Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutLEAP 2022-03 MSHCP Consistency Findings - Revised 7.6.2023 Redlined LEAP 2022-03/Mission Trail at Lemon MSHCP CONSISTENCY FINDINGS 4/3/2023, Revised 5/22/20237/6/2023 Background Paragraph C of MSHCP Section 6.1.1 (Property Owner Initiated Habitat Evaluation and Acquisition Negotiation Strategy (HANS)) establishes procedures regarding the evaluation of properties for which a development application is not filed and states that “(1) Initial Application Review - Applications for proposed projects which are within the Criteria Area shall be subject to an initial review to determine if all or part of the property is necessary for inclusion in the MSHCP Conservation Area.” The subject application (LEAP 2022-03) was submitted to the City of Lake Elsinore for such a determination. The following analysis and findings are based upon text found in the MSHCP and site-specific documentation from the following documents: • “General Biological Assessment for Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 370-050-019, 020, and 032, City of Lake Elsinore, Riverside County, California” dated November 2021 (Updated May July 2023), prepared by Hernandez Environmental Services. Project Site Description The subject property (Assessor Parcel Number 370-050-019, 020, and 032 consists of approximately 17.21 acres located in the City of Lake Elsinore (City), Riverside County (County), California. The Project site located west of Mission Trail and north of Corydon Road (Figure 1, Aerial Photograph), as shown on the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5 minute Elsinore quadrangle map in Township 6 South, Range 4 West, Sections 21 and 22. Under the City of Lake Elsinore General Plan, the project site is designated “Specific Plan”. The Project has a zoning designation governed by the East Lake Specific Plan (ELSP) and the Lake Elsinore Municipal Code. Under the ELSP, the project site has a designation of “Action Sports, Tourism, Commercial and Recreation” and is located within a “Mixed Use Overlay”. The Project site’s elevations range from 1,259 above mean sea level (AMSL) to 1,286 feet AMSL. Page 2 of 22 Figure 1 Page 3 of 22 Soils within the Project site are predominately Ramona very fine sandy loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes, eroded (ReC2), and Waukena loamy fine sand, saline-alkali, 0 to 2 percent slopes (Wa). There is also a small amount of Visalia fine sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes (VmA). Development Project Description The proposed project PA 2022-03 (Residential Design Review 2022-02 and Tentative Tract Map 2022-01/TTM 38378) (Mission Trail at Lemon) are applications to create 191 residential condominium lots, one recreation center lot, and two landscaping lots, in conjunction with Design Review approval (RDR 2022-02) to construct 191 detached residences ranging in size from 1,323 square feet to 2,146 square feet. (See Figure 2, Site Plan.). The project is part of the City of Lake Elsinore’s East Lake District. MSHCP Cell Criteria Approximately 0.30 acre of the project site is located in the northeastern portion of Criteria Cell 5131, which is in MSHCP Elsinore Area Plan, Subunit 3 (Elsinore). The property that will be developed by the Proposed Project includes that area. The conservation requirements set forth for this Criteria Cell has been replaced with the preservation of habitat in the Back Basin of Lake Elsinore through the 770-acre Agreement; however, the Joint Project Review (JPR) process is still required. The 770-acre preservation areas were negotiated between the City of Lake Elsinore and the Wildlife Agencies. The balance of the project site is not located within either a criteria cell or Subunit 3. Findings 1. Development of the project site would be a project under the City’s MSHCP Resolution, and the City would be required to make an MSHCP Consistency finding before approval of a development application. Basis for Finding: Approximately 0.30 acre of the project site is located within an MSHCP criteria cell. Pursuant to the City’s MSHCP Resolution, the project has been reviewed for MSHCP consistency, including consistency with “Other Plan Requirements.” These include the Protection of Species Associated with Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pool Guidelines (MSHCP, § 6.1.2), Protection of Narrow Endemic Plant Species Guidelines (MSHCP, § 6.1.3), Additional Survey Needs and Procedures (MSHCP, § 6.3.2), Urban/Wildlands Interface Guidelines (MSHCP, § 6.1.4), Vegetation Mapping (MSHCP, § 6.3.1) requirements, Fuels Management Guidelines (MSHCP, § 6.4), and payment of the MSHCP Local Development Mitigation Fee (MSHCP Ordinance, § 4). Page 4 of 22 Figure 2 FIGURE 2 LEAP NO. 2022-03 SITE PLAN Page 5 of 22 2. The proposed project is subject to the City’s LEAP and the County’s Joint Project Review processes. Basis for Finding: Approximately 0.30 acre of the project site is located in Criteria Cell 5131, which is in MSHCP Elsinore Area Plan, Subunit 3 (Elsinore). Therefore, a formal and complete LEAP application, LEAP 2022-03 was submitted to the City on January 26, 2023. 