Annual Report 2010 (46.2 MB) - Western Riverside County Regional ...

wrc.rca.org

Annual Report 2010 (46.2 MB) - Western Riverside County Regional ...

Western Riverside County

Regional Conservation Authority

MULTIPLE SPECIES HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN

Annual Report 2010


Cover Description

The main photo on the cover of the 2010 Annual Report is from the Cachia Property consisting of approximately

18.8 acres that was acquired by the RCA in November of 2010. The property is located southwest of the City of

Murrieta and is approximately 1 mile north of the County Line between San Diego County and Riverside County.

The property is on the west slope of the Mesa just south and east of Tenaja Road within Rough Step Unit 5. The

view in the photo is from the west area of the properties with a view of one of the oak trees on the property towards

the southeast. The property is located between the Cleveland Forest to the west and the Santa Rosa Plateau Preserve

to the east. The acquisition of this property was critical to the preservation of grasslands and woodlands and forest

habitat and contributes towards building a critical linkage between the Cleveland Forest and Santa Rosa Plateau.

Also on the cover are pictures of the Thread-Leaved Brodiaea (Brodiaea filifolia), Bobcat (Lynx rufus,) and a Quino

checkerspot butterfly (Euphydryas editha quino) These species were all detected and monitored by the Biological

Monitoring Program in 2010.


Western Riverside County

MULTIPLE SPECIES HABITAT

CONSERVATION PLAN

ANNUAL REPORT

For the Period

January 1, 2010 through December 31, 2010

Submitted by the

Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority

July 2011


TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section

Page

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................... ES-1

1.0 INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................... 1-1

1.1 Overview of the Plan ........................................................................................... 1-1

1.2 Reporting Requirements ...................................................................................... 1-3

1.3 Methods................................................................................................................ 1-4

2.0 HABITAT GAINS ......................................................................................................... 2-1

2.1 Conservation Summary ........................................................................................ 2-1

2.2 Conservation by Jurisdiction ................................................................................ 2-4

2.3 Conservation by Area Plan .................................................................................. 2-5

2.4 Conservation by Area Plan Subunits ................................................................... 2-6

2.5 Conservation and Acquisition Trends ................................................................ 2-10

2.6 Development Projects and Future Conservation ............................................... 2-10

2.7 Non RCA Conservation .................................................................................... 2-11

3.0 HABITAT LOSSES ....................................................................................................... 3-1

3.1 Habitat Loss Summary ......................................................................................... 3-1

3.2 Rough Step Summaries ........................................................................................ 3-7

4.0 ACTIVITIES WITHIN PLAN AREA ......................................................................... 4-1

4.1 Single-Family/Mobile Home Activity ................................................................. 4-1

4.2 Public Works Projects .......................................................................................... 4-2

4.3 Participating Special Entity Permits .................................................................... 4-7

4.4 Criteria Refinement .............................................................................................. 4-8

4.5 Memoranda of Understanding ............................................................................. 4-8

4.6 Review of Public/Quasi-Public Lands ............................................................... 4-10

4.7 Clerical/Minor Amendments to the MSHCP ..................................................... 4-11

4.8 Activities Affecting Reserve Assembly ............................................................. 4-13

5.0 FUNDING SUMMARY ................................................................................................. 5-1

6.0 MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES ................................................................................... 6-1

6.1 Management Goal ................................................................................................ 6-1

6.2 General Management Activities .......................................................................... 6-1

Western Riverside County MSHCP

Annual Report (January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2010)

TOC-1


TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section

Page

6.3 Reserve Management Units ................................................................................. 6-2

6.4 Reserve Management Staffing ............................................................................ 6-3

6.5 RCA Properties Managed by the Park District ................................................... 6-4

6.6 2010 Management Activities ............................................................................... 6-5

6.7 Future Management Activities ........................................................................... 6-13

7.0 MONITORING ACTIVITIES ..................................................................................... 7-1

7.1 Goals and Objectives ........................................................................................... 7-1

7.2 Inventory Phase and Long Term Monitoring Phase ........................................... 7-1

7.3 Monitoring Program Operations .......................................................................... 7-2

7.4 Summary of 2010 Monitoring Activities and Evaluation

of Progress toward Achieving Measurable Objectives ........................................ 7-5

7.5 Suggested Changes and Feedback for Adaptive Management .......................... 7-62

8.0 REFERENCES ............................................................................................................... 8-1

LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix A

RCA MSHCP Technical Reports, Maps, GIS Files and Metadata ......................... A-1

1. GIS Methodology, Process and Procedures ........................................................ A-1

2. Monitoring Program Survey Results ................................................................. A-1

3. Report on Conservation Easement Lands received through 404 Permits .......... A-3

4. Habitrak Reports and Maps ............................................................................... A-3

5. Clerical Amendments to the MSHCP ................................................................. A-4

6. Agricultural Operations Database and Maps ..................................................... A-4

7. Development Project – Future Conservation GIS Data Files ............................. A-5

8. Non RCA Conservation and Easements GIS Data Files .................................... A-5

9. GIS Data Files and Metadata ............................................................................. A-6

LIST OF FIGURES

ES-1 Funding Expended 12/31/2010 ......................................................................................ES-4

ES-2 Acres Conserved 12/31/2010 .........................................................................................ES-4

1 Riverside County Location Map ...................................................................................... 1-2

Western Riverside County MSHCP

Annual Report (January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2010)

TOC-2


TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

2 Acreage Contributions by Federal, State, and Local Jurisdictions towards ARL ........... 2-2

3 Total Acres Acquired for Conservation ........................................................................... 2-3

4 Existing Agricultural Operations (Western Riverside County MSHCP Area) ................ 3-6

5 Western Riverside County MSHCP Rough Step Analysis Units .................................... 3-8

6 Rough Step Unit #1........................................................................................................ 3-13

7 Rough Step Unit #2........................................................................................................ 3-16

8 Rough Step Unit #3........................................................................................................ 3-18

9 Rough Step Unit #4........................................................................................................ 3-21

10 Rough Step Unit #5........................................................................................................ 3-23

11 Rough Step Unit #6........................................................................................................ 3-26

12 Rough Step Unit #7........................................................................................................ 3-28

13 Rough Step Unit #8........................................................................................................ 3-31

14 Reserve Habitat Management Units (HMU) ................................................................... 6-2

15 Acres by Habitat Management Unit (HMU) ................................................................... 6-3

16 2010 Acquisition – Cachia Property ............................................................................... 6-6

17 CalMat OHC Use, Badlands HMU ................................................................................. 6-7

18 Trash pickup at the Oak Valley Property with RLC ....................................................... 6-8

19 Reynold tamarisk removal before and after .................................................................... 6-9

20 Burrowing Owls Remote Camera at El Sol Artificial Burrow #8 ................................ 6-10

21 Western Pond Turtle with Transmitter .......................................................................... 6-11

22 Goldspotted Oak Borer Beetle Traps ............................................................................. 6-12

23 Structure burn at Reynolds Property .............................................................................. 6-13

24 Covered Plant Species Detections during Rare Plant Surveys in 2010 ......................... 7-31

25 Englemann Oak Survey Plots and Vegetation Community Survey Locations in 2010

….................................................................................................................................... 7-33

26 Quino Checkerspot Butterfly and Delhi Fly Survey Areas and Detections in 2010 ..... 7-37

27 Arroyo Toad Survey Locations and Detections in 2010 ................................................ 7-40

28 San Diego Banded Gecko Survey Locations and Detections From 2008-2010 ........... 7-42

29 Artificial Cover Sites from 2008 - 2010 and Target Species Detections from 2007 – 2010

........................................................................................................................................ 7-44

30 Arroyo Chub Survey Areas and Occupied Areas in 2010 ............................................. 7-46

31 Vernal Pool Survey Areas and Target Species Detections in 2010 ............................... 7-48

32 Carnivore Camera Stations and Transect Locations in 2010 ......................................... 7-51

33 Los Angeles Pocket Mouse Survey Areas and Occupied Areas in 2010 .................. 7-54

Western Riverside County MSHCP

Annual Report (January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2010)

TOC-3


TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

34 Aguanga Kangaroo Rat Trapping Grids and Occupied Grids in Temecula Creek and

Wilson Creek in 2010 .................................................................................................... 7-56

35 Loggerhead Shrike Survey Areas and Areas with Confirmed Reproduction in 2010 7-58

36 Tricolored Blackbird Occupied Areas in 2009 and 2010 .............................................. 7-60

LIST OF TABLES

1 MSHCP Conservation Summary - ARL .......................................................................... 2-2

2 Habitat Gains by Jurisdiction (January 1, 2010 – December 31, 2010) .......................... 2-4

3 Conservation Goals by Jurisdiction - ARL ...................................................................... 2-5

4 Conservation Goals by Area Plan - ARL ......................................................................... 2-6

5 Conservation Goals by Area Plan Subunit ....................................................................... 2-7

6 Habitat Loss by Jurisdiction (New Losses to the MSHCP Issued between January 1,

2010, and December 31, 2010) ........................................................................................ 3-2

7 Habitat Losses by Jurisdiction Cumulative (June 22, 2004 – December 31, 2010) ........ 3-3

8 Agricultural COIs and Grading Permits (Issued between January 1, 2010,

and December 31, 2010) .................................................................................................. 3-4

9 Habitat Losses In/Out of Criteria Area January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2010 ... 3-7

10 Rough Step Acreage Summary ....................................................................................... 3-9

11 Rough Step 1 Acreage Totals ........................................................................................ 3-11

12 Rough Step 2 Acreage Totals ........................................................................................ 3-14

13 Rough Step 3 Acreage Totals ........................................................................................ 3-17

14 Rough Step 4 Acreage Totals ........................................................................................ 3-19

15 Rough Step 5 Acreage Totals ........................................................................................ 3-22

16 Rough Step 6 Acreage Totals ........................................................................................ 3-25

17 Rough Step 7 Acreage Totals ........................................................................................ 3-27

18 Rough Step 8 Acreage Totals ........................................................................................ 3-30

19 Public Works Projects (January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2010) .......................... 4-3

20 2010 RCA Program Operation Financial Summary ........................................................ 5-1

21 Permittee Revenue (January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2010) ............................... 5-4

22 Summary of New Properties Managed by County Parks added to the Reserve Inventory

as of December 2010 ....................................................................................................... 6-4

23 Access Agreements Obtained for Surveys in 2010 .......................................................... 7-4

24 Details of Covered Species Monitoring ........................................................................... 7-7

Western Riverside County MSHCP

Annual Report (January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2010)

TOC-4


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) is a

comprehensive, multi-jurisdictional plan that conserves vulnerable plant and animal species and

associated habitats in western Riverside County. The plan was approved in 2003 and permits

issued on June 22, 2004, by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and California

Department of Fish and Game (CDFG). The MSHCP Planning Area encompasses approximately

1.26 million acres in western Riverside County. The Plan calls for the conservation and

management of approximately 500,000 acres within the Plan Area. Of the 500,000 acres,

approximately 347,000 acres are currently within public/quasi-public (PQP) ownership.

Achievement of the 500,000-acre goal depends on conservation of an additional 153,000 acres

within the Plan Area.

The Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority (RCA) was formed in January

2004 and assumed administration and implementation responsibility for the MSHCP in March

2004. The MSHCP requires that the RCA prepare and submit a report of its annual activities.

This report provides a summary of activities for the reporting period of January 1, 2010, through

December 31, 2010. This is the sixth annual report that covers a full calendar year of Plan

implementation.

Reporting Requirements

In addition to reporting the amount of habitat conserved and developed during the reporting

period, this report includes other information that measures MSHCP progress. At a minimum,

the MSHCP specifies that the annual report include:

• Reserve Assembly activities in relation to the rough step formulas presented in Section

6.7 of the MSHCP and in accordance with species-specific Objective 1B of the Delhi

Sands flower-loving fly.

• Acres authorized for disturbance within the Plan Area during the reporting period.

• Single-family and mobile home activity within the Criteria Area for the preceding year

and cumulatively occurring under the expedited review process (ERP) for these activities

presented in Section 6.1.1 of the MSHCP.

• New or expanded agricultural operations within the Criteria Area for the preceding year

and cumulatively occurring under the processes identified in Section 6.2 of the MSHCP.

• Minor Administrative/Clerical Amendments approved during the reporting period in

accordance with the procedures described in Section 6.10.2 of the MSHCP.

Western Riverside County MSHCP

Annual Report (January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2010)

ES-1


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

• Ongoing management and monitoring activities highlighting issues of concern and

proposed remedies/actions.

• Documentation concerning funding/collection of mitigation fees.

Major Activities in 2010

During 2010, the RCA focused on the following:

(1) In 2010, a total of 1,426 acres were acquired, donated, or obtained through the local

development process contributing to Additional Reserve Lands. Five (5) additional acres were

acquired during 2010 that currently do not count toward Reserve Assembly since portions of the

acquired parcels are outside of the MSHCP Criteria Cells.

The total of Additional Reserve Lands (ARL) acquired for conservation consists of 39,523 acres

and since February of 2000, the RCA and Permittees have acquired a total of 43,034 acres of

Conservation Lands.

(2) In late 2010, the RCA began the process to add one new Permittee to the Plan when the

City of Eastvale incorporated on October 1, 2010.

(3) The RCA continued Joint Project Reviews (JPR) for projects being processed by

Permittees within the Criteria Area.

(4) The RCA enhanced its GIS databases through the identification of 8,405 acres that have

been designated as development extractions or future conservation through the Joint Project

Review (JPR) process for development.

(5) The RCA enhanced its GIS databases through the identification of 5,409 acres that are

currently in conservation that are held by private and public entities other than the RCA. These

lands are secured through Conservation Easements or Grant Deeds to the Conservation Entity.

(6) The RCA continued work with Permittees on the public/quasi-public (PQP) Lands

reconciliation process.

(7) Regular meetings of the RCA Board and Executive Committee meetings were held

throughout 2010. The RCA Board met once each month with the exceptions of January and

April. The RCA Executive Committee met ten times during the year.

(8) The Reserve Management Oversight Committee (RMOC) Steering Committee in 2010

met to discuss and develop the Menifee HMU Management Plan.

Western Riverside County MSHCP

Annual Report (January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2010)

ES-2


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

(9) The RCA prepared and released in June 2010 the annual report documenting activity

from January 1, 2009 to December 31, 2009.

(10) The RCA and its partners continued the Monitoring and Management Programs.

(11) Artificial burrowing owl nests on the El Sol property that were installed in prior years

near Lake Skinner continue to show evidence of occupancy at the end of 2010. Two new adults

and fifteen fledgling Burrowing Owls were counted and banded in 2010 on-site in addition to its

existing population.

(12) In 2010, the RCA continued to enhance its website in order to provide additional

information and notifications to the public. The Western Riverside Multiple Species Habitat

Conservation Plan and associated documents and reports are available in the Document Library.

RCA Board and Committee Agendas, Staff Reports, Minutes, Resolutions and Presentations are

also available through the RCA’s website. (http://www.wrc-rca.org)

(13) The RCA continued Permittee Training for Local Permittees.

(14) The RCA Board received the Fiscal Year 2009-10 (July 1, 2009 to June 30, 2010)

Financial Statements and Independent Auditors’ Report of the RCA with no reportable findings.

In 2010, Independent Auditors performed Agreed Upon Procedures for auditing all member

agencies’ collection and remittance of MSHCP Fees for the prior fiscal year.

(15) In 2010, the RCA completed two (2) Participating Special Entities (PSE) applications

that were received in prior years. The RCA issued (two) 2 Certificates of Inclusions (COI) for

these projects by EMWD and Southern California Edison.

(16) In June of 2010, the RCA and the Riverside-Corona Resource Conservation District

(RCRCD) completed a MOU that assured that RCRCD Lands will be managed and monitored in

accordance with the MSHCP for Western Riverside County.

Reserve Assembly Summary

The MSHCP will ultimately create a 500,000 acre Reserve of protected open space within

western Riverside County. In order to build the Reserve from the 347,000 acres already

conserved lands in Public/Quasi-Public ownership at the time the MSHCP was adopted (PQP

lands), 153,000 acres of land will be conserved from the “Criteria Area.”

Since the MSHCP was adopted, the RCA and Permittees have worked toward conserving a total

of 43,034 acres and expending a total of $408,618,294 including donation values for

Conservation as shown in the next two figures. Of the 43,034 acres, a total of 39,523 acres have

Western Riverside County MSHCP

Annual Report (January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2010)

ES-3


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

been acquired within the Criteria Cells and count toward the 153,000-acre Reserve Assembly

acreage goal. A total of 971 acres have been acquired outside of the criteria cells. In 2010, 1,426

acres contributing to Reserve Assembly were acquired with an additional five (5) acres being

acquired outside of the Criteria Cells.

Figure ES-1

Figure ES-2

Western Riverside County MSHCP

Annual Report (January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2010)

ES-4


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Rough Step Summary

In 2009 the RCA had 33 of 37 vegetation categories in Rough Step. In 2010, the RCA acquired

acreage in critical vegetation communities for Rough Step, but many acquisitions and easements

contributed in building critical links and linkages as required for the Plan. While the RCA ended

the year with 33 of 37 vegetation categories in Rough Step, progress was made in vegetation

categories in most Rough Step units through acquisitions and easements.

An important performance measurement of the MSHCP is the “Rough Step” measurement tool.

The Rough Step measure is a tool to help direct conservation within vegetation communities of

similar weather patterns, geographies, soils, and geologies as development occurs. The Rough

Step measure is intended to ensure that conservation efforts are in “check” with development.

The Rough Step analysis functions as a signal where development is outpacing conservation and

where conservation efforts therefore need to be focused.

Development has outpaced conservation in four of the vegetation communities in four different

Rough Step Units (see Section 3). However, losses due to development in these vegetation

communities over the past two years have not increased due to the recession. The actual number

of acres authorized for disturbance in the vegetation communities (i.e., loss of habitat) since the

beginning of the Plan is higher than the allowable number of disturbance acres calculated using

the Rough Step formula.

Of the 37 Rough Step vegetation communities within the Plan Area, 33 are in Rough Step, and 4

are out of Rough Step. The following four Rough Step vegetation categories continued to be out

of Rough Step in 2010.

Rough Step Unit 5:

Rough Step Unit 6:

Rough Step Unit 7:

Rough Step Unit 8:

Coastal Sage Scrub

Riparian Scrub, Woodland, Forest

Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub

Grasslands

The RCA will continue to work toward acquiring properties with the appropriate vegetation

categories to address these Rough Step Units that are not currently in Rough Step. However,

some acquisitions contribute towards other critical elements of the plan that must be considered.

For example; Acquisitions within Rough Step Unit 5 in 2010 contributed toward completing

Linkage 10 within that area, while Acquisitions and easements within Rough Step Unit 7 added

Western Riverside County MSHCP

Annual Report (January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2010)

ES-5


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

critical lands that help build Linkage 1 and Constrained Linkage 3 between the Cleveland Forest

and Existing Core C and its extension.

Reserve Management

In 2010, the RCA continued its security, protection and enhancement of existing and new lands

brought into the MSHCP Reserve. At the end of 2010, the RCA was managing approximately

25,000 acres of Conservation lands. The RCA utilizes a contract with the Riverside County

Regional Parks and Open Space District (District) to manage the RCA’s properties. Activities

during the reporting period focused on the establishment and maintenance of access controls in

high trespass acres, installation of fencing and gates, evaluation of newly acquired lands, and

coordination with other management entities.

Management activities for the MSHCP occur on two levels: habitat/landscaped-based, and

species-specific based. The MSHCP Management Team focuses on the balance between

managing the overall landscape of the future 500,000 acre Reserve, along with making sure that

specific species requirements are also met. In 2010 MSHCP Reserve management practices

incorporated limited Adaptive Management methodologies to improve habitat or species

knowledge (El Sol grassland grazing, western pond turtle telemetry study). As the MSHCP

Reserve builds out and as the Monitoring Program data is more complete, MSHCP Reserve

Managers will be able to develop and incorporate the more Adaptive Management activities.

Monitoring Program

The overall goal of the Biological Monitoring Program (Monitoring Program) is to collect data

on the 146 Covered Species and associated vegetation communities to assess the MSHCP’s

effectiveness at meeting conservation objectives and provide information to the Adaptive

Management Program. The MSHCP (Volume 2, Species Accounts) includes species-specific

objectives that are intended to provide for the long-term conservation of all Covered Species.

Species objectives influence the type and intensity of monitoring that is conducted by the

Monitoring Program. Management decisions or actions are triggered if species objectives or

MSHCP goals are not met.

The MSHCP and its associated Implementing Agreement originally designated California

Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) to serve as the Monitoring Program Administrator for the

first eight (8) years of MSHCP implementation. In 2010 the RCA began funding the Monitoring

Program Administrator and discussions between CDFG and the RCA are underway with regard

to CDFG’s long-term contribution to the Monitoring Program. The program is divided into two

phases. The first phase focuses on initial inventory and assessment, mapping vegetation

communities, gathering existing species information, developing survey protocols and

Western Riverside County MSHCP

Annual Report (January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2010)

ES-6


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

conducting field surveys for selected species. The second, long-term monitoring phase will

utilize a multiple species sampling strategy (i.e., sampling design, sampling locations, and survey

protocols) that will be developed based on the information gathered during the initial phase and

on providing data for and evaluation of adaptive management strategies to meet species

objectives.

In 2010 the Monitoring Program recorded, either through focused surveys or incidental

detections 102 of 146 Covered Species. Since 2004, a total of 139 of 146 Covered Species have

been detected in the Conservation Area (119 as a result of focused Monitoring Program surveys,

15 incidentally observed by Monitoring Program biologists, and five additional Covered Species

reported by partnering agencies).

SUMMARY

The 2010 Annual Report provides a means of evaluating the effectiveness of MSHCP

implementation and the success of the RCA during the year. It also provides a way to measure

changes on the landscape, assess rates of urban growth and habitats lost, direct future

development, and prioritize future acquisition and conservation efforts.

The reporting period for this annual report continues to reflect a much different environment

from the previous annual reports from the period of 2004 to 2006. As the economy both locally

and nationally is in a recession, western Riverside County has seen building activity severely

curtailed. While this has highly reduced the reporting of losses to vegetation communities, it has

also resulted in the reduction in MSHCP fee revenues from previous years. We expect in the

next year that land acquisitions will continue to be impacted due to availability of funds. This

impact has been mitigated somewhat through the drop in values for vacant properties. The RCA

will continue its efforts in the next year to acquire conservation easements and focused

acquisitions to acquire critical vegetation communities and linkages.

The RCA will continue to evaluate losses and gains for the reporting period and set acquisition

priorities when possible within different Rough Step Units. Rough Step should be considered as

only one component of a larger set of tools that must be taken into consideration in measuring

the overall process in Reserve Assembly. Other important factors that the RCA considers when

making acquisitions is reviewing how acquisitions will impact the assembly of cores and

linkages in a biologically meaningful way.

Western Riverside County MSHCP

Annual Report (January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2010)

ES-7


1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Overview of the Plan

The Western Riverside County MSHCP is a comprehensive, multi-jurisdictional plan that

conserves species and associated habitats to address biological and ecological diversity

conservation needs, while development is simultaneously approved in western Riverside County.

The Plan was approved and permits issued on June 22, 2004, by the USFWS and CDFG. The

MSHCP Plan Area encompasses approximately 1.26 million acres (approximately 1,967 square

miles) in western Riverside County (see Figure 1, Riverside County Location Map). This Plan

includes all land west of the crest of the San Jacinto Mountains and east of the Orange/Riverside

County lines. The northern border of the Plan Area consists of the Riverside/San Bernardino

County line, and the southern border consists of the Riverside/San Diego County line. The Plan

Area includes all unincorporated County of Riverside land within this geographic area, as well as

the incorporated cities of Banning, Beaumont, Calimesa, Canyon Lake, Corona, Eastvale,

Hemet, Lake Elsinore, Menifee, Moreno Valley, Murrieta, Norco, Perris, Riverside, San Jacinto,

Temecula and Wildomar. The Plan is the largest HCP ever attempted and covers multiple species

and multiple habitats within a diverse landscape from urban cities to undeveloped foothills and

montane forests. Bioregions within the Plan Area include the Santa Ana Mountains, Riverside

Lowlands, San Jacinto Foothills, San Jacinto Mountains, Agua Tibia Mountains, Desert

Transition, and San Bernardino Mountains.

The MSHCP calls for the conservation and management of approximately 500,000 acres of the

1.26 million-acre Plan Area. Of the 500,000 acres, 347,000 acres are currently within existing

public/quasi-public ownership. Achievement of the 500,000-acre goal depends on conservation

of an additional 153,000 acres within the Plan Area. This plan was developed in conjunction

with the CDFG, USFWS multiple local jurisdictions; state, federal and local agencies, and public

interest groups/stakeholders.

The Western Riverside County RCA was formed in January 2004 and assumed administration

and implementation responsibility for the MSHCP in March 2004. The RCA is a Joint Powers

Authority, which is responsible for acquiring acres necessary for meeting Plan goals, managing

and monitoring the 153,000-acre Additional Reserve Area, overseeing Plan compliance, and

assisting with MSHCP implementation across the Plan Area.

Western Riverside County MSHCP

Annual Report (January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2010) 1-1


Oregon

Idaho

Riverside County Location Map

Nevada

California

Pacific Ocean

Arizona

Riverside County

¯ FIGURE

Baja California

1


1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.2 Reporting Requirements

The MSHCP requires that the RCA prepare and submit a report of its annual activities. This

report provides a summary of MSHCP implementation activities for the sixth full year of

RCA operation: January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2010.

Per the MSHCP, the annual report must include a description of:

• Reserve Assembly activities in relation to the Rough Step formula presented in Section

6.7 of the MSHCP and as revised in the Minor Amendment 2007-01. The Rough Step is a

tool to help direct conservation within vegetation communities of similar weather

patterns, geographies, soils, and geologies as development occurs. It is intended to

identify where development is proceeding at a pace that would preclude achieving the

conservation goals for specific key vegetation communities.

• Acres authorized for disturbance within the Plan Area during the reporting period. The

Rough Step, Area Plan, subunit, and jurisdictional performance measures use the total

acreage authorized for development as well as the total acres conserved in each reporting

year. The number of acres authorized for disturbance and the acres conserved allows the

RCA and Permittees to determine the rate of development and conservation occurring in

distinct geographic areas.

• Single-family and mobile home activity within the Criteria Area for the preceding year

and cumulatively occurring under the ERP for these activities presented in Section 6.1.1

of the MSHCP. Applications for a single-family home grading permit or for a mobile

home site preparation permit within the Criteria Area are subject to review against the

MSHCP conservation criteria to determine the least-sensitive location for building pad

and necessary access roadways. This review process is referred to as the ERP, and, with

approval under this process, applicable properties are referred to as “ERPs.” The

MSHCP included ERP activity assumptions (i.e., number of permits and acres disturbed)

(Section 7.3.2). The annual reporting process is used to determine whether ERP activity is

occurring in a manner that is consistent with the assumptions made during MSHCP

development. Furthermore, an analysis of ERP activity allows the RCA to determine if

Reserve Assembly within the Criteria Area is being adversely impacted as a result of this

provision.

• New or expanded agricultural operations within the Criteria Area for the preceding year

and cumulatively occurring under the processes identified in Section 6.2 of the MSHCP.

Existing agricultural uses and conversion of natural lands to agricultural use are allowed

as Covered Activities within the Criteria Area. New conversions to agricultural use

Western Riverside County MSHCP

Annual Report (January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2010) 1-3


1.0 INTRODUCTION

within the Criteria Area are covered up to an established threshold of 10,000 acres over

the life of the Plan. The annual reporting process is used to establish this initial threshold,

to periodically measure new agricultural activities against it, and to analyze potential

impacts to Reserve Assembly associated with these new agricultural activities.

• Minor Administrative/Clerical Amendments approved in accordance with the procedures

described in Section 6.10.2 of the MSHCP. The annual report provides a method to

officially document such amendments.

• Ongoing management and monitoring activities highlighting issues of concern and

proposed remedies/actions. These items are included in the annual report to give insight

into these efforts.

• Documentation concerning funding/collection of the Local Development Mitigation Fees

to provide insight into management of partial local funding resources available.

1.3 Methods

RCA staff works with each Local Permittee (the 17 cities and County of Riverside) to build a

GIS database of relevant conservation and development activity, which was used to calculate

performance measures. For annual reporting purposes, conservation is counted as a gain when

acquired through transfer of title or recordation of conservation easement. This annual report

reflects the gains in conservation between February 2000 and December 31, 2010. In some cases,

the gains reflected herein include acquisitions made by the County of Riverside prior to the

MSHCP adoption.

Development losses are counted at the time of grading permit issuance. This annual report

reflects losses between June 22, 2004 and December 31, 2010. Generally speaking, losses are

counted earlier in the development process (at time of grading permit issuance), and gains may

be counted at the end of the development process (at time of fee title transfer/conservation

easement recordation at the County Recorder’s Office). Because of this, the amount of habitat

losses may appear greater as they are reported before the habitat gains can be reported to offset

those losses.

In order to accommodate the lag that occurs from when the loss is recorded versus when the gain

is recorded, the MSHCP allowed gains to be counted from February 2000 rather than at the time

of permit issuance (June 22, 2004). This reporting method attempts to eliminate the lag factor

outlined above.

The Cities and the County maintain unique permit reporting systems, use of GIS as a land

management tool varies widely across jurisdictions, and availability of staff to assist with data

Western Riverside County MSHCP

Annual Report (January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2010) 1-4


1.0 INTRODUCTION

collection is limited. Several Cities submit hardcopy pages of permit issuance activity in place of

mapped loss data. In order to create a comprehensive GIS loss database for this Annual Report,

RCA staff reviewed all data submitted by each Local Permittee, including permit issuance data,

and, in cases where building permits (i.e., post-grading permit stage) were recorded for areas that

appeared to be undeveloped for inclusion in the loss database. The recession has seriously

impacted the ability to acquire the permitting data from the Cities as staff reductions due to the

impact of the decline in development and the recession. The volume of grading and building

permits continues to remain at historic lows.

Complete details regarding the methods and procedures used in preparing the GIS data and files

for Rough Step Reporting and Gains and Losses for this report are included in Appendix A.

Rough Step calculations for the Annual Report use the formula revised through the Plan Minor

Amendment 07-01 that was approved for distribution by the RCA Board for review and

comment as Agenda Item 8.2 on November 5, 2007. The RCA and Wildlife Agencies reached

agreement in 2009 on this Minor Amendment.

Western Riverside County MSHCP

Annual Report (January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2010) 1-5


2.0 HABITAT GAINS

2.0 HABITAT GAINS

Habitat gains are the Reserve lands acquired or otherwise permanently protected for

Conservation pursuant to the Plan. The MSHCP and coverage for the 146 species identified in

the Plan are based on the establishment of a 500,000-acre Conservation Area, of which

approximately 347,000 acres are currently in public or quasi-public (PQP) ownership. The

additional 153,000 acres (500,000 – 347,000) of Additional Reserve Lands (ARL) will be

assembled from various sources. These categories generally include:

• Private land acquisitions through the land development entitlement process

• Acquisitions from willing sellers

• Donations of fee title or conservation easements

As of December 31, 2010, approximately 43,034 acres of have been acquired for Conservation

within the Plan area.

Habitat gains are the Reserve lands acquired or otherwise permanently protected for conservation

pursuant to the Plan under the various methods listed above. Habitat gained (or conserved) is

reported from the period February 2000 through December 31, 2010. February 2000 is used as

the start of the gain reporting period because the County, CDFG, California Department of Parks

and Recreation and the USFWS, in anticipation of MSHCP permit issuance, began an early,

aggressive campaign to assemble the Reserve prior to Plan permit issuance. Therefore, from

February 2000, the above entities began assembling properties that would contribute to the

153,000-acre of Additional Reserve Land (ARL).

2.1 Conservation Summary

In 2010, a total of 1,426 acres of Additional Reserve Lands (ARL) was either acquired, donated,

or obtained through the local development process. An additional five (5) acres were acquired

outside of the Conservation Area (outside of MSHCP Criteria Cells) as part of the acquisition

process in acquiring whole parcels of land.

Cumulatively, as of December 31, 2010, a total of 39,523 acres of Additional Reserve Lands

(ARL) have been conserved for purposes of habitat and species conservation. Table 1, MSHCP

Conservation Summary, provides a snapshot of the conservation activity completed through

December 31, 2010.

Western Riverside County MSHCP

Annual Report (January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2010) 2-1


2.0 HABITAT GAINS

TABLE 1

MSHCP Conservation Summary Towards ARL

Acres Conserved

Counting Towards

Time Period

Acres Conserved Reported

in Annual Reports

Additional Reserve

Lands

February 2000 – June 22, 2004 17,901* 14,354

June 22, 2004 – December 31, 2004 1,370* 1,329

January 1, 2005 – December 31, 2005 4,112* 3,913

January 1, 2006 – December 31, 2006 9,873* 9,274

January 1, 2007 – December 31, 2007 3,687* 3,680

January 1, 2008 – December 31, 2008 4,077* 4,075

January 1, 2009 - December 31, 2009 1,473* 1,473

January 1, 2010 – December 31, 2010 1,426

Adjusted Total* 39,523

* = the acres reported as conserved which count towards the ARL goal of 153,000 acres have been refined, and therefore, the

actual acreage counting toward ARL has changed slightly from the reported totals in previous annual reports. This change

is mainly due to accounting for some lands that were acquired outside of Criteria Cells, corrections to acreage totals on

selected acquisitions, and other acquisitions that will go towards PQP goals instead of ARL.

Note: Portions of the Lockheed Potrero SKR acquisition (2,540 acres) are not included in the total, but acquisitions made prior to

Plan approval are included. The total acres acquired for conservation are 43,034 acres. The total acres including the

Potrero SKR acres for Additional Reserve Lands are 42,063 acres. A total of 972 acres have been acquired outside of

Criteria Cells.

Many of the covered species and associated sensitive habitats are located on federal and state

lands. For these reasons, existing federal and state lands were included in the existing 347,000

acres of public/quasi-public lands (PQP). Pursuant to the Plan, conservation gains toward the

153,000 acres of Additional Reserve Lands are shared amongst the federal, state, and Local

Permittees. The contributions by federal, state, and local entities are shown in Figure 2,

Cumulative Acreage Contribution by Federal, State, and Local Jurisdictions.

Western Riverside County MSHCP

Annual Report (January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2010) 2-2


2.0 HABITAT GAINS

At the end of 2010, the federal agencies have contributed 5,675 acres toward the 153,000-acre

Conservation goal of the MSHCP. The State agencies have contributed 10,494 acres toward

Conservation of the MSHCP. Local Permittee contribution occurred through either recordation

of conservation easements, acquisitions from willing sellers, donations, or acquisition of property

from private developers through the HANS or equivalent process and totaled 26,865 acres

toward the Conservation goal of the MSHCP. It is important to note that these figures do include

that portion of the Potrero Acquisition (2,540 acres) that are described as March Air Reserve

Base SKR trade-out lands and the (972 acres) acquired through acquisitions on parcels that have

portions of the parcel outside of the MSHCP Criteria Cells.

Figure 3 – Total Acres Acquired for Conservation

Since the implementation of the Plan the pace of local acquisitions have exceeded the pace of

state and federal acquisitions.

Western Riverside County MSHCP

Annual Report (January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2010) 2-3


2.0 HABITAT GAINS

2.2 Conservation by Jurisdiction

During Plan development, targets to measure Plan performance within municipal jurisdictions

were created. Jurisdictional acreage targets were developed for the original 14 cities and the

unincorporated County during the preparation of the plan in 2003. Since that time, the

annexation of lands by the Cities in different areas of the County as well as the incorporation of

three new cities (Eastvale, Menifee and Wildomar) renders these conservation targets in need of

an update. The target numbers need to be increased for the areas now in the Cities and decreased

for those areas removed from the County. This update will be handled through a Minor

Amendment in the future after the RCA deals with the new City of Jurupa within the MSHCP

Plan in 2011.

Acquisitions including those outside of the criteria cells that occurred within specific

jurisdictions in 2010 are summarized in Table 2, Habitat Gains by Jurisdiction (January 1, 2010

– December 31, 2010).

TABLE 2

Habitat Gains by Jurisdiction (1/1/2010 – 12/31/2010)

total acquisitions

Jurisdiction

Acres Conserved

County of Riverside 1,397

Wildomar 34

Total 1,431

Table 3, Conservation Targets by Jurisdiction, provides a summary of Table 2 (conservation

within 2010), as well as cumulative conservation by jurisdiction (from February 2000 to

December 31, 2010). Original target conservation acreages were identified for each jurisdiction

in Section 3.3 of the MSHCP.

The data in the last column may be different from those reported in previous annual reports. This

is due to the fact that acquisitions acreages are now being tracked by the RCA in terms of lands

that count towards the ARL goal of 153,000 acres and those that may count towards the PQP

goals. The data reported in Table 3 reflect conservation gains that will count towards the ARL

goal.

Table 3 data indicates that Conservation within Beaumont, Calimesa, Moreno Valley and

Riverside have surpassed the original low-range Conservation acreage goals. The table indicates

progress toward conservation goals was made in 2010 within the City of Wildomar and the

Western Riverside County MSHCP

Annual Report (January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2010) 2-4


2.0 HABITAT GAINS

County of Riverside. The City of Wildomar totals would be included as part of the target acres

for the County of Riverside.

TABLE 3

Conservation Goals by Jurisdiction Towards ARL

Low End of

Goals

High End

of Goals

Total

Acres

Conserved

in 2010*

Total Acres

Conserved

between

February 2000

and December

31,2010 *

Jurisdiction

Banning 50 90 0 0

Beaumont 5,440 9,060 0 5,625

Calimesa 1,240 2,240 0 1,408

Canyon Lake 30 50 0 0

Corona 330 610 0 13

Hemet 620 1,000 0 68

Lake Elsinore 4,830 7,870 0 2,740

Menifee 0 0

Moreno Valley 80 130 0 943

Murrieta 1,580 3,200 0 670

Norco 60 140 0 0

Perris 720 1,400 0 0

Riverside 55 125 0 83

San Jacinto 1,580 2,680 0 1,091

Temecula 600 1,380 0 0

Wildomar 34 655

Unincorporated, County of Riverside 107,265 159,800 1,392 26,227

Totals 124,480 189,775 1,426 39,523

*= Does not include Potrero acquisition of 2,540 acres, or acquisitions outside of MSHCP criteria cells.

2.3 Conservation by Area Plan

Area Plans are used as an MSHCP performance measure unit to monitor success of Plan

implementation. The 16 Area Plans relate to County planning boundaries associated with the

Riverside County General Plan.

Table 4, Conservation Targets by Area Plan provides a summary of all conservation achieved to

date (February 2000 to December 31, 2010) within each Area Plan, as well as the target

conservation acreages identified for each Area Plan in MSHCP Section 3.3. Target conservation

Western Riverside County MSHCP

Annual Report (January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2010) 2-5


2.0 HABITAT GAINS

acreages include an overall target conservation acreage (public/quasi-public lands plus

Additional Reserve Lands). The low- and high-range targets included in Table 4 reflect only the

Additional Reserve Lands targets, rather than the overall Area Plan targets, which include

previously conserved lands, such as the public/quasi-public lands. This distinction in the data

below provides, for annual reporting purposes, an additional check-and-balance mechanism for

Reserve Assembly. The fourth column in Table 4 reports the total acreage conserved during the

reporting period (January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2010). The fifth column includes a running

total of all land conserved within the Area Plan.

TABLE 4

Conservation Goals by Area Plan Toward ARL

Low End of Goal

(additional Reserve

Lands only)

High End of

Goal (additional

Reserve lands

only)

Conservation

January 1,

2010

December 31,

2010 *

Total Acres

Conserved

between

February 2000

and December

31, 2010 *

Area Plan

Eastvale 145 290 0 0

Elsinore 11,700 18,515 687 4,843

Harvest Valley/Winchester 430 605 0 0

Highgrove 345 675 0 99

Jurupa 890 1,870 0 144

Lake Mathews/Woodcrest 3,215 5,470 48 603

Lakeview/Nuevo 6,650 10,235 71 203

Mead Valley 1,885 3,635 0 5

The Pass 8,540 13,925 21 7,188

Reche Canyon/Badlands 10,520 15,610 279 5,283

REMAP 41,400 58,470 200 13,910

San Jacinto Valley 11,540 19,465 47 4,084

Sun City/Menifee Valley 1,120 1,585 0 301

Southwest 22,500 36,360 73 2,847

Temescal Canyon 3,485 5,800 0 13

Riverside/Norco 90 240 0 0

Total 124,455 192,750 1,426 39,523

* = Does not include Potrero SKR 2,540 acres, or acres outside of MSHCP Criteria Cells, acquisitions made prior to plan approval are included.

