HomeMy WebLinkAboutJPR 23-04-11-01_Comments_Tracking Table_date 06.08.231
JPR 23-04-11-01 – Comments/Responses Tracking Table
PROJECT IDENTIFIER – LEAP 2022-03/Mission Trails at Lemon Project
REVIEWER – Carol Thompson
DOCUMENTATION REC’D – JPR submittal materials provided by the Permittee included a JPR Application Form (April 6, 2023); a LEAP MSHCP Consistency Findings (April 3, 2023) and a General Biological Assessment
for APNs 370050-019, -020, and -032 (Assessment; May 2023) prepared by Hernandez Environmental Services; and GIS shapefiles.
The Permittee/Applicant must provide a summary response to each comment in the Table below, including the document name and section/page# where the revised information relative to the response can be found.
If the Permittee/Applicant chooses to do so, responses may be provided in the Table only in advance of revising the JPR supporting documents. However, without the revised documentation accompanying the Table
as a way of providing context, this may add time to the review. When revised documents are submitted, they should be provided in tracked changes that clearly reflect the summary response below. If revised
documents (with tracked changes) are submitted in Word, revised Figures should also be provided separately. The intent of this Table is to provide a forum for the Permittee/Applicant to address comments up front,
if needed, particularly if the Permittee/Applicant would like to further discuss any of the comments in advance of revising the supporting documents. Note that each time responses and/or revised JPR supporting
documents are sent back to RCA, the 14-day review clock begins again. We also strongly encourage the Permittee/Applicant to reach out to the RCA reviewer or arrange a meeting early on if there are any questions
regarding the comments or any complex issues related to the JPR.
For the purposes of this JPR review by the RCA, these comments are only applicable to areas within the Criteria Cells and/or where areas outside of Cells may result in issues to resources adjacent to the Criteria Cells.
Any additional MSHCP resources outside of the Cells will continue to be reviewed for MSHCP consistency by the Wildlife Agencies.
The Permittee/Applicant must also fill out (whether new or update to existing code) the column for Response Codes using one of the following: A=Comment Addressed; B=Comment Partially Addressed; C=Comment
Not Addressed. If a response was not provided or was only partially provided, please provide a justification regarding why the comment was not fully addressed.
Shading = Comment completed.
Additional Notes for the Permittee /Applicant:
• It is recommended that a tracked changes version of resubmitted documentation be provided along with this Table in order to facilitate reviews.
• The dates on any revised documents should be updated with each submittal to reflect most recent submittals and to avoid version control issues.
• Please also note that additional comments may be provided after review of the requested/revised information.
• The Table and revised JPR documentation, OR the Table-only (if the Permittee/Applicant chooses this latter approach), should be sent back to the RCA reviewer via email (Carol Thompson; cthompson@dudek.com). Please
also copy Tricia Campbell (tcampbell@rctc.org), Leslie Levy (llevy@rctc.org), and Britney Schultz (bschultz@dudek.com) on the email.
Round 1 – RCA Reviewer
Comments
(Submitted 04-24-23)
Response
Codes
Round 1 – Permittee/Applicant
Responses Summary
(Submitted 05-24-23)
Round 2 – RCA Reviewer
Comments
(Submitted 06-08-23)
Round 2 – Permittee/Applicant
Responses Summary
(Please include date submitted back to the RCA)
Response
Codes
Project Description (PD)
PD-1. Because the RCA only reviews
actions within Criteria Cells and the
proposed project is located both
inside and outside of a Criteria
Cells, total project area acreages
(e.g., existing vegetation/land use
B The Assessment has been revised to describe areas
within and outside of the Criteria Cells. In addition,
all Assessment exhibits have been revised to depict
criteria cells.
Comment Partially Addressed
PD-1. Thank you for providing
impact acreages inside and outside
of the Criteria Cell in a table format.
However, Assessment, Table 1
Table 1 has been revised to reflect Section 5.1.
2
acreages, impact acreages, etc.)
should be broken out as within the
Criteria Cells and outside the
Criteria Cells and be separated by
on-site and off-site acreages, as
applicable. A table is the most
concise way to describe these
acreages. If the proposed project
does not include off-site impacts,
this needs to be clearly stated.