3. The proposed project is consistent with the Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools Guidelines. Basis for Finding: On November 2, 2021 and February 3, 2023, Hernandez Environmental Services conducted field surveys of the site to determine whether the project site includes riparian/riverine area or vernal pools. The project site contains approximately 0.07 acre located below the CDFW jurisdictional elevation of 1,265 feet AMSL and associated with the back basin of Lake Elsinore that would be considered riparian/riverine areas as defined in Section 6.1.2 of the Western Riverside County MSHCP. The riparian/riverine area onsite is located within an existing access easement comprised of disturbed, ruderal vegetation currently being utilized as a gravel and dirt access road. No bed, bank, or channel are present. The riparian/riverine area shows no signs of hydrology; no signs of current or historic flow are visible. The riparian/riverine area is isolated and no downstream flows are present. In addition, no hydric soils or hydrophytic vegetation are present. The onsite riparian/riverine area does not provide any of the functions and values functions typically associated with riparian/riverine resources; even the existing ruderal habitat is too disturbed to provide nesting and foraging habitat due to the use of the area as a dirt and gravel access road. The project has been designed to avoid this area of the project site. Although the project does include the dedication of the Victorian Lane right-of-way along the northern project site boundary, no construction, grading, or street improvements related to the Victoria Lane right- of-way are included as part of the project. Therefore, no permanent or temporary impacts to onsite riparian/riverine area will result from project implementation. The northern limit of project disturbance is located between five to fifteen feet south of the onsite riparian/riverine area. No avoidance buffer is proposed. Urban/Wildlands Interface Guidelines will be implemented even though the riparian/riverine area is isolated and no downstream flows are present. However, the project does not propose to place a conservation or deed restriction over the onsite riparian/riverine area due to the fact that the area is already located within an Page 6 of 22 existing access easement and no riparian/riverine functions and values would be preserved by conservation of the area. While the northwestern portion of the site located below the CDFW jurisdictional elevation of 1,265 feet AMSL meets the definition of a riparian/riverine area according to the MSHCP, it does not support suitable riparian habitat with the potential to support riparian/riverine bird species; the onsite riparian/riverine area is comprised of disturbed, ruderal vegetation currently being utilized as a gravel and dirt access road. No stream bed, bank, channel, or riparian habitat exists within the project site boundaries. Further, none of the riparian/riverine bird species listed in Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP were found within the project site. Due to the lack of suitable riparian habitat on the project site, focused surveys for riparian/riverine bird species listed in Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP are not warranted. Vernal pools are seasonal depressional wetlands that occur under Mediterranean climate conditions of the west coast and in glaciated conditions of northeastern and midwestern states. They are covered by shallow water for variable periods from winter to spring but may be completely dry most of the summer and fall. Vernal pools are usually associated with hard clay layers or bedrock, which helps keep water in the pools. Vernal pools and seasonal depressions usually are dominated by hydrophytic plans, hydric soils, and evidence of hydrology. The entire site was evaluated for the presence of habitat capable of supporting branchiopods. The site was evaluated as described in the USFWS Survey Guidelines for the Listed Large Branchiopods (USFWS 2017). The project site consists of vacant, disturbed land with evidence of weed abatement activities and off-road vehicle use. The site is dominated by dense non- native ruderal vegetation dominated by brome grass. The project area is primarily comprised of sandy loams that do not allow for water pooling on the site for any significant length of time after rain events. No vernal pools, swales, or vernal pool mimics such as ditches, borrow pits, cattle troughs, or cement culverts with signs of pooling water were found on the site. In addition, the site does not contain areas that showed signs of ponding water, hydrophytic vegetation, or soils typical of vernal pools that would be suitable for large branchiopods. The Project is therefore consistent with the Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pool Guidelines set forth in Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP. No further action regarding this section of the MSHCP is required. . The proposed project is consistent with the Protection of Narrow Endemic Plant Species Guidelines. Basis for Finding: The property is not in a Narrow Endemic Plant Species Survey Area (NEPSSA) for any narrow endemic species, and no NEPSSA surveys are required. Page 7 of 22 The proposed project is therefore consistent with the Protection of Narrow Endemic Plant Species Guidelines. 