Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutJPR 23-04-11-01_Comments_Tracking Table_date 06.27.23_Responses1 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 (Submitted 06-13-23) Response Codes Round 3 – RCA Reviewer Comments (Submitted 06-27-23) Response Codes Round 3 – Permittee/Applicant Responses Summary (Please include date submitted back to the RCA) 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 B The Assessment has been revised to describe areas within and outside of the Criteria Cells. In addition, all Assessment Comment Partially Addressed PD-1. Thank you for providing impact acreages inside and outside Table 1 has been revised to reflect Section 5.1. − Comment Addressed - - 2 project area acreages (e.g., existing vegetation/land use 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). exhibits have been revised to depict criteria cells of the Criteria Cell in a table format. However, Assessment, Table 1 "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. Note that if the proposed project does not include any proposed temporary impacts, this should be clearly stated as well. Revise accordingly. A The Assessment has been revised to include a discussion of permanent, temporary, and offsite impacts. Comment Addressed - - - - - 3 - − − − − − PD-4. Assessment, Section 5.1 states, “Approximately 0.24 of the northern portion of the site, including 0.07 acre of riparian/riverine areas, will not be impacted by project development;” however, a GIS shapefile for the 0.24-acre area was not provided. Please provide GIS shapefiles that clearly label and depict the 16.97-acre proposed permanent development and the 0.24-acre avoidance area. A Shapefiles labeled “0.24- Acre Avoidance Area” and “16.97-Acre Proposed Permanent Development Area” have been sent to RCA. 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 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 should include when this will be 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. should be provided. Indirect impacts should also be fully discussed. Revise accordingly. A Section 6 of the Assessment has been revised to include a discussion of avoidance buffer. Comment Addressed − - - - 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 A Section 6 of the Assessment has been revised to include a discussion of the criteria used to determine Comment Addressed − - - - - 5 (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. presence/absence of habitat for riparian bird species. 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) 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 − - - - - 6 6.3.2 Additional Survey Needs - Burrowing Owl (BUOW) - − − − − − BUOW-1. Assessment, Section 2.1, states, “A habitat assessment was conducted for burrowing owl following Step I of the Burrowing Owl Survey Instructions for the Western Riverside MSHCP. The habitat assessment determined that the site does not provide suitable habitat for the species. Therefore, Step 2 of the Western Riverside MSHCP Burrowing Owl Survey protocol is not required.” Assessment, Section 4.1.3 further states that, “A habitat assessment conducted on the site determined that no suitable habitat is present due to the lack of small mammal burrows and manmade structures that could be utilized as burrows, such as earthen berms; cement, asphalt, rock, or wood debris piles; or openings beneath cement or asphalt pavement. This species is not present.” Please note that based on the information provided in the Assessment, suitable burrowing owl habitat is present (e.g., open vegetation consisting of ruderal habitat, etc.); therefore, a Step II-A Focused Burrow Survey is required. Furthermore, according to the MSHCP Burrowing Owl Survey Instructions (RCA 2006), “…. lack of identifying burrows during the habitat assessment does not negate the need for the systematic search for burrows included as part of the Step II survey instructions. If burrowing owl habitat is not present on-site (i.e., if the site is completely covered by chaparral, cement or asphalt) Step II of the survey is not necessary.” The Assessment should include a clear description that follows the A Assessment revised to include description of Step II-A survey. 7 methods (i.e., during the breeding season from March 1-August 31 and within certain times/conditions) as described in the MSHCP Burrowing Owl Survey Instructions (RCA 2006). Methodology should be separated into discussions for Step I (Habitat Assessment), Step II-A (Focused Burrow Survey), and Step II-B (Focused Burrowing Owl Surveys), as applicable. Describe in detail how each Step was followed (e.g., if a suitable habitat is identified in a Step I Habitat Assessment, then a Step II- A focused burrow search (systematic search) was conducted following the MSHCP Burrowing Owl Survey Instructions). Revise accordingly.