According to the GIS shapefiles
provided, the total proposed
development is 16.97 acres. Of the
16.97-acre development, 0.3-acre
occurs with/in Criteria Cell 5136.
Revise the JPR Application and
Assessment with this information.
Additionally, all exhibits should
clearly depict the areas within the
Cell(s) and outside the Cell(s).
"Project Site Acreages," has a typo.
The total acreage outside of the Cell
is listed as 16.97 acres. The
combined total Project Impact
Acreage Outside of the Cell (16.97
acres) and the Acreage Within the
Cell (0.30 acre) totals 17.27 acres,
which exceeds the total project site
acreage of 17.21 acres. In the
Assessment, Section 5.1 "Impacts to
Existing Habitats," it states that
16.67 acres is the total acres outside
of MSHCP Criteria Cells. Please
revise Table 1 accordingly to be
consistent with the text in Section
5.1, as applicable.
PD-2. The JPR Application lists the
total acres planned for
development total 17.21 acres;
however, the GIS shapefiles
provided and the Assessment both
include a 16.97-acre development.
Furthermore, the Assessment states
in Sections 5.5 and 6.1 that the
project would avoid 0.07-acre
containing riparian/riverine
resources within the northern
portion of the project. However,
0.07ac and 16.97ac do not total
17.21ac. All JPR supporting
documentation and the GIS
shapefiles need to accurately and
consistently report the total JPR
project acreages (on-site and off-
site permanent/temporary impacts,
avoidance, and/or proposed
conservation, as applicable).
A See revised GIS shapefiles. Comment Addressed − −
PD-3. The Assessment does not
describe whether the proposed
project includes any staging areas.
It is assumed all construction
staging will occur within the
development footprint; however,
this needs to be clearly stated in the
Assessment. In addition, while it is
assumed the entire 16.97-acre site
would be permanently impacted,
this also needs to be clearly stated.
A The Assessment has been revised to include a
discussion of permanent, temporary, and offsite
impacts.
Comment Addressed − −
3
Note that if the proposed project
does not include any proposed
temporary impacts, this should be
clearly stated as well. Revise
accordingly.
6.1.2 Riparian/Riverine (RIP/RIV)
The following comments, relevant
to Section 6.1.2 resources, are
primarily directed at project areas
located outside of Cells. While
these areas located outside of Cells
are outside of RCA’s purview,
addressing these comments is
important for demonstrating overall
MSHCP consistency. Also note that
the Wildlife Agencies will be
reviewing all project areas for
MSHCP consistency, both inside and
outside of Cells.
− − − − −
RIP/RIV-1. Assessment, Section
2.1.2, should be updated to
separate out the total acreage of
MSHCP riparian/riverine resources
as within the Criteria Cell and
outside the Criteria Cell. If MSHCP
riparian/riverine resources do not
occur within the Criteria Cells, this
also would need to be clearly stated
and reflected in all applicable
exhibits. Refer to Comment PD-1
above.
A
Section 2.1.2 of the Assessment has been revised
to state that onsite riparian/riverine areas are
located outside of MSHCP Criteria Cells.
Comment Addressed − −
RIP/RIV-2. Assessment, page 5,
states, “The northwestern corner of
the project site contains
approximately 0.07 acre located
below the CDFW
jurisdictional elevation of 1,265 feet
above mean sea-level (AMSL) that
would be considered
riparian/riverine areas as defined in
Section 6.1.2 if the Western
Riverside MSHCP.”
If riparian or riverine resources are
proposed for avoidance, 0.07 acres,
the Assessment should include a
commitment to place a
conservation easement or deed
restriction over the area in order to
demonstrate that the area will be
protected in perpetuity and should
include when this will be
A Section 6 of the Assessment has been revised to
state that no riparian/riverine functions and
values would be protected by conserving the
avoided area below 1265’ elevation. In addition,
Assessment exhibits have been revised to depict
riparian/riverine resources in relation to MSHCP
Criteria Cells and project avoidance of
riparian/riverine areas.