5. The proposed project is consistent with the Additional Survey Needs and Procedures. Basis for Finding: The MSHCP requires additional surveys for certain species if the project is located in certain locations. Pursuant to MSHCP Figure 6-2 (Criteria Area Species Survey Area), Figure 6-3 (Amphibian Species Survey Areas with Criteria Area), Figure 6-4 (Burrowing Owl Survey Areas with Criteria Area), and Figure 6-5 (Mammal Species Survey Areas With Criteria Area), burrowing owl surveys are required for the subject property prior to approval of a development proposal. The property is not located within survey areas for criteria area species (MSHCP Figure 6-2), amphibian species (MSHCP Figure 6-3), or mammal species (MSHCP Figure 6-5) and surveys for those species are not required. Burrowing Owl The Project site is located within the MSHCP Survey Area for the burrowing owl. A burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) habitat assessment following Step 1 of the Burrowing Owl Instructions for the Western Riverside MSHCP was conducted on the site on February 3, 2023 was conducted by Hernandez Environmental Services. Due to the presence of potentially suitable habitat, a focused burrow survey was conducted on the site on May 1, 2023 following Step 2A of the Burrowing Owl Survey Instructions for the Western Riverside MSHCPThe habitat assessment 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. The focused burrow survey found no potentially suitable 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 onsite; therefore, it was determined that the site is not currently occupied by the species. As a mitigation measure for the proposed Project, the City of Lake Elsinore will require a pre- construction presence/absence survey for burrowing owl to be conducted within 30 days of the commencement of project-related grading or other land disturbance activities to ensure that the species has not moved onto the site since completion of the surveys. The pre- construction survey should occur within 30 days prior to ground disturbing activity. Owls located as a result of survey efforts will be relocated. If burrowing owl have colonized the project site or the offsite improvements area prior to the initiation of construction, the project proponent should immediately inform the City, RCA and the Wildlife Agencies, and Page 8 of 22 coordinate on the potential need for preparation, review and approval of a Burrowing Owl Protection and Relocation Plan, prior to any ground disturbance. Therefore, the subject project is consistent with the Additional Survey Needs and Procedures of the MSHCP. 6. The proposed project is consistent with the Urban/Wildlands Interface Guidelines. Basis for Finding: Section 6.1.4 of the MSHCP sets forth guidelines that are intended to address indirect effects associated with locating development in proximity to the MSHCP Conservation Area, where applicable. The guidelines in Section 6.1.4 of the MSHCP are intended to address indirect effects associated with development near MSHCP Conserved Areas. Developments in proximity to MSHCP Conserved Areas may result in “edge effects” that might adversely affect biological resources within MSHCP Conserved Areas. According to the MSHCP development may occur adjacent to Conservation Areas. Future Development in proximity to Conservation Areas may result in Edge Effects that will adversely affect biological resources within the Conservation Areas. To minimize such Edge Effects, the Project Applicant will be required to follow the Urban/Wildlands Interface Guidelines in Section 6.1.4 of the MSHCP to minimize urban/wildlands interface issues in the nearby Criteria Area. These include measures related to indirect impacts such as water quality (drainage), use of toxics, night lighting, indirect noise, invasive plant and wildlife species, protection of habitat areas (barriers), and grading/land development adjacent to habitat areas. The Project Site is not located within 3,000 feet of proposed preservation land in the 770-acre Plan therefore no indirect effects of urban/wildlands interfaces are expected at the Project Site. Drainage Pursuant to the UWIG, proposed developments in proximity to the MSHCP Conservation Area shall incorporate measures, including measures required through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) requirements, to ensure that the quantity and quality of runoff discharged to the MSHCP Conservation Area is not altered in an adverse way when compared with existing conditions. The proposed project will incorporate Water Quality Best Management Practices (BMPs), including the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Systems (NPDES) and erosion control requirements from the Regional Water Quality Control Board to ensure that the quantity and quality of surface water runoff discharged into the onsite riparian/riverine Page 9 of 22 areas are not altered in an adverse way when compared with existing conditions. These BMPs will be implemented as part of the Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) in order to ensure that water quality is not degraded. Toxics The UWIG states that land uses proposed in proximity to the MSHCP Conservation Area that use chemicals or generate bioproducts such as manure that are potentially toxic or may adversely affect wildlife species, Habitat or water quality shall incorporate measures to ensure that application of such chemicals does not result in discharge to the MSHCP Conservation Area. Measures such as those employed to address drainage issues will be implemented for toxics. Land uses proposed in proximity to the onsite riparian/riverine areas that use chemicals or generate bioproducts that are potentially toxic or may adversely affect wildlife species, habitat or water quality must