2.4 Conservation by Area Plan Subunits

Table 5, Conservation Targets by Area Plan Subunit, includes these variable goal acreages

within each subunit of each Area Plan. As discussed above, the subunits are subsets of each Area

Western Riverside County MSHCP

Annual Report (January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2010) 2-6


2.0 HABITAT GAINS

Plan targeted for conservation. Acquisitions made over the calendar year of 2010 by subunit are

listed below. The last column provides a context within which to compare the conservation

achieved during the reporting period with conservation achieved to date. Table 5 shows that

progress is being made toward achieving the target acreage goals within the subunits.

TABLE 5

Conservation Goals by Area Plan Subunit Towards ARL

Acres

Conserved

(January 1,

2010

December 31,

Area Plan Subunit Low Midpoint High 2010)

Acres

Conserved

(February

2000 to

December

31, 2010)*

Eastvale Area Plan

SU1 – Santa Ana River Central 145 220 290 0 0

Not within a Subunit NA NA NA 0 0

Subtotal within Area Plan 145 220 290 0 0

Elsinore Area Plan

SU1 – Estelle Mountain/Indian Canyon 4,100 5,065 6,030 653 1,716

SU2 – Alberhill 1,760 2,385 3,010 0 700

SU3 – Elsinore 925 1,370 1,815 0 0

SU4 – Sedco Hills 2,415 3,130 3,845 34 763

SU5 – Ramsgate 1,645 2,090 2,535 0 729

SU6 – Steele Peak 855 1,070 1,280 0 897

Not within a Subunit NA NA NA 0 40

Subtotal within Area Plan 11,700 15,110 18,515 687 4,843

Harvest Valley/Winchester Area Plan

SU1 – French Valley/Diamond Valley 130 135 145 0 0

Lake Connection

SU2 – Hemet Vernal Pool West 300 380 460 0 0

Not within a Subunit NA NA NA 0 0

Subtotal within Area Plan 430 515 605 0 0

Highgrove Area Plan

SU1 – Sycamore Canyon/Box Springs 95 140 180 0 0

Central

SU2 – Springbrook Wash North 250 370 495 0 99

Not within a Subunit NA NA NA 0 0

Subtotal within Area Plan 345 510 675 0 99

Jurupa Area Plan

SU1 – Santa Ana River North 135 190 245 0 0

SU2 – Jurupa Mountains 445 750 1,055 0 144

SU3 – Delhi Sands Area 310 440 570 0 0

Western Riverside County MSHCP

Annual Report (January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2010) 2-7


2.0 HABITAT GAINS

Not within a Subunit NA NA NA 0 0

Subtotal within Area Plan 890 1380 1870 0 144

Lake Mathews/Woodcrest Area Plan

SU1 – Lake Mathews East 1,140 1,410 1,680 0 59

SU2 - Dawson Canyon (Temescal 815 950 1,090 48 486

Wash East)

SU3 – Gavilan Hills West 1,175 1,825 2,475 0 37

SU4 – Good Hope West 85 155 225 0 21

Not within a Subunit NA NA NA 0 0

Subtotal within Area Plan 3,215 4,340 5,470 48 603

Lakeview/Nuevo Area Plan

SU1 – San Jacinto River, Middle Reach 2,605 3,315 4,025 71 71

SU2 – Lakeview Mountains West 4,045 5,130 6,210 0 132

Not within a Subunit NA NA NA 0 0

Subtotal within Area Plan 6,650 8,445 10,235 71 203

Mead Valley Area Plan

SU1 – Motte/Rimrock 315 455 590 0 0

SU2 – Gavilan Hills East 485 750 1,015 0 5

SU3 – Good Hope East 290 390 495 0 0

SU4 – San Jacinto River Lower 795 1,165 1,535 0 0

Not within a Subunit NA NA NA 0 0

Subtotal within Area Plan 1,885 2,760 3,635 0 5

The Pass Area Plan

SU1 – Potrero/Badlands 5,570 7,420 9,275 0 5,622

SU2 – Badlands/San Bernardino

1,105 1,650 2,195 21 691

National Forest

SU3 – San Timoteo Creek 1,865 2,160 2,455 0 676

Not within a Subunit NA NA NA 0 199

Subtotal within Area Plan 8,540 11,230 13,925 21 7,188

Reche Canyon/Badlands Area Plan

SU1 – Box Springs East 175 265 350 0 0

SU2 – Reche Canyon 1,215 1,915 2,615 0 0

SU3 – Badlands North 8,270 9,580 10,895 279 3,412

SU4 – San Jacinto Wildlife Area/Mystic 860 1,305 1,750 0 1,870

Lake

Not within a Subunit NA NA NA 0 1

Subtotal within Area Plan 10,520 13,065 15,610 279 5,283

REMAP (Riverside Extended Mountain Area Plan)

SU1 – Cactus Valley 6,020 6,805 7,590 0 2,007

SU2 – Wilson Valley/Sage 26,205 30,815 35,425 159 9,092

Western Riverside County MSHCP

Annual Report (January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2010) 2-8


2.0 HABITAT GAINS

SU3 – Temecula and Cottonwood 1,480 2,115 2,745 0 36

Creeks

SU4 – Tule Creek/Anza Valley 6,415 8,515 10,615 41 2,350

SU5 – Upper San Jacinto River 750 985 1,220 0 0

SU6 – Tripp Flats 520 680 840 0 0

SU7 – Southern Badlands East 10 20 35 0 0

Not within a Subunit NA NA NA 0 424

Subtotal within Area Plan 41,400 49,935 58,470 200 13,910

San Jacinto Valley Area Plan

SU1 – Gilman Springs 3,540 5,030 6,520 47 2,341

SU2 – Lakeview Mountains East 1,305 1,730 2,150 0 1,091

SU3 – Upper San Jacinto River/Bautista 2,085 2,980 3,875 0 294

Creek

SU4 – Hemet Vernal Pool Areas East 940 1,190 1,445 0 68

SU5 – Mica Butte 3,670 4,570 5,475 0 291

Not within a Subunit NA NA NA 0 0

Subtotal within Area Plan 11,540 15,500 19,465 47 4,083

Sun City/Menifee Valley Area Plan

SU1 – Warm Springs Creek/French 395 480 565 0 301

Valley Area

SU2 – Lower Sedco Hills 725 875 1,020 0 0

Not within a Subunit NA NA NA 0 0

Subtotal within Area Plan 1,120 1,355 1,585 0 301

Southwest Area Plan

SU1 – Murrieta Creek 640 1,055 1,465 5 15

SU2 – Temecula and Pechanga Creeks 365 600 840 0 0

SU3 – Vail Lake 10,065 11,500 12,930 0 204

SU4 – Cactus Valley/SWRC- 4,395 6,180 7,970 0 717

MSR/Johnson Ranch

SU5 – French Valley/Lower Sedco Hills 4,360 5,880 7,395 0 773

SU6 – Santa Rosa Plateau 1,285 2,100 2,915 50 195

SU7 – Tenaja Corridor 1,390 2,115 2,845 19 274

Not within a Subunit NA NA NA 0 670

Subtotal within Area Plan 22,500 29,430 36,360 73 2,847

Temescal Canyon Area Plan

SU1 – Santa Ana River/Santa Ana 250 400 550 0 13

Mountains

SU2 – Prado Basin 200 300 395 0 0

SU3 – Temescal Wash West 2,790 3,600 4,415 0 0

SU4 – La Sierra Hills/Lake Mathews 210 285 355 0 0

West

SU5 – Temescal/Santa Ana Mountains 35 60 85 0 0

Western Riverside County MSHCP

Annual Report (January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2010) 2-9


2.0 HABITAT GAINS

Not within a Subunit NA NA NA 0 0

Subtotal within Area Plan 3,485 4,645 5,800 0 13

Cities of Riverside and Norco Area Plan

SU1 – Santa Ana River South 75 140 200 0 0

SU2 – Sycamore Canyon West 15 25 40 0 0

Not within a Subunit NA NA NA 0 0

Subtotal within Area Plan 90 165 240 0 0

Grand Totals 124,455 158,605 192,750 1,426 39,523

*.= Totals do not include acreage adjustments for planned roadways, the Potrero acquisition of 2,540 acres or acquisitions outside of

MSHCP criteria cells. However, acquisitions made prior to plan approval are included. Totals may not add up due to rounding.

2.5 Conservation and Acquisition Trends

RCA in conjunction with the Permittees continues to focus its acquisition and conservation

efforts toward meeting Rough Step and jurisdiction goals. However, priorities for acquisitions

are constrained through the current recession that has reduced funding for acquisitions and the

need to acquire HANS 100% conservation properties as a high priority. The RCA also works

with willing sellers and the need to assemble linkages and constrained linkages do not always

improve the Rough Step numbers. The RCA continues to work with local permittees on

obtaining donations through the land development process. This focus has been successful in

improving or protecting Rough Step status over the past three years. A number of large donations

are currently in progress as part of the development review process within the County of

Riverside and affected cities as addressed in the next section.

2.6 Development Projects and Future Conservation

The HANS process as described in the MSHCP in Volume One, Section 6.1.1 and the Joint

Project/Acquisition Review Process described in the MSHCP in Volume One, Section 6.6 E

provides several processes for the review of development projects for consistency with the

MSHCP. These Joint Project Reviews (JPR) and Habitat Evaluation and Acquisition Negotiation

Processes (HANS) performed by the RCA and the Permittees on proposed development projects

are used to determine the impacts to the MSHCP for these projects. The MSCHP designates a

total of 41,000 acres to be set aside through development extractions from development projects.

The MSHCP projected that from the beginning of the Plan, that each year approximately 2,050

acres would be conserved through the development exaction process. In retrospect, this estimate

was too aggressive and did not take into account the extended period of time that development

projects require to receive approvals and begin construction.

Western Riverside County MSHCP

Annual Report (January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2010) 2-10


2.0 HABITAT GAINS

The JPR database was first developed prior to the adoption of the MSHCP and permit issuance,

but has been refined over the last six years. During the JPR and HANS review process a

development footprint area and areas described for conservation are designated within the project

area for each project. These designated areas are stored in a JPR database as Proposed MSHCP

Conservation Area and Proposed Other Conservation Area. Some of these lands designated

within the JPR database end up being acquired as Additional Reserve Lands by the RCA since

some projects end up being designated as 100% conservation.

The RCA as of this Annual Report for 2010 has now acquired enough data and experience with

the JPR process and records within the JPR database to present this data as projected or future

conservation. As of December 31, 2010 a total of 8,405 acres are designated as development

extractions. This future conservation has not been applied to the Rough Step Analysis but does

serve to provide an indication of conservation that will be acquired through the development

process at some later date. Based on the current recession and development climate, many of the

projects that designate areas of conservation for the MSHCP will not be completed for decades

and the RCA will not be able to consider these lands as conserved for the MSHCP for a

considerable amount of time.

2.7 Non RCA Conservation

The RCA has identified additional lands as being in a conservation status through Conservation

Easements or through transfer to the conservation entity through a Grant Deed have been verified

through the review of the recorded deed. The grant deeds, easement deeds or conservation

easements as recorded by the Riverside County Clerk and Recorder as official records of

Riverside County were downloaded to the RCA Server. Each grant or easement deed has been

reviewed, located and tied to the particular parcel that it describes. The lands identified as being

in a conservation status through a conservation easement or owned by the Conservation Entity

are located within the areas described for Conservation (MSHCP Criteria Cells) as well as

outside the cell boundaries. These lands were also reviewed to make sure that they had not been

previously identified as Public/Quasi-Public Lands for the MSHCP. As of December 31, 2010, a

total of 5,409 acres have been identified as additional lands in conservation within the Western

MSHCP Plan area.

In June of 2010, a MOU between the Regional Conservation Authority and the Riverside-Corona

Resource Conservation District (RCRCD) was signed. This MOU assures that RCRCD Lands

will be managed and monitored under the MSHCP for Western Riverside County. The RCRCD

lands within Criteria Cells will begin being counted toward the Rough Step within the Rough

Step Units as part of the Annual Report for 2010, since they are conservation status and are now

managed under the Plan. Currently a total of 209 acres are managed by RCRCD under

Western Riverside County MSHCP

Annual Report (January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2010) 2-11


2.0 HABITAT GAINS

conservation easements and fee title under the MOU and MSHCP Plan. Of those acres a total of

189 acres are within criteria cells and now count towards Rough Step. In a later reporting year it

will be determined what lands held by RCRCD will be counted towards Reserve Assembly and

what lands will be considered PQP.

Other conservation entities, such as the Riverside Land Conservancy (RLC) and The Center for

Natural Lands Management (CNLM), control acreages that are in conservation status that are not

yet counted for Rough Step. A total of 3,028 acres within the MSHCP Criteria Cells are

identified as in conservation status. The RCA is currently working on developing additional

MOUs with these conservation entities so that the lands can be counted at a later point as either

Public/Quasi-Public Lands (PQP) or Additional Reserve Lands (ARL) that contribute to the

Western Riverside County MSHCP.

Western Riverside County MSHCP

Annual Report (January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2010) 2-12


3.0 HABITAT LOSSES

3.0 HABITAT LOSSES

The MSHCP includes the establishment of a 500,000-acre Conservation Area, of which

approximately 347,000 acres are currently in public or quasi-public ownership. The additional

153,000 acres of Additional Reserve Lands will be assembled primarily from private land

acquisitions, donations, and through the land development entitlement process. As indicated in

Chapter 2.0, as of December 31, 2010, 43,034 acres of Conservation Lands have been acquired

by Local Permittees and state and federal agencies.

As the Reserve is assembled, habitat is lost due to development, construction of infrastructure,

and other activities. Habitat gains as defined for purposes of this section are the ARL acquired

since February 2000. Habitat gained (or conserved) is reported from the period February 2000

through December 31, 2010, because the County, CDFG, California Department of Parks and

Recreation, and the USFWS, in anticipation of MSHCP permit issuance, began an early,

aggressive campaign to assemble the Reserve prior to Plan permit issuance. Since the Plan’s

state and federal permits were not issued until June 22, 2004, habitat losses are only tracked

starting from June 22, 2004.

This chapter is devoted to summarizing all habitat “losses” that occurred between June 22, 2004

and December 31, 2010. One of the MSHCP performance measures, the “Rough Step” analysis,

utilizes the loss data to determine whether the Permittees are allowing an acceptable amount of

habitat loss to occur based on conservation activity within certain geographic units. The second

part of this section provides this required Rough Step analysis.

3.1 Habitat Loss Summary

Development Activity

During 2010, a total of 1,701 acres were approved for development throughout the Plan Area and

therefore are counted as habitat losses. Of this number, 1,369 acres were lost outside the Criteria

Area and 332 acres were lost within the Criteria Area as compared to 1,426 acres of

gains/Additional Reserve Lands (ARL) within the MSHCP Criteria Cells. It is important to note

whether losses occur within the MSHCP Criteria Area (where the ultimate 153,000-acre MSHCP

Reserve is envisioned to be assembled) or outside of the Criteria Area. Because the Criteria

Area totals approximately 300,000 acres, the MSHCP assumes that a portion of the area within

the Criteria Area would be developed. The MSHCP envisions that a majority of future habitat

losses would occur outside of the Criteria Cells. By the below breakdown, it is clear that the

majority of the losses to habitat are occurring outside the Criteria Area.

Western Riverside County MSHCP

Annual Report (January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2010) 3-1


3.0 HABITAT LOSSES

Table 6, Habitat Loss by Jurisdiction (January 1, 2010 – December 31, 2010), and Table 7,

Habitat Losses (June 22, 2004 – December 31, 2010), provide a summary of the total losses that

have occurred during the 2010 annual reporting year and since plan inception, respectively.

Table 6 lists grading/building permits issued by Permittees between January 1 and December 31,

2010. Multiple types of permits (e.g., building, grading) were issued by the Permittees for

various types of land development activities in this and previous years. However, for MSHCP

annual reporting purposes, multiple permits issued on one parcel were summarized into one

permit and counted as one loss. A very large number of permits were reported during the 2010

year that had been reported on as a loss in a previous year and were reported in the appropriate

Annual Report at that time and therefore were not reported as a new loss for this year.

TABLE 6

Habitat Loss by Jurisdiction

(New Losses to the MSHCP between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2010)

Number of Records

Representing

Grading/Building

Permits Issued

Total Acreage

on Permits

Issued

Acreage on

Permits Issued

outside of

Criteria Area

Acreage

Impacted by

Permit Issuance

within Criteria

Area

Permittee

Banning 5 12 12 0

Beaumont 78 15 15 0

Calimesa 2 4 4 0

Canyon Lake 0 0 0 0

Corona 44 160 112 48

Hemet 5 42 42 0

Lake Elsinore 9 2 2 0

Menifee 36 52 52 0

Moreno Valley 19 191 191 0

Murrieta 30 82 23 60

Norco 3 21 21 0

Perris 5 21 21 0

Riverside, City of 123 99 99 0

San Jacinto 10 24 24 0

Temecula 56 8 6 1

Wildomar 17 15 14 1

Unincorporated, County of Riverside, 323 967 745 222

and Agriculture

Total 765 1,710 1,369 332

100% 80% 20%

Western Riverside County MSHCP

Annual Report (January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2010) 3-2


3.0 HABITAT LOSSES

TABLE 7

Habitat Losses by Jurisdiction Cumulative

(June 22, 2004 – December 31, 2010)

City/County

Acres Approved for

Development

(Losses)

Outside Criteria

Cells

Inside Criteria

Cells

Banning 302 302 0

Beaumont 2,689 2,184 505

Calimesa 500 394 107

Canyon Lake 41 40 0

Corona 1,570 1,391 179

Hemet 2,633 2,509 124

Lake Elsinore 2,471 1,298 1,173

Menifee 66 66 0

Moreno Valley 2,876 2,875 1

Murrieta 2,392 1,416 976

Norco 268 268 0

Perris 2,120 1,969 151

Riverside 2,053 2,028 25

San Jacinto 1,668 1,513 154

Temecula 1,350 1,035 318

Wildomar 49 44 4

Unincorporated County 37,112 30,156 6,956

Total 60,158 49,488 10,669

100% 82% 18%

Note: Totals may not add up due to rounding.

As indicated above, Riverside County approved the largest number of permits affecting the

largest area, which is to be expected, given its geographic area of 988,000 acres within the 1.26-

million-acre Plan Area. These tables show that 82% of the development is occurring outside of

the Criteria Areas which means that the majority of the loss is not occurring within the areas

considered for Conservation.

Agricultural Activities

Existing agricultural uses and conversion of natural lands to agricultural use are Covered

Activities within the MSHCP boundaries. Establishment of new agricultural uses specifically

within the Criteria Area is covered up to 10,000 acres over the life of the Plan. The MSHCP

defines agricultural operations as production of all plants (horticulture), fish farms, animals and

Western Riverside County MSHCP

Annual Report (January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2010) 3-3


3.0 HABITAT LOSSES

related production activities, including the planting, cultivation, and tillage of the soil, dairying,

and apiculture; and the production, plowing, seeding, cultivation, growing, harvesting, pasturing,

and fallowing for the purpose of crop rotation of any agricultural commodity, including

viticulture, apiculture, horticulture, and the breeding, feeding, and raising of livestock, horses,

fur-bearing animals, fish, or poultry and all uses conducted as a normal part of such operations,

provided such actions are in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations. In order to

verify the location of the existing agricultural operations, the County established an existing

agricultural operations database as reported in the RCA Annual Report for 2006. Once this

database was established, the additional 10,000 acres of new agricultural activity could be

measured.

Agricultural Grading Permits 2010

Agricultural grading permits are issued by the County Building and Safety Department with

review from the Agricultural Commissioner’s Office and these permits represent conversion of

undeveloped land to agricultural uses as well as additional or new agricultural activities on

parcels that had already been in agricultural use. In 2010 there was one Agricultural grading

permit issued by the County Building and Safety Department.

In 2010, the Agricultural Commissioner did not receive or process any Certificate of Inclusion

(COI). Table 8, Agricultural COIs and Grading Permits (Issued between January 1 and

December 31, 2010), summarizes the agricultural activities issued in 2010 throughout the Plan

Area.

TABLE 8

Agricultural COIs and Grading Permits

(Issued between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2010)

Permit ID Date Notes Total Acres

BGR100076 5/06/2010 Vineyard in Temecula 10.77

Totals 10.77

The one Ag Grading permit was for 10.77 acres of vineyards within the Temecula Area.

However, review of this Ag Grading permit showed that it had been previously shown as a loss

to the MSCHP as a permit for a Single Family Home in 2005 (BRG051752). The Parcel also

showed as a existing Agricultural Activity within the Agricultural Operations Database as AG

Grading Permit (AG-360) with a permit date of 10/24/2006. This Ag Grading Permit as issued

in 2010 had no affect on either the Agricultural Operations Database or Agricultural Lands

Accounting and there were no new losses to the Plan Area for 2010.

Western Riverside County MSHCP

Annual Report (January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2010) 3-4


3.0 HABITAT LOSSES

New Agriculture in Criteria Areas Accounting

Establishment of new agricultural uses specifically within the Criteria Area is covered up to

10,000 acres over the life of the Plan. Since Plan adoption to December 31, 2010, a total of

557.3 acres within Criteria Cells have been approved through either COI’s or Agricultural

Grading. No new agricultural projects affected the accounting in 2010 within the Criteria Area.

Agricultural Operations Data Base Summary

Further details on the process, procedures and methods to update the Agricultural Operations

Database with the COI’s and Agricultural Grading permits for the MSHCP are described in the

associated GIS metadata files.

The Agricultural Operations database as updated for the 2010 Annual Report continues to

represent 142,535 acres utilized for agricultural purposes as of December 31, 2010.

Since the review process was completed to develop the Agricultural Operations Database

baseline, a total of 741 acres of new agricultural operations within the Western Riverside County

MSHCP area have been converted to agricultural use and added to the Agricultural Operations

Database. (Figure 4, Existing Agricultural Operations Western Riverside County).

Western Riverside County MSHCP

Annual Report (January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2010) 3-5


W:\RCA\Agricultural_Operations\Ag_Operations_M ap_12312010.mxd

Lak e Mathews

Lak e Elsinore

Sources: Asses sor Database ' Real Use Code'

Agricultur al Department, Chemical Use Perm its 2002

Orthophoto Images October 2004 and November 2007

Farm Bureau information 2/2006

Agricultur al Grading Permits and "COIs" Certificate

of Inclusion fr om 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008, 2009

and 2010.

Lak e Perr is

Lak e Skinner

Diamond Valley Lake

Vail Lake

Lak e Hemet

Figure 4

Calimesa

Norco

Riverside

Moreno Valley

Beaumont

Banning

Corona

Perris

San

Jacinto

Existing Agricultural Operations

Western Riverside County

Hemet

WRC MSHCP Existing Agricultural Operations

RCA MSHCP Conserved Lands

142,535 Acres as of December 31, 2010

Lake

Elsinore

Canyon

Lake

Public/Quasi-Public Conserved Lands

MSHCP Boundary

Highways

Cities

Waterbodies

Murrieta

.

Temecula

Western Riverside County MSHCP

Agricultural Operations

December 31, 2010

“Agricultural Operations” means the production of all plants (horticulture), fish farms,

animals and related production activities, including the planting, cultivation and tillage of

the soil, dairying, and apiculture; and the production, plowing, seeding,cultivation,

growing harvesting, pasturing and fallowing for the purpose of crop rotation of any

agricultural commodity, including viticulture, apiculture, horticulture, and the breeding,

feeding and raising of livestock, horses, fur-bearing animals, fish, or poultry, the

operation, management, conservation, improvement or maintenance of a farm or ranch

and its buildings, tools and equipment; the construction, operation and maintenance of

ditches, canals, reservoirs, wells and/or waterways used for farmingor ranching purposes

and all uses conducted as a normal part of such Agricultural Operations; provided such

actions are in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations.

6.2.A MSHCP Implementation Structure Volume 1 Section 6


3.0 HABITAT LOSSES

3.2 Rough Step Summaries

The Rough Step measure is one of the MSHCP performance measures used to monitor success

of the Plan, however, it is not a reliable tool in measuring the full success of reserve assembly in

evaluation of linkages and constrained linkages. Rough Step is a tool or methodology that helps

direct acquisition activity within specific vegetation communities of similar weather patterns,

geographies, soils, and geologies as development occurs in specific areas. The Rough Step

measure is intended to ensure that conservation of specific, narrowly distributed habitats occurs

in “Rough Step” with development approvals. The Rough Step Analysis functions as an early

warning system to signal where development is outpacing conservation and where future

conservation efforts should be focused (see Figure 5, Western Riverside County MSHCP Rough

Step Analysis Units).

Table 9, Habitat Losses In/Out of Criteria Area for 2010, shows for each Rough Step Unit, how

much development, or loss has taken place outside the Criteria Area and inside the Criteria Area

during the last year. Analysis of this table shows that primarily development is focusing on areas

outside the Criteria Area, which means habitat identified for conservation is generally being

avoided by development.

TABLE 9

Habitat Losses In/Out of Criteria Area by Rough Step Unit

January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2010

Rough Step Unit

Development Acres

Outside Criteria Area

Development Acres

Inside Criteria Area

Total

Development in

Rough Step Unit

1 423 0 423

2 232 3 235

3 105 7 112

4 40 73 113

5 119 41 160

6 182 71 253

7 200 83 283

8 50 55 105

9 18 0 18

Total 1,369 332 1,701

Percentage 80% 20% 100%

Note: Totals may not add up due to rounding.

The 2010 Annual Report utilizes the corrected formula agreed upon by the Wildlife Agencies

and RCA, as well as the changes made to Table 6-3, Private Land Acres and Additional Reserve

Western Riverside County MSHCP

Annual Report (January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2010) 3-7


Western Riverside County MSHCP Rough Step Analysis Units

San Bernardino County

1

CALIMESA

NORCO

RIVERSIDE

MORENO VALLEY

2

BANNING

Riverside County

CORONA

7

BEAUMONT

3

PERRIS

SAN JACINTO

Orange County

HEMET

Legend

Rough Step Analysis Units

MSHCP Boundary

Criteria Area

8

CANYON

LAKE LAKE

ELSINORE

6

9

Cities

Public/Quasi-Public Conserved Lands

Highways

Major Roads

Water Bodies

5

MURRIETA

TEMECULA

4

Riverside County

¯

0 1 2 4 6 8

Miles

San Diego County

FIGURE 5


3.0 HABITAT LOSSES

Land Acreage Goals which was made part of the Plan through Minor Amendment 2007-01.

Details on Minor Amendment 2007-01 can be found on the RCA’s website (http://www.wrcrca.org).

Table 10, Rough Step Acreage Summary, compares the acres by vegetation type within each

Rough Step’s Criteria Area of available private lands (column 3) and Additional Reserve Land

goals (column 4) to acres conserved (column 5) and acres authorized for development (column

7). The sixth column includes the allowable development acreage targets by vegetation type for

each Rough Step, based on the amount of conservation that has occurred (column 5). For

purposes of this report, RCA staff used conservation acreages as identified in Section 2 Habitat

Gains (column 5) achieved through December 31, 2010; within each Rough Step Unit’s

vegetation communities to ensure that development rates were not outpacing conservation efforts

within each vegetation community. Development rates were calculated using allowable losses

(derived from grading or building permits) between MSHCP implementation on June 22, 2004,

and the reporting period end on December 31, 2010. Where acres authorized for development

(column 7) are higher than the allowable development calculated using the Rough Step formula

(column 6), the vegetation community would be considered out of Rough Step. Table 10

summarizes each Rough Step category for the 2010 annual reporting year.

TABLE 10

Rough Step Acreage Summary

Rough

Step

Analysis

Unit

1

2*

3

Key Vegetation

Communities within

Analysis Unit

From Table 6-3 in MSHCP**

Private Land

Acres within the

Criteria Area in

the Analysis

Unit

Additional

Reserve Land

Acreage Goal for

the Key

Vegetation

Community

Total Acres

Conserved

(between

February 2000

and December

31, 2010)

Allowable

Development

Acreage

through

December 31,

2010

Total Acres

Authorized for

Development

by Cities and

the County

(between

June 22, 2004,

and

December 31,

2010)

Coastal Sage Scrub 1,210 930 130 63 51

Grasslands 820 180 0 64 44

Riparian Scrub,

Woodland, Forest

680 550 11 15 5

Coastal Sage Scrub 14,969 10,359 3,249 1,762 135

Grasslands 8,656 4,866 1,423 1,377 263

Riparian Scrub,

590 460 175 57 8

Woodland, Forest

Riversidean Alluvial

1,190 1,110 290 27 7

Fan Sage Scrub

Woodlands and Forests 300 180 77 58 5

Coastal Sage Scrub 3,670 2,050 216 315 66

Grasslands 4,690 900 62 612 246

Western Riverside County MSHCP

Annual Report (January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2010) 3-9


3.0 HABITAT LOSSES

Playas and Vernal

4,340 3,830 756 142 9

Pools

Riparian Scrub,

220 110 3 14 0

Woodland, Forest

Riversidean Alluvial

190 100 2 11 6

Fan Sage Scrub

Coastal Sage Scrub 21,828 17,948 2,953 963 725

Desert Scrubs 4,340 3,680 1,469 303 81

Grasslands 10,991 5,961 444 840 627

Riparian Scrub,

1,420 1,322 53 13 5

Woodland, Forest

Riversidean Alluvial

1,169 1,099 125 14 7

Fan Sage Scrub

4 Woodlands and Forests 1,562 872 138 167 35

Coastal Sage Scrub 1,540 370 4 128 176

Grasslands 3,880 1,010 94 528 434

Riparian Scrub,

550 460 0 9 5

Woodland, Forest

Riversidean Alluvial

370 260 0 11 5

Fan Sage Scrub

5 Woodlands and Forests 2,080 1,000 71 177 67

Coastal Sage Scrub 4,796 3,876 644 230 188

Grasslands 6,188 3,688 803 740 465

Riparian Scrub,

268 208 12 9 16

Woodland, Forest

6 Woodlands and Forests 140 110 33 11 3

Coastal Sage Scrub 9,222 7,102 1,000 481 157

Grasslands 3,620 1,550 95 321 78

Woodlands and Forests 493 333 25 27 0

Riparian Scrub,

570 460 42 20 10

Woodland, Forest

Riversidean Alluvial

400 350 6 6 11

7 Fan Sage Scrub

Coastal Sage Scrub 6,400 4,940 2,396 783 286

Grasslands 3,690 1,840 165 335 517

Riparian Scrub,

280 250 81 12 3

Woodland, Forest

Riversidean Alluvial

190 130 17 13 2

8 Fan Sage Scrub

9

No vegetation

communities in Unit 9

were identified for

Rough Step analyses.

* The acres within this Rough Step do not include the total of 2,540 acres of Stephens’ kangaroo rat habitat within different vegetation

communities in Rough Step 2. These acres are currently designated and not included based on the Stephens’ kangaroo rat habitat March Air

Force Base Reserve/Potrero Trade-out that was agreed to by the County and Wildlife Agencies in 2001.

** This table uses the Rough Step formula, Private Land acres and Additional Reserve Lands Goals as per Minor Amendment 2007-01.

Western Riverside County MSHCP

Annual Report (January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2010) 3-10


3.0 HABITAT LOSSES

3.2.1 Rough Step 1

Rough Step 1 encompasses 93,945 acres within the northwestern corner of western Riverside

County and includes the Prado Basin, Santa Ana River, Delhi Sands flower-loving fly habitat,

and the Jurupa Mountains (see Figure 6, Rough Step Unit #1). It is bounded by Interstate 91 to

the southeast, Cleveland National Forest to the southwest, and Orange and San Bernardino

Counties to the north and west. Within Rough Step 1, there are 9,896 acres within the Criteria

Area. Key vegetation communities within Rough Step 1 are coastal sage scrub, grasslands, and

riparian scrub, woodland, forest. Rough Step acreage goals are therefore provided for each of

these habitat types. All habitats, including those where Rough Step goals do not exist, are

included for each Rough Step Unit in the following discussion (see Table 11, Rough Step 1

Acreage Totals).

TABLE 11

Rough Step 1 Acreage Totals

Total Acres

Table 6-3

Additional Total Acres Allowable

Authorized for

Development

by Cities and

Key Vegetation

Communities within the

Rough Step

Private Land

Acres within

the Criteria

Area in the

Rough Step

Reserve Land

Acreage Goal

for the Key

Vegetation

Community

Conserved

(between

February 2000

and December

31, 2010)

Development

Acreage

through

December 31,

2010

the County

(between

June 22, 2004,

and December

31, 2010)

Coastal Sage Scrub 1,210 930 130 63 51

Grasslands 820 180 0 64 44

Riparian Scrub, Woodland, 680 550 11 15 5

Forest

Remaining Vegetation Categories without Rough Step Acreage Goals

Agriculture 0 90

Chaparral 13 26

Developed or Disturbed 3 38

Water 0 0

Unknown – Outside of data 1 0

Total 158 254

Through 2010, a total of 158 acres of conservation

has been acquired within this Rough Step Unit.

There were no acquisition gains counting toward the

ARL goal that occurred in 2010. RCA Staff has

identified in previous Annual Reports that several

properties within the Jurupa Mountains area that

Rough Step 1 Snapshot

• All vegetation categories are “in”

Rough Step

Western Riverside County MSHCP

Annual Report (January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2010) 3-11


3.0 HABITAT LOSSES

have Coastal Sage Scrub. These properties are owned by the Jurupa Area Recreation & Park

District, Jurupa Community Services District and Jurupa Mountains Cultural Center and some of

these were contacted in 2009 to see if they would grant a conservation easement over the

undisturbed portions of those properties to the RCA. The State of California also owns two

parcels within MSHCP Cell 18 (APN 173-170-011 and 173-170-012) with 37.80 acres of

Coastal Sage Scrub. The RCA continues to believe it would be appropriate for the California

Department of Fish and Game to continue to take the steps to acquire a conservation easement

over the undisturbed portions of these parcels.

Delhi Soils Rough Step

All suitable habitat for the Delhi Sands flower-loving fly within the MSHCP Plan Area is located

in Rough Step 1. The Delhi Sands flower-loving fly is found within the fine, sandy Delhi series

soils along the northern edge of Rough Step 1. Unlike any other covered species, the Permittees

were given options for conservation of this species. These options were described in the Delhi

Sands flower-loving fly species account objectives. As part of the MSHCP Implementing

Agreement, the Wildlife Agencies and Riverside County jointly opted to follow Delhi Sands

flower-loving fly species account Objective 1B. Objective 1B mandates that surveys are to be

conducted in areas where suitable habitat exists within the mapped Delhi soils (with the

exception of Cells 21, 22, and 55). When the species is present, 75 percent of mapped Delhi soils

on site must be conserved. Within Cells 21, 22, and 55, surveys are not required. Instead for this

three-cell area, 50 acres of Additional Reserve Lands with Delhi soils and suitable habitat for the

Delhi Sands flower-loving fly shall be acquired. Species Objective 1B includes Rough Step

figures to ensure that Additional Reserve Lands are being acquired within Rough Step with

development in Cells 21, 22, and 55.

In 2009, the Wildlife Agencies and the RCA became aware that there might be some mapping

inconsistencies related to the Delhi Sands layer. The RCA continues to try and determine the

extent of any possible mapping errors. Until these possible errors can be resolved and since the

mapped Delhi soils are a component of the Rough Step calculations, for the Annual Report for

2010, the Rough Step analysis for Delhi soils could not be computed.

Western Riverside County MSHCP

Annual Report (January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2010) 3-12


Figure 6

§¨¦ 15

4

Miles

Rough Step Unit # 1

0 1 2 3 5

4

Legend

WRC RCA Annual Report Project Losses

Year Reported

Ä60

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

Ä60

2009

§¨¦ 15

2010

WRC_Non_RCA_Conservation_Easements

WRC Acquisitions and Gains for 2010

WRC Acquisitions and Gains for 2009

§¨¦ 215

WRC Acquisitions and Gains for 2008

WRC Acquisitions and Gains for 2007

WRC Acquisitions and Gains for 2006

Ä71

WRC Acquisitions and Gains for 2005

WRC Acquisitions and Gains for 2004

WRC Acquisitions Gains Prior to 06/22/2004

MSHCP Criteria Cells

EASTVALE

§¨¦ 215

Waterbodies - Rivers

WRC Public / Quasi-Public Conserved Lands

Conservation Type

MORENO VALLEY

NOT A PART

PQP CONSERVED LANDS

PREEXISTING CONSERVATION AGRMTS

Ä60

Cities

RIVERSIDE

MORENO VALLEY

NORCO

Ä91

Ä91

4

CORONA

1

9

2

7

3

8

2 9

9 6


3.0 HABITAT LOSSES

3.2.2 Rough Step 2

Rough Step 2 encompasses 177,606 acres along the northern border and within the northeastern

corner of western Riverside County (see Figure 7, Rough Step Unit #2). This area includes the

Badlands, Reche Canyon, San Timoteo Creek, and the San Jacinto Mountains. This area is

bounded by Interstate 215 to the west, the San Jacinto River to the southwest, the San Jacinto

Mountains to the southeast, and the San Bernardino Mountains to the northeast. There are over

61,020 acres within the Criteria Area in Rough Step 2. Key vegetation communities within

Rough Step 2 include coastal sage scrub; grasslands; riparian scrub, woodland, forest;

Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub; and woodlands and forests. Rough Step acreage goals are

therefore provided for each of these habitat types. Table 12, Rough Step 2 Acreage Totals, also

includes acres conserved for habitats for which Rough Step acreage goals do not exist.

TABLE 12

Rough Step 2 Acreage Totals

Total Acres

Authorized

Table 6-3

for

Key Vegetation

Communities within the

Rough Step

Private Land

Acres within

the Criteria

Area in the

Rough Step

Additional

Reserve Land

Acreage Goal for

the Key

Vegetation

Community

Total Acres

Conserved

(between

February 2000

and December

31, 2010)*

Allowable

Development

Acreage

through

December 31,

2010

Development

by Cities and

the County

(between

June 22,

2004, and

December

31, 2010)

Coastal Sage Scrub 14,969 10,359 3,249 1,762 135

Grasslands 8,656 4,866 1,423 1,377 263

Riparian Scrub, Woodland, 590 460 175 57 8

Forest

Riversidean Alluvial Fan 1,190 1,110 290 27 7

Sage Scrub

Woodlands and Forests 300 180 77 58 5

Remaining Vegetation Categories without Rough Step Acreage Goals

Agricultural Land 184 339

Chaparral 7,758 337

Developed or Disturbed 62 88

Water 2 0

Unknown - Outside of Veg

0 0

Layer

Total 13,219 1,182

* The acres acquired reflect a reduction of a total of 2,540 acres of Stephens’ kangaroo rat habitat within different vegetation communities in Rough

Step 2. These acres are currently designated and not included based on the Stephens’ kangaroo rat habitat March Air Force Base Reserve/Potrero

Trade-out that was agreed to by the County and Wildlife Agencies in 2001.

Western Riverside County MSHCP

Annual Report (January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2010) 3-14


3.0 HABITAT LOSSES

Through 2010, a total of 13,219 acres of conservation

has been acquired within this Rough Step Unit. In

2010, there were 344 acres conserved. Of particular

note, 126 acres of the acres conserved in 2010

represented Coastal Sage Scrub and 51 acres of the

total represented Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage

Rough Step 2 Snapshot

• All vegetation categories are “in”

Rough Step

Scrub. Acquisitions within this Rough Step outside of the critical Rough Step vegetation

communities total to 8,006 acres. Although the Plan is in Rough Step in all vegetation categories

in this unit, conservation efforts continue in order to build the reserve.

