HomeMy WebLinkAboutPA2020103 - MSHCP CONSISTENCY ANALYSISWestern Riverside County
Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan
Consistency Analysis
Baker Industrial Project
Permittee
City of Lake Elsinore
Applicant
Ecosystem Investment Partners
1505 Bridgeway, Suite 107
Sausalito, California 94965
Contact: Glen Williams
Phone: (415) 465-4423
Consultant
Glenn Lukos Associates, Inc.
1940 E. Deere Avenue, Suite 250
Santa Ana, California 92705
Phone: (949) 340-2562
Contact: David Moskovitz
February 28, 2024
MSHCP Consistency Analysis
i
Table Of Contents
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ........................................................................................... 1
2.0 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 4
2.1 Project Description and Area.............................................................................. 4
2.2 Covered Roads .................................................................................................. 9
2.3 Covered Public Access Activities ..................................................................... 10
2.4 General Setting ................................................................................................ 10
3.0 RESERVE ASSEMBLY ANALYSIS ........................................................................ 11
3.1 Reserve Assembly Background ....................................................................... 11
3.2 Public Quasi-Public Lands ............................................................................... 12
3.3 MSHCP Criteria Area and Reserve Assembly Requirements .......................... 12
4.0 VEGETATION MAPPING AND SPECIES COMPENDIA ........................................ 15
5.0 PROTECTION OF SPECIES ASSOCIATED WITH RIPARIAN/ RIVERINE AREAS
AND VERNAL POOLS (SECTION 6.1.2) ................................................................ 20
5.1 Riparian/Riverine .............................................................................................. 20
5.2 Vernal Pools ..................................................................................................... 25
5.3 Fairy Shrimp ..................................................................................................... 28
5.4 Riparian Birds ................................................................................................... 30
5.5 Other Section 6.1.2 Species............................................................................. 33
6.0 PROTECTION OF NARROW ENDEMIC PLANT SPECIES (SECTION 6.1.3) ....... 33
6.1 Methods ........................................................................................................... 34
6.2 Existing Conditions and Results ....................................................................... 34
6.3 Impacts ............................................................................................................ 34
6.4 Mitigation .......................................................................................................... 35
7.0 ADDITIONAL SURVEY NEEDS AND PROCEDURES (SECTION 6.3.2) ............... 35
7.1 Criteria Area Plant Species .............................................................................. 35
7.2 Amphibians ...................................................................................................... 37
7.3 Burrowing Owl .................................................................................................. 37
7.4 Mammals.......................................................................................................... 39
8.0 INFORMATION ON OTHER SPECIES ................................................................... 40
8.1 Delhi Sands Flower-Loving Fly......................................................................... 40
8.2 Coastal California Gnatcatcher ........................................................................ 40
8.3 Species Not Adequately Conserved ................................................................. 40
9.0 GUIDELINES PERTAINING TO THE URBAN/WILDLANDS INTERFACE
(SECTION 6.1.4) ...................................................................................................... 40
9.1 Drainage .......................................................................................................... 41
9.2 Toxics ............................................................................................................... 42
9.3 Lighting ............................................................................................................ 42
MSHCP Consistency Analysis
ii
9.4 Noise ................................................................................................................ 42
9.5 Invasive Species .............................................................................................. 43
9.6 Barriers ............................................................................................................ 43
9.7 Grading/Land Development ............................................................................. 43
10.0 CONSTRUCTION GUIDELINES (SECTION 7.5.3) .............................................. 43
11.0 BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES (MSHCP VOLUME I, APPENDIX C) .......... 45
12.0 CONCLUSION ...................................................................................................... 46
13.0 CERTIFICATION .................................................................................................. 46