incorporate measures to ensure that application of such chemicals does not result in discharge to the onsite riparian/riverine areas. Lighting Night lighting shall be directed away from the MSHCP Conservation Area to protect species within the MSHCP Conservation Area from direct night lighting. Shielding shall be incorporated in project designs to ensure ambient lighting in the MSHCP Conservation Area is not increased. Any night lighting will be directed away from the onsite and offsite riparian/riverine resources to protect species from direct nighttime lighting. If nighttime lighting is required, shielding will be incorporated in the design to ensure ambient nighttime lighting is not increased in the adjacent riparian habitat areas. Noise The UWIG states “Proposed noise generating land uses affecting the MSHCP Conservation Area shall incorporate setbacks, berms or walls to minimize the effects of noise on MSHCP Conservation Area resources pursuant to applicable rules, regulations and guidelines related to land use noise standards. For planning purposes, wildlife within the MSHCP Conservation Area should not be subject to noise that would exceed residential noise standards.” A project-specific noise analysis will be part of the CEQA analysis prepared for the development application and if required, appropriate mitigation will be made a condition of approval of the project. Proposed noise generating land uses affecting the adjacent Page 10 of 22 riparian/riverine resources must incorporate setbacks to minimize the effects of noise on adjacent habitat. Invasives When approving landscape plans for Development that is proposed adjacent to the MSHCP Conservation Area, Permittees shall consider the invasive, non-native plant species (see MSHCP Table 6-2) and shall require revisions to landscape plans (subject to the limitations of their jurisdiction) to avoid the use of invasive species for the portions of development that are adjacent to the MSHCP Conservation Area. Considerations in reviewing the applicability of this list shall include proximity of planting areas to the MSHCP Conservation Areas, species considered in the planting plans, resources being protected within the MSHCP Conservation Area and their relative sensitivity to invasion, and barriers to plant and seed dispersal, such as walls, topography and other features. Any project landscaping shall avoid the use of invasive, non-native plant species listed in MSHCP Table 6.2. Those species will be excluded from landscape plans on the project. Therefore, the project is consistent with the invasives requirements of Section 6.1.4 of the MSHCP. Barriers According to the UWIG, proposed land uses adjacent to the MSHCP Conservation Area shall incorporate barriers, where appropriate in individual project designs to minimize unauthorized public access, domestic animal predation, illegal trespass or dumping in the MSHCP Conservation Area. Such barriers may include native landscaping, rocks/boulders, fencing, walls, signage and/or other appropriate mechanisms. Proposed land uses adjacent to the riparian/riverine resources must incorporate barriers, such as native landscaping, rocks/boulders, fencing, walls, signage and/or other appropriate mechanisms, to minimize unauthorized public access, domestic animal predation, illegal trespass or dumping. Therefore, the project is consistent with the barrier requirements of Section 6.1.4 of the MSHCP. Grading/Land Development The UWIG states, “Manufactured slopes associated with proposed site development shall not extend into the MSHCP Conservation Area.” Manufactured slopes associated with proposed site development must not extend into the riparian/riverine areas. Page 11 of 22 For these reasons, the subject project is consistent with the Urban/Wildlife Interface Guidelines. 7. The proposed project is consistent with the Vegetation Mapping requirements. Basis for Finding: The entire 17.21-acre project site consists of disturbed, ruderal habitat. This habitat is characterized by brome grass and non-native vegetation that grows in previously disturbed areas, including common barley (hordeum vulgare), cheatgrass (bromus tectorum), cheeseweed (malva parviflora), shortpod mustard (Hirschfeldia incana) and tall tumblemustard (Sisymbrium altissimum). Other species in this habitat include stinknet (Oncosiphon piluliferum), common sunflower (Helianthus annuus), and Western ragweed (Ambrosia psilostachya). This mapping is sufficient under the MSHCP and is consistent with the MSHCP vegetation mapping requirements. 8. The proposed project is consistent with the Fuels Management Guidelines. Basis for Finding: Section 6.4 of the MSHCP requires that new developments adjacent to the MSHCP Conservation Area (in this case the proposed 770-acre Plan preservation areas) or other undeveloped lands incorporate any fuel/brush management zones and Best Management Practices. The Project Site is not located in or adjacent to the proposed 770-acre Plan preservation areas. The Project will required to incorporate the BMPs outlined in Volume I, Appendix C of the MSHCP as part of the development pursuant to regulatory and/or County requirements. Therefore, the Project is consistent with the Fuels Management Guidelines as set forth in Section 6.4 of the MSHCP. 