Western Riverside County MSHCP

Annual Report (January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2010) 3-15


Ä60

Ä74

Figure 7

Miles

Rough Step Unit # 2

LAKE ELSINORE

0 1 2 3 4

5

4

§¨¦ 215

CALIMESA

RIVERSIDE Ä60

Ä60 §¨¦ 10

BANNING

MORENO VALLEY

BEAUMONT

§¨¦ 215

SAN JACINTO

PERRIS

Ä79

HEMET

Ä74

HEMET

1

9

2

4

Ä74

CANYON LAKE

MENIFEE

7

3

Ä79

8

2 9

9 6

Ä91

§¨¦ 10 Ä 243

Legend

WRC RCA Annual Report Project Losses

Year Reported

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

WRC_Non_RCA_Conservation_Easements

WRC Acquisitions and Gains for 2010

WRC Acquisitions and Gains for 2009

WRC Acquisitions and Gains for 2008

WRC Acquisitions and Gains for 2007

WRC Acquisitions and Gains for 2006

WRC Acquisitions and Gains for 2005

WRC Acquisitions and Gains for 2004

WRC Acquisitions Gains Prior to 06/22/2004

MSHCP Criteria Cells

Waterbodies - Rivers

WRC Public / Quasi-Public Conserved Lands

§¨¦ 15

Conservation Type

NOT

§¨¦ 15

A PART

PQP CONSERVED LANDS

PREEXISTING CONSERVATION AGRMTS

Cities

WILDOMAR WILDOMAR


3.0 HABITAT LOSSES

3.2.3 Rough Step 3

Rough Step 3 encompasses 150,086 acres within the north-central portion of western Riverside

County (see Figure 8, Rough Step Unit #3). This Rough Step Unit includes Lake Perris, the San

Jacinto Wildlife Area, the San Jacinto River, and the Lakeview Mountains. This Rough Step area

is bounded by Interstate 215 to the west, a branch of the San Jacinto River to the northeast, State

Route 60 to the north, and Newport Road, Olive Avenue, and Stetson Avenue to the south. There

are 32,432 acres within the Criteria Area within Rough Step 3. Key vegetation communities

within Rough Step 3 include coastal sage scrub; grasslands; playas and vernal pools; riparian

scrub, woodland, forest; and Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub. Rough Step acreage goals are

therefore provided for each of these habitat types. Table 13, Rough Step 3 Acreage Totals, also

includes acres conserved for habitats for which Rough Step acreage goals do not exist.

Key Vegetation

Communities within

the Rough Step

TABLE 13

Rough Step 3 Acreage Totals

Table 6-3

Private Land Acres

within the Criteria

Area in the Rough

Step

Additional

Reserve Land

Acreage Goal for

the Key

Vegetation

Community

Total Acres

Conserved

(between

February 2000

and December

31, 2009)

Allowable

Development

Acreage

through

December 31,

2009

Total Acres

Authorized

for

Development

by Cities and

the County

(between

June 22,

2004, and

December

31, 2009)

Coastal Sage Scrub 3,670 2,050 216 315 66

Grasslands 4,690 900 62 612 246

Playas and Vernal Pools 4,340 3,830 756 142 9

Riparian Scrub,

220 110 3 14 0

Woodland, Forest

Riversidean Alluvial Fan 190 100 2 11 6

Sage Scrub

Remaining Vegetation Categories without Rough Step Acreage Goals

Agricultural Land 1,157 184

Chaparral 1,015 165

Developed or Disturbed 0 55

Pennisular Juniper

0 0

Woodland and Scrub

Water 139 0

Woodlands and Forests 0 1

Total 3,349 732

Western Riverside County MSHCP

Annual Report (January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2010) 3-17


RIVERSIDE

§¨¦ 215

MORENO VALLEY

Rough Step Unit # 3

Ä60

Ä60

§¨¦ 10

Figure 8

BANNING

BEAUMONT

Legend

WRC RCA Annual Report Project Losses

Year Reported

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

§¨¦ 215

2004

2010

WRC_Non_RCA_Conservation_Easements

WRC Acquisitions and Gains for 2010

WRC Acquisitions and Gains for 2009

WRC Acquisitions and Gains for 2008

WRC Acquisitions and Gains for 2007

WRC Acquisitions and Gains for 2006

WRC Acquisitions and Gains for 2005

PERRIS

SAN JACINTO

Ä79

WRC Acquisitions and Gains for 2004

WRC Acquisitions Gains Prior to 06/22/2004

MSHCP Criteria Cells

HEMET

Waterbodies - Rivers

WRC Public / Quasi-Public Conserved Lands

Conservation Type

NOT A PART

PQP CONSERVED LANDS

PREEXISTING CONSERVATION AGRMTS

Cities

Ä74

Ä74

HEMET

4LAKE ELSINORE

Ä74

CANYON LAKE

0 0.5 1 2 3 4

Miles

MENIFEE

Ä79

1

7

9

8

5

3

6

2

9

2

9

4


3.0 HABITAT LOSSES

Through 2010, a total of 3,349 acres of conservation

has been acquired within this Rough Step Unit. In

2010, there was an additional 74 acres of

conservation added to this unit. These included; 3

acres of Playas and Vernal Pools one of the critical

vegetation categories in this Rough Step Unit.

Rough Step 3 Snapshot

• All vegetation categories are “in”

Rough Step

3.2.4 Rough Step 4

Rough Step 4 encompasses 212,630 acres within the southeastern corner of western Riverside

County and includes Proposed Core 4 and Proposed Core 7 (see Figure 9, Rough Step Unit #4).

These areas are composed of upland and wetland habitat types in the Vail Lake, Sage, and

Wilson Valley areas. This area is bounded by Diamond Valley Lake, Lake Skinner, and Johnson

Ranch to the west, San Diego County and the Agua Tibia Mountains to the south, and the San

Jacinto Mountains and eastern Riverside County to the west. There are 105,759 acres within the

Criteria Area in this Rough Step Unit. Key vegetation communities within Rough Step 4 include

coastal sage scrub; desert scrubs; grasslands; riparian scrub, woodland, forest; Riversidean

alluvial fan sage scrub; and woodlands and forests. Rough Step acreage goals are therefore

provided for each of these habitat types. Table 14, Rough Step 4 Acreage Totals, also includes

acres conserved for habitats for which Rough Step acreage goals do not exist.

Key Vegetation

Communities within the

Rough Step

TABLE 14

Rough Step 4 Acreage Totals

Private Land

Acres within

the Criteria

Area in the

Rough Step

Table 6-3

Additional

Reserve Land

Acreage Goal

for the Key

Vegetation

Community

Total Acres

Conserved

(between

February 2000

and December

31, 2010)

Allowable

Development

Acreage

through

December 31,

2010

Total Acres

Authorized

for

Development

by Cities and

the County

(between

June 22,

2004, and

December

31, 2010)

Coastal Sage Scrub 21,828 17,948 2,953 963 725

Desert Scrubs 4,340 3,680 1,469 303 81

Grasslands 10,991 5,961 444 840 627

Riparian Scrub, Woodland, 1,420 1,322 53 13 5

Forest

Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage 1,169 1,099 125 14 7

Scrub

Woodlands and Forests 1,562 872 138 167 35

Western Riverside County MSHCP

Annual Report (January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2010) 3-19


3.0 HABITAT LOSSES

Remaining Vegetation Categories without Rough Step Acreage Goals

Agricultural Land 53 129

Chaparral 9,122 1,206

Developed or Disturbed 62 197

Cismontane Alkali Marsh 7 0

Total 14,426 3,013

Through 2010, a total of 14,426 acres of conservation has

been acquired in this Rough Step Unit. In 2010, a total of

200 acres were acquired for conservation. While the

majority of the acres acquired were within the Chaparrel

vegetation category an additional 3 acres of Desert Scrubs

and 11 acres of Woodlands and Forests were acquired to

offset losses within those vegetation categories.

Rough Step 4 Snapshot

• All vegetation categories are

“in” Rough Step

Development within Rough Step 4 has occurred exclusively within the unincorporated area of

Riverside County. There have not been any large development projects within Rough Step 4

since plan inception due to the rural nature of this portion of the Plan Area. The majority of land

within Rough Step 4 consists of 5-, 10-, and 20-acre parcels.

Western Riverside County MSHCP

Annual Report (January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2010) 3-20


HEMET

Rough Step Unit # 4

Ä 371 Ä 243

Ä74

Figure 9

Legend

WRC RCA Annual Report Project Losses

Year Reported

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

WRC_Non_RCA_Conservation_Easements

WRC Acquisitions and Gains for 2010

WRC Acquisitions and Gains for 2009

WRC Acquisitions and Gains for 2008

WRC Acquisitions and Gains for 2007

WRC Acquisitions and Gains for 2006

WRC Acquisitions and Gains for 2005

WRC Acquisitions and Gains for 2004

WRC Acquisitions Gains Prior to 06/22/2004

MSHCP Criteria Cells

Waterbodies - Rivers

WRC Public / Quasi-Public Conserved Lands

Conservation Type

NOT A PART

PQP CONSERVED LANDS

PREEXISTING CONSERVATION AGRMTS

Cities

1

9

2

7

3

8

2 9

9 6

5

4

TEMECULA

4

0 0.5 1 2 3 4

Miles

Ä79


3.0 HABITAT LOSSES

3.2.5 Rough Step 5

Rough Step 5 encompasses 91,734 acres within the southwestern corner of western Riverside

County and includes the Santa Rosa Plateau, the Tenaja Corridor, and Murrieta Creek (see

Figure 10, Rough Step Unit #5). It is bounded by Interstate 15 to the northeast, San Diego

County to the south, and the Santa Ana Mountains in the Cleveland National Forest to the west.

Within Rough Step 5, there are 24,326 acres within the Criteria Area. Key vegetation

communities within Rough Step 5 include coastal sage scrub; grasslands; riparian scrub,

woodland, forest; Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub; and woodlands and forests. Rough Step

acreage goals are therefore provided for each of these habitat types. Table 15, Rough Step 5

Acreage Totals, also includes acres conserved for habitats for which Rough Step acreage goals

do not exist.

TABLE 15

Rough Step 5 Acreage Totals

Total Acres

Authorized

Table 6-3

for

Key Vegetation

Communities within the

Rough Step

Private Land Acres

within the Criteria

Area in the Rough

Step

Additional

Reserve Land

Acreage Goal for

the Key

Vegetation

Community

Total Acres

Conserved

(between

February 2000

and December

31, 2010)

Allowable

Development

Acreage

through

December 31,

2010

Development

by Cities and

the County

(between

June 22,

2004, and

December

31, 2010)

Coastal Sage Scrub 1,540 370 4 128 176

Grasslands 3,880 1,010 94 528 434

Riparian Scrub, 550 460 0 9 5

Woodland, Forest

Riversidean Alluvial Fan 370 260 0 11 5

Sage Scrub

Woodlands and Forests 2,080 1,000 71 177 67

Remaining Vegetation Categories without Rough Step Acreage Goals

Agricultural Land 0 375

Chaparral 315 312

Developed or Disturbed 0 220

Water 0 1

Unknown - Outside of veg

0 0

layer

Total 484 1,594

Western Riverside County MSHCP

Annual Report (January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2010) 3-22


Ä74

LAKE ELSINORE

Rough Step

MENIFEE

Unit # 5

Figure 10

WILDOMAR

§¨¦ 215

Legend

WRC RCA Annual Report Project Losses

Year Reported

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

WRC Non RCA Conservation and Easements

WRC Acquisitions and Gains for 2010

WRC Acquisitions and Gains for 2009

WRC Acquisitions and Gains for 2008

WRC Acquisitions and Gains for 2007

WRC Acquisitions and Gains for 2006

WRC Acquisitions and Gains for 2005

WRC Acquisitions and Gains for 2004

WRC Acquisitions Gains Prior to 06/22/2004

MSHCP Criteria Cells

§¨¦ 215

MURRIETA

Waterbodies - Rivers

WRC Public / Quasi-Public Conserved Lands

Conservation Type

NOT A PART

PQP CONSERVED LANDS

PREEXISTING CONSERVATION AGRMTS

Cities

Ä79

1

7

9

8

3

6

2

9

2

9

5

4

TEMECULA

Ä79

§¨¦ 15

4

0 0.5 1 2 3 4

Miles

§¨¦ 15


3.0 HABITAT LOSSES

Through 2010, a total of 484 acres of

conservation has been acquired within this Rough Step 5 Snapshot

• Coastal Sage Scrub is “out” of rough step.

Rough Step Unit. In 2010, a total of 73 acres

were acquired within this Rough Step Unit, of

that total five (5) acres were acquired in the

vegetation category of Woodland Forests and 3

acres of Grassland were acquired. Acquisitions

in 2010 were focused on the Temecula Escarpment and in building Linkage 10 within that area.

Within Rough Step 5, development has largely occurred within the areas of the unincorporated

County but also within the cities of Temecula and Murrieta. A significant portion of land within

Rough Step 5 consists of 5-, 10-, and 20-acre parcels.

Most of the development losses within this Rough Step are single family homes on existing

parcels created in the 1960’s and 1970’s that have been approved through the (EPR) Expedited

Project Review.

The Rough Step analysis indicates that a total of 16.90 acres of Coastal Sage Scrub need to be

acquired to bring this vegetation category back into Rough Step. The RCA and affected

Permittees are continuing acquisition efforts to acquire Coastal Sage Scrub.

3.2.6 Rough Step 6

Rough Step 6 encompasses 101,542 acres within the south-central region of western Riverside

County and includes Antelope Valley, Warm Springs Creek, Paloma Creek, Lake Skinner,

Johnson Ranch, and Diamond Valley Lake (see Figure 11, Rough Step Unit #6). This Rough

Step area is bounded by Interstate 15 to the northwest, Bundy Canyon Road and Olive Avenue to

the north, and Palm Avenue to the west. Within Rough Step 6, 24,836 acres are located within

the Criteria Area. Key vegetation communities within Rough Step 6 include coastal sage scrub;

grasslands; riparian scrub, woodland, forest; and woodlands and forests. Rough step acreage

goals are therefore provided for each of these habitat types. Table 16, Rough Step 6 Acreage

Totals, also includes acres conserved for habitats for which Rough Step acreage goals do not

exist.

Western Riverside County MSHCP

Annual Report (January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2010) 3-24


3.0 HABITAT LOSSES

TABLE 16

Rough Step 6 Acreage Totals

Total Acres

Table 6-3

Authorized

for

Development

by Cities and

Total Acres Allowable the County

Additional

Conserved Development (between

Reserve Land

Private Land Acreage Goal (between Acreage June 22,

Acres within the for the Key February 2000 through 2004, and

Key Vegetation Communities Criteria Area in Vegetation and December December 31, December

within the Rough Step the Rough Step Community 31, 2010) 2010 31, 2010)

Coastal Sage Scrub 4,796 3,876 644 230 188

Grasslands 6,188 3,688 803 740 465

Riparian Scrub, Woodland, Forest 268 208 12 9 16

Woodlands and Forests 140 110 33 11 3

Remaining Vegetation Categories without Rough Step Acreage Goals

Agriculture 917 880

Chaparral 290 114

Developed or Disturbed 27 133

Playas and Vernal Pools 0 0

Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage

Scrub

0 1

Water 1 0

Total 2,727 1,801

Acquisitions through 2010 within Rough Step

amount to 2,727 acres of conservation within the

Conservation Area. In 2010, there were 13 acres

of conservation acquired of which 12 acres were

within the vegetation category of Coastal Sage

Scrub.

Rough Step 6 Snapshot

• Riparian Scrub Woodland Forest “out of

Rough Step”

As a result of this Rough Step analysis, the RCA and affected Permittees are continuing to focus

efforts in acquiring Riparian Scrub, Woodland Forests. The Rough Step analysis indicates that a

total of 28.32 acres of Riparian Scrub, Woodland Forests are needed to be acquired to bring this

vegetation category back into Rough Step.

Western Riverside County MSHCP

Annual Report (January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2010) 3-25


PERRIS

§¨¦ 215

Rough Step Unit # 6

Figure 11

Ä74

HEMET

CANYON LAKE

MENIFEE

LAKE ELSINORE

Ä79

Legend

WRC RCA Annual Report Project Losses

Year Reported

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

WRC Non RCA Conservation and Easements

WRC Acquisitions and Gains for 2010

WRC Acquisitions and Gains for 2009

WRC Acquisitions and Gains for 2008

WRC Acquisitions and Gains for 2007

WRC Acquisitions and Gains for 2006

WRC Acquisitions and Gains for 2005

WRC Acquisitions and Gains for 2004

WRC Acquisitions Gains Prior to 06/22/2004

MSHCP Criteria Cells

Waterbodies - Rivers

WRC Public / Quasi-Public Conserved Lands

Conservation Type

NOT A PART

PQP CONSERVED LANDS

WILDOMAR

§¨¦ 15 §¨¦ 215

MURRIETA

PREEXISTING CONSERVATION AGRMTS

Cities

4

0 0.5 1 2 3 4

Miles

TEMECULA

1

7

9

8

5

3

6

2

9

2

9

4


3.0 HABITAT LOSSES

3.2.7 Rough Step 7

Rough Step 7 encompasses 130,824 acres within the central northwestern corner of western

Riverside County (see Figure 12, Rough Step Unit #7). This Rough Step area includes Lake

Matthews, Estelle Mountain, Motte Rimrock Preserve, and upland habitats in the Gavilan Hills

and Harford Springs Park. This Rough Step Unit also includes portions of the cities of Corona,

Riverside, and Perris. This unit is bound by State Route 91 to the north, Interstate 215 to the

east, and the Santa Ana Mountains to west. Within Rough Step 7, there are 26,775 acres within

the Criteria Area. Key vegetation communities within Rough Step 7 include coastal sage scrub;

grasslands; woodlands and forests; riparian scrub, woodland, forest; and Riversidean alluvial fan

sage scrub. Rough Step acreage goals are therefore provided for each of these habitat types.

Table 17, Rough Step 7 Acreage Totals, also includes acres conserved for habitats for which

Rough Step acreage goals do not exist.

Key Vegetation

Communities within the

Rough Step

TABLE 17

Rough Step 7 Acreage Totals

Table 6-3

Private Land Acres

within the Criteria

Area in the Rough

Step

Additional

Reserve Land

Acreage Goal for

the Key

Vegetation

Community

Total Acres

Conserved

(between

February 2000

and December

31, 2010)

Allowable

Development

Acreage

through

December 31,

2010

Total Acres

Authorized

for

Development

by Cities and

the County

(between

June 22,

2004, and

December

31, 2010)

Coastal Sage Scrub 9,222 7,102 1,000 481 157

Grasslands 3,620 1,550 95 321 78

Woodlands and Forests 493 333 25 27 0

Riparian Scrub,

570 460 42 20 10

Woodland, Forest

Riversidean Alluvial Fan

400 350 6 6 11

Sage Scrub

Remaining Vegetation Categories without Rough Step Acreage Goals

Agriculture 0 146

Chaparral 238 66

Developed or Disturbed 5 167

Peninsular Juniper

5 19

Woodland and Scrub

Water 0 2

Total 1,257 657

Western Riverside County MSHCP

Annual Report (January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2010) 3-27


Rough Step Unit # 7

Figure 12

EASTVALE

Ä60

Legend

WRC RCA Annual Report Project Losses

Year Reported

2004

Ä60

NORCO

RIVERSIDE

MORENO 2009 VALLEY

§¨¦ 15 §¨¦ 215

2005

2006

2007

2008

2010

WRC Non RCA Conservation and Easements

WRC Acquisitions and Gains for 2010

WRC Acquisitions and Gains for 2009

WRC Acquisitions and Gains for 2008

WRC Acquisitions and Gains for 2007

WRC Acquisitions and Gains for 2006

Ä91

Ä91

CORONA

1

7

3

2

9

PERRIS

9

8

5

6

2

9

4

4

§¨¦ 15

§¨¦ 215 §¨¦ 215

WRC Acquisitions and Gains for 2005

WRC Acquisitions and Gains for 2004

WRC Acquisitions Gains Prior to 06/22/2004

MSHCP Criteria Cells

Waterbodies - Rivers

WRC Public / Quasi-Public Conserved Lands

Conservation Type

NOT A PART

PQP CONSERVED LANDS

PREEXISTING CONSERVATION AGRMTS

Cities

LAKE ELSINORE

Ä74

0 0.5 1 2 3 4

Miles

LAKE ELSINORE

CANYON LAKE

MENIFEE


3.0 HABITAT LOSSES

Through 2010, a total of 1,257 acres of

conservation has been acquired or conserved within

this Rough Step Unit. In 2010, 72 acres of

Additional Reserve Lands were acquired for

conservation.

Rough Step 7 Snapshot

Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub is

“out of Rough Step”

Within Rough Step 7, development has largely

occurred within the unincorporated County but also within the City of Corona. Since MSHCP

inception, losses within this Rough Step Unit have occurred as a result of 10-acre to 20-acre

parcel development, rather than several large development projects. However, several large

development projects are in the early stage of development (planning stages but not yet rough

graded) within this Rough Step Unit in the Temescal Corridor.

Rough Step vegetation categories were improved in 2010 by the addition of 189 acres of various

vegetation categories from land conserved through the Riverside-Corona Resource Conservation

District (RCRCD) that are now included as a component of the Rough Step vegetation

categories. These lands contributed toward improving the vegetation categories of Coastal Sage

Scrub, Grassland, Riparian Scrub, Woodland, Forest and Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub.

Efforts were also focused within this Rough Step Unit toward adding critical lands that help to

provide the linkage (Linkage 1 and Constrained Linkage 3) between the Cleveland Forest and the

Existing Core C and its extension.

The RCA and Permittees continue to focus any acquisition efforts within the Rough Step to

acquire the 42.39 acres of Riversidean alluvial fan sage scrub that are needed to move this

vegetation category back into Rough Step, as well as working to acquire additional acres in

Riparian Scrub, Woodland, Forest.

3.2.8 Rough Step 8

Rough Step 8 encompasses 50,408 acres within the west-central region of western Riverside

County and includes the cities of Lake Elsinore and Canyon Lake, the Alberhill Area, San

Jacinto River, Horsethief Canyon, and Temescal Wash (see Figure 13, Rough Step Unit #8). This

Rough Step Unit is bounded by the Santa Ana Mountains to the west, Interstate 215 to the east,

Bundy Canyon Road to the south, and Rough Step 7 to the north. Within Rough Step 8, there are

22,690 acres within the Criteria Area. Key vegetation communities within Rough Step 8 include

coastal sage scrub; grasslands; riparian scrub, woodland, forest; and Riversidean alluvial fan sage

scrub. Rough Step acreage goals are therefore provided for each of these habitat types. Table 18,

Western Riverside County MSHCP

Annual Report (January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2010) 3-29


3.0 HABITAT LOSSES

Rough Step 8 Acreage Totals, also includes acres conserved for habitats for which Rough Step

acreage goals do not exist.

Key Vegetation

Communities within the

Rough Step

Private Land Acres

within the Criteria

Area in the Rough

Step

TABLE 18

Rough Step 8 Acreage Totals

Table 6-3

Additional Reserve

Land Acreage Goal

for the Key

Vegetation

Community

Total Acres

Conserved

(between

February 2000

and December

31, 2010)

Allowable

Development

Acreage

through

December 31,

2010

Total Acres

Authorized

for

Development

by Cities and

the County

(between

June 22,

2004, and

December

31, 2010)

Coastal Sage Scrub 6,400 4,940 2,396 783 286

Grasslands 3,690 1,840 165 335 517

Riparian Scrub,

280 250 81 12 3

Woodland, Forest

Riversidean Alluvial Fan

190 130 17 13 2

Sage Scrub

Remaining Vegetation Categories without Rough Step Acreage Goals

Agriculture 0 66

Chaparral 913 275

Developed or Disturbed 325 258

Water 0 0

Woodlands and Forest 6 0

Total 3,903 1,407

Through 2010, a total of 3,903 acres of conservation

has been acquired within this Rough Step Unit. In

2010, an additional 650 acres were acquired for

conservation. These lands included: 397 acres of

Coastal Sage Scrub, 20 acres of Grasslands, 13 acres

of Riparian Scrub, Woodland, Forest and 1 acre of

Rough Step 8 Snapshot

• Grasslands are “out of Rough Step”

Riversidean Alluvial Fan Sage Scrub that improved these vegetation categories’ Rough Step

goals.

An improvement in the “out of Rough Step” vegetation category of Grasslands was a result of

these acquisitions by reducing the amount of acres to 201 of Grasslands needed to bring this

vegetation category back into Rough Step. The RCA and Permittees continue to focus our

acquisition efforts on Grasslands as well as working to acquire additional acres in the other

vegetation categories within this Rough Step Unit.

Western Riverside County MSHCP

Annual Report (January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2010) 3-30


Ä74

Rough Step Unit # 8

Figure 13

PERRIS

Ä74

§¨¦ 15 §¨¦ 215

Legend

WRC RCA Annual Report Project Losses

Year Reported

2004

2005

MENIFEE

2006

2007

CANYON LAKE

2008

2009

2010

WRC Non RCA Conservation and Easements

LAKE ELSINORE

WRC Acquisitions and Gains for 2010

WRC Acquisitions and Gains for 2009

WRC Acquisitions and Gains for 2008

WRC Acquisitions and Gains for 2007

WRC Acquisitions and Gains for 2006

WRC Acquisitions and Gains for 2005

WRC Acquisitions and Gains for 2004

Ä74

WRC Acquisitions Gains Prior to 06/22/2004

MSHCP Criteria Cells

Waterbodies - Rivers

WRC Public / Quasi-Public Conserved Lands

Conservation Type

NOT A PART

PQP CONSERVED LANDS

PREEXISTING CONSERVATION AGRMTS

Cities

WILDOMAR

1

9

§¨¦ 215 2

4

7

3

8

2 9

MURRIETA

9 6

0 1 2 3 4 5

4

Miles


4.0 ACTIVITIES WITHIN PLAN AREA

4.0 ACTIVITIES WITHIN PLAN AREA

4.1 Single-Family/Mobile Home Activity

4.1.1 Background

In accordance with existing land use regulations, development of a single-family home or mobile

home on an existing legal parcel is a Covered Activity within the Plan Area, per Section 7.3.2 of

the MSHCP. Single-family home grading/site preparation permits and mobile home site

preparation permits on existing legal lots within the Criteria Area are reviewed against the

MSHCP Conservation Criteria solely to determine the least sensitive portion of the lot for

building pad location. These activities are covered by the Expedited Review Process (ERP)

provision of the Property Owner Initiated Habitat Evaluation and Acquisitions Negotiation

Process. Section 7.3.2 of the MSHCP lists several assumptions regarding the predicted annual

level of single-family/mobile home activity within the Criteria Area. Based on key assumptions,

the MSHCP estimated approximately 75 parcels would utilize the ERP provision within the

Criteria Area annually; these parcels were estimated to impact approximately 675 acres of land.

It was also assumed that, of these 675 acres, half (338 acres) would be within areas considered

desirable for inclusion in the MSHCP Conservation Area. Finally, it was assumed that the

Permittees would successfully negotiate conservation on 75% of all of the 338 acres, leaving 85

acres for single-family/mobile home development. The annual reporting process is used to

determine whether ERP activity is occurring in a manner that is consistent with the assumptions

made during MSHCP development.

4.1.2 Effect on Reserve Assembly

Between January 1, 2010 and December 31, 2010, 12 single-family/mobile home permits

utilized the ERP. These permits covered a total of 180 acres within the Plan Area and were all

within the unincorporated County.

A majority of the ERP activity continues to occur within Rough Step Units 4 and 5. A total of

84 acres (of the 180 acres that utilized the ERP) were identified as the “least sensitive” area and

were assumed to be developed. The remaining 96 acres out of the 180 acres were identified as

“sensitive”, meaning no disturbance (i.e. grading) is assumed for 96 acres of the ERP parcels. In

summary, of the area utilized by the single family/mobile home application process,

approximately 53% of the area was determined to be “sensitive” and therefore avoided by

development; while the remaining 47% was allowed to be disturbed (i.e., appropriate for

development).

Western Riverside County MSHCP

Annual Report (January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2010) 4-1


4.0 ACTIVITIES WITHIN PLAN AREA

4.1.3 2011 Work Plan

In 2011, the RCA will continue working with both the Cities and County to track single family

home projects that use the ERP. The RCA will continue to review aerial orthophotos for some

projects that were reported as a loss to determine and confirm if the actual area of loss

represented by those projects was correctly reported. The reviews performed to date have

identified projects that did not impact as many acres of sensitive areas as first reported. The

reviews also indicate that projects that were issued grading or building permits were later

abandoned with little or no impact to sensitive areas. These projects have been documented in

the appropriate losses corrected GIS files for each year.

The RCA is assembling a list of parcels within the Criteria Area that have utilized the ERP

provision. The RCA will approach these landowners in the future regarding conservation

easement incentives for those areas of their property that are in the avoidance area. The RCA

plans to review the existing ERP parcels to establish top-priority large parcels that are in key

Conservation Areas (e.g., in Rough Step Units 4 and 5) so that the avoidance acreages can

“count” towards gains in the future. The RCA is also working with County and City planning

staff to ensure that property owners are informed of all available incentives associated with

conservation easements early in the permit application process.

4.2 Public Works Projects

MSHCP Permittees include the Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District

(County Flood), Riverside County Parks and Open Space District (County Parks), Riverside

County Waste Management Department, Riverside County Transportation Commission, the 16

cities in western Riverside County, Riverside County, California Department of Transportation

(Caltrans), and California Department of Parks and Recreation (State Parks). These agencies’

projects are Covered activities under the Plan and, in some instances, are subject to Joint Project

Review (JPR). JPRs for State Parks and Caltrans are the responsibility of the Wildlife Agencies,

while the JPR process for public projects by the other Permittees, as appropriate, is the

responsibility of the RCA. For annual reporting purposes, all projects are recorded as

“constructed” by date of construction contract approval. Table 19, Public Works Projects

(January 1 through December 31, 2010), summarizes public works project activity during 2010.

Western Riverside County MSHCP

Annual Report (January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2010) 4-2


4.0 ACTIVITIES WITHIN PLAN AREA

TABLE 19

Public Works Projects

(January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2010)

Public Works Permittee Activities Approved between January 1 and December 31, 2010

County of Riverside Transportation • Newport and Berea Road Projects

Department a

• Camino Real Road Project

• Walnut Avenue @ Sherman Avenue Traffic Signal

• Van Buren Blvd Project

• Krameria Avenue and Mayberry Avenue Projects

• Citrus Street @ Cleveland Avenue Traffic Signal

• Rubidoux Area Group 1 Projects

• Clay Street @ De Anza Plaza Drive Traffic Signal

• Goetz Road Bridge and Newport Road

Riverside County Parks and Open

Space District b

Riverside County Transportation

Commission c

Riverside County Waste Management

Department d

Riverside Flood Control and Water

Conservation District e

• San Timoteo Canyon School House

• Santa Rosa Plateau

• Rancho Jurupa Phase 3

• Rancho Jurupa Aquatic Center

• Jurupa Sports Complex

• Lake Skinnner Park

• 74/215 Interchange Project.

• I-215 South Widening Project.

• Lamb Canyon Landfill Improvements.

• Badlands Landfill Improvements.

• Menifee-Hawthorne Ave Storm Drain – Stage 1.

• Norco MDP Line NA-3 and North Norco Channel Line N-1 Stage 2.

California State Parks f • Lake Perris SRA

1. Museum Roof Replacement.

2. Museum Window and Door Replacement.

3. Boat Launch Ramp #5 Extension.

CalTrans g • SR 91 Freeway Pavement Project

• I-215/74 West Interchange Project

Sources:

a

Laurie Dobson–Correa, RCA from County Transportation, personal communication (via email) January 13, 2011.

b

Mark Brewer – Parks and Open Space District and Laurie Dobson-Correa – Regional Conservation Authority, personal

communication (via email March 31, 2011.

c

Cathy Bechtel, RCTC, personal communication (via email), January 6, 2011.

d

Ryan Ross, personal communication (via email January 25, 2011.

e

Art Diaz, Flood Control, personal communication (via email), January 13, 2011

f

Ron Kruerper, State Parks, personal communication (via email), February 2, 2011.

g

Mahmoud Sadeghi, Caltrans, personal communication (via email), February 4, 2011.

Western Riverside County MSHCP

Annual Report (January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2010) 4-3


4.0 ACTIVITIES WITHIN PLAN AREA

4.2.1 County of Riverside Transportation Department

In 2010, County Transportation reported nine projects awarded during the year within the

Western Riverside MSHCP Plan.

Newport and Berea Road Projects – Completed realignment and widening improvements

between Murrieta Road and Goetz Road started by adjacent development project.

Camino Real Road Project – Raised Median Project from Mission Blvd to Avenida Baja

Walnut Avenue @ Sherman Avenue - Traffic Signal and Lighting

Van Buren Blvd Project – Resurfacing Clay to Limonite

Krameria Avenue and Mayberry Avenue Projects – Sidewalk Improvements

Citrus Street @ Cleveland Avenue - Traffic Signal and Lighting

Rubidoux Area Group 1 Projects – Various Road and Sidewalk Improvements

Clay Street @ De Anza Plaza Drive - Traffic Signal and Lighting

Goetz Road Bridge and Newport Road – New Bridge on Goetz and Intersection reconstruction

at Newport and Goetz Roads just east of the City of Canyon Lake

4.2.2 Riverside County Parks and Open Space District

Riverside County Parks and Open Space District within the Western MSHCP area initiated six

major construction projects in 2010.

San Timoteo Canyon Historic School House – Restoration of building

Santa Rosa Plateau – Interpretive garden, outdoor classroom, parking lot and drainage

improvements with new entry signs and statements

Rancho Jurupa Phase 3 – Frizbee disc golf course, new playground, splash pad, water park

improvements, installation of six rental cabins

Rancho Jurupa Aquatic Center – State of the art aquatic complex at The Cove including a 3

slides, pools and river park the complex also includes a 25 yard by 35 meter competition pool

Western Riverside County MSHCP

Annual Report (January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2010) 4-4


4.0 ACTIVITIES WITHIN PLAN AREA

with 1-meter and 3-meter diving board and spectator seating for 200 people. Located at Mission

Blvd and Camino Real in Jurupa

Jurupa Sports Complex – Regional Sport complex located on approximately 36 acres located

north of the intersection of Loring Ranch Road and Crestmore Road. The park will include one

large, one moderate and six small picnic shelters to accommodate approximately 238 people, a

concession/restroom building, and approximately 15 soccer fields.

Lake Skinner Park – Amphitheater improvements, new playground, splash pad, water park.

4.2.3 Riverside County Transportation Commission

Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC) awarded and started two major

construction projects in 2010.

74/215 Interchange Project

This project in the City of Perris will rebuild the 74/215 Interchange. The project will replace the

current two-lane bridge over the freeway with an eight-lane bridge. The new bridge will have

two through-lanes and two left-turn lanes in both directions. The project will also remove the

five-point intersection and 12 stop signs west of the freeway and replace these with new

intersections controlled by traffic signals. The freeway on and off ramps will be realigned and

include ramp metering and a High Occupancy Vehicle preferential lane on the entrance ramps.

Redlands Avenue will be widened from 4 th Street to San Jacinto Avenue as part of the project

improvement.

I-215 South Widening Project

This project includes the addition of a third general purpose lane and inside shoulder in both

directions from Murrieta Hot Springs Road to Scott Road in Murrieta. The project also includes

minor drainage improvements and ramp metering.

4.2.4 Riverside County Waste Management Department

Riverside County Waste Management conducted improvements to the following landfill

facilities (note that there was no expansion of landfill activities beyond the current limits of solid

waste facility permits at either landfill) during 2010:

Lamb Canyon Landfill Improvements

1. Implementation of the 2010 site winterization plan

2. Installation of additional horizontal and vertical gas wells, and perimeter probes.

3. Installation of a new clean-power station at the site, referred to as “FlexEnergy.”

Western Riverside County MSHCP

Annual Report (January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2010) 4-5


4.0 ACTIVITIES WITHIN PLAN AREA

4. Installation of a new storm water sampler & relocation of an existing one.

5. Relocation of the wet-weather disposal pad and the access road.

6. Installation of a new survey control point (benchmark) including access ramp.

7. Installation of additional litter fencing along the westerly & southerly boundaries of

the active operation pad area.

8. Started a new borrow area for daily cover material at a location west of the active

disposal pad (referred to as an “emergency borrow area).

Badlands Landfill Improvements

1. Installation of additional litter fencing.

2. Implementation of the 2010 site winterization plan.

3. Installation of additional horizontal and vertical gas wells.

4. Installation of fence on the north end of Badlands Landfill Property.

5. Installation/stockpiling of imported rock, gravel and base materials to improve site

access and maintain a wet-weather dumping pad area.

6. Removal of a 17,600 gallon baker tank rental used in conjunction with the onsite

leachate collection & recovery system (LCRS) and replacement with a 5,400 gallon

tank that is located in the newly constructed LCRS secondary containment facility.

4.2.5 Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District

Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District reported two projects in 2010.

Menifee-Hawthorne Ave Storm Drain – Stage 1

Project is a 5,130 linear feet underground storage drain consisting of reinforced concrete pipe

ranging in size from 18 to 78 inches in diameter. The project is located in the City of Menifee.

Norco MDP Line NA-3 and North Norco Channel Line N-1 Stage 2.

The Line NA-3 and Line N-1, Stage 2 project is a component of the Norco Master Drainage

Plan. Line NA-3 is a 1,600 lineal feet underground storage drain consisting of reinforced

concrete pipe ranging in size from 24 to 42 inches in diameter Line N-1 Stage 2 is an 2,200 lineal

feet underground storm drain consisting of reinforced concrete pipe ranging in size from 24 to 30

inches. The project is located in the City of Norco.

4.2.6 California State Parks

California State Parks awarded several construction and maintenance contracts at Lake Perris in

2010.

Museum Roof Replacement – Remove and replace approximately 2,800 square feet of existing

roofing material. Replace all damage sheeting underneath.

Western Riverside County MSHCP

Annual Report (January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2010) 4-6


4.0 ACTIVITIES WITHIN PLAN AREA

Museum Window and Door Replacement – Remove and replace ten 6 ft x 10 ft windows and

four ADA access doors.

Boat Launch Ramp #5 Extension – Construct concrete extension of boat launch ramp further

and deeper into the lake. Sixty 12 ft x 6 ft precast concrete panels (4,320 square feet) were laid

and locked in place at end of original launch ramp.

4.2.7 CalTrans

Caltrans initiated or constructed 2 projects within the Western County MSHCP Area during

2010. These projects on the State Highway and Federal Interstate system included:

SR 91 – January 2010, EA 0A5504 Freeway Pavement Project in the City of Corona.

I-215/74 West Interchange – May 2010, EA 464204 (See RCTC for full description of Project).

Other maintenance projects not listed include; improvements to safety, road rehabilitation and

patching, general maintenance, and landscaping. Most of these projects had no or very minimal

impacts to MSHCP species and habitats. The Wildlife Agencies were made aware of these

projects through e-mail or written concurrence. Caltrans is continuing its efforts to streamline

projects through the MSHCP.

4.3 Participating Special Entity Permits

Per Section 6.1.6 of the MSHCP, the RCA may grant MSHCP take authorization to nonsignatory

public agencies and other regional service providers under the Participating Special

Entity provision, as described in Section 11.8 of the Implementation Agreement. The MSHCP

defines “Participating Special Entity” as any regional public facility provider, such as a utility

company or a public district or other agency that operates and/or owns land within the MSHCP

Plan Area but who is not a Permittee and who is granted take authorization. In 2010, the RCA

did not receive any new applications for Participating Special Entity (PSE) status. However,

there were two PSE applications from 2009 that carried over into 2010. The first was PSE 09-

09-14-02 received in 2009 from EMWD for their Menifee East Recycled Water Tanks located in

the French Valley area of incorporated Riverside County. This PSE was issued a Certificate of

Inclusion by the RCA on February 9, 2010. The second PSE application (PSE 09-09-02-01) that

carried over from 2009 was received from Southern California Edison for their Equinox 12kV

Distribution Line project. This project was primarily not located in the Criteria Area. The

project is located in the French Valley area of unincorporated Riverside County and entails

Western Riverside County MSHCP

Annual Report (January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2010) 4-7


4.0 ACTIVITIES WITHIN PLAN AREA

removing, upgrading and installing new poles along existing roads. The Certificate of Inclusion

for this project was issued on May 25, 2010.

4.4 Criteria Refinement

As indicated in Section 6.6.2F of the MSHCP, Permittees are expected to implement the MSHCP

consistent with Cell Criteria. In cases where a Permittee and/or landowner believes that

conservation objectives could be achieved in an alternative location or alternative Reserve design

scenario, the criteria can be refined to reflect such modification.