TABLES
Table 2-1. Summary of Project Components ................................................................. 5
Table 3-1. Criteria Cell Acreages for the Project Site ................................................... 11
Table 3-2. Summary of Reserve Assembly for Cell 4166 ............................................. 14
Table 4-1. Summary of Vegetation/Land Use Types for the Project Site ..................... 16
Table 5-1. MSHCP Riparian/Riverine Areas at the Project site .................................... 21
Table 5-2. Impacts to MSHCP Riverine Areas ............................................................. 24
Table 5-3. MSHCP Vernal Pools at the Project site ..................................................... 26
Table 5-4. Impacts to Vernal Pools .............................................................................. 27
Table 5-5. Summary of Least Bell’s Vireo Surveys ...................................................... 31
Table 5-6. Summary of Southwestern Willow Flycatcher Surveys ............................... 32
Table 7-1. Summary of Burrowing Owl Surveys ........................................................... 38
EXHIBITS
Exhibit 1 Regional Map
Exhibit 2 Vicinity Map
Exhibit 3 Project Components Map
Exhibit 4A MSHCP Overlay Map
Exhibit 4B MSHCP Species Survey Area Map
Exhibit 4C MSHCP Covered Roads Map
Exhibit 5 MSHCP Reserve Assembly Map
Exhibit 6 Vegetation Map
Exhibit 7 Soils Map
Exhibit 8 MSHCP Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools
Exhibit 9 Rare Plants Map
Exhibit 10 Plant Restoration Map
Exhibit 11 Burrowing Owl Survey Map
Exhibit 12 Site Photographs
MSHCP Consistency Analysis
iii
APPENDICES
Appendix A Conceptual Grading Plan – Baker Industrial Project
Appendix B Biological Technical Report
Appendix C Report of 2021 Dry Season Fairy Shrimp Surveys
Appendix D Report of 2023 Dry Season Fairy Shrimp Surveys [Pending]
Appendix E Report of 2023/2024 Wet Season Fairy Shrimp Surveys [Pending]
Appendix F Report of 2020 Southwestern Willow Flycatcher and Least Bell’s
Vireo Surveys
Appendix G Preliminary Drainage Report
MSHCP Consistency Analysis
1
1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Glenn Lukos Associates, Inc. (GLA) has prepared this report to document consistency
of the Baker Industrial Project (the “Project”) with the Western Riverside County Multiple
Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP), including the Project’s relationship to
Reserve Assembly, Section 6.1.2 (Protection of Species Associated with
Riparian/Riverine Areas and Vernal Pools), Section 6.1.3 (Protection of Narrow
Endemic Plant Species), Section 6.1.4 (Guidelines Pertaining to the Urban/Wildlands
Interface), and Section 6.3.2 (Additional Survey Needs and Procedures).
A majority of the Project site (71.27 acres) is located within Subunit 3 (Elsinore) of the
Elsinore Area Plan, specifically Criteria Cell 4166 [Exhibit 4A – MSHCP Map]. Another
7.70 acres of the Project site is located within Subunit 2 (Alberhill) of the Elsinore Area
Plan, including Cell 4157 (1.61 acres) and Cell Group W (6.09 acres). The remainder of
the Project site (45.63 acres) is outside of the Criteria Area. Projects occurring within
the Criteria Area are subject to the Habitat Evaluation and Acquisition Negotiation
Strategy (HANS) process to determine if portions of the sites may be needed for
inclusion in the MSHCP Conservation Area. The Project will conserve approximately
32.66 acres of land, the majority of which (30.14 acres) is located in the central and
northern portions of Cell 4166 and consists predominantly of grassland habitat adjacent
to Alberhill Creek, but which also contains riparian areas, playa habitat and vernal
pools. The conserved lands would be dedicated to the RCA and managed and
protected in perpetuity. Regardless of whether project lands are to be acquired for
inclusion in the MSHCP Conservation Area, projects located within the Criteria Area are
subject to the Joint Project Review (JPR) process for the RCA to review projects for
consistency with the MSHCP. MSHCP Reserve Assembly is further addressed in
Section 3.0 below.
The proposed Project will impact approximately 0.50 acre of MSHCP riverine areas.
The Project will not remove habitat with long-term conservation value for the least Bell’s
vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus), southwestern willow flycatcher (Empidonax traillii extimus),
or western yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus occidentalis). Due to the
proximity to riparian habitat within Alberhill Creek, GLA biologists performed focused
surveys for the least Bell’s vireo and southwestern willow flycatcher. GLA biologists did
not detect the southwestern willow flycatchers but did detect a single male least Bell’s
vireo (presumed nesting based on behavior) in Alberhill Creek during multiple visits
within proximity to Nichols Road and the Project’s proposed conservation.
The Project will impact up to 0.08 acre of vernal pools, associated with the edges of two
vernal pools that will otherwise be avoided. The results of protocol fairy shrimp surveys
are pending for four ponded features, including three vernal pools and one non-vernal
pool impoundment. A Determination of Biologically Equivalent or Superior Preservation
(DBESP) must be approved by the wildlife agencies (USFWS and CDFW) for impacts to
the riverine areas and vernal pools. Subject to the approval of a DBESP, the Project
will be consistent with MSHCP Volume I, Section 6.1.2 of the MSHCP.