9. The proposed project will be conditioned to pay the City’s MSHCP Local Development Mitigation Fee. Page 12 of 22 Basis for Finding: The applicant shall pay MSHCP Local Development Mitigation fees as determined by the City. The Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (RCA) adjusts the fee schedule annually. As of July 1, 20222023, the fees are: Category MSHCP Fees Residential, density less than 8.0 dwelling units per acre $3,9474,236 per dwelling unit Residential, density between 8.0 and 14.0 dwelling units per acre $1,6451,766 per dwelling unit Residential density greater than 14.0 dwelling units per acre $728781 per dwelling unit Commercial $17,76419,066 per acre Industrial $17,76419,066 per acre 10. The proposed project is consistent with the MSHCP. Basis for Finding: MSHCP Sequential Approach The MSHCP describes a sequential approach to application of the Reserve Assembly guidance provided in the MSHCP. (MSHCP, page 3-122 through 3-124). The project can be shown to be consistent with the MSHCP on an Area Plan and Area Plan Subunit Basis as outlined below. Step 1 – Examine the project in the context of the overall MSHCP Conservation Area by relating the project to the MSHCP Conservation Area description in Section 3.2.2 of the Plan and the descriptions of the applicable Cores and Linkages in Section 3.2.3 of the Plan. (MSHCP, page 3-122) Section 3.2.2 of the MSHCP summarizes the MSHCP Conservation Area in terms of bioregions, vegetation, soils, patch size and edge affected land. Section 3.2.2 also states, “The MSHCP Conservation Area may also be described in terms of Cores and Linkages.” (MSHCP, page 3-19). The following description of the project site in the context of the overall MSHCP Conservation Area is in terms of applicable Cores and Linkages. Section 3.2.2 of the MSHCP summarizes the MSHCP Conservation Area in terms of bioregions, vegetation, soils, patch size and edge affected land. Section 3.2.2 also states, “The MSHCP Conservation Area may also be described in terms of Cores and Linkages.” (MSHCP, page 3-19). The following description of the project site in the context of the overall MSHCP Conservation Area is in terms of applicable Cores and Linkages. Page 13 of 22 Approximately 0.30 acre of the project site is located in Criteria Cell 5131, which is in MSHCP Elsinore Area Plan, Subunit 3 (Elsinore). The balance of the project site is not located within either a criteria cell or Subunit 3. Conservation within this Cell will contribute to assembly of Proposed Extension of Existing Core 3. The MSHCP describes Proposed Extension of Existing Core 3 as: “Proposed Extension of Existing Core 3 Proposed Extension of Existing Core 3 (Lake Elsinore Soils) consists of two blocks of land extending from the southern border of Existing Core E (Lake Elsinore). The northern portion of the proposed extension is also connected to Proposed Linkage 8. Proposed Extension of Existing Core 3 conserves soils of the Traver series, which is important to the maintenance of several species of Narrow Endemic Plants. The northern portion of the extension also provides for movement of species along the lower San Jacinto River to Proposed Linkage 8. Together with Existing Core E, Proposed Extension of Existing Core 3 provides Habitat for shorebird use. Since surrounding land uses include city (Lake Elsinore) and community Development, management of edge conditions in this area will be necessary to maintain high quality Habitat in this area. Guidelines Pertaining to Urban/Wildlands Interface for the management of edge factors such as lighting, urban runoff, toxics, and domestic predators are presented in Section 6.1 of this document. (MSHCP, Page 3-48) Table 1 PROPOSED EXTENSION OF EXISTING CORE 3 Approximate Dimension Data for Linkage Approx. Total (ac.) Approx. Edge (ac.) Approx. Interior (ac.) Approx. Perimeter/ Area Ratio (ft./ac) Planning Species Adjacent Proposed General Plan Land Use Major Covered Activities Affecting Linkage 1,290 410 880 63 Riverside fairy shrimp, Quino checkerspot butterfly, western pond turtle, Bell’s sage sparrow, American bittern, mountain plover, northern harrier, white-tailed kite, City (Lake Elsinore None Page 14 of 22 southwestern willow flycatcher, loggerhead shrike, black-crowned night heron, osprey, double- crested cormorant, white-faced ibis, least Bell’s vireo, bobcat, Munz’s onion, San Diego ambrosia, and smooth tarplant. Step 2 – Identification of the specific Area Plan and Area Plan Subunit within which the particular project is located. Planning Species and Biological Issues and Considerations as well as variable target acreages for the overall Area Plan and Area Plan Subunit should be reviewed between Permittee staff and the applicant along with any variable project specific biological information. Planning Species and Biological Issues and Considerations that apply to the specific project should be identified. Not all Planning Species and Biological Issues and Considerations for particular Area Plan or Area Plan Subunit will apply to every project. (MSHCP, page 3-122) Approximately 0.30 acre of the project site is located in Criteria Cell 5131, which is in MSHCP Elsinore Area Plan, Subunit 3 (Elsinore). The balance of the project site is not located within either a criteria cell or Subunit 3. Subunit 3 (Elsinore) has a target conservation acreage of 925 to 1,815 acres of Additional Reserve Lands. As of December 31, 2021, 12 acres of Subunit 3 had been conserved. (Western Riverside County MSHCP Annual Report 2021, Appendix A,, page A-3) Conservation within Criteria Cell 5131 will contribute to assembly of