For the annual reporting year of 2010, there was one Criteria Refinement (CR) proposed in the

County of Riverside - CR 10-06-22-01. The project proposed to exchange the 105-acre

Ironwood property for a 122.4-acre property (Badlands site) that is currently not within an area

considered for Conservation in the MSHCP but is immediately adjacent to Proposed Core 3 and

would be included into the MSHCP Conservation with the CR process. During the CR process,

the Permittee, applicant, Wildlife Agencies (WA), and the RCA had several meetings to discuss

Reserve Configuration and Reserve Management. The Replacement/Badlands site will be

purchased by Aqua Mansa and granted to the County through the RCA in fee or through an

appropriate conservation easement. On September 22, 2010, the RCA provided the CR

equivalency review document to the WA per the requirements of Section 6.5 of the MSHCP. On

November 15, 2010, the WA provided their concurrence with the CR proposal and determined

that the CR is biologically equivalent or superior. The remaining step in the CR process is to

secure the replacement parcels for Conservation. The applicant is to work with the RCA to

secure Conservation of the replacement parcels, in perpetuity. Once the replacement parcels are

secured for Conservation, the RCA Board will approve the CR and processing of a JPR can

occur on the project site after the CR has been completed.

4.5 Memoranda of Understanding

Many of the covered species and associated sensitive habitats are located on federal and state

lands. For these reasons, existing federal and state lands were included in the existing 365,000

acres of public/quasi-public lands. Assumption for conservation of these lands came with the

requirement that memoranda of understanding (MOU) between these state, federal, and other

governmental/quasi-governmental agencies must be established to ensure that lands are managed

in concert with covered species’ needs.

Western Riverside County MSHCP

Annual Report (January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2010) 4-8


4.0 ACTIVITIES WITHIN PLAN AREA

Riverside-Corona Resource Conservation District. On June 8, 2010 the MOU with the

Riverside-Corona Resource Conservation District was completed by the District and the Western

Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority.

U.S. Forest Service. Under agreement with the San Bernardino and Cleveland National Forests,

MSHCP Monitoring Program biologists have been conducting species surveys in Forest areas

since 2005 and continued the process of completing the scheduled initial inventory for species

presence. Survey information is shared and activities coordinated with Forest and other Reserve

Managers within the MSHCP at monthly Monitoring Program Reserve Managers meetings. It is

anticipated the final Monitoring Program inventory will be completed in 2012, and an adaptive

management strategy for Forest area species management and MOU discussions with the DOI /

USFS prepared in 2013.

Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Lands owned by the Bureau of Land Management

(BLM) in Western Riverside County contribute to Reserve Assembly as PQP lands. The

majority of the BLM lands within the MSHCP are associated with the Riverside County Steven's

Kangaroo Rat Habitat Conservation Plan (SKR-HCP). The BLM is currently finalizing a

revision to their South Coast Resource Management Plan (SCRMP, dated June, 1994). The

RCA entered into an MOU with the BLM (RCA Agreement No. 09002, BLM MOU No.CA-

660-08-01) on June 6, 2008 as a cooperating agency on this plan. Through this MOU, the RCA

worked with the BLM to maximize coordination and achieve consistency where practical in the

development of the revisions to the SCRMP. When completed and adopted, the revised SCRMP

will be the basis for the BLM and RCA to enter into additional MOU discussions to allow

Adaptive Management on BLM properties that would be necessary to meet the objectives of the

MSHCP's species specific management plans as they evolve following completion of the initial

Monitoring Program species inventory.

Riverside County Habitat Conservation Agency (RCHCA). The RCHCA is the joint powers

authority responsible for implementation of the Stephens Kangaroo Rat HCP in western

Riverside County. The RCHCA owns approximately 6700 acres of conservation land at Estelle

Mountain and the Southwest MSR surrounding Lake Skinner and Diamond Valley Lake, and

manages another 10,000 acres at Southwest MSR. As such the RCHCA is an important

conservation land owner in the MSHCP Plan area and monitoring/management coordination

between the RCHCA and the RCA will benefit MSHCP Covered Species. The RCHCA allows

access for MSHCP biological monitoring purposes annually and is in discussions with the RCA

on entering a Management MOU.

Western Riverside County MSHCP

Annual Report (January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2010) 4-9


4.0 ACTIVITIES WITHIN PLAN AREA

4.6 Review of Public/Quasi-Public Lands

4.6.1 Background

Section 11.13 of the Implementing Agreement states that within 5 years of issuance of the

MSHCP take permit, the RCA shall verify the precise acreage location, amount, and status of

public/quasi-public lands in the MSHCP Conservation Area. Once verified, this information will

be submitted to the Wildlife Agencies for review.

4.6.2 Status of Review of Public/Quasi-Public Lands in 2010

During 2010, RCA staff continued the process of verification of the public/quasi-public (PQP)

lands within the MSHCP Conservation Area that began in 2006. The PQP verification process

and final results are expected to be completed by the RCA and Permittees in 2011. Activity in

2010 consisted of the following:

• Completed the review of the PQP within all of the Cities and determined the status of

these lands using all resources available to RCA Staff including responses from Cities on

the status of lands in City ownership. In cases where there was no response from the City

an assessment was made with as much accuracy as possible using Aerial Photos, Public

Works Infrastructure projects, Zoning, and prior property designations.

• Reviewed and finalized the status of the PQP Lands owned by the County, Parks and

Open Space District, Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC), Waste

Management and Flood Control and Water Conservation District.

• The RCA completed a MOU (Memorandum of Understanding) with the Riverside-

Corona Resource Conservation District that memorialized the status of their properties

and conservation easements for inclusion into PQP Lands or for Additional Reserve

Lands (ARL).

• Completed the review of all State and Federal Properties assuming these would remain in

the baseline PQP, if current ownership was verified as public lands and various sources

were determined to be consistent with conserved land activities. BLM maps, numerous

agency and department websites, Wildlife Conservation Board and other sources were

utilized for analysis of these properties.

• Reviewed properties managed or owned by private environmental entities, such as The

Center for Natural Lands Management (CNLM) and Riverside Land Conservancy (RLC),

and began preparing proposed MOUs to memorialize the status of their properties and

Western Riverside County MSHCP

Annual Report (January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2010) 4-10


4.0 ACTIVITIES WITHIN PLAN AREA

Conservation easements for inclusion into PQP Land or for Additional Reserve Lands

(ARL).

• Performed additional studies on selected individual properties. At the end of 2010, the

status of the Norton Younglove Reserve and Riverside County Habitat Conservation

Agency (RCHCA)/BLM exchange parcels remain as pending for additional review

concerning their status as PQP Lands.

• At the end of 2010, RCA staff have identified and verified for the PQP Reconciliation

Process a total of 347,023 acres for the Public/Quasi-Public Lands for the MSHCP.

4.6.3 2011 Work Program

During the 2011 calendar year, the RCA will work toward completing the following components

of the PQP land review:

• RCA Staff anticipates the completion of an MOU with the Center for Natural Lands

Management (CNLM) and Riverside Land Conservancy (RLC) to memorialize the status

of their properties and conservation easement for inclusion into PQP Lands or for ARL.

• In 2011 after final review by the RCA Executive Director the RCA staff will finalize the

PQP Reconciliation Database for lands that have been verified as PQP, or have been

removed from consideration as PQP, and will complete the verification process for the

precise acreage location, amount, and status of PQP lands in the MSHCP Conservation

Area. This information, including updated APNs, acreage and any Memorandums of

Understandings (MOUs) along with appropriate GIS Files, will then be submitted to the

Wildlife Agencies for concurrence.

4.7 Clerical/Minor Amendments to the MSHCP

4.7.1 Clerical Amendments

Section 6.10.1 of the MSHCP outlines clerical amendments to the MSHCP and associated

revision requirements. The MSHCP states that clerical amendments shall be made by the RCA

on its own initiative or in response to a written request submitted by any Permittee or Wildlife

Agency, which includes documentation supporting the proposed clerical change. Clerical

changes shall not require any amendment to the MSHCP, the Permits, or the Implementing

Agreement. Clerical changes include corrections of typographical, grammatical, and similar

editing errors that do not change the intended meaning and corrections of any maps or exhibits to

correct insignificant errors in mapping. It is assumed that most clerical changes to the MSHCP

Western Riverside County MSHCP

Annual Report (January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2010) 4-11


4.0 ACTIVITIES WITHIN PLAN AREA

will occur during the first 10 years of MSHCP implementation. Clerical amendments are to be

summarized in each annual report and are found in Appendix A of this report.

In 2010, the RCA did not process any clerical amendments.

4.7.2 Minor Amendments

Section 6.10.2 of the MSHCP outlines minor amendments to the MSHCP and associated revision

procedures. The following items are considered minor amendments to the MSHCP and shall be

administratively implemented:

(1) minor corrections to land ownership;

(2) minor revisions to survey, monitoring, reporting, and/or management protocols that clearly

do not affect covered species or overall MSHCP Conservation Area functions and values;

(3) transfer of target Reserve Assembly acreages between identified subunits within a single

Area Plan and/or between Area Plans within a single rough step analysis unit consistent with the

criteria;

(4) application of take authorization to development within Cities incorporated within the

MSHCP boundaries after the effective date of the Implementing Agreement, assuming such

inclusion does not preclude Reserve Assembly, significantly increase the cost of MSHCP

Conservation Area management or assembly, or preclude achieving covered species

conservation and goals;

(5) annexation or de-annexation of property within the Plan Area pursuant to Section 11.5 of the

Implementing Agreement, provided such inclusion does not preclude Reserve Assembly,

significantly increase the cost of the MSHCP Conservation Area management or assembly, or

preclude achieving covered species conservation and goals;

(6) minor extension of cut or fill slopes outside of the right-of-way limits analyzed in the

MSHCP for covered roadways to accommodate construction in rolling or mountainous terrain;

and

(7) updates/corrections to the vegetation map and/or species occurrence data.

In 2010, one new city was incorporated from County lands within the MSHCP Plan area. The

City of Eastvale incorporated on October 1, 2010. The County continued processing of the

development activity within the City until the City could start processing building and

development activities. An administrative process has been developed to replace the minor

amendment process as defined under item 4. The Joint Powers Agreement and Implementing

Western Riverside County MSHCP

Annual Report (January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2010) 4-12


4.0 ACTIVITIES WITHIN PLAN AREA

Agreement were updated to add this new City as a Permittee under the Plan. These amendments

to the Joint Powers Agreement and Implementing Agreement are expected to be completed in

early 2011 by the Wildlife Agencies.

4.8 Activities Affecting Reserve Assembly

In consultation with the Wildlife Agencies, this section is meant to provide documentation of

actions which have influenced reserve design during the last year.

Detailed information was reported in the 2007, 2008 and 2009 Annual Reports on any activities

that affected Reserve Assembly.

Western Riverside County MSHCP

Annual Report (January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2010) 4-13


5.0 FUNDING SUMMARY

5.0 FUNDING SUMMARY

The Plan requires that the RCA provide an accounting of relevant financial information for each

reporting period. Table 20, RCA Program Operation Financial Summary, reflects the specific

categories, as detailed in Appendix B-05 of the MSHCP. Table 21, Permittee Revenue

(January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2010), summarizes monthly income for each Permittee

for the reporting period.

TABLE 20

RCA Program Operation Financial Summary

Prior to Plan

Approval through

December 31, 2009

January 1 through

December 31, 2010

Program Costs

Conservation Using HANS

41,000 acres to be conserved Projection of % Conserved Annually 36% 5%

Projection of acres to be conserved 14,760 2,050

% of Conservation through

1.10% 0.16%

Development Process

Actual Conserved Acres (Note 1) 451.83 67.54

Local Acquisitions Projection of % Acquired Annually 40% 5%

56,000 acres to be conserved Projection of acres to be acquired 22,400 2,800

Projected Price per Acre $13,100 $13,100

Actual % of Conservation by Local

45.25% 2.25%

Acquisition

Actual Price per Acre $9,963 $4,461

Actual Acquisition Cost (Note 2) $252,450,331 $4,512,600

Actual Conserved Acres 25,338.49 1,011.58

97,000 acres to be conserved Total Acres New Conservation 25,790.32 1,079.12

State and Federal Acquisitions State Acquisitions

56,000 acres to be conserved Actual Price per Acre $8,767 $0.00

Actual Acquisition Cost $92,001,952 $0.00

Actual Conserved Acres 10,494.24 0.00

Western Riverside County MSHCP

Annual Report (January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2010) 5-1


5.0 FUNDING SUMMARY

Federal Acquisitions

Actual Price per Acre $7,091 $7,984

Actual Acquisition Cost $37,712,709 $2,812,500

Actual Conserved Acres 5,318.34 352.27

State and Federal Acquisitions Actual Acquisition Costs $129,714,661 $2,812,500

Actual Conserved Acres 15,812.58 352.27

MSHCP Total Acres Total Acquisition Costs $382,164,992 $7,325,100

153,000 acres to be Conserved Total Acres New Conservation 41,602.90 1,431.39

Program Management

Management Projected as $55 per acre $2,548,174 $867,728

Monitoring Based on Actual $5,725,666 $1,014,270

Administration Based on Actual $18,031,420 $3,230,253

Management Existing Lands $17 (30% of management cost) N.A. N.A.

Subtotal Management and

Administration Costs

$26,305,260 $5,112,251

Total Reporting Period Costs $408,470,252 $12,437,351

Program Revenue

Development Fees

Per unit Residential Fee $1,651

Per acre Com & Ind Fee $5,160

Combined Residential, Commercial $107,447,109 $7,972,536

and Industrial Fees

Total Development Fee Revenue $107,447,109 $7,972,536

Density Bonus Fees Program Still in Development $0 $0

Units using density bonus Program Still in Development $0 $0

Per Unit Fee Program Still in Development NA NA

Density Bonus Fees NA NA

Subtotal Density Bonus Revenue $0 $0

Landfill Revenue

Western Riverside County MSHCP

Annual Report (January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2010) 5-2


5.0 FUNDING SUMMARY

Landfill Revenue - Previous Years $6,000,000 N.A.

El Sobrante Revenue $9,637,768 $1,987,063

Other Landfill Fees $1,631,836 $144,138

Subtotal Landfill Revenue $17,269.604 $2,131,201

Infrastructure Mitigation

Measure “A” Revenue $128,153,623 $0

TUMF $1,688,691 $392,781

Flood Control $959,458 $254,613

Other Gov MSHCP Infrastructure $191,808 $109,426

Other Gov MSHCP Civic projects $613,033 $842,915

Misc Participating Fees $3,407,287 $100,963

Subtotal Infrastructure Revenue $135,013,900 $1,700,698

Total Revenue in Reporting Period $256,469,762 $11,804,436

Total Reporting Period Costs $408,470,252 $12,437,351

Note 1: There are approximately 8,405 acres indentified to be conserved at some future date from the JPR (Joint Project

Review) and HANs Review of developments from the inception of the plan.

Note 2: Acquisition Costs includes RCTC Measure "A" funds.

Note 3: Total Acres New Conservation includes the Potrero - MARB SKR Tradeout lands and all acquisitions both inside and outside

of the MSHCP Criteria Cells by RCA and Permittees since Feb. 2000

Western Riverside County MSHCP

Annual Report (January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2010) 5-3


5.0 FUNDING SUMMARY

TABLE 21

Permittee Revenue (January 1, 2010 through December 31, 2010)

Permittee January-10 February-10 March-10 April-10 May-10 June-10 July-10

CITY OF BANNING $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

CITY OF BEAUMONT $13,134.00 $88,929.00 $69.981.00 $32,878.28 $36,283.50 $0.00 $0.00

CITY OF CALIMESA $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $499.77 $923.58 $0.00

CITY OF CANYON LAKE $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $1,938.00 $0.00

CITY OF CORONA $0.00 $0.00 $1,938.00 $0.00 $0.00 $3,434.02 $0.00

CITY OF HEMET $27,132.00 $38,760.00 $37,702.38 $15,504.00 $13,566.00 $60,078.00 $21,318.00

CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE $38,760.00 $3,876.00 $0.00 $0.00 $21,318.00 $17,442.00 $0.00

CITY OF MENIFEE $114,951.96 $149,226.00 $87,210.00 $432,174.00 $9,690.00 $102,806.36 $65,892.00

CITY OF MORENO VALLEY $13,566.00 $13,566.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $32,946.00 $17,442.00

CITY OF MURRIETA $88,201.89 $35,813.10 $17,442.00 $0.00 $0.00 $14,892.00 $24,582.00

CITY OF NORCO $1,938.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

CITY OF PERRIS $2,562.43 $23,256.00 $48,450.00 $46,512.00 $34,884.00 $141,474.00 $32,946.00

CITY OF RIVERSIDE $0.00 $16,072.00 $10,640.18 $25,194.00 $173,068.40 $245,073.45 $6,217.83

CITY OF SAN JACINTO $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00

CITY OF TEMECULA $11,628.00 $14,892.00 $19,856.00 $9,928.00 $0.00 $13,804.00 $45,900.00

CITY OF WILDOMAR $3,876.00 $0.00 $4,815.81 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $11,173.80

COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE $141,480.02 $311,202.49 $252,005.97 $411,141.97 $355,951.91 $447,618.00 $300,757.80

Totals $457,230.30 $695,592.59 $550,041.34 $973,332.25 $645,261.58 $1,082,429.41 $526,229.43

Western Riverside County MSHCP

Annual Report (January 1, 2010 through December 31, 2010) 5-4


5.0 FUNDING SUMMARY

TABLE 21 (Continued)

Permittee Revenue (January 1, 2010 through December 31, 2010)

Permittee Aug-10 Sep-10 Oct-10 Nov-10 Dec-10 Totals 2010 % of TOTAL

CITY OF BANNING $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $3,601.00 $3,496.41 $7,097.41 0.09%

CITY OF BEAUMONT $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $241,205.78 3.03%

CITY OF CALIMESA $0.00 $0.00 $1,938.00 $0.00 $0.00 $3,361.35 0.04%

CITY OF CANYON LAKE $0.00 $0.00 $1,938.00 $0.00 $0.00 $3,876.00 0.05%

CITY OF CORONA $3,876.00 -$1,938.00 $0.00 $0.00 $5,814.00 $13,124.02 0.16%

CITY OF HEMET $3,876.00 $13,566.00 $50,363.00 $0.00 $40,821.30 $322,686.68 4.05%

CITY OF LAKE ELSINORE $0.00 $11,628.00 $1,938.00 $0.00 $32,946.00 $127,908.00 1.60%

CITY OF MENIFEE $31,008.00 $52,326.00 $44,574.00 $153,102.00 $83,256.00 $1,326,216.32 16.63%

CITY OF MORENO VALLEY $1,115,024.94 $21,318.00 $38,394.54 $0.00 $33,159.00 $1,285,416.48 16.12%

CITY OF MURRIETA $19,074.00 $0.00 $31,008.00 $3,876.00 $0.00 $234,888.99 2.95%

CITY OF NORCO $0.00 $0.00 -$1,860.00 $1,385.37 $0.00 $1,463.37 0.02%

CITY OF PERRIS $15,504.00 $0.00 $5,814.00 $1,938.00 $1,938.00 $355,278.43 4.46%

CITY OF RIVERSIDE $0.00 $0.00 $15,504.00 $27,132.00 $91,086.00 $609,987.86 7.65%

CITY OF SAN JACINTO $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $716.00 $716.00 0.01%

CITY OF TEMECULA $0.00 $17,676.00 $25,432.00 $1,938.00 $60,078.00 $221,132.00 2.77%

CITY OF WILDOMAR $25,653.57 $0.00 $15,504.00 $0.00 $0.00 $61,023.18 0.77%

COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE $225,908.20 $331,943.62 $86,513.83 $142,212.40 $150,417.90 $3,157,154.11 39.60%

Totals $1,439,924.71 $446,519.62 $317,061.37 $335,184.77 $503,728.61 $7,972,535.98 100.00%

Western Riverside County MSHCP

Annual Report (January 1, 2010 through December 31, 2010) 5-5


6.0 Management Activities

6.0 MANAGEMENT ACTIVITIES

6.1 Management Goal

Section 5.2 of the MSHCP indicates that management’s goal is to “establish and maintain a selfsustaining

MSHCP Conservation Area that focuses on conserving habitats and species and is

consistent with the conservation objectives for the covered species.”

Management activities for the MSHCP will occur at two levels: habitat/landscaped-based, and

species-specific-based. The MSHCP Management Team will need to focus on the balance

between managing the overall landscape of the future 500,000 acre Reserve, along with making

sure that specific species requirements (see Table 5-2 of MSHCP) are also met on RCA owned

lands and to the extent possible on non RCA owned lands. The key to management of the

MSHCP Reserve will be to incorporate an Adaptive Management methodology so that

management of habitats and species can be flexible and adaptable. As the MSHCP Reserve

builds out, and as the Monitoring Program data gets compiled, MSHCP Reserve Managers will

be able to develop and incorporate the Adaptive Management Plan.

6.2 General Management Activities

Section 5.2.1 of the MSHCP stipulates that the Reserve Managers and Reserve Management

Oversight Committee (RMOC) identify the priorities for management activities to carry out the

species objectives and biological values. In 2009 the RMOC Steering Committee was formed to

focus and direct the functions of the RMOC. The RMOC Steering Committee consists of RCA,

USFWS, CDFG, State Parks, and County Parks. The RMOC Steering Committee will continue

to meet during 2011. The RMOC is planned to be reinitiated in 2011 and the 2011 Annual

Report will focus on the priorities set by the RMOC.

The RCA Reserve Manager, a contracted employee of Riverside County Parks and Open Space

District, established priorities in collaboration with RCA management staff. The following

outlines activities that MSHCP Reserve Management staff focused on in 2010 per Section 5.2.1

of the MSHCP:

• Controlled unauthorized public access through fencing, gates, signage, trash removal, etc.

• Performed initial baseline assessments of new acquired properties within the first 4 years

of conveyance to the MSHCP.

• Maintained upland habitats in conditions similar to or better than when it was acquired.

• Maintained wetland habitats in conditions similar to or better than when it was acquired.

Western Riverside County MSHCP

Annual Report (January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2010) 6-1


6.0 Management Activities

• Conserved raptor nests.

6.3 Reserve Management Units

The MSHCP contemplated five management units (See Figure 5-1 of MSHCP). After Plan

adoption, the Reserve Managers created a more detailed breakdown of the management units

depicted in the MSHCP. In order to manage the entire 500,000 acre Reserve in an effective and

efficient manner, it was necessary to break up the MSHCP’s five management units into more

manageable sizes. The current nine Reserve Management Units are shown below:

Figure 14

The RMOC Steering Committee produced the WRC MSHCP Management Guidance Document

to provide a foundation for conducting management activities in accordance with the MSHCP

and identify the process to convey management take to non Permittee land managers. The

Management Guidance Document serves as the blueprint for Reserve Management Plans. The

Reserve Management Plans provide geographical, soils, climate, vegetation community and

target species background information as well as general management options and reporting

requirements. The RMOC Steering Committee started preparation of the Menifee HMU

Western Riverside County MSHCP

Annual Report (January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2010) 6-2


6.0 Management Activities

Management Plan in 2010 with completion expected in 2011. Initial Reserve Management Plans

were prepared for the Cactus Valley, Gavilan Hills and Sage Management Units by the Reserve

Manager; however, those management plans will need to be revised based on the Management

Guidance Document and the format and content of the Menifee HMU Management Plan

subsequently developed.

The figure below shows the number of Reserve acres managed by the RCA in each Management

Unit. Total acres acquired in 2010 are shown in Section 2.0. As the reserve land in each

management unit is assembled, implementation of the management activities within the Plan

Area becomes more cohesive and easier to implement.

Figure 15

6.4 Reserve Management Staffing

In addition to RCA management staff, the RCA contracts with Riverside County Parks and Open

Space District (Park District) for reserve management. Park District reserve management in

Western Riverside County MSHCP

Annual Report (January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2010) 6-3


6.0 Management Activities

2010 had 7.75 full time equivalent (F.T.E.) personnel assigned to the RCA program. These

included a Natural Resources Manager (dividing assignments 75% to MSHCP and 25% to other

District duties [Vacant from March 2010 to December 2010]) who oversees all MSHCP

management services; one Natural Resources Specialist, who was available full time to perform

a variety of resource related tasks including the evaluation of newly acquired MSHCP lands; one

Park Ranger Supervisor, who oversees day-to-day field operations; two Park Ranger II, and three

Park Maintenance Workers (two of which were vacant in the month of December due to budget

constraints).

6.5 RCA Properties Managed by the Park District

Currently, the Reserve Management Team oversees approximately 500 individual parcels at 132

locations in the MSHCP reserve totaling approximately 25,000 acres. The properties added in

2010 are shown in Table 22. Acquisitions were moderate during this reporting period. It should

be noted that not all the MSHCP Reserve properties are directly managed by the Parks District.

The Park District only manages lands that the RCA holds in fee title or possesses a conservation

easement over. Other lands are generally managed by the owning entities. The RCA continues

to work with those entities to ensure reserve properties are managed in accordance with the

MSHCP.

Table 22 Summary of New Properties Managed by County Parks added to the

Reserve Inventory as of December, 2010

NEW RCA RESERVE PROPERTIES CLOSED IN 2010

CLOSED DATE PROPERTY NAME MAP/DETAIL NUMBER ACRES

3/26/2010 CALMAT CO 02-27 279.26

3/26/2010 ASHLEY, DENNIS & JOYCE 07-14 48.39

6/17/2010 ARCHER, TIMOTHY & MARLENE 08-23 21.19

6/28/2010 FRANCIS, NASSEF 05-15 49.62

8/25/2010 REDEN (PHASE 2) 04-65 40.93

9/30/2010 DELGADO (PHASE 2) 06-32 13.17

11/23/2010 CACHIA 05-16 18.8

11/29/2010 REYNOLDS (PHASE 3) 08-24 606.18

11/30/2010 CARLSBAD DEV 03-17 70.88

12/10/2010 LOWE TRUST 05-17 4.72

Western Riverside County MSHCP

Annual Report (January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2010) 6-4


6.0 Management Activities

12/10/2010 RIVERA/HIZON/FERIDO 04-66 158.82

CONSERVATION

EASEMENTS

6/24/2010 DICKINSON CE10-E01-RS2 20.86

7/6/2010 BUILDING MANAGEMENT SERVICES CE10-E02-RS2 46.68

9/3/2010 GLEN EDEN CE10-E03-RS7 51.88

ACRES ADDED 1431.38

*Acres added in 2010 do not include properties managed by Federal or State Agencies

6.6 2010 Management Activities

6.6.1 Property Assessments

Properties that meet MSHCP conservation needs continue to be acquired by the RCA, although

this has slowed some from the previous year. Following appraisals and negotiations, the RCA

requests a walk-over inspection of the site to ensure there are no significant issues that would

prevent the RCA from taking title. Such issues include significant trash dumps, hazmat or other

health and safety issues. The District also inspects the properties to ensure that the property

corners have been clearly staked and marked. If no issues are identified during the inspections,

the RCA is informed, and the acquisition can be completed, at which point the property is turned

over to the Reserve Management. Management staff assisted the RCA in inspections of all new

sites. Once the property is acquired by the RCA, then the Reserve Management staff prepares an

Initial Management Evaluation Report (IMER). During 2010, 9 IMERs were completed. The

IMERs are maintained by the RCA, and will be helpful over time in preparing adaptive

management plans.

Western Riverside County MSHCP

Annual Report (January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2010) 6-5


6.0 Management Activities

Figure 16

2010 Acquisition - Cachia Property.

6.6.2 Habitat Protection and Site Security

A clearly stated goal of management of the MSHCP is the protection of Reserve lands from

human activities that can degrade or destroy the habitat. Measures put in place to ensure the

protection of the species and limit habitat degradation include fencing, gates, fuels

reduction/weed abatement and increased Ranger patrol during sensitive periods of life history

cycle (e.g., during burrowing owl breeding season or spadefoot metamorphosis). During 2010,

the majority of MSHCP management efforts have been spent in these endeavors. As time goes

by, more of Management Staff time is expected to be spent on a more in depth adaptive and

biological management of the Reserve properties; but for the time being, most Management Staff

time is spent securing and protecting the properties from trespass.

The types of uses permitted on MSHCP properties continue to be addressed on a case-by-case

basis in discussions between the RCA and the Management staff. In general, pursuant to the

requirements of the MSHCP, passive public use is not excluded from the MSHCP Reserve

properties, but motorized access or motorized recreation is not permitted. Additionally, hunting,

shooting, archery (unless authorized), recreational paint ball, camping and fires are not

permitted.

Western Riverside County MSHCP

Annual Report (January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2010) 6-6


6.0 Management Activities

Figure 17 – CalMat OHV Use, Badlands HMU

Maintenance efforts continue to focus of the establishment and maintenance of access controls in

high trespass areas. Such areas include the Estelle Mountain/Gavilan Hills area, Badlands

properties, San Timoteo properties (e.g., Cuccia/Vogel, Pecuniary, Kramer, Mooring, Riverside

Clark, Oak Valley), and to a lesser degree, the areas around Wilson Valley and Silverado

properties. For the 2010 year, no third party vendors were used for the installation of fencing or

gates. All of the new fencing and gates were fabricated and installed by Reserve Management

staff. In total, Management staff fabricated and installed 6,339 linear feet of fencing at 13 sites,

10 gates at 9 sites, and constructed 3 barriers at 3 sites.

Most of the efforts in enforcement during 2010 were focused on the patrol for the interdiction of

OHV users and illegal hunting. Interdiction and cooperation from OHV users continues to be

difficult and highly problematic in terms of effectiveness. To this end, MSHCP crews have been

working with Park District Rangers (Open-Space Unit), the Riverside County Sheriff’s ROVE

patrols (when available), Riverside County Code Enforcement, as well as other law enforcement

agencies, including Department of Fish and Game Wardens and BLM Rangers, in an attempt to

coordinate activities and to assist and solicit assistance between these groups. Given the budget

shortages on all sides, interaction with the aforementioned agencies has been limited or has

Western Riverside County MSHCP

Annual Report (January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2010) 6-7


6.0 Management Activities

decreased in 2010. Opportunities to cooperate with other regional resource agencies will need to

be looked at in more detail and emphasis in 2011.

Illegal dumping continued to be a major concern for Management staff in 2010. Areas cleaned

up have often been dumped on again within a very short time, sometimes within 24 hours. With

the decrease in Code Enforcement personnel, Management has been forced to decrease its

reliance on inter-agency communication and cooperation with the department. A total of 8.33

tons of refuse was removed from RCA properties in 2010. Properties included Bolton, Oak

Valley (RCA Land), Riverside Clark, Geller, Reynolds, and Cordova to name a few.

Figure 18 - Trash pickup at the Oak Valley property with RLC

6.6.3 Management Coordination

In 2010 monthly Reserve Managers meetings, hosted by the RCA Biological Monitoring

Program, continued to provide a venue to discuss coordination between the various management

entities in the MSHCP Plan area. Since its inception, the meetings have grown to include

members from most local management agencies, including the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,

U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Bureau of Land Management, California Department of Fish and

Game, California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection, California Department of Parks

and Recreation, Riverside County Habitat Conservation Agency, El Sobrante Landfill HCP

manager and the Center for Natural Lands Management. Together, this group discusses a myriad

of management and monitoring issues and how to best solve them.

Western Riverside County MSHCP

Annual Report (January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2010) 6-8


6.0 Management Activities

The RCA also holds monthly meetings with the Management and Monitoring staff to discuss the

month’s activities, seek input on management issues, and generally coordinate field evaluations

and surveys with RCA acquisitions. Additionally, Management staff meets internally on a

weekly basis to discuss current projects and acquisitions and to coordinate its activities.

6.6.4 Habitat Enhancement

In 2010, Reserve Management began efforts to enhance disturbed habitat at various Reserve

properties.

Reynolds Tamarisk Removal

The Reynolds property, located within Proposed Core Area 1, north of the City of Lake Elsinore,

had 0.90 acres of the non-native invasive plant, Tamarisk (Tamarix ramosissima), removed by

MSHCP Reserve Management staff. The scope of the project was designed to improve riparian

habitat on RCA lands. In-kind support funding was provided under a cooperative agreement

with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Partners for Wildlife Program. Management efforts in

removing the tamarisk were bolstered by the use of a CAL FIRE Inmate Hand Crew (Norco

Camp). The tamarisk cuttings were moved to an on-site storage location until they can be

chipped and disposed of, and the remaining stumps were sprayed with an herbicide to inhibit the

re-growth of new tamarisk shoots. Replanting of the cleared tamarisk area with native plants,

black willow (Salix gooddingii) and mule fat (Baccharis salicifolia), will take place in the early

spring of 2011.

Figure 19 - Reynolds tamarisk removal before and after

Western Riverside County MSHCP

Annual Report (January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2010) 6-9


6.0 Management Activities

Burrowing Owl Artificial Burrows – El Sol

Artificial burrows installed at the RCA’s El Sol property in earlier reporting periods continued to

be successful in 2010. Fifteen (15) fledge BUOW and two (2) new adult BUOW were counted

and banded on the El Sol site in 2010. Reserve Management staff continued to maintain the

artificial burrows in 2010 conducting tri-annual burrow inspections documenting the condition of

the burrows for habitat-improvement needs and BUOW activity during site visits. Remote

cameras were also used to document BUOW use of specific artificial burrows and captured

frequent BUOW use and associated banding data. El Sol continues to be very active in terms of

BUOW activity and may require the implementation of more artificial burrows and/or

management efforts that will aid in improving the onsite ground squirrel population. Currently,

the RCA is reviewing the draft Program Wide Burrowing Owl Management Plan produced by

Bill Kronland (MSHCP Monitoring Crew) in collaboration with Jared Bond (Riverside County

Environmental Programs Dept.), Jeff Kidd and Dustin McLain, RCA Reserve Manager.

Figure 20 Burrowing Owl Remote Camera at El Sol Artificial Burrow #8

Western Riverside County MSHCP

Annual Report (January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2010) 6-10


6.0 Management Activities

Western Pond Turtle Telemetry Study

Figure 21 Western Pond Turtle with Transmitter

In 2010, the RCA Management staff started to track the “over-wintering” habitat of the western

pond turtles (WPT) at the Bolton property. 29 turtles, of varying age class and size were trapped

and documented in the month of May. Turtles of suitable size and weight were tagged with radio

telemetry transmitters donated by Dr. Jerry Smith at San Jose State University. In total, five (5)

males and one (1) female were tagged. The turtles were then tracked to better understand the

location of their over-wintering sites and how to better manage the property given the presence

of the Riverside Archery Club. The most crucial data to be acquired is the nesting site of the lone

female tagged in the telemetry effort. Nesting season data will be gathered in the spring of 2011.

Data collected will be added to general species information for future management activities and

will also be used to evaluate the effects of the archery club which operates under a license

agreement on the Bolton property.

Western Riverside County MSHCP

Annual Report (January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2010) 6-11


6.0 Management Activities

OTHER ACTIVITIES:

Goldspotted Oak Borer Beetle Traps – Figure 22:

In early 2009, RCA and reserve managers were

alerted to the Goldspotted Oak Borer (GSOB), a

beetle that has the potential to mortally damage

Oak trees in Southern California. This beetle was

found in San Diego County, near the Riverside

border, and has already caused mortality to

hundreds of native oak trees both on private lands

and in the Cleveland National Forest. Since

2009, RCA Management staff has placed these

traps in strategic locations on several reserve

areas to survey for its presence in Riverside

County. In 2010 trapping stations were installed

at four (4) RCA reserves in the Santa Ana

Mountains HMU. According to the USFS

Wildland Tree Resources at Risk Map 2010

(http://www.fs.fed.us/foresthealth/technology/inv

asives_agriluscoxalis_riskmaps.shtml), the RCA

reserve lands that are most at risk occur in the San

Timoteo HMU. As a precautionary measure 2

traps were placed out in the Calimesa area. One

trap was placed on the RCA owned Kramer property and one on private property with

permission from the owner. Trapping efforts in 2010 did not detect GSOB presence and it does

not appear to have crossed into Riverside County from San Diego. Efforts to monitor the

potential spread of infestation of GSOB will continue in 2011. Although GSOB were not

detected on any of the RCA reserve lands, a more collaborative and larger effort on lands

managed by The Nature Conservancy in the Santa Ana Mountains HMU is currently scheduled

to take place during the 2011 GSOB trapping season. Future trapping efforts should also include

RCA reserve lands that may lie in-between the current GSOB location and the San Timoteo

HMU.

Reynolds Structure Burn

On May 10, 2010, Reserve management staff worked in conjunction with CAL FIRE authorities

to demolish the structure on the Reynolds property. Given its failing condition and its

attractiveness to nuisance related problems (i.e., tagging, homeless, drug-use, etc.) Reserve

Management staff felt it would be best to remove the structure. To reduce associated labor costs,

Western Riverside County MSHCP

Annual Report (January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2010) 6-12


6.0 Management Activities

Reserve Management staff worked with CAL FIRE and the Ben Clark Training Center to utilize

fire practices to demolish the structure. In doing so, it also provided a training opportunity to

local fire departments and Riverside Community College Firefighter 1 Academy students.

Figure 23 – Structure burn at Reynolds property

6.7 Future Management Activities

Major goals and tasks for 2011 year include:

• Complete Menifee HMU Reserve Management Plan per RMOC Steering Committee

direction;

• Continue telemetry efforts on western pond turtle at Bolton and take part in a western

pond turtle relocation effort at Winchester 700 Murrieta;

• Continue grant funded Reynolds tamarisk removal and riparian restoration efforts

• Plan and implement Vegetation Control Measures, including the use of Rx burns.

• Continue to complete IMER evaluations for existing properties and newly acquired lands;

• Maintain patrol and maintenance efforts;

• Purchase and install fencing and other access controls, such as k-rails or boulder fences;

• Perform necessary infrastructure improvements on existing properties;

• Continue coordination with monitoring staff and non RCA Reserve Managers;

• Continue and increase cooperation and coordination with local law enforcement entities;

Western Riverside County MSHCP

Annual Report

(January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2010) 6-13


7.0 MONITORING ACTIVITIES

7.0 MONITORING ACTIVITIES

7.1 Goals and Objectives

The overall goal of the Biological Monitoring Program (Monitoring Program) is to collect

data on the 146 Covered Species and associated vegetation communities to assess the

MSHCP’s effectiveness at meeting conservation objectives and provide information to the

Adaptive Management Program. The MSHCP (Volume 2, Species Accounts) includes

species-specific objectives that are intended to provide for the long-term conservation of all

Covered Species. Species objectives influence the type and intensity of monitoring that is

conducted by the Monitoring Program. Management decisions or actions are triggered if

species objectives or MSHCP goals are not met.

7.2 Inventory Phase and Long Term Monitoring Phase

Because there is little existing data for the majority of Covered Species, the Monitoring

Program is being implemented in two phases: an inventory phase and a long-term monitoring

phase.

The purpose of the inventory phase is to determine where Covered Species occur within the

Conservation Area, to gather more information on their habitat preferences and life history

(e.g., seasonal activity, reproduction), and to develop efficient survey protocols for species

detection. The development of survey protocols is necessary to ensure that field methods are

uniformly implemented by Monitoring Program biologists. Whenever possible, existing

protocols are employed and modified as needed. However, minor modifications of existing

protocols (e.g., varying the duration of an avian point count or varying the number of revisits

conducted) are commonly needed to best meet the monitoring requirements given available

resources. Occasionally, major modifications or development of new monitoring study

designs are needed due to the lack of previously relevant work across a similar spatial scale

(e.g., Engelmann oak recruitment monitoring). Analyses are then done to test reliability of

survey methods, and to provide a confidence level that a species, if not detected, is actually

not present. The inventory phase was expected to include at least the first five years of data

collection after MSHCP permit issuance; however it has extended longer for some species or

groups of species. Information gathered and survey protocols developed during the inventory

phase will be used to develop the long-term monitoring strategy.

The transition from inventory phase to long-term monitoring phase will be gradual rather

than abrupt although 2011 will be the last full year of the inventory phase. In 2011 the BMP

will begin the transition to long term monitoring which will include habitat models and

Western Riverside County MSHCP

Annual Report (January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2010) 7-1


7.0 MONITORING ACTIVITIES

assistance with adaptive management. For species with short reporting requirements such as

Quino checkerspot butterfly (annual) or coastal California gnatcatcher (every three years)

long-term monitoring can be interpreted as already in place. For species with longer reporting

requirements such as Los Angeles pocket mouse (every eight years) and with species-specific

monitoring objectives requiring significant development and testing, the transition from

inventory phase to long-term monitoring phase is ongoing.

