the MSHCP planning species and species overlay requirements. On December 17, 2003, we received a letter fi-orn Dudek and Associates sunanarizing their review of the consistency analysis and biological technical report for the Laing CP 706-acre project in the context of consistency with the MSHCP. Dudek concluded that the areas proposed for eonseruai iba and related conservation treasures provide consistency with the MSHCP. As descnbed in the consistency analysis, -the balance of the back basin will require biological surveys for MSHCp planning species and species overlays and may require avoidance of certain areas. Although the City of Lake Elsinore has the final authority to determine project compliance with the MSHCP, we agree with Dudek's findings that the information provided contains a suitable framework for determining consistency with. the MSHCP. Please contact me with any questions. Sincerely, Icqhard—L,s.hhb ok Transportation and Land Management Agency Director - Attachment = 4080 Lemma Street,7th Floor•Riverside,t,^,alifamiu 92501 •(909)955-6838 P.0.Box 1605 a Riverside.California 92502-1605 FAX(909)955-6879 F 4A,R0%iYATEe!�T-FI�C"'y� �- �. lY.,yll„/0• AOHRd+SRE 9�UIDiWV '- e� x,Kl SrpyC ) 9'[•. IU.tl1E mSD1LM.IaFL wJR.Ylrch911 w_ -� 1 `L AY AL _ 1oAwE wuuelnr -H ryay�y.���,� wF::.' -TIONYIE.1 �y�. •.'.- _ _ .al{!: .r. y 1 cmrervauvR(ina7:77C ACRES om�rA`�Drn a � '. � `� � y+ ` tl.c�D-.e�nlE�lra sp—Flan MITIGAT10N AREAS 10 AcflErITIOATION Itonacls—n<q O UACRESANJACI R1 ERMRIOATIONAREA [31s%Ac _ y.t-.N-k- .�T a.—� ^,�T-c„y, `•M1 �]SACREVERNALPOOLYITgAIgNAREl1 al CSA[ �%*'4iM1.•I'�.n• ..��j.,•,6uN[� klONy-_.� ��+• -�. y,_' - OSSlACREWETUNDYfIgA11DNAREA 71 ACRE MRIOATRIN AREA 116 ACRE INIEf CHANNEL 115D d6Ac,N �y � ���i��' ��q�-.- '^ • a-� .�-'nw[Q'� 'HK ACRE MMATRN1 AREA(TR laesp SISSW Ac f ''� +C :y� r•- e� c f'V� -.-y„f J R. " U ACRE CM OF LAKE EUMRE OWNED CCNSERVAWN cls Ac rM N�� 'i: ... rr,-m..... ''�i��'�-� _ ••1- ^ f � '.'�^�' '•.F �a�105 ACRE AMro. ,bon U-A Midg I Am(JRR U-11-1141) stcls A<ml .I'•-r-N ".±+' 1` � 1�:.-� -REX Y slr-n r—....d 1.-r-. 1 • RropoW MMpNoa tJl'R Kaaaeat,01-11-IYO1( 4[GIS Ac [�j,,t 4 f-.,'t� -i�. ilk. Genri[Cew G�a ��Fa1a I Mkkwy a 7Sr W Ct6Ae October 17,2(113 0 o s e �Mlk] f Lake Elsinore Back Basin/Conservation &Mitigation Properties W Aoyrarchl4e�aFlvieY Fln11_IM,pynn'-�i 11Rt4if�R8_g.lv+.xlr.Tat.:•• Figure 2.