Proposed Extension of Existing Core 3. Conservation within this Cell will focus on grassland habitat. Areas conserved within this Cell will be connected to grassland habitat proposed for conservation in Cell #5137 to the west. Conservation within this Cell will range from 30%-40% of the Cell focusing in the southwestern portion of the Cell. Subunit 3 of the Elsinore Area Plan includes the following list of biological issues and considerations that relate to conservation goals of the MSHCP. Page 15 of 22 Planning Species • American bittern (Botaurus lentiginosus) • Bell’s sage sparrow (Amphispiza belli belli) • black-crowned night heron (Nycticorax nycticorax) • double-crested cormorant (Phalacrocorax auritus) • least Bell’s vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus) • mountain plover (Charadrius montanus) • northern harrier (Circus cyaneus) • osprey (Pandion haliaetus) • southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus) • white-faced ibis (Plegadis chihi) • white-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus) • Quino checkerspot butterfly (Editha quino) • Riverside fairy shrimp (Streptocephalus woottoni) • bobcat (Lynx rufus) • western pond turtle (Actinemys marmorata) • Munz’s onion (Allium munzii) • San Diego ambrosia (Ambrosia pumila) • smooth tarplant (Centromadia pungens) Biological Issues and Considerations: • Conserve wetlands including Temescal Wash, Collier Marsh, Alberhill Creek, Lake Elsinore and the floodplain east of Lake Elsinore (including marsh Habitats) and maintain water quality. • Conserve clay soils supporting Munz’s onion. • Conserve Travers-Willow-Domino soil series. • Conserve foraging Habitat for raptors, providing a sage scrub-grassland ecotone. • Conserve grassland Habitat for mountain plover. • Conserve breeding Habitat for northern harrier. • Maintain linkage area for bobcat. • Conserve San Diego ambrosia at Alberhill and Nichols Road or find new populations that would allow for loss of known populations. • Maintain Core and Linkage Habitat for western pond turtle. • Maintain Core Area for Riverside fairy shrimp. • Maintain opportunities for Core and Linkage Habitat for Quino checkerspot butterfly. Page 16 of 22 Step 3 – Review of the specific Criteria for the identified Cell or Cell Group within which the project site is located. a. Pursuant to page 3-122 of the MSHCP, the “first criterion for each Cell or Cell Group is the identification of the applicable Core or Linkage. This relationship of the project to the applicable Core or Linkage should already have been identified and discussed as part of the first steps in the sequential process.” This identification was made in Step 1 above. b. “The next criteria for each Cell or Cell Group” as described on page 3-122 of the MSHCP “are the identification of Vegetation Communities toward which Conservation should be directed along with connectivity requirements.” One vegetation community occurs on the property (Table 2): ruderal habitat. Table 2 IMPACTS TO VEGETATION COMMUNITIES Vegetation Community Impacted Acreage Ruderal Habitat 17.21 TOTAL 17.21 Source: “General Biological Assessment for Assessor’s Parcel Numbers 370-050-019, 020, and 032, City of Lake Elsinore, Riverside County, California” dated November 2021 (Updated MayJuly 2023), prepared by Hernandez Environmental Services. The existing vegetation communities notwithstanding, the Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (RCA) utilizes baseline vegetation mapping that was completed during the development of the MSHCP. According to the RCA’s website, this mapping of vegetation “represent baseline Western Riverside County's Vegetation types. This data layer was used to develop MSHCP conservation goals and is used in ongoing reserve assembly accounting to insure that habitat is being conserved consistent with the rough step formula (see Section 6 of the MSHCP document). It was originally obtained from WRCOG and produced by KTUA consultants. Source date approx. 1994.” (Accessed at http://data- wrcrca.opendata.arcgis.com/datasets/cc951f0366e1471abe303629b44106f3_0 on October 24, 2017) Table 3 shows the proposed project’s estimated impacts upon these MSHCP mapped vegetation communities. Page 17 of 22 Table 3 MSHCP VEGETATION COMMUNITIES Community Acres Impacted Within Criteria Cell 5131 Not within Criteria Cell Grassland 0.07 2.54 Agricultural Land 0.23 14.37 Subtotals 0.30 16.91 TOTAL 17.21 The MSHCP recognizes that “[t]he MSHCP vegetation map is limited by the timeframe within which the data were assembled as well as the precision of those data. The vegetation map represents conditions at the time the data were assembled, in this case 1991-1995; the current extent and character of Vegetation Communities may differ from that depicted on the MSHCP vegetation map.” (MSHCP, page 2-3) c. “Finally, the project should be examined with respect to the percentage conservation portion of the Cell Criteria, which is the last criterion provided for each Cell and Cell Group.”