The strategy for long-term monitoring will include survey protocols that maximize efficiency

by collecting information on multiple species where possible. For example, bird species cooccurring

in similar habitat (e.g., willow riparian) during the breeding season can be detected

using the same protocol. Some Covered Species occur in isolated pockets within the

Conservation Area or are difficult to detect using standard survey protocols (e.g., Delhi

Sands flower-loving fly). Focused surveys will be required for these species.

7.3 Monitoring Program Operations

The Monitoring Program is implemented within the existing MSHCP Conservation Area on

lands that are owned and managed by the various MSHCP participants and other entities. As

of 2010, those lands total approximately 390,000 acres. The California Department of Fish

and Game (CDFG) is responsible for developing the long-term monitoring strategy and for

implementing the Monitoring Program for at least the first eight years of the Permit (MSHCP

Volume 1, Section 6). To ensure consistency in monitoring efforts throughout the

Conservation Area, the Monitoring Program is overseen and implemented by a Monitoring

Program Administrator (MPA). Since May of 2010 the MPA has been funded by the RCA

along with the majority of full time staff. Discussions between CDFG and RCA are

continuing with regard to CDFG’s long term contribution to the BMP for the staff and

equipment CDFG currently provides.

In the initial years of the Monitoring Program, extensive effort was devoted to setting up

operating procedures, determining budgets, establishing contracts, purchasing supplies and

equipment, hiring and training personnel, acquiring land access agreements, and coordinating

with Reserve Managers within the Plan Area. An integrated database to make information

collected by the Monitoring Program manageable and accessible is near completion, with

substantial progress occurring in 2009 and 2010. Monitoring Program datasets that have been

thoroughly proofed and certified complete by the Database Manager are submitted to

CDFG’s Biogeographic Information and Observation System every year, as well as to local

partnering agencies and entities. The structure needed to support a long-term Monitoring

Program is now in place.

Western Riverside County MSHCP

Annual Report (January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2010) 7-2


7.0 MONITORING ACTIVITIES

7.3.1 Monitoring Program Personnel

The MPA oversees staff provided by the RCA and CDFG. The MPA position was filled by a

CDFG employee, or was vacant, until May 2010 at which time an RCA-funded employee

took over the position. RCA-funded staff are provided through a contract with the Santa Ana

Watershed Association. Monitoring Program staff work together as a team to coordinate,

develop, and implement required monitoring activities for the MSHCP.

In 2010, up to 25 positions were filled in the Monitoring Program, including eight Program

Leads or office-based positions and 17 field biologists. Because some Monitoring Program

employees were hired during 2010 and some departed in 2010, not all 25 positions were

filled year-round.

Annual staffing levels, and therefore survey effort, reflect the budget available to the

Monitoring Program. Although the Monitoring Program continues to make progress toward

documenting the status of all 146 Covered Species, the availability of funds will ultimately

determine whether or not the species objectives can be evaluated within the time frame

designated by the MSHCP.

7.3.2 Training

All Monitoring Program field biologists are trained on local species identification, handling,

and data collection methodologies. Field staff also learn identification and survey techniques

for multiple taxa to provide scheduling flexibility and increase staff utility. Specific training

provided in any given year depends on the survey activities planned; however, safety training

(e.g., first aid, CPR) is provided to all staff annually. The Monitoring Program is required to

use training programs approved by the Wildlife Agencies to ensure consistent data collection,

uniform implementation of protocols, safe handling procedures, and appropriate experience

with Covered Species (MSHCP Volume 1, Section 7). Training is provided both by

experienced Monitoring Program biologists and by qualified outside entities (e.g., USGS,

USFWS). More information on species training received by Monitoring Program biologists is

included in the taxa-specific survey reports found in Appendix A – RCA MSHCP Technical

Reports – 2. Monitoring Program Survey Results.

7.3.3 Land Access Agreements and Coordination with Reserve Managers

The Monitoring Program only conducts surveys within the existing Conservation Area,

which is composed of public/quasi-public (PQP) lands and Additional Reserve Lands that are

owned and managed by various entities. Before surveys are conducted by the Monitoring

Western Riverside County MSHCP

Annual Report (January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2010) 7-3


7.0 MONITORING ACTIVITIES

Program, permission is obtained from the appropriate landowners or managing entities to

access the survey areas. Land access agreements obtained in 2010 for Monitoring Program

activities are listed in Table 23. Access Agreements Obtained for Surveys in 2010.

TABLE 23

Access Agreements Obtained for Surveys in 2010

Landowner

Bureau of Land Management

California Department of Fish and Game

California Department of Parks and Recreation

Caltrans

Center for Natural Lands Management

Eastern Municipal Water District

Metropolitan Water District

Regional Conservation Authority

Riverside County

Riverside County Habitat Conservation Agency

Riverside County Regional Parks & Open Space

District

San Diego State University, Field Stations Program

U.S. Forest Service

Property/Reserve Name

BLM land in MSHCP Plan Area

San Jacinto Wildlife Area, Estelle Mountain Ecological Reserve

Lake Perris State Recreation Area, San Timoteo State Park,

Chino Hills State Park

Badlands, San Gorgonio Wash, B Canyon

Johnson Ranch, Wilson Valley

San Jacinto River

Lake Mathews

RCA-owned lands

County-Owned Conservation Lands in MSHCP Plan Area

Estelle Mountain, Southwestern Riverside County Multi-Species

Reserve

County Parks & Open Space Land

Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve

San Bernardino National Forest, Cleveland National Forest

To facilitate land access and to better coordinate monitoring activities with management

activities, the Monitoring Program meets monthly with Reserve Managers of lands in

conservation but not owned by RCA (listed above in Table 23). At these meetings,

Monitoring Program staff provides a description of current activities, including protocols and

maps, and also present species occurrence data, monitoring results, and survey reports to the

Reserve Managers. Management/Monitoring coordination meetings also feature a short

presentation on a relevant topic. In addition to Monitoring Program Leads presenting recent

survey results and plans for future work, speakers have included professors from local

universities, local biologists conducting similar monitoring work, and regulatory officials.

The monthly meetings are also a forum for Reserve Managers to discuss overlapping

activities, mutually valuable land management lessons learned, and collaborative monitoring

and management actions.

Western Riverside County MSHCP

Annual Report (January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2010) 7-4


7.0 MONITORING ACTIVITIES

7.4 Summary of 2010 Monitoring Activities and Evaluation of

Progress toward Achieving Measurable Objectives

During the inventory phase, activities of the Monitoring Program are largely based on

requirements of the MSHCP species-specific monitoring objectives outlined in Section 5 of the

MSHCP. Species objectives specify time intervals for detecting and reporting on each of the

Covered Species in the Conservation Area. When species objectives do not specify a time

interval, the status of the Covered Species must be reported at least once every eight years

(MSHCP Volume 1, Section 5). In addition to species objectives, survey priorities are

influenced by the quantity and quality of information available for each species (e.g., little or

poor information means greater survey effort sooner), whether another agency is already

conducting surveys (i.e., less effort required by the Monitoring Program), relative ease of

gathering information (e.g., yellow warbler detections during least Bell’s vireo surveys), and

priority of the species to the RCA, Permittees, and Wildlife Agencies (e.g., burrowing owl).

The Monitoring Program only addresses species objectives that must be evaluated using

biological surveys. Those species objectives, along with the frequency of the reporting

requirement, survey type, and whether the species was detected in a given year, are provided in

Table 24. Details of Covered Species Monitoring. The majority (121 of 146) of the Covered

Species must be reported on at least once every eight years. The remaining 25 species have

reporting requirements that vary between one and five years. The Monitoring Program has

developed a timeline for the survey of Covered Species. The scheduling of surveys during

the inventory phase is approximate due to the prioritization process described above and

because survey protocols can take more than one year to develop. Modifications to the

timeline are expected to occur based on the results of each year’s monitoring efforts and

available budget.

The 2010 reporting period represents the 6 th full survey season for the Monitoring Program.

The following survey activities were carried out in 2010 by the Monitoring Program:

• Rare plant survey

• Engelmann oak recruitment study

• Vegetation community survey

• Quino checkerspot butterfly survey

• Delhi Sands flower-loving fly survey

• Arroyo toad survey

• San Diego banded gecko survey

• Artificial cover-based reptile survey

• Arroyo chub survey

• Vernal pool survey

• Carnivore survey

• Los Angeles pocket mouse survey

Western Riverside County MSHCP

Annual Report (January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2010) 7-5


7.0 MONITORING ACTIVITIES

• Aguanga kangaroo rat survey

• Tricolored blackbird survey

• Loggerhead shrike survey

Detailed survey reports for each project, including the rationale for survey protocols, a

description of methods, and survey results can be found in Appendix A – RCA MSHCP

Technical Reports – 2. Monitoring Program Survey Results.

Evaluation of MSHCP-listed monitoring objectives for Covered Species occurs annually. A

thorough summary of the status of all Covered Species monitoring objectives will be

completed after the inventory phase is complete in 2011. In 2010 Monitoring Program

biologists conducted focused surveys for 57 of 146 Covered Species in the Conservation

Area. Fifty Covered Species were detected during focused surveys and 50 more were

incidentally observed (Table 24. Details of Covered Species Monitoring). Two additional

Covered Species were detected by other entities and reported to the Monitoring Program in

2010: mountain yellow-legged frog by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and Santa Ana

sucker by Santa Ana Watershed Project Authority (SAWPA). Thus, 102 of 146 Covered

Species were detected within the Conservation Area in 2010.

Since June 2004, four additional Covered Species were detected by other agencies (mountain

plover by California Audubon, California bedstraw by the U.S. Forest Service, San Diego

ambrosia by Center for Natural Lands Management, and California spotted owl by USGS).

Since 2004, a total of 139 of 146 Covered Species have been detected in the Conservation

Area (119 as a result of focused Monitoring Program surveys, 15 incidentally observed by

Monitoring Program biologists, and five additional Covered Species reported by partnering

agencies).

When data collected by the Monitoring Program are determined to be sufficient to meet the

species-specific monitoring objectives described in the species accounts from Volume 2 of

the MSHCP a “YES” appears in the “Obj. Met” column of Table 24. Details of Covered

Species Monitoring. When data collected by the Monitoring Program indicate that the

expected conservation identified in the species accounts has not yet been achieved a “NO”

appears in the “Obj. Met” column. Finally, if the Monitoring Program has not yet evaluated

a particular species or does not have enough information to draw a conclusion about whether

or not the monitoring objective(s) for a given species has been met, a “TBD” (To Be

Determined) appears in the “Obj. Met column”. To date, the Monitoring Program has

collected sufficient data to confirm that species-specific monitoring objectives for 55

Covered Species are currently being met given existing information and conservation.

Western Riverside County MSHCP

Annual Report (January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2010) 7-6


7.0 MONITORING ACTIVITIES

TABLE 24

Details of Covered Species Monitoring

Common

Name Latin Name Species Objective Evaluated by the Monitoring Program* Freq.

2004-

2006** 2007 2008 2009 2010

Obj.

Met

Arroyo toad Bufo californicus

Maintain breeding populations at a minimum of 80% of the conserved

breeding locations as measured by the presence/absence of juvenile 5 F / D† F / N N / N N / N F / D NO

toads, tadpoles, or egg masses across any 5 consecutive years.

Determine if successful reproduction is occurring as measured by the

Reserve Management Oversight Committee.

California redlegged

frog draytonii

for the first 5 years after permit issuance and then as determined by the

Rana aurora presence/absence of tadpoles, egg masses, or juvenile frogs once a year

1 F / N F / N F / N F / N N / N NO

Coast range

newt

Mountain

yellow-legged

frog

Western

spadefoot

American

bittern

Bald eagle

Taricha tarosa

tarosa

Rana muscosa

Scaphiopus

hammondii

Botaurus

lentiginosus

Haliaeetus

leucocephalus

Maintain occupancy of at least 75% of the occupied habitat and determine

if successful reproduction is occurring within the MSHCP Conservation

Area as measured by the presence/absence of larvae or egg masses

once a year for the first 5 years after permit issuance and then as

determined by the Reserve Management Oversight Committee.

Maintain successful reproduction as measured by the presence/absence

of tadpoles, egg masses, or juvenile frogs once a year for the first 5 years

after permit issuance and then as determined by the Reserve

Management Oversight Committee.

Maintain successful reproduction at a minimum of 75% of the conserved

breeding locations as measured by the presence/absence of tadpoles,

egg masses, or juvenile toads once every 8 years.

1 F / D F / D F / D F / D N / I YES

1

F / D

(by USGS)

F / D

F / D

(by

USGS)

N / D

(by

USGS)

N / D

(by USGS)

YES

8 N / N N / N F / D N / I F / D TBD

Maintain the continued use of 50% of the Core Areas. 8 N / N N / N N / I N / I N / I TBD

Monitor the distribution of this species at least once every 8 years.

Maintain species presence and continued use at 75% of identified

locations.

8 N / I N / I N / I F / D N / I YES

* Only objectives evaluated by the Biological Monitoring Program are included. Objectives have been shortened to fit in the table; for full text, see the Species Accounts in Volume 2 of the MSHCP.

** Includes data collected by the Center for Conservation Biology under contract to the California Department of Fish and Game.

† Survey Type/Detection Type: F / D = focused survey, species detected; F / N = focused survey, species not detected; F / I = focused survey, species not detected during survey but detected incidentally; N / I = no focused survey but

detected incidentally; N / N = no focused survey and not detected; N / D = no focused survey by the Monitoring Program but species detected during focused survey by agency reported in parentheses.

Western Riverside County MSHCP

Annual Report (January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2010) 7-7


7.0 MONITORING ACTIVITIES

TABLE 24

Details of Covered Species Monitoring

Common

Name Latin Name Species Objective Evaluated by the Monitoring Program* Freq.

Monitor the distribution of this species at least once every 8 years.

Bells' sage Amphispiza belli

Maintain species presence and continued use at 75% of identified

sparrow belli

locations.

Monitor the distribution of this species at least once every 8 years.

Black swift Cypseloides niger Maintain species presence and continued use at 75% of identified

Blackcrowned

night-heron

Burrowing owl

Cactus wren

California

horned lark

Nycticorax

nycticorax

Athene

cunicularia

hypugaea

Campylorhynchus

brunneicapillus

Eremophila

alpestris actia

locations.

Monitor the distribution of this species at least once every 8 years.

Maintain species presence and continued use at 75% of identified

locations.

Include within the MSHCP Conservation Area at least 5 Core Areas and

interconnecting linkages. Core Areas may include the following: (1) Lake

Skinner/Diamond Valley Lake area; (2) playa west of Hemet; (3) San

Jacinto Wildlife Area/Mystic Lake area including Lake Perris area; (4)

Lake Mathews and (5) along the Santa Ana River; The Core Areas should

support a combined total breeding population of approximately 120

burrowing owls with no fewer than 5 pairs in any 1 Core Area.

Monitor the distribution of this species at least once every 8 years.

Maintain species presence and continued use at 75% of identified Core

Areas.

Monitor the distribution of this species at least once every 8 years.

Maintain species presence and continued use at 75% of identified

locations.

2004-

2006** 2007 2008 2009

2010

Obj.

Met

8 F / D F / D N / I N / N N / I YES

8 N / I N / I N / N N / N N / N TBD

8 N / I N / I N / I N / I N / I TBD

8 F / D F / D N / I N / I N / I NO

8 F / D F / I N / I N / N N / I NO

8 N / I F / D N / I N / I N / I YES

* Only objectives evaluated by the Biological Monitoring Program are included. Objectives have been shortened to fit in the table; for full text, see the Species Accounts in Volume 2 of the MSHCP.

** Includes data collected by the Center for Conservation Biology under contract to the California Department of Fish and Game.

† Survey Type/Detection Type: F / D = focused survey, species detected; F / N = focused survey, species not detected; F / I = focused survey, species not detected during survey but detected incidentally; N / I = no focused survey but

detected incidentally; N / N = no focused survey and not detected; N / D = no focused survey by the Monitoring Program but species detected during focused survey by agency reported in parentheses.

Western Riverside County MSHCP

Annual Report (January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2010) 7-8


7.0 MONITORING ACTIVITIES

TABLE 24

Details of Covered Species Monitoring

Common

Name Latin Name Species Objective Evaluated by the Monitoring Program* Freq.

Monitor the distribution of this species at least once every 8 years.

California Strix occidentalis

Maintain species presence and continued use at 75% of identified

spotted owl occidentalis

locations.

Coastal

California

gnatcatcher

Cooper's

hawk

Doublecrested

cormorant

Downy

woodpecker

Polioptila

californica

californica

Accipiter cooperii

Phalacrocorax

auritus

Picoides

pubescens

Maintain continued use of and successful reproduction at 75% of the Core

Areas.

Monitor the distribution of this species at least once every 8 years.

Maintain species presence and continued use at 75% of identified Core

Areas.

Monitor the distribution of this species at least once every 8 years.

Maintain species presence and continued use at 75% of identified

locations.

Monitor the distribution of this species at least once every 8 years.

Maintain species presence and continued use at 75% of identified

locations.

8 N / N

2004-

2006** 2007 2008 2009

F / D

(by USFS)

2010

Obj.

Met

N / N N / N N / N TBD

3 F / D F / D F / D N / I N / I YES

8 F / D F / D N / I N / I N / I YES

8 N / I N / I N / I F / D N / I YES

8 F / D F / D N / I N / I N / I YES

* Only objectives evaluated by the Biological Monitoring Program are included. Objectives have been shortened to fit in the table; for full text, see the Species Accounts in Volume 2 of the MSHCP.

** Includes data collected by the Center for Conservation Biology under contract to the California Department of Fish and Game.

† Survey Type/Detection Type: F / D = focused survey, species detected; F / N = focused survey, species not detected; F / I = focused survey, species not detected during survey but detected incidentally; N / I = no focused survey but

detected incidentally; N / N = no focused survey and not detected; N / D = no focused survey by the Monitoring Program but species detected during focused survey by agency reported in parentheses.

Western Riverside County MSHCP

Annual Report (January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2010) 7-9


7.0 MONITORING ACTIVITIES

TABLE 24

Details of Covered Species Monitoring

Common

Name Latin Name Species Objective Evaluated by the Monitoring Program* Freq.

Maintain occupation within 3 large Core Areas (100%) and at least 3 of

the 4 smaller Core Areas (75%) in at least 1 year out of any 5-

consecutive-year period In order for this species to become a covered

species adequately conserved, the following conservation must be

demonstrated: Include within the Conservation Area at least 8,000 acres

in 7 Core Areas. Core Areas may include the following: (1) Prado Basin,

(2) Lake Skinner/Diamond Valley Lake/Johnson Ranch area, (3) Lake

Mathews-Estelle Mountain, (4) Badlands, (5) Box Springs, (6) Santa Rosa

Grasshopper Ammodramus Plateau/Tenaja, (7) Kabian Park, (8) Steele Peak, (9) Sycamore Canyon,

sparrow savannarum (10) Potrero, and (11) Mystic Lake/San Jacinto Wildlife Area. Three of the

7 Core Areas will be large, consisting of a minimum of 2,000 acres of

grassland habitat or grassland-dominated habitat. The other 4 Core Areas

may be smaller but will consist of at least 500 acres of contiguous

grassland habitat or grassland-dominated habitat. Five of the 7 Core

Areas will be demonstrated to support at least 20 grasshopper sparrow

pairs with evidence of successful reproduction within the first 5 years after

permit. Covered Species not adequately conserved until the above

objective is met.

Ferruginous

hawk

Golden eagle

Buteo regalis

Aquila chrysaetos

Monitor the distribution of this species at least once every 8 years.

Maintain species presence and continued use at 75% of identified

locations.

Maintain the continued use of and successful reproduction at 75% of the

known nesting localities

2004-

2006** 2007 2008 2009

2010

Obj.

Met

1 to 5 F / D F / D N / I N / I N / I NO

8 F / D N / I F / D F / D N / I YES

8 N / I N / I N / I N / I N / I TBD

* Only objectives evaluated by the Biological Monitoring Program are included. Objectives have been shortened to fit in the table; for full text, see the Species Accounts in Volume 2 of the MSHCP.

** Includes data collected by the Center for Conservation Biology under contract to the California Department of Fish and Game.

† Survey Type/Detection Type: F / D = focused survey, species detected; F / N = focused survey, species not detected; F / I = focused survey, species not detected during survey but detected incidentally; N / I = no focused survey but

detected incidentally; N / N = no focused survey and not detected; N / D = no focused survey by the Monitoring Program but species detected during focused survey by agency reported in parentheses.

Western Riverside County MSHCP

Annual Report (January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2010) 7-10


7.0 MONITORING ACTIVITIES

TABLE 24

Details of Covered Species Monitoring

Common

Name Latin Name Species Objective Evaluated by the Monitoring Program* Freq.

Monitor the distribution of this species at least once every 8 years.

Great blue

Ardea herodias Maintain species presence and continued use at 75% of identified

heron

locations.

Least Bell's Vireo bellii

Maintain the continued use of and successful reproduction at 75% of the

vireo

Loggerhead

shrike

Lincoln’s

sparrow

MacGillivray’s

warbler

Merlin

pusillus

Lanius

ludovicianus

Melospiza

lincolnii

known vireo-occupied habitat

Maintain the continued use of and successful reproduction within 75% of

the Core Areas.

Maintain occupancy within 3 large Core Areas (100%) in at least 1 year

out of any 5-consecutive-year period. In order for this species to become

a covered species adequately conserved, the following conservation must

be demonstrated: Include within the MSHCP Conservation Area at least

100 acres in 3 Core Areas. Core Areas may include the following: (1)

Tahquitz Valley; (2) Round Valley; (3) Garner Valley. The 3 Core Areas

will be large, consisting of a minimum of 50 acres of montane meadow,

wet montane meadow, and edges of montane riparian or riparian scrub.

The Core Areas will be demonstrated to support at least 20 Lincoln

sparrow pairs with evidence of successful reproduction within the first 5

years after permit issuance. Covered Species not adequately conserved

until the above objective is met.

2004-

2006** 2007 2008 2009

2010

Obj.

Met

8 N / I N / I N / I N / I N / I TBD

3 F / D F / D F / D N / I N / I YES

8 N / I F / D N / I N / I F / D NO

1 to 5 N / N N / N F / N N / I N / I TBD

Oporornis tolmiei Monitor the distribution of this species at least once every 8 years. 8 F / D F / D N / I N / I N / N YES

Falco

columbarius

Monitor the distribution of this species at least once every 8 years. 8 N / I N / I F / D F / D N / I YES

* Only objectives evaluated by the Biological Monitoring Program are included. Objectives have been shortened to fit in the table; for full text, see the Species Accounts in Volume 2 of the MSHCP.

** Includes data collected by the Center for Conservation Biology under contract to the California Department of Fish and Game.

† Survey Type/Detection Type: F / D = focused survey, species detected; F / N = focused survey, species not detected; F / I = focused survey, species not detected during survey but detected incidentally; N / I = no focused survey but

detected incidentally; N / N = no focused survey and not detected; N / D = no focused survey by the Monitoring Program but species detected during focused survey by agency reported in parentheses.

Western Riverside County MSHCP

Annual Report (January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2010) 7-11


7.0 MONITORING ACTIVITIES

Mountain

plover

TABLE 24

Details of Covered Species Monitoring

Common

Name Latin Name Species Objective Evaluated by the Monitoring Program* Freq.

Charadrius

montanus

Mountain

quail

Nashville

warbler

Northern

goshawk

Northern

harrier

Osprey

Peregrine

falcon

Prairie falcon

Oreortyx pictus

Vermivora

ruficapilla

Accipiter gentilis

Circus cyaneus

Pandion haliaetus

Falco peregrinus

Falco mexicanus

2004-

2006** 2007 2008 2009

Monitor the distribution of this species at least once every 8 years. 8 N / N N / N N / I N / N N / N TBD

Monitor the distribution of this species at least once every 8 years.

Maintain species presence and continued use at 75% of identified

locations.

Monitor the distribution of this species at least once every 8 years.

Maintain species presence and continued use at 75% of identified Core

Areas.

Maintain the continued use of and successful reproduction at a minimum

of 75% of the known nesting localities.

Maintain the continued use of and successful reproduction at 75% of the

known nesting.

Monitor the distribution of this species at least once every 8 years.

Maintain species presence and continued use at 75% of identified

locations.

Monitor the distribution of this species at least once every 8 years.

Maintain species presence and continued use at 75% of identified

locations.

Monitor the distribution of this species at least once every 8 years.

Maintain species presence and continued use at 75% of identified

locations.

2010

Obj.

Met

8 N / I N / I N / I N / N N / I YES

8 F / D F / D F / I N / I N / N NO

3 N / N N / N F / N N / N N / I TBD

5 F / D F / D N / I F / D N / I TBD

8 N / I N / I N / I F / D N / I TBD

8 N / I N / I N / I F / D N / I TBD

8 N / I N / I F / D F / D N / I TBD

* Only objectives evaluated by the Biological Monitoring Program are included. Objectives have been shortened to fit in the table; for full text, see the Species Accounts in Volume 2 of the MSHCP.

** Includes data collected by the Center for Conservation Biology under contract to the California Department of Fish and Game.

† Survey Type/Detection Type: F / D = focused survey, species detected; F / N = focused survey, species not detected; F / I = focused survey, species not detected during survey but detected incidentally; N / I = no focused survey but

detected incidentally; N / N = no focused survey and not detected; N / D = no focused survey by the Monitoring Program but species detected during focused survey by agency reported in parentheses.

Western Riverside County MSHCP

Annual Report (January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2010) 7-12


7.0 MONITORING ACTIVITIES

TABLE 24

Details of Covered Species Monitoring

Common

Name Latin Name Species Objective Evaluated by the Monitoring Program* Freq.

2004-

2006** 2007 2008 2009 2010

Obj.

Met

Purple martin Progne subis

Monitor the distribution of this species at least once every 8 years.

Maintain species presence and continued use at 75% of identified Core 8 N / I N / N N / N N / N N / N TBD

Areas.

Sharpshinned

hawk

Accipiter striatus Monitor the distribution of this species at least once every 8 years. 8 F / D F / D F / D N / I N / I YES

Southern

California

rufouscrowned

sparrow

Aimophila

ruficeps

canescens

Monitor the distribution of this species at least once every 8 years.

Maintain species presence and continued use at 75% of identified Core

Areas.

8 F / D F / D N / I N / I N / I YES

Southwestern

willow

flycatcher

Swainson’s

hawk

Tree swallow

Tricolored

blackbird

Turkey

vulture

Empidonax traillii

extimus

Maintain the continued use of and successful reproduction at 75% of the

known southwestern willow flycatcher occupied Core Areas.

3 F / D F / N F / D N / N N / N NO

Buteo swainsoni Monitor the distribution of this species at least once every 8 years. 8 N / I N / I F / D N / N N / I YES

Tachycineta

bicolor

Agelaius tricolor

Cathartes aura

Monitor the distribution of this species at least once every 8 years.

Maintain species presence and continued use at 75% of identified

locations.

Maintain the continued use of and successful reproduction within at least

1 of the identified Core Areas. Successful reproduction is defined as a

nest which fledged at least 1 known young.

Maintain the continued use of and successful reproduction at the 2 known

nesting locations and at nesting locations identified in the MSHCP

Conservation Area in the future.

8 F / D F / D N / I N / I N / N NO

5 F / D N / I N / I N / I N / I NO

3 F / D N / I F / D N / I N / I TBD

* Only objectives evaluated by the Biological Monitoring Program are included. Objectives have been shortened to fit in the table; for full text, see the Species Accounts in Volume 2 of the MSHCP.

** Includes data collected by the Center for Conservation Biology under contract to the California Department of Fish and Game.

† Survey Type/Detection Type: F / D = focused survey, species detected; F / N = focused survey, species not detected; F / I = focused survey, species not detected during survey but detected incidentally; N / I = no focused survey but

detected incidentally; N / N = no focused survey and not detected; N / D = no focused survey by the Monitoring Program but species detected during focused survey by agency reported in parentheses.

Western Riverside County MSHCP

Annual Report (January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2010) 7-13


7.0 MONITORING ACTIVITIES

TABLE 24

Details of Covered Species Monitoring

Common

Name Latin Name Species Objective Evaluated by the Monitoring Program* Freq.

Western Coccyzus

Maintain the continued use of and successful reproduction at 75% of the

yellow-billed americanus

known western yellow-billed cuckoo occupied Core Areas

cuckoo occidentalis

White-faced

ibis

White-tailed

kite

Williamson's

sapsucker

Wilson's

warbler

Yellow

warbler

Yellowbreasted

chat

Riverside

fairy shrimp

Plegadis chihi

Elanus leucurus

Sphyrapicus

thyroideus

Wilsonia pusilla

Dendroica

petechia

brewsteri

Icteria virens

Streptocephalus

woottoni

Monitor the distribution of this species at least once every 8 years.

Maintain species presence and continued use at 75% of identified

locations.

Maintain the continued use of and successful reproduction at 75% of the

core breeding areas.

Monitor the distribution of this species at least once every 8 years.

Maintain species presence and continued use at 75% of identified

locations.

Monitor the distribution of this species at least once every 8 years.

Maintain species presence and continued use at 75% of identified

locations.

Maintain the continued use of and successful reproduction at 75% of the

Core Areas.

Maintain the continued use of and successful reproduction at 75% of the

Core Areas.

Monitor the distribution of this species at least once every 8 years.

Maintain species presence and continued use at 75% of identified Core

Areas.

2004-

2006** 2007 2008 2009

2010

Obj.

Met

3 F / I F / N N / N N / N N / N NO

8 N / I N / I N / I N / I N / I TBD

3 F / D F / D N / I N / I N / I NO

8 N / N N / I F / N N / I N / N NO

8 F / D F / D N / I N / I N / I YES

5 F / D F / D F / D N / I N / I YES

5 F / D F / D F / D N / I N / I YES

8 N / N N / N F / D

* Only objectives evaluated by the Biological Monitoring Program are included. Objectives have been shortened to fit in the table; for full text, see the Species Accounts in Volume 2 of the MSHCP.

** Includes data collected by the Center for Conservation Biology under contract to the California Department of Fish and Game.

† Survey Type/Detection Type: F / D = focused survey, species detected; F / N = focused survey, species not detected; F / I = focused survey, species not detected during survey but detected incidentally; N / I = no focused survey but

detected incidentally; N / N = no focused survey and not detected; N / D = no focused survey by the Monitoring Program but species detected during focused survey by agency reported in parentheses.

N / D (by

CNLM)

F / D

NO

Western Riverside County MSHCP

Annual Report (January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2010) 7-14


7.0 MONITORING ACTIVITIES

TABLE 24

Details of Covered Species Monitoring

Common

Name Latin Name Species Objective Evaluated by the Monitoring Program* Freq.

Santa Rosa

Monitor the distribution of this species at least once every 8 years.

Linderiella

Plateau fairy

Maintain species presence and continued use at 75% of identified

santarosae

shrimp

locations.

Vernal pool

fairy shrimp

Arroyo chub

Santa Ana

sucker

Delhi Sands

flower-loving

fly

Quino

checkerspot

Branchinecta

lynchi

Gila orcutti

Catastomus

santaanae

Rhaphiomidas

terminatus

abdominalis

Euphydryas

editha quino

Monitor the distribution of this species at least once every 8 years.

Maintain species presence and continued use at 75% of identified

locations.

Monitor the distribution of this species at least once every 8 years.

Maintain species presence and continued use at 75% of identified Core

Areas.

Monitor the distribution of this species at least once every 8 years.

Maintain species presence and continued use at 75% of identified Core

Areas.

Reserve Managers shall document successful reproduction at all 3 Core

Areas or other areas to be conserved in accordance with Objective 1, as

measured by the presence/absence of pupae cases or newly emerged

(teneral) individuals once a year for the first 5 years after permit issuance

and then as determined to be appropriate.

Reserve Managers will document the distribution of Quino checkerspot on

an annual basis.

2004-

2006** 2007 2008 2009

2010

Obj.

Met

8 N / N N / N F / D N / N N / I YES

8 N / N N / N F / D

8 N / N N / N

8 N / N N / N

N / D (by

SAWPA)

N / D (by

SAWPA)

N / D (by

CNLM)

N / D (by

SAWPA)

N / D (by

SAWPA)

F / D

F / D

N / D (by

SAWPA)

NO

NO

YES

1 F / D F / D F / D F / D F / D NO

1 F / D F / N F / D F / D F / D YES

* Only objectives evaluated by the Biological Monitoring Program are included. Objectives have been shortened to fit in the table; for full text, see the Species Accounts in Volume 2 of the MSHCP.

** Includes data collected by the Center for Conservation Biology under contract to the California Department of Fish and Game.

† Survey Type/Detection Type: F / D = focused survey, species detected; F / N = focused survey, species not detected; F / I = focused survey, species not detected during survey but detected incidentally; N / I = no focused survey but

detected incidentally; N / N = no focused survey and not detected; N / D = no focused survey by the Monitoring Program but species detected during focused survey by agency reported in parentheses.

Western Riverside County MSHCP

Annual Report (January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2010) 7-15


7.0 MONITORING ACTIVITIES

TABLE 24

Details of Covered Species Monitoring

Common

Name Latin Name Species Objective Evaluated by the Monitoring Program* Freq.

Within the 5,484 acres of occupied and suitable habitat in the MSHCP

Conservation Area, ensure that at least 75% (4,113 acres) of the total is

Aguanga Dipodomys occupied and that at least 20% of the occupied habitat (approximately 823

kangaroo rat merriami collinus acres) supports a medium or higher population density (≥ 5 to 15

individuals per hectare) of the species as measured across any 8-year

period .

Maintain or improve functionality of dispersal routes. Existing

Bobcat Lynx rufus

undercrossings in key areas will be evaluated for their adequacy and

improved as necessary to convey bobcats. Maintain species presence

Brush rabbit

Coyote

Dulzura

kangaroo rat

Long-tailed

weasel

Sylvilagus

bachmani

Canis latrans

Dipodomys

simulans

Mustela frenata

and continued use at 75% of identified locations.

Monitor the distribution of this species at least once every 8 years.

Maintain species presence and continued use at 75% of identified Core

Areas.

Monitor the distribution of this species at least once every 8 years.

Maintain species presence and continued use at 75% of identified

locations.

Monitor the distribution of this species at least once every 8 years.

Maintain species presence and continued use at 75% of identified

locations.

Maintain the continued use of long-tailed weasel at a minimum of 75% of

the localities where the species has been known to occur.

2004-

2006** 2007 2008 2009

2010

Obj.

Met

1 to 8 N / N N / N N / N N / N F / D TBD

8 N / I N / I F / D F / D F / D TBD

8 N / I N / I N / N N / N N / N TBD

8 N / I N / I F / D F / D F / D YES

8 F / D N / I N / I N / N N / I TBD

8 N / I N / I F / D F / D F / D YES

* Only objectives evaluated by the Biological Monitoring Program are included. Objectives have been shortened to fit in the table; for full text, see the Species Accounts in Volume 2 of the MSHCP.

** Includes data collected by the Center for Conservation Biology under contract to the California Department of Fish and Game.

† Survey Type/Detection Type: F / D = focused survey, species detected; F / N = focused survey, species not detected; F / I = focused survey, species not detected during survey but detected incidentally; N / I = no focused survey but

detected incidentally; N / N = no focused survey and not detected; N / D = no focused survey by the Monitoring Program but species detected during focused survey by agency reported in parentheses.

Western Riverside County MSHCP

Annual Report (January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2010) 7-16


7.0 MONITORING ACTIVITIES

TABLE 24

Details of Covered Species Monitoring

Common

Name Latin Name Species Objective Evaluated by the Monitoring Program* Freq.

Reserve Managers shall demonstrate that each of the 7 Core Areas

Perognathus

Los Angeles

supports a stable or increasing population that occupies at least 30% of

longimembris

pocket mouse

the suitable habitat (at least 4,200 acres) as measured over any 8-

brevinasus

consecutive-year period.

Maintain or improve functionality of dispersal routes. Existing

Mountain lion Puma concolor

undercrossings in key areas will be evaluated for their adequacy to

convey mountain lions. Maintain species presence and continued use at

Northwestern

San Diego

pocket mouse

San

Bernardino

flying squirrel

San

Bernardino

kangaroo rat

San Diego

black-tailed

jackrabbit

Chaetodipus

fallax fallax

Glaucomys

sabrinus

californicus

Dipodomys

merriami parvus

Lepus californicus

bennettii

75% of identified locations.

Monitor the distribution of this species at least once every 8 years.

Maintain species presence and continued use at 75% of identified

locations.

Confirm occupation of 1,000 ha (2,470 acres) with a mean density of at

least 2 individuals per hectare (2 individuals per 2.47 acres) in the San

Jacinto Mountains; in the San Bernardino Mountains, confirm occupation

of 100 ha. Covered Species not adequately conserved until the above

objective is met.

Within the 4,440 acres of suitable habitat in the MSHCP Conservation

Area, ensure that at least 75% of the total (3,330 acres) is occupied and

that at least 20% of the occupied habitat (approximately 666 acres)

supports a medium or higher population density (≥ 5 to 15 individuals per

hectare) of the species as measured across any 8-year period.

Monitor the distribution of this species at least once every 8 years.

Maintain species presence and continued use at 75% of identified

locations.

2004-

2006** 2007 2008 2009

2010

Obj.

Met

8 F / D F / D N / I N / N F / D TBD

8 N / I N / N F / D F / D F / D TBD

8 F / D N / D N / D N / N N / I TBD

8 N / N N / N N / N N / N N / N TBD

1 to 8 N / N N / N N / N N / N N / I TBD

8 N / I N / I N / I N / N F / D TBD

* Only objectives evaluated by the Biological Monitoring Program are included. Objectives have been shortened to fit in the table; for full text, see the Species Accounts in Volume 2 of the MSHCP.

** Includes data collected by the Center for Conservation Biology under contract to the California Department of Fish and Game.

† Survey Type/Detection Type: F / D = focused survey, species detected; F / N = focused survey, species not detected; F / I = focused survey, species not detected during survey but detected incidentally; N / I = no focused survey but

detected incidentally; N / N = no focused survey and not detected; N / D = no focused survey by the Monitoring Program but species detected during focused survey by agency reported in parentheses.

Western Riverside County MSHCP

Annual Report (January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2010) 7-17


7.0 MONITORING ACTIVITIES

TABLE 24

Details of Covered Species Monitoring

Common

Name Latin Name Species Objective Evaluated by the Monitoring Program* Freq.

San Diego

Monitor the distribution of this species at least once every 8 years.

Neotoma lepida

desert

Maintain species presence and continued use at 75% of identified

intermedia

woodrat

locations.

Stephens'

kangaroo rat

Beautiful

hulsea

Brand’s

phacelia

California

beardtongue

California

bedstraw

Dipodomys

stephensi

Hulsea vestita

ssp. callicarpha

Phacelia stellaris

Penstemon

californicus

Galium

californicum ssp.

primum

Within the minimum 15,000 acres of occupied habitat in the MSHCP

Conservation Area, maintain at least 30% of the occupied habitat

(approximately 4,500 acres) at a population density of medium or higher

(i.e., at least 5-10 individuals per hectare) across all Core Areas. No

single Core Area will account for more than 30% of the total medium (or

higher) population density area.

Confirm 16 localities (locality in this sense is not smaller than 1 quarter

section) with no fewer than 50 individuals each (unless a smaller

population has been demonstrated to be self-sustaining). Covered

Species not adequately conserved until the above objective is met.

Monitor the distribution of this species at least once every 8 years.

Maintain species presence and continued use at 75% of identified

locations.

Monitor the distribution of this species at least once every 8 years.

Maintain species presence and continued use at 75% of identified

locations.

Monitor the distribution of this species at least once every 8 years.

Maintain species presence and continued use at 75% of identified

locations.

2004-

2006** 2007 2008 2009

2010

Obj.

Met

8 N / I N / I N / N N / N N / I TBD

8 F / D F / D F / D N / N N / I TBD

8 F / D F / D F / N N / N N / N YES

8 N / N N / N F / D N / N N / N TBD

8 N / I F / D F / D F / D F / D TBD

8 F / N N / N N / N N / N N / N YES

* Only objectives evaluated by the Biological Monitoring Program are included. Objectives have been shortened to fit in the table; for full text, see the Species Accounts in Volume 2 of the MSHCP.