MSHCP Consistency Analysis
2
Volume I, Section 6.1.3 of the MSHCP requires that within identified Narrow Endemic
Plant Species Survey Areas (NEPSSA), site-specific focused surveys for Narrow
Endemic Plants Species will be required for all public and private projects where
appropriate soils and habitat are present. The Project site occurs within the NEPSSA for
the following target species:
· Munz’s onion (Allium munzii)
· San Diego ambrosia (Ambrosia pumila)
· Slender-horned spineflower (Dodecahema leptoceras)
· Many-stemmed dudleya (Dudleya multicaulis)
· Spreading navarretia (Navarretia fossalis)
· California Orcutt grass (Orcuttia californica)
· San Miguel savory (Clinopodium chandleri)
· Hammitt’s clay-cress (Sibaropsis hammittii)
· Wright’s trichocoronis (Trichocoronis wrightii var. wrightii).
The Project will impact San Diego ambrosia in several locations, including in the
southern portion of the Industrial footprint (onsite) and within the proposed offsite road
improvements along Pierce Street and Nichols Road. Because the Project site is within
the NEPSSA for San Diego ambrosia, the Project is required by the MSHCP to identify
habitat with long-term conservation value for the species and to avoid at least 90
percent of the habitat. GLA has identified 0.44 acre of habitat with long-term
conservation value for the ambrosia within the Project footprint, all of which will be
impacted by the Project. As such, a DBESP must be approved to authorize impacts to
San Diego ambrosia.
Pursuant to MSHCP Volume I, Section 6.3.2, the MSHCP requires habitat assessments
and focused surveys (within areas of suitable habitat) for certain species as determined
by a project’s occurrence in a designated survey area, including Criteria Area Plant
Species Survey Area (CAPSSA), burrowing owl survey area, amphibian survey area, and
mammal survey area.
The Project site occurs within the CAPSSA for the following target species:
· Thread-leaved brodiaea (Brodiaea filifolia)
· Davidson’s saltscale (Atriplex serenana var. davidsonii)
· Parish’s brittlescale (Atriplex parishii)
· Smooth tarplant (Centromadia pungens spp. laevis)
· Round-leaved filaree (California macrophylla)
· Coulter’s goldfields (Lasthenia glabrata ssp. coulteri)
· Little mousetail (Myosurus minimus ssp. apus)
MSHCP Consistency Analysis
3
The Project will impact Coulter’s goldfields associated with the one of the vernal pools
adjacent to the proposed Baker Street improvements due to the proposed storm drain
outlets and proposed maintenance area. GLA has identified 2.61 acres of habitat with
long-term conservation value for Coulter’s goldfields associated with the three vernal
pools. The proposed Project will directly impact 0.50 acre of the habitat (20 percent) of
the habitat at the edge of one of the vernal pools. As such, a DBESP must be approved
to authorize impacts to Coulter’s goldfields. It is assumed that the Project might impact
little mousetail based on a prior public record of detection. Impacts are assumed up to
0.07 acre of habitat with long-term conservation value based on proposed impacts to
Vernal Pool 3. As such, a DBESP must be approved to authorize impacts to little
mousetail.
The Project site is within the MSHCP burrowing owl survey area. To comply with
MSHCP survey requirements pursuant to Volume I, Section 6.3.2, focused burrowing
owl surveys were performed for the Project site. Burrowing owls were confirmed absent
from the site. However, because of the potential suitability to support burrowing owls,
consistent with the MSHCP burrowing owl survey guidelines and MSHCP objectives for
the burrowing owls, pre-construction surveys will be conducted no more than 30 days
prior to ground disturbance within all areas of suitable habitat.
The MSHCP Urban/Wildland Interface Guidelines are intended to address indirect
effects associated with locating development in proximity to the MSHCP Conservation
Area. As the MSHCP Conservation Area is assembled, development is expected to
occur adjacent to the Conservation Area. Future development in proximity to the
MSHCP Conservation Area may result in edge effects with the potential to adversely
affect biological resources within the Conservation Area. To minimize such edge
effects, the guidelines shall be implemented in conjunction with review of individual
public and private development projects in proximity to the MSHCP Conservation Area
and address the following:
· Drainage;
· Toxics;
· Lighting;
· Noise;
· Invasives;
· Barriers; and
· Grading/Land Development.
As discussed in Section 9.0 of this document, the Project will implement applicable
measures to minimize adverse indirect impacts on special-status resources within
Conserved Lands. The proposed Project will be consistent with Volume I, Section 6.1.4
of the MSHCP.