. (MSHCP, pages 3-122 and 3-123) Approximately 0.30 acre of the project site is located in Criteria Cell 5131, which is in MSHCP Elsinore Area Plan, Subunit 3 (Elsinore). The property that will be developed by the Proposed Project includes that area. The balance of the project site is not located within either a criteria cell or Subunit 3. Conservation within this Cell will contribute to assembly of Proposed Extension of Existing Core 3. Conservation within this Cell will focus on grassland habitat. Areas conserved within this Cell will be connected to grassland habitat proposed for conservation in Cell #5140 to the west, #5240 to the south and #5131 to the east. Conservation within this Cell will range from 65%-75% of the Cell focusing in the southern portion of the Cell. The project is located within the MSHCP Elsinore Area Plan. The East Lake Specific Plan is located in Criteria Cells 4740, 4742, 4743, 4759, 4843, 4844, 4845, 4846, 4937, 4939, 4940, 5033, 5036, 5038, 5131, 5137, 5140, 5240, 5342. A portion of the East Lake Specific Plan is not located within a MSHCP Criteria Cell. However, as a result of the City’s discussions with the Wildlife Agencies and RCA, it was determined that conservation in the Back Basin is not tied to protection of specific habitat or wildlife movement corridors, but rather to the need to conserve a minimum of 770-acres in the Back Basin in order to meet the numeric requirements for the MSHCP (770-acre Plan). Page 18 of 22 As described in an October 2013 CDFW letter to the City of Lake Elsinore, conservation lands used to achieve the 770-acre Plan 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. All lands should be managed consistent with the MSHCP and protected, in perpetuity, and will be reviewed and approved by CDFW, USFWS, and RCA. The exact final acreage of the properties identified for conservation has yet to be determined pending preparation and recordation of conservation easements. However, following recordation of all conservation easements, the total acreages conserved would total or exceed 770 acres and would fulfill the MSHCP criteria for the Back Basin. The following is an assessment of the project site’s consistency with the above-listed biological issues and considerations: i. Conserve wetlands including Temescal Wash, Collier Marsh, Alberhill Creek, Lake Elsinore and the floodplain east of Lake Elsinore (including marsh Habitats) and maintain water quality. Analysis: The Project site’s elevations range from 1,259 above mean sea level (AMSL) to 1,286 feet AMSL. The Project site does not contain any wetlands, is not located within 3,000 feet of proposed preservation land in the 770-acre Plan and more than two miles away from Lake Elsinore itself. There are no jurisdictional drainages within the project site. Therefore, project will not interfere with conservation of the identified wetlands and is consistent with this goal of the MSHCP. ii. Conserve clay soils supporting Munz’s onion. Analysis: Munz’s onion is found on clay and cobbly clay soils, which include the following series: Altamont, Auld, Bosanko, Claypit, and Porterville. (MSHCP Plants Species Accounts, Page P-215) Soils within the Project site are predominately Ramona very fine sandy loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes, eroded (ReC2), and Waukena loamy fine sand, saline-alkali, 0 to 2 percent slopes (Wa). There is also a small amount of Visalia fine sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes (VmA). No suitable habitat or soils for the Munz’s onion occur within the project site. This goal of the MSHCP does not apply to the project. Page 19 of 22 iii. Conserve Travers-Willow-Domino soil series. Analysis: Soils within the Project site are predominately Ramona very fine sandy loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes, eroded (ReC2), and Waukena loamy fine sand, saline-alkali, 0 to 2 percent slopes (Wa). There is also a small amount of Visalia fine sandy loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes (VmA). Travers-Willow-Domino soil series is not found on the subject property. This goal of the MSHCP does not apply to the project. iv. Conserve foraging Habitat for raptors, providing a sage scrub-grassland ecotone. Analysis: The Western Riverside MSHCP Species Accounts for Birds describes the habitat for mountain plover as: “Potential habitat for the mountain plover includes playas and vernal pools and select agriculture lands (e.g., fallow, recently burned) and grasslands. These areas are located within the Riverside lowlands Bioregions. Within the vegetation mapping for the Plan Area, the suitable open grassland and fallow agriculture field acreage and locations are not available, thus, for the purpose of the conservation analysis, potential habitat for the mountain plover includes playas and vernal pools within the Riverside Lowlands bioregion.” (Page B-330) The project site consists of vacant, disturbed land with evidence of weed abatement activities and off-road vehicle use. Undisturbed native habitat is not present onsite. The vegetation on site has been classified as non-native grassland. Preservation of similar habitat in the Back Basin has been proposed. Therefore, the project is consistent with this goal of the MSHCP. v. Conserve grassland Habitat for mountain plover. Analysis: The Western Riverside MSHCP Species Accounts for Birds describes the habitat for mountain plover as: “Potential habitat for the mountain plover includes playas and vernal pools and select agriculture lands (e.g., fallow, recently burned) and grasslands. These areas are located within the Riverside lowlands Bioregions. Within the vegetation mapping for the Plan Area, the suitable open grassland and fallow agriculture field acreage and locations are not available, thus, for the purpose of the conservation analysis, potential habitat for the mountain plover includes playas and vernal