** Includes data collected by the Center for Conservation Biology under contract to the California Department of Fish and Game.

† Survey Type/Detection Type: F / D = focused survey, species detected; F / N = focused survey, species not detected; F / I = focused survey, species not detected during survey but detected incidentally; N / I = no focused survey but

detected incidentally; N / N = no focused survey and not detected; N / D = no focused survey by the Monitoring Program but species detected during focused survey by agency reported in parentheses.

Western Riverside County MSHCP

Annual Report (January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2010) 7-18


7.0 MONITORING ACTIVITIES

TABLE 24

Details of Covered Species Monitoring

Common

Name Latin Name Species Objective Evaluated by the Monitoring Program* Freq.

Juglans

Monitor the distribution of this species at least once every 8 years.

California

californica var. Maintain species presence and continued use at 75% of identified

black walnut

californica

locations.

California

muhly

California

Orcutt grass

Chickweed

oxytheca

Cleveland's

bush

monkeyflower

Cliff cinquefoil

Coulter's

goldfields

Muhlenbergia

californica

Orcuttia

californica

Oxytheca

caryophylloides

Mimulus

clevelandii

Potentilla rimicola

Lasthenia

glabrata ssp.

coulteri

Confirm 10 localities (locality in this sense is not smaller than 1 quarter

section) containing at least 50 clumps (unless a smaller population has

been demonstrated to be self-sustaining). Covered Species not

adequately conserved until the above objective is met.

Monitor the distribution of this species at least once every 8 years.

Maintain species presence and continued use at 75% of identified

locations.

Confirm 10 localities (locality in this sense is not smaller than 1 quarter

section) managed with 1,000 individuals each (unless a smaller

population has been demonstrated to be self-sustaining). Covered

Species not adequately conserved until the above objective is met.

Monitor the distribution of this species at least once every 8 years.

Maintain species presence and continued use at 75% of identified

locations.

Confirm 5 localities (locality in this sense is not smaller than 1 quarter

section). Covered Species not adequately conserved until the above

objective is met.

Monitor the distribution of this species at least once every 8 years.

Maintain species presence and continued use at 75% of identified

locations.

2004-

2006** 2007 2008 2009

2010

Obj.

Met

8 F / D F / D F / D N / I N / N TBD

8 N / N N / N F / N N / N N / N TBD

8 F / D N / N N / I F / D F / N TBD

8 F / D F / D F / D F / N F / D YES

8 F / D N / I F / D F / D N / I YES

8 F / D F / N F / D N / N N / N NO

8 F / D F / D F / D F / D F / D TBD

* Only objectives evaluated by the Biological Monitoring Program are included. Objectives have been shortened to fit in the table; for full text, see the Species Accounts in Volume 2 of the MSHCP.

** Includes data collected by the Center for Conservation Biology under contract to the California Department of Fish and Game.

† Survey Type/Detection Type: F / D = focused survey, species detected; F / N = focused survey, species not detected; F / I = focused survey, species not detected during survey but detected incidentally; N / I = no focused survey but

detected incidentally; N / N = no focused survey and not detected; N / D = no focused survey by the Monitoring Program but species detected during focused survey by agency reported in parentheses.

Western Riverside County MSHCP

Annual Report (January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2010) 7-19


7.0 MONITORING ACTIVITIES

TABLE 24

Details of Covered Species Monitoring

Common

Name Latin Name Species Objective Evaluated by the Monitoring Program* Freq.

Confirm 30 localities (locality in this sense is not smaller than 1 quarter

Coulter's

Romneya coulteri section). Covered Species not adequately conserved until the above

matilija poppy

objective is met.

Davidson's

saltscale

Engelmann

oak

Fish's

milkwort

Graceful

tarplant

Hall's

monardella

Hamitt’s claycress

Atriplex serenana

var. davidsonii

Quercus

engelmannii

Polygala cornuta

var. fishiae

Holocarpha

virgata ssp.

elongata

Monardella

macrantha ssp.

hallii

Sibaropsis

hammittii

Monitor the distribution of this species at least once every 8 years.

Maintain species presence and continued use at 75% of identified

locations.

Maintain recruitment at a minimum of 80% of the conserved populations

as measured by the presence/absence of seedlings and/or saplings

across any consecutive 5 years.

Confirm 10 localities (locality in this sense is not smaller than 1 quarter

section) with at least 50 individuals (ramets or genets) each (unless a

smaller population has been demonstrated to be self-sustaining). Covered

Species not adequately conserved until the above objective is met.

Confirm 10 localities (locality in this sense is not smaller than 1 quarter

section) with 1,000 individuals each (unless a smaller population has

been demonstrated to be self-sustaining). Covered Species not

adequately conserved until the above objective is met.

Monitor the distribution of this species at least once every 8 years.

Maintain species presence and continued use at 75% of identified

locations.

Monitor the distribution of this species at least once every 8 years.

Maintain species presence and continued use at 75% of identified

locations.

2004-

2006** 2007 2008 2009

2010

Obj.

Met

8 F / D F / D F / D N / I F / D YES

8 F / D N / N N / I F / N F / D TBD

5 F / D F / D F / D F / D F / D TBD

8

F / D F / D F / D N / I N / N YES

8 F / D F / D F / D F / D F / D TBD

8 F / D F / D F / D N / I N / N YES

8 F / N F / N F / D N / N N / N YES

* Only objectives evaluated by the Biological Monitoring Program are included. Objectives have been shortened to fit in the table; for full text, see the Species Accounts in Volume 2 of the MSHCP.

** Includes data collected by the Center for Conservation Biology under contract to the California Department of Fish and Game.

† Survey Type/Detection Type: F / D = focused survey, species detected; F / N = focused survey, species not detected; F / I = focused survey, species not detected during survey but detected incidentally; N / I = no focused survey but

detected incidentally; N / N = no focused survey and not detected; N / D = no focused survey by the Monitoring Program but species detected during focused survey by agency reported in parentheses.

Western Riverside County MSHCP

Annual Report (January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2010) 7-20


7.0 MONITORING ACTIVITIES

TABLE 24

Details of Covered Species Monitoring

Common

Name Latin Name Species Objective Evaluated by the Monitoring Program* Freq.

Monitor the distribution of this species at least once every 8 years.

Heart-leaved Lepechinia

Maintain species presence and continued use at 75% of identified

pitcher sage cardiophylla

locations.

Intermediate

mariposa lily

Johnston's

rock cress

Lemon lily

Little

mousetail

Long-spined

spine flower

Jaeger's milkvetch

Manystemmed

dudleya

Calochortus

weedii var.

intermedius

Astragalus

pachypus var.

jaegeri

Arabis johnstonii

Lilium parryi

Myosurus

minimus

Chorizanthe

polygonoides var.

longispina

Dudleya

multicaulis

Monitor the distribution of this species at least once every 8 years.

Maintain species presence and continued use at 75% of identified

locations.

Monitor the distribution of this species at least once every 8 years.

Maintain species presence and continued use at 75% of identified

locations.

Monitor the distribution of this species at least once every 8 years.

Maintain species presence and continued use at 75% of identified

locations.

Monitor the distribution of this species at least once every 8 years.

Maintain species presence and continued use at 75% of identified

locations.

Monitor the distribution of this species at least once every 8 years.

Maintain species presence and continued use at 75% of identified

locations.

Monitor the distribution of this species at least once every 8 years.

Maintain species presence and continued use at 75% of identified

locations.

Monitor the distribution of this species at least once every 8 years.

Maintain species presence and continued use at 75% of identified

locations.

2004-

2006** 2007 2008 2009

2010

Obj.

Met

8 F / D F / D F / D N / I F / N TBD

8 N / N N / I F / D N / N F / D TBD

8 N / N F / D F / D N / N N / N TBD

8 F / N N / N N / I F / D F / D TBD

8 F / D F / D F / D N / I N / N YES

8 F / D N / N F / N F / D F / D YES

8 F / D F / D F / D F / D F / D YES

8 F / D N / N F / D F / D F / D TBD

* Only objectives evaluated by the Biological Monitoring Program are included. Objectives have been shortened to fit in the table; for full text, see the Species Accounts in Volume 2 of the MSHCP.

** Includes data collected by the Center for Conservation Biology under contract to the California Department of Fish and Game.

† Survey Type/Detection Type: F / D = focused survey, species detected; F / N = focused survey, species not detected; F / I = focused survey, species not detected during survey but detected incidentally; N / I = no focused survey but

detected incidentally; N / N = no focused survey and not detected; N / D = no focused survey by the Monitoring Program but species detected during focused survey by agency reported in parentheses.

Western Riverside County MSHCP

Annual Report (January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2010) 7-21


7.0 MONITORING ACTIVITIES

TABLE 24

Details of Covered Species Monitoring

Common

Name Latin Name Species Objective Evaluated by the Monitoring Program* Freq.

Include within the MSHCP Conservation Area at least 4 localities (locality

Mojave Deinandra

in this sense is not smaller than 1 quarter section) occupying at least 100

tarplant mohavensis acres. Covered Species not adequately conserved until the above

objective is met.

Mud nama

Munz's

mariposa lily

Munz's onion

Nevin's

barberry

Ocellated

Humboldt lily

Orcutt's

brodiaea

Nama

stenocarpum

Calochortus

palmeri var.

munzii

Allium munzii

Berberis nevinii

Lilium humboldtii

ssp. ocellatum

Brodiaea orcuttii

Monitor the distribution of this species at least once every 8 years.

Maintain species presence and continued use at 75% of identified

locations.

Monitor the distribution of this species at least once every 8 years.

Maintain species presence and continued use at 75% of identified

locations.

Monitor the distribution of this species at least once every 8 years.

Maintain species presence and continued use at 75% of identified

locations.

Monitor the distribution of this species at least once every 8 years.

Maintain species presence and continued use at 75% of identified

locations.

Monitor the distribution of this species at least once every 8 years.

Maintain species presence and continued use at 75% of identified

locations.

Monitor the distribution of this species at least once every 8 years.

Maintain species presence and continued use at 75% of identified

locations.

2004-

2006** 2007 2008 2009

2010

Obj.

Met

8 F / D F / D F / D F / D F / D TBD

8 N / N N / N F / N F / N F / D YES

8 F / D F / D F / D N / N N / I YES

8 F / D F / N F / D N / N F / D TBD

8 F / D N / N N / N F / N F / N TBD

8 F / D F / D F / D N / I N / I YES

8 F / D N / N N / N F / N N / N TBD

* Only objectives evaluated by the Biological Monitoring Program are included. Objectives have been shortened to fit in the table; for full text, see the Species Accounts in Volume 2 of the MSHCP.

** Includes data collected by the Center for Conservation Biology under contract to the California Department of Fish and Game.

† Survey Type/Detection Type: F / D = focused survey, species detected; F / N = focused survey, species not detected; F / I = focused survey, species not detected during survey but detected incidentally; N / I = no focused survey but

detected incidentally; N / N = no focused survey and not detected; N / D = no focused survey by the Monitoring Program but species detected during focused survey by agency reported in parentheses.

Western Riverside County MSHCP

Annual Report (January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2010) 7-22


7.0 MONITORING ACTIVITIES

TABLE 24

Details of Covered Species Monitoring

Common

Name Latin Name Species Objective Evaluated by the Monitoring Program* Freq.

Monitor the distribution of this species at least once every 8 years.

Palmer's Harpagonella

Maintain species presence and continued use at 75% of identified

grapplinghook palmeri

locations.

Palomar

monkeyflower

Parish's

brittlescale

Parish's

meadowfoam

Parry's spine

flower

Payson's

jewelflower

Peninsular

spine flower

Plummer's

mariposa lily

Mimulus diffusus

Atriplex parishii

Limnanthes

gracilis var.

parishii

Chorizanthe

parryi var. parryi

Caulanthus

simulans

Chorizanthe

leptotheca

Calochortus

plummerae

Monitor the distribution of this species at least once every 8 years.

Maintain species presence and continued use at 75% of identified

locations.

Monitor the distribution of this species at least once every 8 years.

Maintain species presence and continued use at 75% of identified

locations.

Monitor the distribution of this species at least once every 8 years.

Maintain species presence and continued use at 75% of identified

locations.

Confirm 10 localities (locality in this sense is not smaller than 1 quarter

section) with at least 1,000. Covered Species not adequately conserved

until the above objective is met.

Monitor the distribution of this species at least once every 8 years.

Maintain species presence and continued use at 75% of identified

locations.

Confirm 10 localities (locality in this sense is not smaller than 1 quarter

section) with at least 1,000 individuals. Maintain species presence and

continued use at 75% of identified locations.

Confirm 6 localities (locality in this sense is not smaller than 1 quarter

section) of at least 500 individuals. Covered Species not adequately

conserved until the above objective is met.

2004-

2006** 2007 2008 2009

2010

Obj.

Met

8 F / D F / N F / D F / D F / D TBD

8 F / N N / N F / D F / D F / D TBD

8 N / N N / N N / N F / N F / N TBD

8 N / N F / N F / N F / D N / N YES

8 N / I F / N F / D F / I F / D TBD

8 N / N F / D F / D F / I N / N YES

8 F / D F / D F / D N / N F / D YES

8 F / D F / D F / D F / D F / D YES

* Only objectives evaluated by the Biological Monitoring Program are included. Objectives have been shortened to fit in the table; for full text, see the Species Accounts in Volume 2 of the MSHCP.

** Includes data collected by the Center for Conservation Biology under contract to the California Department of Fish and Game.

† Survey Type/Detection Type: F / D = focused survey, species detected; F / N = focused survey, species not detected; F / I = focused survey, species not detected during survey but detected incidentally; N / I = no focused survey but

detected incidentally; N / N = no focused survey and not detected; N / D = no focused survey by the Monitoring Program but species detected during focused survey by agency reported in parentheses.

Western Riverside County MSHCP

Annual Report (January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2010) 7-23


7.0 MONITORING ACTIVITIES

TABLE 24

Details of Covered Species Monitoring

Common

Name Latin Name Species Objective Evaluated by the Monitoring Program* Freq.

Monitor the distribution of this species at least once every 8 years.

Prostrate Navarretia

Maintain species presence and continued use at 75% of identified

navarretia prostrata

locations.

Prostrate

spine flower

Rainbow

manzanita

Round-leaved

filaree

San Diego

ambrosia

San Diego

button-celery

San Jacinto

Mountains

bedstraw

San Jacinto

Valley

crownscale

Chorizanthe

procumbens

Arctostaphylos

rainbowensis

Erodium

macrophyllum

Ambrosia pumila

Eryngium

aristulatum var.

parishii

Galium

angustifolium ssp.

Jacinticum

Atriplex coronata

var. notatior

Monitor the distribution of this species at least once every 8 years.

Maintain species presence and continued use at 75% of identified

locations.

Confirm 10 localities (locality in this sense is not smaller than 1 quarter

section) with more than 50 individuals each.. Covered Species not

adequately conserved until the above objective is met.

Monitor the distribution of this species at least once every 8 years.

Maintain species presence and continued use at 75% of identified

locations.

Monitor the distribution of this species at least once every 8 years.

Maintain species presence and continued use at 75% of identified

locations.

Monitor the distribution of this species at least once every 8 years.

Maintain species presence and continued use at 75% of identified

locations.

Monitor the distribution of this species at least once every 8 years.

Maintain species presence and continued use at 75% of identified

locations.

Monitor the distribution of this species at least once every 8 years.

Maintain species presence and continued use at 75% of identified

locations.

2004-

2006** 2007 2008 2009

2010

Obj.

Met

8 F / D N / N N / N F / D N / N TBD

8 F / N N / N F / D N / N F / D TBD

8 F / D F / D F / D F / D F / D TBD

8 F / N F / N F / D F / D F / D TBD

8 N / I N / N N / N N / N N / N TBD

8 F / D N / N N / N F / D N / N YES

8 F / D N / N F / D F / D N / N YES

8 F / D N / N N / I F / D F / I TBD

* Only objectives evaluated by the Biological Monitoring Program are included. Objectives have been shortened to fit in the table; for full text, see the Species Accounts in Volume 2 of the MSHCP.

** Includes data collected by the Center for Conservation Biology under contract to the California Department of Fish and Game.

† Survey Type/Detection Type: F / D = focused survey, species detected; F / N = focused survey, species not detected; F / I = focused survey, species not detected during survey but detected incidentally; N / I = no focused survey but

detected incidentally; N / N = no focused survey and not detected; N / D = no focused survey by the Monitoring Program but species detected during focused survey by agency reported in parentheses.

Western Riverside County MSHCP

Annual Report (January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2010) 7-24


7.0 MONITORING ACTIVITIES

TABLE 24

Details of Covered Species Monitoring

Common

Name Latin Name Species Objective Evaluated by the Monitoring Program* Freq.

Monitor the distribution of this species at least once every 8 years.

San Miguel Satureja

Maintain species presence and continued use at 75% of identified

savory chandleri

locations.

Santa Ana

River

woollystar

Shaggyhaired

alumroot

Slenderhorned

spine

flower

Smallflowered

microseris

Smallflowered

morning-glory

Smooth

tarplant

Spreading

navarretia

Eriastrum

densifolium ssp.

sanctorum

Heuchera

hirsutissima

Dodecahema

leptoceras

Microseris

douglasii var.

platycarpha

Convolvulus

simulans

Centromadia

pungens

Navarretia

fossalis

Monitor the distribution of this species at least once every 8 years.

Maintain species presence and continued use at 75% of identified

locations.

Monitor the distribution of this species at least once every 8 years.

Maintain species presence and continued use at 75% of identified

locations.

Monitor the distribution of this species at least once every 8 years.

Maintain species presence and continued use at 75% of identified

locations.

Confirm 10 localities (locality in this sense is not smaller than 1 quarter

section) with at least 1,000 individuals. Covered Species not adequately

conserved until the above objective is met.

Monitor the distribution of this species at least once every 8 years.

Maintain species presence and continued use at 75% of identified

locations.

Monitor the distribution of this species at least once every 8 years.

Maintain species presence and continued use at 75% of identified

locations.

Monitor the distribution of this species at least once every 8 years.

Maintain species presence and continued use at 75% of identified

locations.

2004-

2006** 2007 2008 2009

2010

Obj.

Met

8 F / D F / D F / N F / D N / N TBD

8 F / D F / D N / N N / N N / N YES

8 N / N F / D N / I N / N N / N NO

8 F / D N / I F / D N / N F / D TBD

8 F / D F / N F / D F / I F / D TBD

8 F / D F / D F / D F / D F / D TBD

8 F / D F / D F / D F / D F / D TBD

8 F / D F / D N / N F / D F / D TBD

* Only objectives evaluated by the Biological Monitoring Program are included. Objectives have been shortened to fit in the table; for full text, see the Species Accounts in Volume 2 of the MSHCP.

** Includes data collected by the Center for Conservation Biology under contract to the California Department of Fish and Game.

† Survey Type/Detection Type: F / D = focused survey, species detected; F / N = focused survey, species not detected; F / I = focused survey, species not detected during survey but detected incidentally; N / I = no focused survey but

detected incidentally; N / N = no focused survey and not detected; N / D = no focused survey by the Monitoring Program but species detected during focused survey by agency reported in parentheses.

Western Riverside County MSHCP

Annual Report (January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2010) 7-25


7.0 MONITORING ACTIVITIES

TABLE 24

Details of Covered Species Monitoring

Common

Name Latin Name Species Objective Evaluated by the Monitoring Program* Freq.

Monitor the distribution of this species at least once every 8 years.

Sticky-leaved

Dudleya viscida Maintain species presence and continued use at 75% of identified

dudleya

locations.

Threadleaved

brodiaea

Vail Lake

ceanothus

Vernal barley

Wright's

trichocoronis

Yucaipa

onion

Belding’s

orangethroated

whiptail

Brodiaea filifolia

Ceanothus

ophiochilus

Hordeum

intercedens

Trichocoronis

wrightii var.

wrightii

Allium marvinii

Cnemidophorus

hyperythrus

beldingi

Monitor the distribution of this species at least once every 8 years.

Maintain species presence and continued use at 75% of identified

locations.

Monitor the distribution of this species at least once every 8 years.

Maintain species presence and continued use at 75% of identified

locations.

Monitor the distribution of this species at least once every 8 years.

Maintain species presence and continued use at 75% of identified

locations.

Monitor the distribution of this species at least once every 8 years.

Maintain species presence and continued use at 75% of identified

locations.

Monitor the distribution of this species at least once every 8 years.

Maintain species presence and continued use at 75% of identified

locations.

Monitor the distribution of this species at least once every 8 years.

Maintain species presence and continued use at 75% of Core Areas.

2004-

2006** 2007 2008 2009

2010

Obj.

Met

8 N / N F / D N / N N / I N / N YES

8 F / D F / N N / I F / D F / D TBD

8 N / N N / N F / D N / N N / N TBD

8 F / D F / D N / N F / N F / D TBD

8 F / N N / N N / N N / N F / N TBD

8 N / N N / N F / D F / D N / N YES

8 F / D N / I F / D N / I N / I YES

* Only objectives evaluated by the Biological Monitoring Program are included. Objectives have been shortened to fit in the table; for full text, see the Species Accounts in Volume 2 of the MSHCP.

** Includes data collected by the Center for Conservation Biology under contract to the California Department of Fish and Game.

† Survey Type/Detection Type: F / D = focused survey, species detected; F / N = focused survey, species not detected; F / I = focused survey, species not detected during survey but detected incidentally; N / I = no focused survey but

detected incidentally; N / N = no focused survey and not detected; N / D = no focused survey by the Monitoring Program but species detected during focused survey by agency reported in parentheses.

Western Riverside County MSHCP

Annual Report (January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2010) 7-26


7.0 MONITORING ACTIVITIES

Coastal

western

whiptail

TABLE 24

Details of Covered Species Monitoring

Common

Name Latin Name Species Objective Evaluated by the Monitoring Program* Freq.

Cnemidophorus Monitor the distribution of this species at least once every 8 years.

tigris

Maintain species presence and continued use at 75% of identified Core

multiscutatus Areas.

Granite night

lizard

Granite spiny

lizard

Northern reddiamond

rattlesnake

San

Bernardino

Mountain

kingsnake

San Diego

banded gecko

San Diego

horned lizard

San Diego

Mountain

kingsnake

Xantusia

henshawi

henshawi

Sceloporus orcutti

Crotalus ruber

ruber

Lampropeltis

zonata parvirubra

Coleonyx

variegatus

abbottii

Phrynosoma

coronatum

blainvillei

Lampropeltis

zonata pulchra

Monitor the distribution of this species at least once every 8 years.

Maintain species presence and continued use at 75% of Core Areas.

Monitor the distribution of this species at least once every 8 years.

Maintain species presence and continued use at 75% of Core Areas.

Monitor the distribution of this species at least once every 8 years.

Maintain species presence and continued use at 75% of identified areas.

Monitor the distribution of this species at least once every 8 years.

Maintain species presence and continued use at 75% of Core Areas.

Monitor the distribution of this species at least once every 8 years.

Maintain species presence and continued use at 75% of Core Areas.

Monitor the distribution of this species at least once every 8 years.

Maintain species presence and continued use at 75% of Core Areas.

Monitor the distribution of this species at least once every 8 years.

Maintain species presence and continued use at 75% of Core Areas.

2004-

2006** 2007 2008 2009

2010

Obj.

Met

8 F / D N / I F / D N / I N / I YES

8 F / D N / N F / D F / D F / D NO

8 F / D N / I F / D N / I F / D YES

8 F / D N / I F / D N / I N / I YES

8 N / N N / N N / N

F / I

(by

BLM)

F / D

YES

8 N / N N / N F / D F / D F / D TBD

8 F / D N / I F / D N / I N / I YES

8 N / N N / N N / N F / N F / N TBD

* Only objectives evaluated by the Biological Monitoring Program are included. Objectives have been shortened to fit in the table; for full text, see the Species Accounts in Volume 2 of the MSHCP.

** Includes data collected by the Center for Conservation Biology under contract to the California Department of Fish and Game.

† Survey Type/Detection Type: F / D = focused survey, species detected; F / N = focused survey, species not detected; F / I = focused survey, species not detected during survey but detected incidentally; N / I = no focused survey but

detected incidentally; N / N = no focused survey and not detected; N / D = no focused survey by the Monitoring Program but species detected during focused survey by agency reported in parentheses.

Western Riverside County MSHCP

Annual Report (January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2010) 7-27


7.0 MONITORING ACTIVITIES

TABLE 24

Details of Covered Species Monitoring

Common

Name Latin Name Species Objective Evaluated by the Monitoring Program* Freq.

2004-

2006** 2007 2008 2009 2010

Obj.

Met

Southern Charina bottae Monitor the distribution of this species at least once every 8 years.

N / I

8 N / N

rubber boa umbratica

Maintain species presence and continued use at 75% of Core Areas.

(by USFS)

N / N F / N N / N YES

Southern Sceloporus

Monitor the distribution of this species at least once every 8 years.

sagebrush graciosus

Maintain species presence and continued use at 75% of Core Areas.

lizard vandenburgianus

8 F / D N / I F / D F / D F / D NO

Western pond Clemmys

Maintain continued use at a minimum of 75% of the conserved Core

turtle marmorata pallida Areas as measured once every 3 years.

3 F / D F / D F / D F / D N / I TBD

* Only objectives evaluated by the Biological Monitoring Program are included. Objectives have been shortened to fit in the table; for full text, see the Species Accounts in Volume 2 of the MSHCP.

** Includes data collected by the Center for Conservation Biology under contract to the California Department of Fish and Game.

† Survey Type/Detection Type: F / D = focused survey, species detected; F / N = focused survey, species not detected; F / I = focused survey, species not detected during survey but detected incidentally; N / I = no focused survey but

detected incidentally; N / N = no focused survey and not detected; N / D = no focused survey by the Monitoring Program but species detected during focused survey by agency reported in parentheses.

Western Riverside County MSHCP

Annual Report (January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2010) 7-28


7.0 MONITORING ACTIVITIES

7.4.1 Rare Plant Survey

There are 63 rare plants that are listed as Covered Species and therefore need to be surveyed for

by the Monitoring Program. Monitoring Program biologists have visited historical locations for

targeted plant species every year since permit issuance. This effort is necessary due to the

varying sources, precisions, and ages of historical records and the need to verify the current

status of covered plant species in the Conservation Area. Target plant species in a given year

depend upon previous years’ survey results, the availability of rare annual species given recent

environmental conditions (e.g., rainfall), and trained personnel availability. Because surveys are

not conducted outside of the Conservation Area, some records cannot be verified until the

locality is acquired and included in the Conservation Area. Some historical records may never be

verified due to their lack of precision. Monitoring Program biologists also record detections of

new, previously undocumented populations of covered plant species. The Monitoring Program

will continue to verify historical records for the 63 covered plant species and survey for new

populations each year during the inventory phase.

In 2010, the grid-based rare plant sampling design implemented in 2008 and employed in 2009

was continued. The phenology of 19 target plant species was monitored at 13 sentinel sites to

guide the timing of searches for covered plant species at other locations. Based on sentinel site

survey results, it was concluded that target plant species were detectable throughout the

Conservation Area.

Survey efforts in 2010 focused on 34 rare plant species. Target species and broad survey

locations were selected from the remaining unmet plant survey objectives with previously

unsurveyed areas taking precedence over locations targeted during earlier survey efforts.

Two different approaches were used for rare plant surveys in 2010. For distributional objectives,

surveyors navigated to assigned 250 meter x 250 meter grid cells containing historically

documented occurrences of targeted plant species. For demonstrate-conservation objectives,

surveys were often conducted around known occurrences queried from the Rare Plant Database.

Assigned cells were searched until all species of interest were located or all suitable habitats

were thoroughly covered. Although each survey focused on particular target species, surveyors

remained vigilant for all Covered Species. When a target species was detected, either as the

result of a directed search or incidental to a search for a different species, species-specific

information including abundance, phenology, patch size, dominant substrate, dominant

vegetation community, and dominant species in five functional groups (trees, shrubs, native

forbs, exotic forbs, and grasses) was recorded. Regardless of the outcome of the survey, the

search effort was documented and vegetation community, site phenology, and site disturbance

information about the area surveyed was collected.

Western Riverside County MSHCP

Annual Report (January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2010) 7-29


7.0 MONITORING ACTIVITIES

Monitoring Program biologists surveyed 338 unique grid cells, 34 of which were surveyed twice,

for a total of 372 survey events in 2010. At least one covered plant species, was detected in 104

of the surveyed cells (31%), though not always the targeted species. Twenty-seven of the 34

targeted species were detected and an additional five Covered Species were recorded

incidentally. The 32 Covered Species detected in 2010 by Monitoring Program biologists are

listed in Table 24. Details of Covered Species Monitoring and are depicted in Figure 24.

Covered Plant Species Detections during Rare Plant Surveys in 2010. All rare plant species are

grouped together in Figure 24 because of the difficulty in symbolizing 32 individual species. For

particular details about locations of observed rare plant species observed by Monitoring Program

biologists in 2010 see the Monitoring Program’s Rare Plant Survey Report 2010 (Appendix A).

Counting multiple detections of the same species in a single grid cell as one detection (i.e.,

presence/absence in a cell) and including incidental data, a total of 155 detections of 32 covered

plant species were made in 2010. Forty-one new occurrences for 19 Covered Species that fulfill

requirements of a distributional species objective were confirmed. Of the 63 covered plant

species, 13 require documentation of specific conservation requirements before they are

considered adequately conserved (MSHCP Volume 1, Table 2-2). Forty-one localities for eight

species that fulfill a requirement of a demonstrate-conservation objective were documented. A

“locality”, as defined by the MSHCP, typically has a minimum number of individuals and spatial

dimensions to qualify, while an “occurrence” is simply an individual or group of covered rare

plant species at a given site. For further discussion of the terms “occurrence” and “locality” see

the Monitoring Program’s Rare Plant Survey Report 2010 (Appendix A).

Based on surveys by the Monitoring Program to date and all information available, all

occurrences have been confirmed for 20 species and all localities for nine species. When

considering all rare plant species objectives together, 331 of 475 required occurrences (70

percent) and 119 of 141 required localities (84 percent) have been confirmed. Additional land

acquisition and subsequent documentation of additional occurrences or localities are necessary to

confirm that species objectives for the remaining covered plant species are being met. A full

description of methodology and results can be found in Rare Plant Survey Report 2010 included

in Appendix A – RCA MSHCP Technical Reports – 2. Monitoring Program Survey Results.

7.4.2 Engelmann Oak Recruitment Study

Species objectives for Engelmann oak state that recruitment, as measured by the continuous

presence of seedlings or saplings over a five-year period, should occur at 80 percent or more of

the known populations within the Conservation Area. However, production of seedlings and

saplings is often not a limiting factor in the regeneration of oak stands; rather, overgrazing,

Western Riverside County MSHCP

Annual Report (January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2010) 7-30


Legend

!( Plant Species- Survey Detections

Highways

Roads

EASTVALE

NORCO

CORONA

!(

§¨¦ 15

!( !(

!(!(!(!(

!(!(!(

!(!(!(!(!( !(

!( !(

!(

!(

RIVERSIDE

!(!(

!(

!(!(!(!(!(

!(

!(!(

!(!(!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(!(

LAKE ELSINORE

CANYON LAKE

!(!(!(

!(

PERRIS

WILDOMAR

MORENO VALLEY

MENIFEE

!(!( !(!( !(!(

!(!(!(

!(

!( !(!(

MURRIETA

!(

!(!(!(

!( !(!(!( !(

!(

TEMECULA

!(

CALIMESA

!(

Ä10

BANNING

!(

!( !(!(

!(

BEAUMONT

SAN JACINTO

!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(

!(!(!(!(!(!(!( HEMET

!( !(!(!( !(

!(!( !(!(!(

!( !(

Water Bodies

Miles

Existing Conservation Land

Cities

I 0 10 km

0 2.5 5 10 15 20

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(!(!(!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!( !(

!(!(!(

!(!(!(

Date: 10 March 2011

UTM Nad 83 Zone 11

Contact: Adam Malisch

MSHCP Biological Monitoring Program

Covered Plant Species Detections during Rare Plant Surveys in 2010.


7.0 MONITORING ACTIVITIES

exotic grass presence, altered fire regimes, and resource competition hinder this process.

Therefore, whether or not successful regeneration of Engelmann oak populations is occurring

can be more informatively tracked by quantifying change in abundance of individual age classes

through time, as opposed to using a presence/absence metric that cannot capture replacement of

senescing individuals or contraction/expansion of local populations.

The Monitoring Program documented Engelmann oak recruitment on 94 of 224 plots (42%),

using 30 meter x 5 meter belt transects, over the past three years. While the previous survey

method provided useful information about factors affecting oak recruitment, time investment per

sampling unit (60 to 120 minutes) prohibited the sample size required to capture natural variation

in oak abundance across the landscape. In 2010 an alternative population sub-sampling design

was employed that used circular plots to substantially increase sample size where large

Engelmann oak populations occur (i.e., Santa Rosa Plateau, Southwestern Riverside County

Multi-Species Reserve), while greatly decreasing the time requirement per sampling unit (


EASTVALE

NORCO

RIVERSIDE

San Timoteo

Canyon

MORENO VALLEY

!(

!( CALIMESA

!( !( !(!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !( !(

!(

!(!(

!(!(

!(

!(

Ä10

!(

!( !(

!(

BANNING

CORONA

BEAUMONT

§¨¦ 15

Steele Peak

!(

!(

!( !(

!(!( !(

!( !(

!( !( !(

!(

!(!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!( !(

!( !(

PERRIS

SAN JACINTO

HEMET

LAKE ELSINORE

CANYON LAKE

WILDOMAR

MENIFEE

Multi-Species

Reserve

!(

!(!(!(

Legend

!( Vegetation Community Surveys

!( Oak Transects

Highways

Roads

Santa Rosa

Plateau

!(!(

!(!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(!(

!(!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!( !( !(

!(!(

!(

!(!(

!( !( !(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!( !( !( !(

!(

!(

MURRIETA

TEMECULA

Water Bodies

Miles

Existing Conservation Land

Cities

I 0 10 km

0 2.5 5 10 15 20

Durasno Valley

!( !( !(!( !(!( !(!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !( !(

!( !(

!( !( !(

Date: 10 March 2011

UTM Nad 83 Zone 11

Contact: Adam Malisch

MSHCP Biological Monitoring Program

Engelmann Oak Survey Plots and Vegetation Community Survey Locations in 2010.


7.0 MONITORING ACTIVITIES

7.4.3 Vegetation Community Survey

One of the Biological Monitoring Program’s tasks is to establish a long-term monitoring strategy

to track changes in vegetation communities within the Conservation Area. Specifically, the

Monitoring Program is required to address the following question: “What is the condition (e.g.,

percentage cover exotic versus native vegetation, disturbance and fire history, etc.) of each

vegetation community, and how is it changing over time” (MSHCP Volume 1, Section 5). While

the MSHCP minimally requires that monitoring for each Covered Species and vegetation

community occurs at least once every eight years, a feasible monitoring timeline must be

established to detect ecologically important changes in vegetation communities through time and

provide useful information to land managers.

In 2010, Monitoring Program biologists sampled grassland, coastal sage scrub, and chaparral

vegetation communities within the Conservation Area using a modified version of a protocol

established by Dr. Douglas Deutschman of San Diego State University. A three-year study was

implemented in the winter of 2010 at Steele Peak, Durasno Valley and San Timoteo Canyon on

lands managed by the Regional Conservation Authority and Bureau of Land Management

(Figure 25. Engelmann Oak Survey Transects and Vegetation Community Survey Locations in

2010). Effort was focused on grassland, coastal sage scrub, and chaparral communities because

much of the Conservation Area is composed of these landscapes, they support many of the

wildlife species covered by the MSHCP, and they are at the greatest risk of type conversion (e.g.,

native shrubland to non-native grassland). The overall goals of the present study are to refine the

methods of quantifying change in condition and distribution of vegetation communities while

gathering baseline data regarding the current condition of targeted communities at survey

locations.

Monitoring Program biologists used point-intercept and visual-estimation sampling methods to

measure species richness and percent cover of major functional groups (i.e., native shrubs, native

forbs, non-native forbs, and non-native grasses) in grassland, coastal sage scrub, and chaparral

vegetation. Survey transects were distributed to maintain an even distribution across the sampled

vegetation communities. Forty-five 50-m transects were sampled at Steele Peak, 47 transects

were sampled in the Durasno Valley, and 39 transects were sampled in San Timoteo Canyon.

The ability of the survey design to reliably detect change in measured parameters was examined

along with exploration of optimal sample size to maximize efficiency. These analyses were

focused on detecting encroachment of non-native grasses and contraction of shrub cover in

coastal sage scrub and chaparral communities, and the accumulation of thatch, mean vegetation

height, and forb:grass ratio for grassland communities. Native grasses were not included in any

of the chaparral or coastal sage scrub analyses because occurrences were so infrequent. A finer

Western Riverside County MSHCP

Annual Report (January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2010) 7-34


7.0 MONITORING ACTIVITIES

degree of annual change, perhaps 10-20 percent, should be achievable for widespread functional

groups such as non-native grasses, and more coarse levels of change (e.g., 30 – 50 percent) for

sparsely distributed groups, including native grasses and individual shrub species.

As expected, results thus far show that ability to capture natural variability in vegetation depends

greatly on vegetation community, functional group, site, and sample size. Data analyses will

become more powerful after the second year of sampling and adjusted results will have a

significant impact on the future long-term vegetation (and habitat) monitoring plan. Because of

the complexity of data analyses and subsequent results and interpretation further information is

not presented here. A full description of the Monitoring Program’s methodology and results can

be found in Vegetation Community Survey Report 2010 included in Appendix A – RCA MSHCP

Technical Reports – 2. Monitoring Program Survey Results.

7.4.4 Quino Checkerspot Butterfly Survey

The species objectives for Quino checkerspot butterfly (Quino) require annual documentation of

its distribution within the Conservation Area. The Monitoring Program began developing a

protocol in 2005 to address this objective, and refined the protocol for surveys in 2006 and 2007.

In 2008, the Monitoring Program participated in a range-wide Quino survey initiated by the U.S.

Fish and Wildlife Service. Surveys were designed to determine Quino habitat use and

distribution of adults within 80 meters of recent (1997-2007) observation locations. In 2009, the

Monitoring Program expanded upon the 2008 effort by concentrating survey effort on known

occupied areas and their immediate vicinity. Confirmed adult Quino observations from within

the MSHCP Conservation Area from 2006-2008 were used as center-points for concentric circles

of 1-ha sampling stations that expanded outward from recently occupied locations. Clusters of

survey plots were established and surveyed at the Southwestern Riverside County Multi-Species

Reserve, Oak Mountain, Magee Hills, and Anza Valley in 2009. Finally, locations with adult

Quino observations in the recent, but not immediate past (4 – 10 years ago) and areas adjacent to

known occupied habitat were surveyed. Because of limited time and personnel availability, these

areas were not included in the more intensive overall survey effort, but they were searched for

adult Quino as often as personnel were available.

In 2010, the Quino survey effort was reduced compared to previous years due to limited

personnel availability. The relatively intensive survey effort employed in 2008 and 2009 was

postponed in favor of a more efficient survey aimed specifically at meeting the species-specific

objective described above. The 2010 Quino survey effort consisted of opportunistically

monitoring locations occupied within the last three years, as well as areas that were either

adjacent to known occupied locations or that contained apparently suitable habitat. Surveys for

adult Quino were conducted at 12 locations in 2010: Harford Springs Park, Southwestern

Western Riverside County MSHCP

Annual Report (January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2010) 7-35


7.0 MONITORING ACTIVITIES

Riverside County Multi-Species Reserve (approximately two kilometers north/northeast of the

established sentinel site), Winchester 700A, Winchester 700B, Winchester 700C, El Sol, Wilson

Valley, Brown Canyon, Magee Hills, Horse Creek, San Bernardino National Forest

(approximately halfway between Cahuilla Mountain and Thomas Mountain), and the

McElhinney-Stimmel property (Figure 26. Quino Checkerspot Butterfly and Delhi Fly Survey

Areas and Detections in 2010).

As in previous years, Monitoring Program biologists monitored previously established sentinel

sites across the Conservation Area known to support populations of Quino in order to optimize

survey timing. Sentinel sites in 2010 were located at the Southwestern Riverside County Multi-

Species Reserve, Oak Mountain, and Anza Valley. Continued monitoring of established sentinel

sites contributes to understanding within- and among-year differences in the timing and duration

of the Quino flight season and is essential to efficiently direct survey efforts.