Comment Addressed
Informational only. Because the RCA
only reviews actions within Criteria
Cells and the proposed project is
located both inside and outside of
Criteria Cells, and because Section
6.1.2 riparian/riverine resources are
located outside of the Criteria Cell,
any MSHCP resources outside of the
Cells will continue to be reviewed for
MSHCP consistency by the Wildlife
Agencies.
− −
4
completed. Per Section 6.1.2 of the
MSHCP, “If an avoidance alternative
is selected, measures shall be
incorporated into the project design
to ensure the long-term
conservation of the area to be
avoided, and associated functions
and values, through the use of deed
restriction, conservation easement,
or other appropriate mechanisms. If
an avoidance alternative is not
feasible, a practicable alternative
that minimizes direct and indirect
effects to riparian/riverine areas
and vernal pools and associated
functions and values to the greatest
extent possible shall be selected.
Those impacts that are unavoidable
shall be mitigated such that the lost
functions and values as they relate
to Covered Species are replaced as
set forth under the [DBESP].” Based
on this, note that if the proposed
project cannot demonstrate how it
will ensure the long-term
conservation and sustainability of
the existing resource, all or a
portion of the riparian/riverine
resource(s) may also be considered
permanently impacted and will
require additional mitigation and
require preparation of a DBESP
report.
Additionally, although the
Assessment exhibits depict the
“Area Below 1,265” elevation”
exhibits should clearly depict the
areas with Riparian/Riverine in the
Cell(s) and outside the Cell(s) and
should clearly label and depict the
“avoidance” area on all appliable
exhibits and within the GIS
shapefiles. Revise accordingly.
RIP/RIV-3. Related to Comment
RIP/RIV-2 above, the Assessment
should provide details regarding the
proposed avoidance buffer (e.g.,
total buffer width), and a solid
justification that this buffer would
not impact hydrology, downstream
sedimentation, water quality, etc.
A Section 6 of the Assessment has been revised to
include a discussion of avoidance buffer.
Comment Addressed − −
5
should be provided. Indirect
impacts should also be fully
discussed. Revise accordingly.
6.1.2 Riparian Birds (RB)
RB-1. Provide a clear description of
the criteria used to determine
whether suitable habitat for riparian
bird species (including least Bell’s
vireo [LBVI], southwestern willow
flycatcher [SWFL], or yellow-billed
cuckoo [YBCU]) is present on the
project site should be included the
Assessment.
A Section 6 of the Assessment has been revised to
include a discussion of the criteria used to
determine presence/absence of habitat for
riparian bird species.
Comment Addressed −
6.1.2 Vernal Pools (VP)
VP-1. While the Assessment,
Section 4.1.3, does state that state
that fairy shrimp are absent, the
Assessment needs to clearly
describe the criteria used to
determine whether there are vernal
pools on the project site (inside and
outside of the Criteria Cell.) Vernal
pool assessments are needed to
identify and map resources that fit
the MSHCP definition of a vernal
pool. The Assessment should
provide a description of the site
conditions to support a
determination of the
presence/absence of vernal pools.
The following should be considered:
the watershed supporting vernal
pool hydrology, length of time the
area exhibits upland and wetland
characteristics (inundated or not),
evidence for the persistence of
wetness using historic information
(e.g., aerials), vegetation, soils,
drainage characteristics, uses to
which the site has been subjected,
and weather and hydrologic
records.
Update the Assessment accordingly
as all projects need to assess
presence/absence of vernal pools, in
addition to other non-vernal pool
features that may provide suitable
habitat for fairy shrimp.
A Section 6 of the Assessment has been revised to
expand upon the vernal pool/fairy shrimp
discussion.
Comment Addressed − −
6.1.2 Fairy Shrimp (FS)
6
FS-1. Assessment Section 6.1 states,
“The site was evaluated as
described in the USFWS Survey
Guidelines for the Listed Large
Branchiopods (May 31, 2016).”
Please note fairy shrimp
assessments and surveys must be
conducted pursuant to the most
currently accepted protocol (i.e.,
USFWS Survey Guidelines for the
Listed Large Branchiopods [USFWS
2017]).” Revise accordingly.
A Section 6 of the Assessment has been revised to
reference the most recent protocol.
Comment Addressed − −