pools within the Riverside Lowlands bioregion.” (Page B-330) The entire 17.21-acre project site consists of disturbed, ruderal habitat. This habitat is characterized by brome grass and non-native vegetation that grows in previously Page 20 of 22 disturbed areas. No suitable grasslands occur within this site. This goal of the MSHCP does not apply to the project. vi. Conserve breeding Habitat for northern harrier. Analysis: The Western Riverside MSHCP Species Accounts for Birds describes the breeding habitat for northern harrier as: “This species has specific habitat requirements for breeding (primary habitats: cismontane alkali marsh, freshwater marsh, playas and vernal pools, and grassland) but uses a wider array of Habitat for foraging and wintering (secondary Habitats: agriculture land, Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub, and coastal sage scrub).” (Page B-380) No special status animal species were observed within the Project site during the biological survey of the Project site. The project site does not contain any of the habitat requirements for the northern harrier. This goal of the MSHCP does not apply to the project. vii. Maintain linkage area for bobcat. Analysis: The Species Conservation Objectives for the bobcat describe key habitat connections and corridors in vicinity of Lake Elsinore as: • Santa Ana Mountains to Lake Mathews-Estelle Mountain via Indian Canyon and Horsethief Canyon • Santa Ana Mountains to Agua Tibia Wilderness-Palomar Mountains via Pechanga Creek or future wildlife overpass over Interstate15 north of Rainbow (possibly in San Diego County). The project site is not located near either of these corridor areas. The site is surrounded by Mission Trail and commercial developments to the east, a construction site and commercial developments to the south, vacant land to the north, and the Lake Elsinore Motorsports Track Park to the west. Therefore, the project site cannot not contribute to any linkage for bobcat. This goal of the MSHCP does not apply to the project. viii. Conserve San Diego ambrosia at Alberhill and Nichols Road or find new populations that would allow for loss of known populations. Analysis: The property is not located in proximity to Alberhill or Nichols Road. The site has no connectivity to those populations. No suitable habitat is present on site and this species is not present on site. Therefore, this issue does not apply. Page 21 of 22 ix. Maintain Core and Linkage Habitat for western pond turtle. Analysis: The Western Riverside MSHCP Species Accounts for Reptiles states that the western pond turtle “has narrow habitat requirements and potentially limited distribution within the Plan Area, typically being restricted to slow moving permanent or intermittent streams, small ponds, small lakes, reservoirs, and other long term water deposits, where abundant cover is available.” (Page R-127) The project site does not contain any habitat that meets these requirements. Therefore, this issue does not apply. x. Maintain Core Area for Riverside fairy shrimp. Analysis: Riverside fairy shrimp (Streptocephalus woottoni) is a federally listed Endangered species. This species is covered by the Western Riverside County MSHCP. This species is found in seasonal pools of water in coastal sage scrub and grasslands. The entire site was evaluated for the presence of habitat capable of supporting branchiopods. The site was evaluated as described in the USFWS Survey Guidelines for the Listed Large Branchiopods (May 31, 2016). The project area is primarily comprised of sandy loams. The onsite soils do not allow for water pooling on the site for any significant length of time after rain events. No vernal pools, swales, or vernal pool mimics such as ditches, borrow pits, cattle troughs, or cement culverts with signs of pooling water were found on the site. In addition, the site does not contain areas that showed signs of ponding water, hydrophytic vegetation, or soils typical of vernal pools that would be suitable for large branchiopods. Vernal pools are not present on the parcel. Therefore, this issue does not apply. xi. Maintain opportunities for linkage area for Quino checkerspot butterfly. Analysis: The project site does not contain any habitat suitable for the Quino checkerspot butterfly (QCB). Therefore, this issue does not apply. Conclusion Approximately 0.30 acre of the project site is located in Criteria Cell 5131, which is in MSHCP Elsinore Area Plan, Subunit 3 (Elsinore). The property that will be developed by the Proposed Project includes that area. Conservation within this Cell will range from 65%-75% of the Cell focusing in the southern portion of the Cell. The conservation requirements set forth for this Criteria Cell has been replaced with the preservation of habitat in the Back Basin of Lake Elsinore through the 770-acre Agreement. The Project Site is not located within 3,000 feet of proposed Page 22 of 22 preservation land in the 770-acre Plan. Even without consideration of the 770-acre Plan, the Project site falls outside of that portion of Criteria Cell 5131 identified for conservation and the project site does not meet the conservation requirements set forth for Subunit 3 of the Elsinore Area Plan . The balance of the project site is not located within either a criteria cell or Subunit 3.Therefore, conservation of the project site, or any portion thereof, is not required. The proposed project is consistent with the MSHCP.