Adult Quino were observed at all sentinel sites in 2010. The first adult Quino of 2010 were

observed at Oak Mountain on February 28 th and the last adult Quino were observed at Anza

Valley on June 15 th , the latest that adult Quino have been observed by Monitoring Program

biologists in western Riverside County since surveys began in 2005. The observation of Quino at

sentinel sites was used as an indicator to begin surveying nearby locations. Monitoring Program

biologists confirmed that adult Quino were present at seven out of 12 survey areas in 2010, with

the distribution of occupied areas limited to the eastern and southeastern portions of the Plan

Area (Figure 26. Quino Checkerspot Butterfly and Delhi Fly Survey Areas and Detections in

2010). In addition to the sentinel sites, adult Quino were observed at Brown Canyon, Horse

Creek, Magee Hills, Southwestern Riverside County Multi-Species Reserve, San Bernardino

National Forest, Wilson Valley, and Winchester 700C, thus confirming occupation of these sites.

No Quino were observed at El Sol, Harford Springs Park, McElhinney-Stimmel, Winchester

700A, or Winchester 700B in 2010. A full description of methodology and results can be found

in Quino Checkerspot Butterfly Survey Report 2010 included in Appendix A – RCA MSHCP

Technical Reports – 2. Monitoring Program Survey Results.

7.4.5 Delhi Sands Flower-Loving Fly Survey

Species objectives for Delhi Sands flower-loving fly (Delhi fly) require annual documentation of

successful reproduction at all three Core Areas identified in the MSHCP. In 2010, the

Monitoring Program continued using a protocol developed in 2005 to determine the detection

probability and density of Delhi fly in suitable soils within the Conservation Area. Transects

were established at the only Core Area accessible to the Monitoring Program (Teledyne in

Jurupa Hills) (Figure 26. Quino Checkerspot Butterfly and Delhi Fly Survey Areas and

Detections in 2010.) Transects were placed in the same locations as they were in previous years.

Western Riverside County MSHCP

Annual Report (January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2010) 7-36


CALIMESA

EASTVALE

Ä10

NORCO

Ä91

RIVERSIDE

MORENO VALLEY

BANNING

CORONA

BEAUMONT

§¨¦ 15

Harford Springs Park

!(

PERRIS

SAN JACINTO

HEMET

Ä74

Legend

!( Quino Detections

!( Quino Survey Locations

Delhi Fly Survey Area

Highways

Roads

LAKE ELSINORE

CANYON LAKE

WILDOMAR

MENIFEE

§¨¦ 215

McElhinney

Stimmel

!(

Multi-Species

Reserve

Winchester 700A

!(

!( Magee Hills

El Sol

!(

!(

MURRIETA

TEMECULA

Oak Mountain

!(

Water Bodies

Miles

Existing Conservation Land

Cities

I 0 10 km

0 2.5 5 10 15 20

Brown Canyon

!(

Horse Creek

!(

San Bernardino

National Forest

!(

Winchester

700B

Wilson Valley !(

!(

Silverado Ranch

!(

!(

Winchester 700C

Ä74

Date: 10 March 2011

UTM Nad 83 Zone 11

Contact: Adam Malisch

MSHCP Biological Monitoring Program

Quino Checkerspot Butterfly and Delhi Fly Survey Areas and Detections in 2010.


7.0 MONITORING ACTIVITIES

Vegetation monitoring was continued to gather additional data regarding plant community and

soil structure correlations with Delhi fly presence and frequency of observation.

In the sixth year of Delhi fly monitoring, Delhi fly observations decreased slightly from 2009

levels but stayed high compared to the earlier years of monitoring (i.e., 2005 – 2007). DSF were

observed on 253 occasions during field surveys and were incidentally observed 22 times for a

total of 275 DSF observations in 2010. Because it is likely that unique Delhi fly individuals were

observed multiple times on the same or different days, the above values should not be interpreted

as actual numbers of flies on-site.

The estimated density of Delhi fly at Teledyne in 2010 was 1.44 individuals/ha, down from an

estimated 2.76 individuals/ha in 2009. However, the 275 total fly observations remains high

compared to initial survey years (2005-2007). The survey site is approximately 6 ha, so the

models employed in 2010 suggest that there were approximately 9 adult DSF present at Teledyne

at any one time during the flight season. Because it is unknown how many cohorts of DSF

emerge and expire within a given flight season, an estimate of the total number of adult DSF

present on-site in a given year is still incalculable. Two incidental observations about 700 meters

south of the Teledyne study area were recorded in 2010. Additional surveys were conducted

around the exterior of the occupied polygon of Delhi series soils in an attempt to determine if

flies were dispersed beyond the established study area. None were found.

Successful Delhi fly reproduction was confirmed again in 2010 (multiple recently-emerged

individuals were observed as well as individuals emerging from their pupal cases). A full

description of the methodology and results can be found in Delhi Sands Flower-loving Fly

(Rhaphiomidas terminatus abdominalis) Survey Report 2010 in Appendix A – RCA MSHCP

Technical Reports – 2. Monitoring Program Survey Results.

7.4.6 Arroyo Toad Survey

The Monitoring Program has been collaborating with the U.S. Geological Survey and U.S.

Forest Service on amphibian stream surveys in the Conservation Area since 2004 to reduce

overlapping survey efforts and to ensure consistent data collection methods. The purpose of

stream surveys has been to assess the suitability of stream habitats and document breeding

locations for covered amphibian species within species-specific Core Areas and/or their

tributaries.

Arroyo toad was the target species for stream surveys in 2010. The species objectives for arroyo

toad require documentation of successful reproduction at a minimum of 80 percent of the

conserved breeding locations within the Conservation Area as measured by the presence/absence

of juvenile toads, tadpoles, or egg masses across any five consecutive years.

Western Riverside County MSHCP

Annual Report (January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2010) 7-38


7.0 MONITORING ACTIVITIES

Monitoring Program biologists conducted stream surveys targeting arroyo toad in 2003 and each

year from 2005-2008. Past surveys included both areas where arroyo toad was known to recently

occur and areas of possible occurrence based on presence of key habitat requirements. During

these surveys, breeding populations of arroyo toad were documented in three of nine Core Areas:

Arroyo Seco, Bautista Creek, and San Juan Creek. An additional breeding population was also

found in Cole Creek on the Santa Rosa Plateau in 2005. The Indian Creek and Vail Lake Core

Areas had not been surveyed prior to 2010 because of lack of access to suitable habitat within

these areas. In 2010, Vail Lake was not surveyed due to the above mentioned constraints, but

portions of Indian Creek were accessed and surveyed.

In 2010, surveys were primarily focused in Core Areas where arroyo toad had not been

previously detected or surveyed for by the Biological Monitoring Program. This included

portions of Los Alamos, Indian, Temecula, and Wilson Creeks and the San Jacinto River. Areas

known to be recently occupied were surveyed as well, when time and personnel allowed (i.e.,

San Juan Creek, Bautista Creek, and Arroyo Seco).

Habitat assessments and/or surveys were conducted for arroyo toad in nine streams in 2010,

including eight of nine Core Areas (Figure 27. Arroyo Toad Survey Locations and Detections in

2010). Streams throughout the Conservation Area have been divided into 250 meter segments to

track distribution of Covered Species at a finer scale than simply whether or not given streams

were occupied. In 2010 stream assessments were conducted in 65 segments and surveys for

arroyo toad were conducted in 79 segments. Occupancy and breeding were confirmed in three

Core Areas in 2010 (San Juan Creek, Bautista Creek, and Arroyo Seco). Arroyo toads were

detected in a total of 13 segments in the three occupied Core Areas. All segments were dry

during pre-survey habitat assessments in the Temecula Creek Core Area; therefore no formal

surveys were conducted in this area in 2010. The Vail Lake Core Area was inaccessible in 2010

due to lack of conserved land in the area. Arroyo toad was not observed in any previously

unknown location. A full description of the arroyo toad survey methodology and results can be

found in Arroyo Toad Survey Report 2010 included in Appendix A – RCA MSHCP Technical

Reports – 2. Monitoring Program Survey Results.

7.4.7 San Diego Banded Gecko Survey

Species objectives for San Diego banded gecko (banded gecko) require documenting the

continued use of at least 75 percent of listed Core Areas and associated linkages at least once

every eight years. Nocturnal-lizard surveys were conducted in the summer and fall of 2008 to

document the presence of banded gecko and granite night lizard in the Conservation Area. These

surveys were very effective at locating granite night lizard (129 records), but not at detecting

banded gecko (two records; one at the Motte Rimrock Reserve and one at the

Western Riverside County MSHCP

Annual Report (January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2010) 7-39


CALIMESA

EASTVALE

Ä10

NORCO

RIVERSIDE

MORENO VALLEY

BANNING

CORONA

§¨¦ 15

PERRIS

Potrero

Creek

BEAUMONT

!(!(!(!(!( !(!(

!(!(!(

HEMET

!(!(

!(!( !(!(!(

CANYON LAKE

Bautista Creek

MENIFEE

LAKE ELSINORE

!(!( !(!(!(!( !(!(!(

San Juan

!(!(!(

!(!(!(!(!(

!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!( Creek

WILDOMAR

!(!(

SAN JACINTO

Indian

Creek

!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(

San Jacinto

River

Legend

!( Arroyo Toad Detections

!( Arroyo Toad Survey Locations

Highways

Roads

Streams

Los Alamos

Creek

!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(

MURRIETA

TEMECULA

Arroyo Seco

Water Bodies

Miles

Existing Conservation Land

Cities

I 0 10 km

0 2.5 5 10 15 20

!(!(!(!(

Wilson

Creek

!( !(!( !(!(

!(!(

Date: 10 March 2011

UTM Nad 83 Zone 11

Contact: Adam Malisch

MSHCP Biological Monitoring Program

Arroyo Toad Survey Locations and Detections in 2010.


7.0 MONITORING ACTIVITIES

Southwestern Riverside County Multi-Species Reserve). The goal of surveys in 2009 and 2010

was to evaluate the utility of artificial-cover stations versus natural-cover transects, and diurnal

(daytime) versus nocturnal (nighttime) surveys by comparing banded gecko detection

probabilities derived from each method. Surveys in 2009 and 2010 were focused within coastal

sage scrub and chaparral vegetation communities in two Core Areas where the species is known

to occur (Lake Perris/San Jacinto Wildlife Area and Sage/Vail Lake) (Figure 28. San Diego

Banded Gecko Survey Locations and Detections From 2008 – 2010).

Just three banded gecko were observed during targeted surveys from 2008 – 2010, although

several banded geckos were observed incidentally in Core Areas. Unfortunately the sample size

of observed banded geckos during 2009 and 2010 surveys was too small to allow for the desired

statistical comparisons among survey methods. However, whether resulting from targeted

surveys or incidental observations, more banded gecko were found diurnally (seven) in 2008 and

2009 than during nocturnal surveys (two). Moreover, banded gecko were detected diurnally

under cover at the Sage-Vail Lake Core Area, but were not detected at this location during

nocturnal surveys. Thus, although sample sizes remain small, it appears that diurnal surveys are

superior to nocturnal surveys when searching for banded gecko.

Diurnal and nocturnal survey methods performed similarly in terms of total number of reptile

individuals and species observed per unit effort. However, the actual species observed varied

considerably between methods (e.g., orange-throated whiptails were only observed during

diurnal surveys, while granite night lizards were only observed during nocturnal surveys).

Checking artificial cover returned better general results (for non-target species) than checking

natural cover during diurnal surveys. No cover objects were checked during nocturnal transects

because banded geckos should be foraging out in the open at night, and not under natural or

artificial cover. The following Covered Species were also recorded during banded gecko surveys

from 2009 - 2010: granite night lizard, northern red-diamond rattlesnake, granite spiny lizard,

San Diego pocket mouse.

Surveys specifically targeting banded gecko, or targeting reptiles in general, have been

conducted in six of seven banded gecko Core Areas, and the species has been documented in

three Cores (Lake Skinner-Diamond Valley Lake, Lake Perris/San Jacinto Wildlife Area, and

Sage-Vail Lake). Banded geckos must be recorded in at least two more Cores to meet the species

objective of at least 75 percent occupancy of listed Core Areas. Ultimately, there may be no truly

efficient means to reliably detect banded gecko as they are highly secretive and not typically

found in high numbers. Continuing to collect incidental observations both from Monitoring

Program biologists and from partnering agencies is essential as conducting focused surveys for

these species returns little data per unit effort. A full description of the methodology and results

Western Riverside County MSHCP

Annual Report (January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2010) 7-41


Legend

CALIMESA

!( Banded Gecko Survey Detections 2008-2009

EASTVALE

NORCO

CORONA

RIVERSIDE

MORENO VALLEY

#*#*#*#*

#*#*

#*

!(

#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*#*

#*

!(

!(

#*#*

#*#*#* !( !(!(!(

#*

#* #*

Ä10

BANNING

BEAUMONT

!( Banded Gecko Incidental Detections 2008-2010

#* Survey Locations 2009-2010

Lake Perris/San Jacinto Wildlife Area

Sage/Vail Lake

§¨¦ 15

!(

PERRIS

SAN JACINTO

HEMET

LAKE ELSINORE

CANYON LAKE

MENIFEE

WILDOMAR

!(

!(

Legend

Highways

Roads

MURRIETA

TEMECULA

!(

#*#* #*#*

!( #* #*

#*

#*

#*#* #*#*#*#* #*#* #*#*

#*

#* #*

#*

#*

#* #* #*

#*#*

#*#*

#*

Water Bodies

Miles

Existing Conservation Land

Cities

I 0 10 km

0 2.5 5 10 15 20

Date: 10 March 2011

UTM Nad 83 Zone 11

Contact: Adam Malisch

MSHCP Biological Monitoring Program

San Diego Banded Gecko Survey Locations and Detections From 2008 – 2010.


7.0 MONITORING ACTIVITIES

can be found in San Diego Banded Gecko Survey Report 2010 included in Appendix A – RCA

MSHCP Technical Reports – 2. Monitoring Program Survey Results.

7.4.8 Artificial Cover-based Reptile Survey

The species objectives for southern sagebrush lizard, southern rubber boa, and two subspecies of

the mountain kingsnake, San Diego mountain kingsnake and San Bernardino mountain

kingsnake require the Monitoring Program to document the continued use of 75 percent of the

Core Areas listed in the MSHCP at least once every eight years. Placing artificial cover objects

in the vicinity of areas typically occupied by reptiles allows surveyors to increase opportunities

for species detection without disturbing the natural habitat.

The Monitoring Program’s artificial cover survey effort began in the fall of 2008. Artificial cover

surveys by Monitoring Program biologists from 2008-2010 focused on documenting target

species presence within species-specific Core Areas inside the Conservation Area. Artificial

cover (carpet and plywood) was placed around rock outcrops and other appropriate habitat for

target species in Core Areas that could be safely and practicably accessed. Artificial cover

stations were placed in the San Bernardino National Forest, Cleveland National Forest, Iron

Springs, Santa Ana Mountains, Agua Tibia Mountains, and Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve

(Figure 29. Artificial Cover Sites From 2008–2010 and Target Species Detections From 2007 –

2010.). In 2010 the protocol was modified to include checking natural cover in the vicinity of

artificial cover sampling stations, due to the limited success of detecting target species in

previous seasons. Beginning in the spring of 2010, all natural cover at survey sites was checked

by carefully lifting and replacing any easily movable rocks, logs, or trash. Crevices in rocks or

logs were also checked with hand-held mirrors or flashlights.

Although 13 different reptile species and two amphibian species were detected under artificial

cover stations from 2008 to 2010, the only target species detected was southern sagebrush lizard.

However, Monitoring Program biologists located two San Bernardino mountain kingsnakes in

the San Jacinto Mountains while checking natural cover, and another two San Bernardino

mountain kingsnakes were observed incidentally in the San Jacinto Mountains by a Bureau of

Land Management employee in 2009. A southern rubber boa was also detected incidentally by a

U.S. Forest Service employee in the San Jacinto Mountains in 2007. Mountain kingsnakes and

rubber boas are known to be extremely secretive species with limited distributions, thus making

detecting them challenging. Results from conducting artificial cover surveys from 2008 – 2010

have not proven this method to be an efficient means of detecting target species. Ultimately,

there may be no truly efficient means to reliably detect these target species as they are highly

secretive and not typically found in high numbers. Continuing to collect incidental observations

both from Monitoring Program biologists and from partnering agencies is essential as conducting

Western Riverside County MSHCP

Annual Report (January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2010) 7-43


#*#*

!(

#*#*

CALIMESA

EASTVALE

Ä10

NORCO

Ä91

RIVERSIDE

MORENO VALLEY

BANNING

CORONA

BEAUMONT

Legend

!( Rubber Boa Detection

!( Mountain Kingsnake Detections

!( Sagebrush Lizard Detections

#* Artificial Cover Sites

Iron Springs

San Bernardino National Forest

Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve

Cleveland National Forest

Highways

Roads

§¨¦ 15

Santa Ana Mountains

#*#*#*#*#*#* #*#*

#*#*#*#*#*#*

LAKE ELSINORE

CANYON LAKE

PERRIS

WILDOMAR

MENIFEE

MURRIETA

#* #*

#*#*

TEMECULA

SAN JACINTO

Water Bodies

Miles

Existing Conservation Land

Cities

I 0 10 km

0 2.5 5 10 15 20

HEMET

!(

#*#* !(!(!(!(

!(

#*

#*

!(

!( !( !( #*#* !(!(!(

#*

#*

#*#*

!( !(!(!(!(

!(!(

!(

!( #*#*

!(

#* #*

Agua Tibia Mountains

San Jacinto Mountains

!(

#* #*

!(

Date: 10 March 2011

UTM Nad 83 Zone 11

Contact: Adam Malisch

MSHCP Biological Monitoring Program

Artificial Cover Sites From 2008 – 2010 and Target Species Detections From 2007 – 2010.


7.0 MONITORING ACTIVITIES

focused surveys for these species returns little data per unit effort. A full description of

methodology and results can be found in Artificial Cover Survey Report 2010 included in

Appendix A – RCA MSHCP Technical Reports – 2. Monitoring Program Survey Results.

7.4.9 Arroyo Chub Survey

The species objectives for arroyo chub require documentation of the continued use of 75 percent

of listed Core Areas at least once every eight years. In 2010 Monitoring Program biologists

began systematically surveying Core Areas to determine presence/absence of arroyo chub while

characterizing the overall condition of surveyed waterways. Monitoring Program biologists

scouted waterways in Core Areas with potentially appropriate habitat included in the

Conservation Area to note ease of access, presence and depth of water, as well as the existence

of any aquatic vertebrates. Scouting excluded the Santa Ana River, as other organizations are

currently conducting long-term fish surveys there.

The Core Areas where appropriate conditions to conduct surveys were found included Santa

Margarita River, Murrieta Creek, and Sandia Creek. The specific sections designated as Core

Areas within the MSHCP for De Luz Creek, Temecula Creek, and Cole Creek are not presently

included in the Conservation Area. Portions of two non-core areas, Temescal Wash and the San

Jacinto River, were also scouted because there were recent observations of arroyo chub in these

waterways. Both of these areas had appropriate arroyo chub habitat and were therefore surveyed

for arroyo chub in 2010 (Figure 30. Arroyo Chub Survey Areas and Occupied Areas in 2010).

Surveys for arroyo chub used electrofishing techniques to sample fish populations in targeted

streams. Electrofishing is a safe and commonly employed method that uses electricity to stun

fish before they are caught. Arroyo chub surveys were conducted by electrofishing 50-meter

reaches of each waterway, starting from the downstream end and working upstream. While the

electrofishing occurred, two surveyors with long-handled dip nets followed the operator of the

electrofisher, catching all available animals. Behind these surveyors, another crew member

followed with a bucket of fresh cool water and a small dip net for temporarily storing captured

fish. At the end of each 50-meter reach, all captured fish were processed.

In 2010 arroyo chub were detected in the Santa Margarita River Core Area during Monitoring

Program surveys and in the Santa Ana River Core Area by the Santa Ana Watershed Project

Authority. Monitoring Program biologists also recorded arroyo chub in the San Jacinto River, a

non-core area, during surveys in 2010. One section of Murrieta Creek that has historical records

for arroyo chub is currently not in the Conservation Area. The Sandia Creek Core Area has just

264 meters of stream currently included in the Conservation Area. As additional conservation is

achieved in arroyo chub Core Areas, the Monitoring Program will expand survey efforts. Exotic

plants and animals are present in many, perhaps all, of the waterways within the Plan Area.

Western Riverside County MSHCP

Annual Report (January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2010) 7-45


Ä71

Santa Ä60 Ana

River !(

!(

§¨¦ 15 !( !( !(!( §¨¦ 215

EASTVALE

RIVERSIDE

NORCO

Ä91

!!

Temescal Wash

Ä91

§¨¦ 215

CORONA

MORENO VALLEY

Ä60

CALIMESA

§¨¦ 10

BEAUMONT

Ä79

BANNING

SAN JACINTO

PERRIS

Ä74 Ä74

Ä74

HEMET

Ä243

San Jacinto River

!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!( !

!

§¨¦ 15 §¨¦ 15 §¨¦ 215 Ä79

CANYON LAKE

MENIFEE

LAKE ELSINORE

Ä74

Ä74

WILDOMAR

Legend

!( Arroyo Chub Survey Detections

!( Reported Arroyo Chub Detections

! Survey Areas

Highways

Roads

Streams

MURRIETA

Murrieta

Creek

!

!

!

TEMECULA

Sandia Creek

!

!

!( !( Ä79

Santa

! §¨¦ 15 Margarita

!

River

Water Bodies

Miles

Existing Conservation Land

Cities

I 0 10 km

0 2.5 5 10 15 20

Ä371

Date: 10 March 2011

UTM Nad 83 Zone 11

Contact: Adam Malisch

MSHCP Biological Monitoring Program

Arroyo Chub Survey Areas and Occupied Areas in 2010.


7.0 MONITORING ACTIVITIES

Management actions to remove exotic species and restore watersheds will help ensure the longterm

viability of aquatic Covered Species, including arroyo chub.

7.4.10 Vernal Pool Survey

There are three covered fairy shrimp species and one covered amphibian species that inhabit

vernal pools in the MSHCP Plan Area: Riverside fairy shrimp, Santa Rosa Plateau fairy shrimp,

vernal pool fairy shrimp, and western spadefoot toad. Although species-specific survey

objectives are not listed for fairy shrimp, the default MSHCP monitoring objective states that

species presence and continued use shall be maintained at 75 percent of the listed Core Areas at

least once every eight years. The species objectives for western spadefoot toad require

maintaining successful reproduction at 75 percent of conserved breeding locations once every

eight years. Previous survey efforts for these species in 2008 focused on locating vernal pools in

the Conservation Area, assessing the suitability of pools for target species, and documenting

species presence within Core Areas and other potentially suitable habitat in the Conservation

Area.

No vernal pool surveys were planned for 2009 due to higher priority survey needs for other taxa.

However, two areas were surveyed for fairy shrimp by Monitoring Program biologists in 2009

on an impromptu basis after either fairy shrimp species or spadefoot toads were reported by

partnering agencies. Five pools at the Potrero Unit of the San Jacinto Wildlife Area and one pool

at the newly-acquired RCA-owned Shiang property were surveyed. No covered fairy shrimp

were found at any pools in 2009 but both areas surveyed had populations of versatile fairy

shrimp, a common local species. Spadefoot toad tadpoles were also detected at both areas and

adults were observed at the Potrero Unit of the San Jacinto Wildlife Area.

Survey efforts in 2010 focused on locating vernal pools in the Conservation Area not previously

surveyed, assessing the suitability of vernal pools for Covered Species, and documenting species

presence within Core Areas and other potentially suitable habitat in the Conservation Area.

Monitoring Program biologists detected fairy shrimp at the Estelle Mountain Preserve, Lake

Elsinore, the Southwestern Riverside County Multi-Species Reserve, Salt Creek, Santa Rosa

Plateau, and El Sol in 2010 (Figure 31. Vernal Pool Survey Areas and Target Species Detections

in 2010). Evidence of western spadefoot toad breeding (eggs or tadpoles) was observed at the

Southwestern Riverside County Multi-Species Reserve, Salt Creek, El Sol, and west of Hemet,

just north of the West Hemet Core Area.

Western Riverside County MSHCP

Annual Report (January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2010) 7-47


Ä60

§¨¦ 15 §¨¦ 215

EASTVALE

§¨¦ 215

CALIMESA

Ä71

NORCO

Ä91

Ä91

CORONA

RIVERSIDE

Estelle Mountain Preserve

!(

")")") ")")") ")

MORENO VALLEY

Ä60

Mystic Lake

")

BEAUMONT

Ä79

BANNING

Legend

!( Fairy Shrimp Detections

!( Spadefoot Tadpoles

") Vernal Pool Survey Locations

Highways

PERRIS

§¨¦ 15 Salt Creek/ ") !(

West Hemet

")")")")")")

HEMET

CANYON LAKE

Multi-Species

MENIFEE

")")")

Reserve

LAKE ELSINORE

") ")")")")")")")")")")")")")")")")")")")")") !(

Menifee Pools

Ä74

")") !(

Lake Elsinore §¨¦ 215 Ä79 ")

")

!(

WILDOMAR

") !(

")

!(!( ")

§¨¦ 15 Skunk

Hollow

") !( ")

MURRIETA

!( !(!( !(

!( ")

!(

El Sol

Ä74 Ä74

Ä74

Santa Rosa Plateau

!(!(

TEMECULA

§¨¦ 15

SAN JACINTO

Water Bodies

Miles

Existing Conservation Land

Cities

I 0 10 km

0 2.5 5 10 15 20

Ä79

Ä371

Ä243

Ä74

Date: 10 March 2011

UTM Nad 83 Zone 11

Contact: Adam Malisch

MSHCP Biological Monitoring Program

Vernal Pool Survey Areas and Target Species Detections in 2010.


7.0 MONITORING ACTIVITIES

Riverside fairy shrimp were detected during surveys at three locations by Monitoring Program

biologists in 2010: Lake Elsinore (one pool), El Sol (one pool), and the Southwestern Riverside

County Multi-Species Reserve (two pools). Vernal pool fairy shrimp were found in one shortlived

pool at the Estelle Mountain Preserve (a non-core area), and at the Santa Rosa Plateau

during survey training. Santa Rosa Plateau fairy shrimp were also detected during training at the

Santa Rosa Plateau in 2010. Versatile fairy shrimp were additionally found at several locations.

Riverside fairy shrimp, vernal pool fairy shrimp, and western spadefoot toad tadpoles or eggs

were also found at Skunk Hollow and Johnson Ranch by Center for Natural Lands Management

biologists.

The Santa Rosa Plateau is the only known location of Santa Rosa Plateau fairy shrimp and the

only Core Area listed, thus the Species Objective has been met for Santa Rosa Plateau fairy

shrimp until 2018. Vernal pool fairy shrimp were detected at the Santa Rosa Plateau and Skunk

Hollow Core Areas in 2010, but not in the Salt Creek Core Area. The Salt Creek area has many

vernal pools that are not currently in conservation.

Riverside fairy shrimp were observed in the Lake Elsinore and Skunk Hollow Core Areas in

2010. They were also observed at four additional locations outside of listed Core Areas. There

are no historical records of Riverside fairy shrimp at the Santa Rosa Plateau despite this location

being listed as a Core Area. Alberhill is also listed as a Riverside fairy shrimp Core Area, but the

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Opinion for the MSHCP reports that this area has

never supported a known Riverside fairy shrimp population. It is therefore recommended that the

Santa Rosa Plateau and Alberhill be eliminated as Core Areas for Riverside fairy shrimp. The

Southwestern Riverside County Multi-Species Reserve and El Sol should be considered as

replacement Core Areas for this species, as there are pools at both of these sites that currently

harbor healthy populations of Riverside fairy shrimp.

Western spadefoot toad breeding was confirmed in two Core Areas and four additional

conserved breeding locations in 2010. Additional land acquisition within listed Core Areas and

surveys targeting conserved breeding locations will be necessary in the future to meet the species

objectives for western spadefoot toad.

7.4.11 Carnivore Survey

Species objectives for bobcat, coyote, long-tailed weasel, and mountain lion require the

conservation of contiguous-habitat blocks and the maintenance of corridors that provide an

effective means for dispersal. Carnivore surveys targeting the species listed above were begun in

2008. Various remote detection methods have been tested by the Monitoring Program, including

scent-stations, recording scat, area-search surveys, and motion-triggered cameras.

Western Riverside County MSHCP

Annual Report (January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2010) 7-49


7.0 MONITORING ACTIVITIES

Results from the 2008 and 2009 efforts were used to modify survey design and adjust survey

areas in 2010. The goals of the 2010 carnivore monitoring effort were to determine

presence/absence of long-tailed weasel at species-specific Core Areas, to determine presence of

bobcat and mountain lion at species-specific habitat linkages, and to document movement of

covered carnivore species across transportation corridors that may potentially impede dispersal

(Figure 32. Carnivore Camera Stations and Transect Locations in 2010). The survey design in

2010 targeted long-tailed weasel as this was the only carnivore species lacking sufficient

observations within Core Areas. Previous surveys revealed scent stations to be the most effective

method of detecting long-tailed weasel. Scat surveys were eliminated in 2009 due to their

inability to add meaningful information to the scent-station and camera-station surveys. Motiontriggered

camera stations were also distributed at undercrossings of the I-15 and I-10 freeways to

confirm movement of target species across these potential dispersal barriers.

Monitoring Program biologists distributed 308 scent stations at 77 transects across seven longtailed

weasel Core Areas in 2010 (Figure 32. Carnivore Camera Stations and Transect

Locations in 2010). These transects covered just over 71 kilometers of secondary roads and 95

kilometers of off-road drainages at the Santa Margarita Ecological Reserve, Banning Bench/San

Gorgonio Wash, southern Gavilan Hills, Warm Springs, Cactus Valley, San Jacinto River near

Hemet, and the Badlands. Coyote and bobcat were detected at all Core Areas surveyed with

scent-station transects in 2010; long-tailed weasel were detected at all sites except Cactus Valley.

Mountain lion tracks were often observed along the Santa Margarita River but the species was

not detected at any other Core Area surveyed with scent stations in 2010. Coyote accounted for

the greatest number of transects used by a target species (59 transects with detections), followed

by bobcat (20 transects), long-tailed weasel (7 transects), and mountain lion (5 transects).

Seven motion-triggered camera stations were deployed across five locations in 2010 (Horsethief

Wash, Indian Wash, Gavilan Wash, near the confluence of Gavilan Wash and Temescal Wash,

and San Gorgonio Wash). Coyote was the most common species photographed in 2010 (57

photos), and was detected at every surveyed location. Bobcat was also regularly photographed

(18 photos), and was detected at all camera station locations except the I-10 crossing of San

Gorgonio Wash. No photographs of mountain lion or long-tailed weasel were recorded at any

Monitoring Program camera-station location in 2010.

A number of MSHCP-defined habitat linkages are too small or incomplete to survey with a

rigorous presence/absence sampling design. Monitoring Program biologists opportunistically

conducted surveys for carnivore sign in four habitat linkages in 2010. Biologists searched trails,

drainage channels, and any other landscape feature conducive to animal dispersal for covered

carnivore sign. No mountain lion tracks or scat were recorded in any of the habitat linkages

Western Riverside County MSHCP

Annual Report (January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2010) 7-50


EASTVALE

NORCO

CORONA

§¨¦ 15

Indian Wash

!( !(

Horsethief Wash

RIVERSIDE

MORENO VALLEY

PERRIS

!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!( !(!(!(!( !(!(!(!( !(!(!(!(!(!(!(!( !(!(!(

!(!(!(!( !(!(!(!(

!(!(!(

!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!( !(!(!(!(

Gavilan Wash

!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(

!(!(!(!(

!(!(!( !(!(!(!(

!(!(!(

!(!(!(!(

!(!(!(!( !(!(!(!( !(!(!(

!(!(!(

!(!(!(!(

!(!(!(!(

!( !( CALIMESA

!( Calimesa

!(!(!(

!(!(!(

!(!(!(!(

!(!(!(!(

!( !(!(!( Ä10

!(!(!(!(

!(!(!(!(

!(!(!(

BANNING

!(!(!(!( !(!(!(

BEAUMONT

!(!(!(!(

!(!(!( !(!(!(!(!(!(

SAN JACINTO

!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!( HEMET

!(

San Gorgonio

Wash

!(

!(!(!( !(!(!( !(!(!(!(

LAKE ELSINORE

CANYON LAKE

WILDOMAR

MENIFEE

!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(

!(!(!(!(

!(!(!(!(

!(!(!(!(

!(!(!(!( !(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!( !(!(!(!( !(!(!(!(

!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(

!(!(!(!(

MURRIETA

Legend

!( Camera Stations

!( Scent Stations

Highways

Roads

!(!(!(!(!(!(!(!(

!(!(!(!( !(!(!(!( !(!(!( !(!(!(

!(!(!(!( !(!(!(!(

!(!(!(!( !(!(!(!(

!(!(!(

TEMECULA

Water Bodies

Miles

Existing Conservation Land

Cities

I 0 10 km

0 2.5 5 10 15 20

Date: 10 March 2011

UTM Nad 83 Zone 11

Contact: Adam Malisch

MSHCP Biological Monitoring Program

Carnivore Camera Stations and Transect Locations in 2010.


7.0 MONITORING ACTIVITIES

surveyed in 2010. However, bobcat tracks were recorded in Pechanga Creek and in the Badlands

northeast of Gilman Springs Road.

Monitoring Program biologists recorded incidental observations of bobcat on eight occasions,

coyote on 21 occasions, long-tailed weasel twice, and mountain lion tracks three times in 2010.

Observations of covered carnivore species were also reported to the Monitoring Program by

partnering agencies or individuals. The Center for Natural Lands Management photo-captured

bobcat on a number of occasions in 2010 at Johnson/Roripaugh Ranch Preserve and at the March

Air Force Base Stephens’ Kangaroo Rat Preserve. Carole Bell of The Nature Conservancy

reported bobcat on the Santa Rosa Plateau Ecological Reserve in March, November, and

December 2010.

Results from scent-station transects in 2010 supported 2009 conclusions regarding the

effectiveness of using transects to record presence/absence of covered carnivores. Bobcat and

mountain lion were best detected by walking transects and searching for tracks. Detection

probabilities did not differ between methods for coyote, while long-tailed weasel were primarily

detected at scent stations. Camera-station surveys in 2010 expanded the number of covered

carnivore detections at locations where they were recorded in 2009, and provided for almost a

full year of data collection at targeted sites, but did not produce new observations where species

presence had been lacking. Bobcat were recorded dispersing across I-15 at Gavilan Wash, Indian

Wash, and Horsethief Wash in 2009 – 2010, but have not adequately been surveyed at the

crossing near Pechanga Creek to confirm dispersal there. CA-60 through the Badlands has also

not been surveyed, and mountain lion have not been recorded using any targeted freeway

undercrossing.

Long-tailed weasel was recorded in six of seven Core Areas in 2010, and the species has now

been documented in 15 of 18 Core Areas since surveys began in 2008. These records satisfy the

Core Area occupancy objective for long-tailed weasel. To date, Core Area and habitat-block

occupancy objectives are being met for all four covered carnivore species with species presence

having been documented on at least 75 percent of Core Areas and habitat blocks described in

individual species accounts. Habitat-linkage objectives remain to be met for mountain lion.

Coverage of mountain lion habitat-linkages and movement corridors is incomplete and surveys

should continue until all areas are thoroughly surveyed. Camera stations should be used to

monitor animal dispersal across freeway corridors that bisect habitat linkages and Core Areas,

especially those named specifically in species accounts for bobcat and mountain lion. A full

description of methodology and results can be found in Carnivore Survey Report 2010 included

in Appendix A – RCA MSHCP Technical Reports – 2. Monitoring Program Survey Results.

Western Riverside County MSHCP

Annual Report (January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2010) 7-52


7.0 MONITORING ACTIVITIES

7.4.12 Los Angeles Pocket Mouse Survey

The species objectives for Los Angeles pocket mouse call for the conservation of 2,000 acres of

suitable habitat in each of seven Core Areas: 1) Davis Unit of San Jacinto Wildlife Area – Lake

Perris State Recreation Area, 2) The Badlands, 3) San Jacinto River – Bautista Creek, 4) Anza

Valley, 5) Southwest Riverside County Multi Species Reserve, 6) Potrero Valley, and 7)

Temecula Creek. Each Core Area must support a stable or increasing population with at least 30

percent of suitable habitat occupied, as measured over any eight-consecutive year period.

Monitoring Program biologists surveyed monthly for Los Angeles pocket mouse at the Davis

Unit of San Jacinto Wildlife Area from February 2006 to March 2007, and at Silverado Ranch

from October 2006 to March 2007. The goals of these surveys were to define a pattern of

seasonal surface activity for this difficult-to-detect species, and to delineate the distribution of

Los Angeles pocket mouse across one Core Area where the species was known to occur. Los

Angeles pocket mouse was detected year-round, but May and June were identified as peak

periods of surface activity.

The survey effort was expanded in 2010 to include six of the seven Core Areas, excluding

Temecula Creek because only a small parcel of appropriate habitat (4.3 ha) is currently

conserved there (Figure 33. Los Angeles Pocket Mouse Survey Areas and Occupied Areas in

2010). Appropriate habitat was modeled in each Core Area based on soil and vegetation

characteristics known to be associated with Los Angeles pocket mouse. Trapping grids were then

distributed within modeled appropriate habitat to determine the distribution of occupied area.

Timing of Los Angeles pocket mouse activity, availability of field crew, and effect of moon

phase on animal detectability dictated that surveys in 2010 be conducted from May to August

across eight efforts, with 16 to 29 grids sampled per effort. Each grid was surveyed over a single

four- or five-night effort. Traps were checked twice each night in accordance with U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service specifications.

Los Angeles pocket mouse was captured on 29 grids at three of the six Core Areas surveyed in

2010. Grid occupancy and nightly detection probability were estimated at areas where LAPM

were present (Davis Unit of San Jacinto Wildlife Area – Lake Perris State Recreation Area,

Anza Valley, and San Jacinto River – Bautista Creek) using an occupancy model that derived

estimates based on grid-level presence/absence data. Five grids were occupied at Davis Unit of

San Jacinto Wildlife Area – Lake Perris State Recreation Area (12.5%); seven grids were

occupied in the Anza Valley (32%); and 17 grids were occupied in the San Jacinto River –

Bautista Creek Core Area (85%). Population trend will be addressed by repeating surveys in

subsequent years and comparing estimates of occupied habitat and relative abundance among

Western Riverside County MSHCP

Annual Report (January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2010) 7-53


Ä71

EASTVALE

Ä91

CORONA

Ä60

§¨¦ 15 !(!( CALIMESA

§¨¦ 215

!(!(

!( !(

Badlands/

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

San Timoteo

!(

RIVERSIDE

Ä60 !( BEAUMONT

MORENO VALLEY

Ä91

Lake Perris/ !( !( !(

!(

Potrero

!( !(

SJWA !( !( !(

!( !( !( !(

!( !( !(

!( !( !(

!(!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!( !( !(

#* !( !(

!( !( !(

§¨¦ 215

!(

!( !(

!( !(

!( !( !(!(

!(

!(!( !(

!(

!( !(

#*#* #*

!( !( Ä79

NORCO

!(

#* !(

SAN JACINTO #* !(

!(

#* San Jacinto River

PERRIS

!(

#*#* !(!( !( #*#*

#* !(

!(

!(

Ä74 Ä74

Ä74

HEMET

#*

BANNING

Ä243

§¨¦ 15 §¨¦ 15 §¨¦ 215 Ä79

Legend

#* Occupied Grids

!( Anza Valley Grids

!( Badlands/San Timoteo Grids

!( Lake Perris/SJWA Grids

!( Multi-Species Reserve Grids

!( Potrero Grids

!( San Jacinto River Grids

Highways

Ä74

LAKE ELSINORE

CANYON LAKE

WILDOMAR

MENIFEE

MURRIETA

TEMECULA

§¨¦ 15

Multi-Species

Reserve

!( !(!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!( !( !( !(!(

!(!( !( !(

!( !(

!(

Water Bodies

Miles

Existing Conservation Land

Cities

I 0 10 km

0 2.5 5 10 15 20

Ä79

Ä371

Anza Valley

!(!(

!( !( !(

!(!( !(

#* !(!(!(

#*#*

!(

!(

Ä74

Date: 10 March 2011

UTM Nad 83 Zone 11

Contact: Adam Malisch

MSHCP Biological Monitoring Program

Los Angeles Pocket Mouse Survey Areas and Occupied Areas in 2010.


7.0 MONITORING ACTIVITIES

grids. San Bernardino kangaroo rat, a co-occurring Covered Species, was also captured on 12

grids (60%) at San Jacinto River – Bautista Creek. A full description of methodology and results

can be found in Los Angeles Pocket Mouse Survey Report 2010 included in Appendix A – RCA

MSHCP Technical Reports – 2. Monitoring Program Survey Results.

7.4.13 Aguanga Kangaroo Rat Survey

The species objectives for Aguanga kangaroo rat call for the conservation of 5,484 acres of

suitable habitat in Temecula Creek, Wilson Creek, and their tributaries. At least 75 percent of

conserved habitat must be occupied, with 20 percent of occupied habitat supporting a population

of at least 5 – 15 individuals per ha, as measured over any eight-year period.

Monitoring Program biologists began testing a survey protocol and documenting the distribution

of Aguanga kangaroo rat in portions of core drainages and tributaries that occur on conserved

lands in the fall of 2010. A GIS model of suitable habitat based on appropriate soil and

vegetation characteristics was created and a repeat-visit survey design was used to estimate

occupancy of suitable habitat. Trapping grids were distributed within modeled appropriate

habitat to determine the distribution of occupied area within conserved land in Lancaster Valley,

Wilson Valley, Tule Creek, Aguanga Valley, and along Sage Road (Figure 34. Aguanga

Kangaroo Rat Trapping Grids and Occupied Grids in Temecula Creek and Wilson Creek in

2010).

Thirty-six grids were surveyed over two 4-night efforts. Traps were checked twice each night in

accordance with U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service specifications. Grid occupancy and nightly

detection probability were estimated using an occupancy model that derived estimates based on

grid-level presence/absence data. Aguanga kangaroo rat was captured on four grids (9%) in

2010. Aguanga kangaroo rat occupied approximately 11 hectares of suitable habitat within the

study area in 2010. Data collected in 2010 will be used to design expanded future efforts that will

include estimation of population density. The following Covered Species were also captured

during Aguanga kangaroo rat trapping in 2010: Los Angeles pocket mouse, northwestern San

Diego pocket mouse, Dulzura kangaroo rat, Stephen’s kangaroo rat, and San Diego desert

woodrat.

The total amount of conserved appropriate Aguanga kangaroo rat habitat within the Plan Area is

limited. One large portion of conserved appropriate habitat (Wilson Creek Mitigation Bank) was

inaccessible for Monitoring Program trapping in 2010. A full description of methodology and

results can be found in Aguanga Kangaroo Rat Survey Report 2010 included in Appendix A –

RCA MSHCP Technical Reports – 2. Monitoring Program Survey Results.

Western Riverside County MSHCP

Annual Report (January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2010) 7-55


Upper Wilson Valley

Sage Road

!( !(

!(!(

!(

!(!(!( !(

!( !(

Western Riverside County

LAKE RIVERSIDE

Wilson Creek Preserve

(closed)

VAIL LAKE

Lancaster Valley West

!(

!(

!(

!(

Ä371

Lancaster Valley East

Legend

#* AKR Occupied Grids

!( Non-occupied grids

AKR Survey Area

AKR Habitat

Streams

Roads

Highways

Water Bodies

Existing Conservation Land

I

0

Ä79

!(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!( !( !(

#* #*

Aguanga Valley

!( #* !(

!(

#* !(

!(

!( !(

!(

TuleCreek

Miles

4

km

0 0.5 1 2 3 4

!(

!(

Date: 11 February 2011

UTM Nad 83 Zone 11

Contact: Jennifer Hoffman

MSHCP Biological Monitoring Program

Figure 2. Aguanga kangaroo rat survey areas with occupied and non-occupied grids, 27 September - 7 October 2010.


7.0 MONITORING ACTIVITIES

7.4.14 Loggerhead Shrike Survey

Species objectives for loggerhead shrike (shrike) require that shrikes successfully reproduce

(defined as a nest producing at least one fledgling) in at least 75 percent of listed Core Areas

once every eight years. The Monitoring Program began targeted efforts to monitor shrikes in

2010. Efforts focused on documenting which Core Areas were being used by shrikes and

whether they successfully reproduced in those Core Areas.

Monitoring Program biologists surveyed transects within appropriate shrike habitat in six Core

Areas to locate breeding individuals and their nests. There was only six hectares of appropriate

habitat within available conserved land in the Temecula Creek Core Area, so the entire area was

searched as opposed to sampled with survey transects. Transects were not placed in the Lake

Perris/Mystic Lake/San Jacinto Wildlife Area, although both shrikes, and successful shrike nests

were incidentally observed here in 2010. Transects were placed within surveyed shrike Core

Areas at a density of approximately one transect/50 hectares of appropriate habitat. A total of

113 transects that were 150 meters long and at least 450 meters apart were surveyed. These

specifications allowed for sufficient sample size for analysis, while also providing an adequate

survey coverage area within each Core Area. If active nests were found, they were re-visited

periodically until fledging or failure occurred. Vegetation data, and the distance to the nearest

road was collected at all nest sites in order to look for differences between nests where successful

reproduction occurred and failed nests.

Shrikes were detected in five of eight Core Areas in 2010. Shrikes were detected most frequently

in the Badlands Core Area (71 percent of transects with shrike detections), less frequently in the

Lake Mathews/Estelle Mountain and Wilson Valley Core Areas, and only incidentally in the

Lake Perris/Mystic Lake/San Jacinto Wildlife Area and Prado Basin/Santa Ana River Core

Areas. Additionally, successful shrike nests were detected in the following four Core Areas:

Badlands, Lake Mathews/Estelle Mountain, Lake Perris/Mystic Lake/ San Jacinto Wildlife Area,

and Wilson Valley (Figure 35. Loggerhead Shrike Survey Areas and Areas with Confirmed

Reproduction in 2010).

Evidence of 32 separate nesting attempts by shrikes was documented in 2010. Of the 32 nesting

attempts, 13 resulted in observed fledglings, 11 failed due to depredation, three nests were found

after fledglings were detected, one failed for unknown reasons, and one nest was abandoned

during the construction phase. For the remaining three observations that were documented,

fledglings were detected but nests were never located. Measured habitat covariates did not differ

significantly between successful and unsuccessful nests.

Shrikes were not detected in the Quail Valley, Temecula Creek, or Wasson Canyon Core Areas

in 2010. Large expanses of relatively flat grassland of short and intermediate height, with

Western Riverside County MSHCP

Annual Report (January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2010) 7-57


Legend

#* Fledgling Observations

#* Successful Nests

!( Survey Locations

Badlands

!(

Ä71

!(

Lake Mathews/Estelle Mountain

Lake Perris/Mystic Lake/SJWA

Prado Basin/Santa Ana River

Quail Valley

Temecula Creek

Wasson Canyon

Wilson Valley

Highways

Roads

§¨¦ 15

Ä60

Prado Basin/

!(

!(

!(

§¨¦ 15 Santa Ana River

CALIMESA

!(

!(

!( !( §¨¦ 215

!(

!( !(

EASTVALE !( !( !(

!(

!( !( !(

§¨¦ 10

!( !( !( !( BEAUMONT

RIVERSIDE

Ä60 !(

MORENO VALLEY

BANNING

NORCO

Lake Perris/

Ä91

Mystic Lake/

Badlands

!( !( !(

Ä91

SJWA

!( !( !(

!(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!( !( !(

!( !(

!( !(

CORONA

!(

!(

#*#*#*#* #* #*#*

!( !(

!(

!( !( !(

!( !(

!(

!( !(

!(

!( !(

!( !( !( !(

Lake Mathews/

§¨¦

#*

!( !( !( !(

!(

!( !(

!(

!(

!(

!( !(

#* Ä79

Estelle Mountain !(

!( !( !( !(

!( !( !(

!(

!(

!( !(

!(

!( #* !(

!(

!(

!( !( !( !(

!(

SAN JACINTO

PERRIS

!( !(

§¨¦ 15 !( !(

!(

Quail Valley

Ä74 Ä74

Ä74

!( !( !(

HEMET

Wasson

Canyon !(

MENIFEE

Ä74

CANYON

LAKE LAKE

ELSINORE

§¨¦ 215 Ä79

WILDOMAR

MURRIETA

TEMECULA

Water Bodies

Miles

Existing Conservation Land

Cities

I 0 10 km

0 2.5 5 10 15 20

§¨¦ 15

Ä79

Temecula

Creek

#* #* #*

#*

Wilson Valley

#*#* !(

#* #*

!(

!(!(

!( !(

!(

Ä371

Ä243

Ä74

Date: 10 March 2011

UTM Nad 83 Zone 11

Contact: Adam Malisch

MSHCP Biological Monitoring Program

Loggerhead Shrike Survey Areas and Areas with Confirmed Reproduction in 2010.


7.0 MONITORING ACTIVITIES

isolated trees and shrubs suitable for nesting scattered throughout comprises ideal shrike habitat.

Both Quail Valley and Wasson Canyon contain small, fragmented areas of grassland habitat, but

these are probably too small to support nesting shrikes and did not contain any ideal nesting

shrubs or trees in 2010. The Temecula Creek Core Area does not currently contain any

substantial tracts of open grassland habitat, and is instead almost entirely riparian habitat. Future

land acquisition and management in these areas should aim to conserve large tracts of shrike

habitat and support known nesting substrates (e.g., scrub oak). A full description of methodology

and results can be found in Loggerhead Shrike Survey Report 2010 included in Appendix A –

RCA MSHCP Technical Reports – 2. Monitoring Program Survey Results.

7.4.15 Tricolored Blackbird Survey

Species objectives for tricolored blackbird (tricolor) require documenting the continued use and

successful reproduction in at least one of five Core Areas at least once every five years. Core

Areas include the San Jacinto floodplain, Mystic Lake/San Jacinto Wildlife Area, Collier Marsh

and Lake Elsinore Grasslands, Alberhill, and Vail Lake/Wilson Valley/eastern Temecula Creek.

Efforts to gather population data on an intensive, state-wide basis were begun by Bill Hamilton

in 1992 but did not extend well into southern California until 1994 when Richard Grey surveyed

a portion of the historic colony sites in all counties except San Bernardino. The survey effort was

expanded in 1997 to include all counties and more historic sites in southern California. Statewide

surveys have been conducted since 2005 at three-year intervals as part of the Conservation

Plan for the tricolored blackbird. The first survey by the Monitoring Program occurred in 2005 in

cooperation with the state-wide effort. The most recent state-wide survey was in 2008.

In 2009 and 2010 Monitoring Program biologists conducted surveys to document the distribution

and reproductive status of tricolor colonies within the Plan Area. All historic colony sites within

Core Areas were surveyed, in addition to other areas with potentially suitable habitat in the Plan

Area. Because tricolor colonies are relatively conspicuous when present and efforts to estimate

colony size are best achieved during a single visit, surveys were limited to three days in April

2009 and three days in May 2010. In a separate effort, Jon Feenstra organized teams of

volunteers for surveys throughout southern California in 2009 and 2010 with funding from the

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and Audubon California.

No tricolors were observed in any Core Areas in 2009. The only colony Monitoring Program

biologists observed was at the Potrero Unit of the San Jacinto Wildlife Area in a small cattail

marsh along Potrero Creek (Figure 36. Tricolored Blackbird Occupied Areas in 2009 and 2010).

Colony size was estimated to be 200 (+ 50) adults, and breeding success was confirmed. Feenstra

reported a total of 2,880 breeding birds in Riverside County in 2009, all outside of tricolor Core

Areas: 150 at the Potrero Unit of the San Jacinto Wildlife Area, 2,000 at the San

Western Riverside County MSHCP

Annual Report (January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2010) 7-59


Ä60

§¨¦ 15 §¨¦ 215

Ä71

EASTVALE

Ä91

NORCO

CORONA

Ä91

RIVERSIDE

§¨¦ 215

MORENO VALLEY

Fisherman's

Retreat

Ä60

!(

CALIMESA

§¨¦ 10

BEAUMONT

BANNING

Ä79

Potrero

!(

PERRIS

San Jacinto Wastewater

Treatment Plant

!(

SAN JACINTO

Ä243

§¨¦ 15 §¨¦ 15 §¨¦ 215 Ä79

Ä74 Ä74

Ä74

HEMET

Ä74

LAKE ELSINORE

CANYON LAKE

MENIFEE

Lake Hemet

!(

Ä74

WILDOMAR

Legend

!( Tricolor Observations 2009 Only

!( Tricolor Observations 2010 Only

!( Tricolor Observations 2009-2010

Highways

Roads

MURRIETA

TEMECULA

Water Bodies

Miles

Existing Conservation Land

Cities

I 0 10 km

0 2.5 5 10 15 20

§¨¦ 15

Ä79

Lake Riverside

Estates

!(

Ä371

Date: 10 March 2011

UTM Nad 83 Zone 11

Contact: Adam Malisch

MSHCP Biological Monitoring Program

Tricolored Blackbird Occupied Areas in 2009 and 2010.


7.0 MONITORING ACTIVITIES

Jacinto Wastewater Treatment Plant which is operated by the Eastern Municipal Water District,

and 730 at Lake Riverside Estates, a private lakeside community near the town of Aguanga in

the Wilson Valley area. Monitoring Program biologists located four tricolor colonies in 2010,

with an estimated total of 1,385 adults distributed among Lake Riverside Estates, the Potrero

Unit of the San Jacinto Wildlife Area, Fisherman’s Retreat, and Lake Hemet. None of these

locations are within tricolor Core Areas.

The Potrero colony was estimated at approximately 25 adults and reproductive success was

confirmed. Access to the Lake Riverside Estates property was not obtained in 2010; the estimate

of 260 individuals was based on the number of birds traveling to and from the lake to forage in

cattle pasture along Highway 371, approximately 0.5 kilometers away. Feenstra reported 800

adults at this location as a result of a survey nine days prior to those conducted by Monitoring

Program biologists. Fisherman’s Retreat is a private campground and man-made lake in San

Timoteo Canyon with surrounding land managed by the RCA and Riverside County Regional

Parks and Open Space District. A tricolor colony was first observed in a small cattail marsh on

the eastern side of the lake in 2008. There were 1,000 (+ 200) estimated adults at this location in

2010 and reproductive success was confirmed. A colony of approximately 80 adults was

observed at Lake Hemet and reproduction was confirmed in 2010. This marks the first

occurrence at this site on record.

Results of region-wide surveys conducted in 2009 and 2010 indicate that the population of

tricolors in southern California is at its lowest level since recent surveys began. The total number

of breeding birds in Riverside County and the MSHCP Plan Area has declined by approximately

88 percent since 2005 alone. Tricolor colonies were historically concentrated within the San

Jacinto Wildlife Area/Mystic Lake Core Area but have recently been absent.

Given the rapid rate of decline it is recommended that monitoring be conducted for tricolor

colonies every year rather than every five years. Annual surveys should also be coordinated with

the state-wide surveys occurring every three years. Given the limited number of active colony

sites, it is also recommended that land managers seek to maintain suitable breeding and foraging

habitat at all recent historic and potential colony sites. A full description of methodology and

results can be found in Tricolored Blackbird Survey Report 2010 included in Appendix A – RCA

MSHCP Technical Reports – 2. Monitoring Program Survey Results.

7.4.16 Incidental Species Sightings

Covered Species incidentally observed during unrelated survey activities are recorded by

Monitoring Program biologists to increase knowledge of the distribution of Covered Species in

the Conservation Area. Incidental observations are considered of lesser quality than focused

survey data as the methods are not repeatable and only positive data are recorded. However, as

Western Riverside County MSHCP

Annual Report (January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2010) 7-61


7.0 MONITORING ACTIVITIES

discussed above, recording incidental observations of species that are difficult to detect is

extremely important. Incidental observation data may also be used as a starting point for more

focused survey efforts and to provide information about appropriate habitat for the detected

species in the future. In 2010 the Monitoring Program incorporated incidental observations of

Covered Species into taxa-specific databases and reports and a separate report for incidental

observations of Covered Species was not written. All observations of Covered Species, whether

made by focused survey or incidentally, are used when making a determination of whether or not

species-specific objectives have been met for a given reporting period.

7.5 Suggested Changes and Feedback for Adaptive Management

Until the inventory phase is complete, it will be difficult to assess the full range of management

needs for the Covered Species. The Monitoring Program will produce a detailed report of the

distribution and status of the Covered Species and associated habitats at least once every eight

years. Because effective management requires information on a shorter timeframe, the

Monitoring Program will continue coordinating and sharing information with Reserve Managers

on a monthly basis. Proposals for adaptive management will be developed jointly and will be

circulated to the RCA and Wildlife Agencies for review, approval, and funding. The following

suggestions for adaptive management are based on surveys made by the Monitoring Program and

other entities.

Stephens’ Kangaroo Rat. The Monitoring Program previously conducted trapping surveys for

SKR outside of the SKR HCP Plan Area with the goal of documenting at least 3,000 acres of

occupied SKR habitat, with at least 1,200 acres occupied by SKR at medium-to-high density

(five-to-10 SKR per acre) as required by the MSHCP’s SKR species objective. Active

management to reduce exotic annual grass cover in the Lewis Valley and Durasno Valley areas

could contribute significantly to achieving the distribution objective for this species. It should

also be noted that the distribution of SKR in the Potrero Unit of the San Jacinto Wildlife Area is

probably at a highpoint and can be expected to contract over time without management of annual

grasses.

Burrowing Owl. Based on surveys in recent years by the Monitoring Program and local

biologists (e.g., Ginny Short, Jeff Kidd, Pete Bloom), two of five MSHCP-identified Core Areas

for burrowing owl have few, if any, burrowing owl breeding pairs: Lake Mathews and Santa Ana

River. To achieve the conservation objectives for burrowing owl, either management of habitat

at these two Core Areas will be necessary or other occupied Core Areas need to be identified.

Any areas found with large colonies (more than five pairs) should be managed as Core Areas for

the species.

Western Riverside County MSHCP

Annual Report (January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2010) 7-62


7.0 MONITORING ACTIVITIES

Since 2006, the RCA’s Management Program and Monitoring Program have collaborated with

local Reserve Managers on an adaptive management project with the goal of increasing

burrowing owl habitat within the Conservation Area. This collaborative effort has grown to

include management and monitoring of natural and/or artificial burrows at the Southwestern

Riverside County Multi-Species Reserve, Estelle Mountain Ecological Reserve, Lake Perris

State Recreation Area, Johnson Ranch, San Jacinto Wildlife Area, RCA-owned lands in the

Badlands, and El Sol property. Cooperation with land managers has expanded to include a

schedule and shared data sheet for monitoring burrowing owl burrows. The collected data are

stored in a Monitoring Program database. There are currently over 100 natural or artificial

burrows that are regularly monitored and have information stored in the database.

Burrowing owls need open areas with sparse or low-growing vegetation. Therefore, appropriate

active management tools may be needed to control non-native grasses (e.g., grazing, mowing,

prescribed fire). Progress toward completing a comprehensive burrowing owl habitat

management plan is being drafted in collaboration with local Reserve Managers.

Covered Amphibians and Aquatic Reptiles. Exotic species such as bullfrogs, red-eared sliders,

mosquito fish, and African clawed frogs are known to exist within many waterways within the

Conservation Area and have negative effects on native amphibians and aquatic reptiles. At a

minimum, the habitat within Core Areas that are infested with exotic species would be greatly

enhanced by removal of these exotics. Although reintroduction of some covered amphibians may

be an appropriate management action (e.g., mountain yellow-legged frog) no reintroductions of

Covered Species should be considered for areas currently infested with exotic species until

management actions have the exotics under control.

No California red-legged frogs have been found in western Riverside County since one male was

seen in Cole Creek at the Santa Rosa Plateau Ecological Reserve in September 2003. The species

is not known to currently occur in the Plan Area despite the apparent presence of suitable habitat.

Significant effort has been expended by the Monitoring Program in recent years to survey for

red-legged frog within Core Areas, and to evaluate and identify suitable habitat for red-legged

frog within the Conservation Area. The probable causes of the decline of red-legged frog are

introductions of non-native predators such as bullfrogs and fish, habitat loss due to development

and agriculture, pesticide pollution, and pathogens such as Chytrid fungus. Without future active

management (e.g., exotic species removal, species translocation) extensive additional efforts to

locate red-legged frogs within the Conservation Area would be an inefficient expenditure of

resources.

Tricolored Blackbird. Results of region-wide surveys conducted in 2009 and 2010 indicate that

the population of tricolors in southern California is at its lowest level since recent surveys began.

Western Riverside County MSHCP

Annual Report (January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2010) 7-63


7.0 MONITORING ACTIVITIES

The total number of breeding birds in Riverside County and the MSHCP Plan Area has declined

by approximately 88 percent since 2005 alone. Tricolor colonies were historically concentrated

within the San Jacinto Wildlife Area/Mystic Lake Core Area but have recently been absent.

Given the limited number of active colony sites, it is recommended that land managers seek to

maintain suitable breeding and foraging habitat at all recent historic and potential colony sites.

Western Riverside County MSHCP

Annual Report (January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2010) 7-64


8.0 REFERENCES

8.0 REFERENCES

Bechtel, Cathy. 2010. Riverside County Transportation Commission Projects for 2010, personal

communication (via email), January 6, 2011.

Brewer, Mark. 2010. Riverside County Regional Park and Open Space District Projects for 2010,

personal communication (via email), March 31, 2011.

California Native Plant Society. 2002. Vegetation rapid assessment protocol. CNPS Vegetation

Committee. 11 p. (http://www.cnps.org/vegetation/protocol.htm).

Diaz, Art. 2010. Riverside County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Projects for

2010, personal communication (via email), January 13, 2011.

Dobson-Correa, Laurie. 2010. County of Riverside Transportation Department Projects for

2010. Personal communication (via email) January 13, 2011.

Evens, J.M. and A.N. Klein. 2006. “A New Model for Conservation Planning: Vegetation

Mapping in Western Riverside County.” Fremontia, 34(2): 11-18, April 2006.

Kruerper, Ron, 2010. California State Parks Projects for 2010, personal communication (via

email), February 2, 2011.

Riverside, County of. 2003. General Plan.

Riverside, County of. 2003. Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation

Plan (MSHCP). June 2003.

Riverside County Habitat Conservation Agency. 1996. Habitat Conservation Plan for the

Stephen’s Kangaroo Rat in Western Riverside County California. March 1996

Ross, Ryan. 2010. Riverside County Waste Management Department Projects for 2010, personal

communication (via email), January 25, 2011.

Sadeghi, Mahmoud. 2010. Caltrans Projects for 2010, personal communication (via email),

February 4, 2011.

United States Fish and Wildlife Service and California Department of Fish and Game. 2003.

“Completion of the Land Acquisition Portion of the Reserve Expansion Requirement of

the Long-Term Habitat Conservation Plan for the Stephens’ Kangaroo Rat and Exchange

of the SKR Management Area of the Former March Air Force Base.” Letter from United

Western Riverside County MSHCP

Annual Report (January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2010) 8-1


8.0 REFERENCES

States Fish and Wildlife Service and California Department of Fish and Game to Carolyn

Syms Luna, Executive Director, Riverside County Habitat Conservation Agency and

Philip Rizzo, Executive Director, March Joint Powers Authority, December 2003.

Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority. 2010.

Western Riverside County Multiple Species Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP).

“Minor Amendment 2007-01”, July 21, 2009.

Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority and Riverside-Corona Resource

Conservation District. 2010. Memorandum of Understanding By and Between the

Western Riverside County Regional Conservation Authority and the Riverside Corona

Resource Conservation District Coordinating Habitat management for RCRCD Lands

and Potential Restortation for RCA Lands, June 15, 2010.

Western Riverside County MSHCP

Annual Report (January 1, 2010, through December 31, 2010) 8-2


APPENDIX A

Additional Technical Reports and

Information used to prepare the

RCA 2010 Annual Report


APPENDIX A

ADDITIONAL REPORTS AND INFORMATION

Additional Reports and Information

The following reports, methods, procedures, and information contain information that was

utilized or developed during the reporting period of January 1, 2010, through December 31,

2010. The reports, documents, and maps are provided as supporting information to the annual

report and have been published in separate technical reports both on the Internet in PDF format

as well as included on a DVD with the published report. The Annual Report, Appendixes,

Survey Reports, Maps and Documents can be found at the following location:

http://www.wrc-rca.org/AnnualReport_2010/Annual_Report_2010.html

RCA MSHCP Technical Reports

1. GIS Methodology, Process and Procedures

This document was created to provide the details on how the Permit and Project

information was assembled from the Permittees. The document describes the files and

process that was used to prepare the information for the Annual Report as well as the

datasets used for rough step reporting and to develop the Habitrak Maps. The

methodology, process and procedures using ESRI ArcInfo GIS to assemble the numbers

for the rough step vegetation, area plans, area plan sub units and jurisdictions for both

losses and gains are described.

RCA_2010_AR_TR_GIS_Methods_Procedures.pdf (28 pages)

2. Monitoring Program Survey Results

Separate documents and reports account for the survey activities undertaken by the

Biological Monitoring Program for the Western Riverside County Multiple Species

Habitat Conservation Plan (MSHCP) during 2010. The Biological Monitoring Program

monitors the distribution and status of the 146 Covered Species within the Conservation

Area to provide information to Permittees, land managers, the public and the Wildlife

Agencies (i.e. the California Department of Fish and Game and the U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service). Monitoring Program activities are guided by the MSHCP Species

Objectives for each Covered Species, the MSHCP information needs identified in Section

5.3 or elsewhere in the document, and the information needs of the Permittees.

Aguanga Kangaroo Rat Survey Report 2010

RCA_2010_AR_TR_Monitor_Aguanga_Krat.pdf (34 pgs)

Western Riverside County MSHCP

Annual Report (January 1, 2010 through December 31, 2010) A-1


Arroyo Chub (Gila orcutti) Survey Report 2010

RCA_2010_AR_TR_Monitor_Arroyo_Chub.pdf (22 pgs)

Arroyo Toad (Anaxyrus californicus) Survey Report 2010

RCA_2010_AR_TR_Monitor_Arroyo_Toad.pdf (28 pgs)

Artificial Cover Survey Report 2010

RCA_2010_AR_TR_Monitor_Artifical_Cover.pdf (26 pgs)

Carnivore Survey Report 2010

RCA_2010_AR_TR_Monitor_Carnivore.pdf (34 pgs)

APPENDIX A

ADDITIONAL REPORTS AND INFORMATION

Delhi Sands Flower-loving Fly (Rhaphiomidas terminatus abdominalis) Survey

Report 2010

RCA_2010_AR_TR_Monitor_DSF_Report.pdf (25 pgs)

Engelmann Oak (Quercus engelmannii) Recruitment Survey Report 2010

RCA_2010_AR_TR_Monitor_Engelmann_Oak.pdf (28 pgs)

Loggerhead Shrike (Lanisus Ludovicianus) Survey Report 2010

RCA_2010_AR_TR_Monitor_Loggerhead_Shrike.pdf (21 pgs)

Los Angeles Pocket Mouse Survey Report 2010

RCA_2010_AR_TR_Monitor_Los_Angeles_Pocket_Mouse.pdf (50 pgs)

Quino Checkerspot Butterfly (Euphydryas editha quino) Survey Report 2010

RCA_2010_AR_TR_Monitor_Quino.pdf (29 pgs)

Rare Plants Survey Report 2010

RCA_2010_AR_TR_Monitor_Rare_Plants.pdf (51 pgs)

San Diego Banded Gecko (Coleonyx variegates abbotti) Survey Report 2010

RCA_2010_AR_TR_Monitor_San_Diego_Gecko.pdf (17 pgs)

Tricolored Blackbird Survey Report 2010

RCA_2010_AR_TR_Monitor_Tricolored_Blackbird.pdf (22 pgs)

Western Riverside County MSHCP

Annual Report (January 1, 2010 through December 31, 2010) A-2


Vegetation Community Survey Report 2010

RCA_2010_AR_TR_Monitor_Veg_Community.pdf (37 pgs)

Vernal Pool Survey Report 2010

RCA_2010_AR_TR_Monitor_Vernal_Pool.pdf (25 pgs)

APPENDIX A

ADDITIONAL REPORTS AND INFORMATION

3. Report on Conservation Easement Lands received through 404 Permits

The RCA is required by the Army Corp of Engineers to provide a report each year on the

activities concerning all conservation easements that were created through 404 permits.

In 2010 no additional lands were acquired that need to be reported in this category.

RCA_2010_AR_TR_Monitoring_of_404_Permit_Lands.pdf (8 pgs)

4. Habitrak Reports and Maps

The MSHCP and Implementing Agreement requires that the RCA use an existing GISbased

habitat tracking model (or equivalent) called Habitrak that was built on ESRI

ArcView or a methodology consistent for reporting. Based on the size of the datasets

involved for the Western Riverside County MSHCP, complexity of the MSHCP, and

large number of permits and projects the RCA elected to develop an alternative process

that creates files compatible with Habitrak but based on ESRI ArcGIS and reports and

maps that provide the same information.

WRC Losses and Gains Map (35” x 48” plotter format)

WRC_AR_AcquisitionsLossesMap_2010_35x48_300dpi.pdf

WRC_AR_AcquisitionsLossesMap_2010_35x48_600dpi.pdf

(15.0 MB)

(40.9 MB)

Losses and Gains Maps (11” x 17” format)

Rough Step Unit Index Map for 2010

Annual_Report_2010_RS_Index.pdf

(1.65 MB)

WRC Rough Step Unit 1 - Gains and Losses 2010

Annual_Report_2010_Map_RS1.pdf

(2.36 MB)

WRC Rough Step Unit 2 - Gains and Losses 2010

Annual_Report_2010_Map_RS2.pdf

(2.44 MB)

WRC Rough Step Unit 3 - Gains and Losses 2010

Western Riverside County MSHCP

Annual Report (January 1, 2010 through December 31, 2010) A-3


APPENDIX A

ADDITIONAL REPORTS AND INFORMATION

Annual_Report_2010_Map_RS3.pdf

(2.33 MB)

WRC Rough Step Unit 4 - Gains and Losses 2010

Annual_Report_2010_Map_RS4.pdf

(1.61 MB)

WRC Rough Step Unit 5 - Gains and Losses 2010

Annual_Report_2010_Map_RS5.pdf

(2.32 MB)

WRC Rough Step Unit 6 - Gains and Losses 2010

Annual_Report_2010_Map_RS6.pdf

(2.72 MB)

WRC Rough Step Unit 7 - Gains and Losses 2010

Annual_Report_2010_Map_RS7.pdf

(2.41 MB)

WRC Rough Step Unit 8 - Gains and Losses 2010

Annual_Report_2010_Map_RS8.pdf

(2.21 MB)

WRC Rough Step Unit 9 - Gains and Losses 2010

Annual_Report_2010_Map_RS9.pdf

(1.85 MB)

5. Clerical Amendments to the MSHCP

The RCA did not process or identify any clerical amendments to the MSCHP in 2010.

6. Agricultural Operations Database

The Implementation Agreement for the MSHCP in section 11.3 required that the RCA

and County establish an Agricultural Operations database and report on agricultural

activities such as agricultural grading permits issued each year. Agricultural grading

permits are included within the GIS Loss files for each reporting year. For the 2010

Annual Report there were not additions to the agricultural operations data base. One

Agriculture Grading Permit was issued but it had been previously reported as grading

permit in 2005. The parcel also was previously shown as an Ag Grading Permit from

2006. The GIS database and current map as of 12/31/2010 are included as part of the

Annual Report for 2010.

Agricultural Operations Maps (As of 12/31/2010)

WRC_Agricultural_Lands_100dpi_12312010.pdf (15.0 MB)

WRC_Agricultural_Lands_300dpi_12312010.pdf (40.9 MB)

GIS Agricultural Operations Database

WRC_Agricultural_Operations.shp (includes all updates to 12/31/2010)

Western Riverside County MSHCP

Annual Report (January 1, 2010 through December 31, 2010) A-4


APPENDIX A

ADDITIONAL REPORTS AND INFORMATION

WRC_Agricultural_Operations.pdf

GIS Metadata is included and the PDF provides the supporting information on changes

and procedures for the addition of data to the file.

7. Development Projects - Future Conservation GIS Data Files

New for the 2010 Annual Report is a new data layer that represents conservation that will

be acquired at some point in time in the future by the RCA through the Development

Process.

The Joint Project Review (JPR) - Habitat Evaluation and Acquisition Negotiation Process

(HANS) performed by the RCA and the Permittees on proposed development projects is

used as the basis for developing this new data layer. These JPR and HANS projects after

review have had the development footprint and areas described for conservation outlined

within the project area within the RCA GIS JPR database. The JPR database was used as

the basis for developing this file and all records that had completed the JPR review and

designated portions of the lands to be conserved were saved to this file. Any projects that

had been acquired by the RCA or had conservation easements were then removed from

the file.

This new GIS layer is not used in the Rough Step Analysis but it does serve to provide a

indication of conservation that will be acquired through the development process when it

finally occurs. As of December 31, 2010 approximately 8,405 acres have been designated

as future conservation through development.

Development Projects - Future Conservation GIS Files as of December 31, 2010

WRC_RCA_AR_Future_Conservation.shp

8. Non RCA Conservation and Easements GIS Data Files

New for the 2010 Annual Report is a new data layer that represents conservation land

that is either owned or secured through a conservation easement by entities other than the

Regional Conservation Authority.

These parcels acquired through a Grant Deed or conserved through a Conservation

Easement have been verified through the review of the recorded deed. The grant deeds,

easement deeds or conservation easements as recorded by the Riverside County Clerk

and Recorder as official records of Riverside County were downloaded to several folders

on the RCA Server. Each grant deed or easement deed has been located and tied to the

particular parcel it describes. These deeds are held by conservation entities such as the

Western Riverside County MSHCP

Annual Report (January 1, 2010 through December 31, 2010) A-5


APPENDIX A

ADDITIONAL REPORTS AND INFORMATION

Riverside Land Conservancy (RLC), The Center for Natural Lands Management

(CNLM) or other conservation non-profit corporations that are involved in conservation

of lands for open space.

The lands identified as being in a conservation status through a conservation easement or

owned by the Conservation Entity and acquired through a grant deed are located within

the areas described for Conservation (MSHCP Criteria Cells) as well as outside the cell

boundaries. A review was performed to make sure that the lands entered into this file had

not been previously identified as Public Quasi Public Lands or that the lands in question

have been acquired by the RCA.

In 2010 a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was signed by the Regional

Conservation Authority and the Riverside Corona Resource Conservation District

(RCRCD) was signed in June. This MOU assures that RCRCD Lands will be managed

and monitored under the MSHCP for Western Riverside County. The RCRCD lands

within Criteria Cells will be counted toward the Rough Step within the Rough Step Units

since they are conservation status and managed under the Plan. Currently a total of

208.905 acres are managed by RCRCD under conservation easements and fee title under

the MOU and MSHCP Plan. Of those acres a total of 188.531 acres are within criteria

cells and count towards Rough Step. In a later reporting year it will be determined what

lands held by RCRCD will be counted towards Reserve Assembly and what lands will be

considered PQP.

Non RCA Conservation and Easements for the MSHCP as of December 31, 2010.

WRC_Non_RCA_Conservation_Easements.shp

9. GIS Data Files

The GIS Shape files can be found in the subdirectory of GIS-Data on the Annual Report

2010 CD. These files are in ESRI Shape file format and require ESRI ArcGIS for

viewing and analysis. These files are provided as the source for the analysis of the Rough

Step Units, Area Plans and Jurisdictions for both losses and gains to the vegetation

communities for the MSHCP. Any use and analysis of these files requires both a review

and understanding of the methods and procedures described in the included document:

RCA_2010_AR_TR_GIS_Methods_Procedures.pdf (28 pages)

This documentation describes how these files were prepared and contains critical

information on how to handle acquisitions and losses in preparing the data for rough step

analysis and other summaries.

Western Riverside County MSHCP

Annual Report (January 1, 2010 through December 31, 2010) A-6


APPENDIX A

ADDITIONAL REPORTS AND INFORMATION

To prepare maps and other analysis these GIS data files may need to be used with other

GIS data from the County of Riverside GIS or with GIS data from the MSHCP.

These GIS Files may not be modified or edited. Please contact RCA Staff on any

concerns or corrections using the procedures documented in the Metadata.

GIS Shape Files and Metadata Documents

Acquisitions and Gains GIS Files

Acquisitions and Gains Prior to June 22, 2004

WRC_Acquisitions_Gains_Prior_06222004.shp

Acquisitions and Gains for Annual Report 2004

WRC_Acquisitions_Gains_2004.shp

Acquisitions and Gains for Annual Report 2005

WRC_Acquisitions_Gains_2005.shp

Acquisitions and Gains for Annual Report 2006

WRC_Acquisitions_Gains_2006.shp

Acquisitions and Gains for Annual Report 2007

WRC_Acquisitions_Gains_2007.shp

Acquisitions and Gains for Annual Report 2008

WRC_Acquisitions_Gains_2008.shp

Acquisitions and Gains for Annual Report 2009

WRC_Acquisitions_Gains_2009.shp

Acquisitions and Gains for Annual Report 2010

WRC_Acquisitions_Gains_2010.shp

Acquisitions and Gains during the period of February 2000 to December 31, 2010

WRC_RCA_AR_Acquisitions_Gains.shp

Western Riverside County MSHCP

Annual Report (January 1, 2010 through December 31, 2010) A-7


APPENDIX A

ADDITIONAL REPORTS AND INFORMATION

Projects and Permit Losses GIS Files

Project Losses for Annual Report 2004

WRC_Project_Losses_2004.shp

Project losses from 2004 as corrected for Annual Report 2010

WRC_Project_Losses_Corrected_2004.shp

WRC_Project_Losses_Corrected_2004_1.pdf

WRC_Project_Losses_Corrected_2004_2.pdf

WRC_Project_Losses_Corrected_2004_3.pdf

Project Losses as Reported for Annual Report 2005

WRC_Project_Losses_Reported_2005.shp

Project Losses for Annual Report 2005

WRC_Project_Losses_2005.shp

Project losses from 2005 as corrected for Annual Report 2010

WRC_Project_Losses_Corrected_2005.shp

WRC_Project_Losses_Corrected_2005.pdf

Project Losses as Reported for Annual Report 2006

WRC_Project_Losses_Reported_2006.shp

Project Losses for Annual Report 2006

WRC_Project_Losses_2006.shp

Project losses from 2006 as corrected for Annual Report 2010

WRC_Project_Losses_Corrected_2006.shp

WRC_Project_Losses_Corrected_2006.pdf

Project Losses as Reported for Annual Report 2007

WRC_Project_Losses_Reported_2007.shp

Project Losses for Annual Report 2007

WRC_Project_Losses_2007.shp

Project losses from 2007 as corrected for Annual Report 2010

Western Riverside County MSHCP

Annual Report (January 1, 2010 through December 31, 2010) A-8


WRC_Project_Losses_Corrected_2007.shp

WRC_Project_Losses_Corrected_2007.pdf

Project Losses as Reported for Annual Report 2008

WRC_Project_Losses_Reported_2008.shp

Project Losses for Annual Report 2008

WRC_Project_Losses_2008.shp

Project losses from 2008 as corrected for Annual Report 2010

WRC_Project_Losses_Corrected_2008.shp

WRC_Project_Losses_Corrected_2008.pdf

Project Losses as Reported for Annual Report 2009

WRC_Project_Losses_Reported_2009.shp

Project Losses for Annual Report 2009

WRC_Project_Losses_2009.shp

Project losses from 2009 as corrected for Annual Report 2010

WRC_Project_Losses_Corrected_2009.shp

WRC_Project_Losses_Corrected_2009.pdf

Project Losses as Reported for Annual Report 2010

WRC_Project_Losses_Reported_2010.shp

APPENDIX A

ADDITIONAL REPORTS AND INFORMATION

Project Losses for Annual Report 2010

WRC_Project_Losses_2010.shp

(New Losses to the MSHCP)

Project Losses during the period of June 22, 2004 through December 31, 2010

WRC_RCA_AR_Project_Losses.shp

Western Riverside County MSHCP

Annual Report (January 1, 2010 through December 31, 2010) A-9

More magazines by this user
Similar magazines