Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutApn E - Biological ResourcesAPPENDIX E Biological Resources Report REPORT OTAY LAND COMPANY VILLAGE 8 WEST BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES REPORT Prepared for Otay Land Company 1903 Wright Place, Suite 220 Carlsbad, CA 92008 URS Project No. 27659026.00100 Patrick Mock, Ph.D., CSE, CWB® Senior Biologist October 2012 4225 Executive Square, Suite 1600 La Jolla, CA 92037 858.812.9292 Fax: 858.812.9293 TABLE OF CONTENTS \23-May-13\SDG i Executive Summary ............................................................................................................ ES-1 Section 1 Introduction .....................................................................................................1-1 Section 2 Methods ...........................................................................................................2-1 2.1 Vegetation Mapping .............................................................................................. 2-1 2.2 Plant Surveys ......................................................................................................... 2-2 2.2.1 MSCP Narrow Endemic Plant Surveys..................................................... 2-2 2.3 Wildlife surveys ..................................................................................................... 2-3 2.3.1 California Gnatcatcher Surveys ................................................................ 2-3 2.3.2 Quino Checkerspot Butterfly Surveys ...................................................... 2-3 2.3.3 Burrowing Owl Surveys ............................................................................ 2-3 2.4 Jurisdictional Delineation ...................................................................................... 2-3 Section 3 Existing Conditions ........................................................................................3-1 3.1 Regulatory Setting ................................................................................................. 3-1 3.1.1 Otay Ranch Resource Management Plan .................................................. 3-1 3.1.2 Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan .............................................................. 3-1 3.1.3 Otay Ranch General Development Plan (GDP) ........................................ 3-2 3.1.4 Narrow Endemic Species Protection ......................................................... 3-2 3.2 Vegetation .............................................................................................................. 3-3 3.2.1 Coastal Sage Scrub.................................................................................... 3-4 3.2.2 Maritime Succulent Scrub ......................................................................... 3-4 3.2.3 Non-native Grassland ................................................................................ 3-5 3.2.4 Mulefat Scrub (MFS) ................................................................................ 3-5 3.2.5 Freshwater Marsh ...................................................................................... 3-5 3.2.6 Agricultural Land ...................................................................................... 3-6 3.2.7 Disturbed Vegetation ................................................................................ 3-6 3.2.8 Developed ................................................................................................. 3-6 3.2.9 Special Status Vegetation Communities ................................................... 3-6 3.3 Plants ..................................................................................................................... 3-7 3.3.1 Special Status Plant Species ...................................................................... 3-7 3.3.2 CNPS List 1 and List 2 species ................................................................. 3-7 3.3.3 CNPS List 4 Species ............................................................................... 3-10 3.4 Wildlife ................................................................................................................ 3-11 3.4.1 MSCP Covered Wildlife Species ............................................................ 3-12 3.4.2 Least Bell’s Vireo ................................................................................... 3-13 3.4.3 San Diego Cactus Wren .......................................................................... 3-14 3.4.4 Special Status Wildlife Species not Covered by the MSCP.................... 3-16 3.5 Wildlife Movement .............................................................................................. 3-18 3.6 Soils ..................................................................................................................... 3-18 3.7 Jurisdictional Wetland Delineation ...................................................................... 3-18 3.7.1 Waters of the United States ..................................................................... 3-19 3.7.2 California Department of Fish and Game Jurisdictional Lakes and Streams .................................................................................................... 3-22 3.7.3 Regional Water Quality Control Board Jurisdictional Surface Waters ... 3-24 3.7.4 City of Chula Vista Wetlands Protection Program ................................. 3-24 TABLE OF CONTENTS \23-May-13\SDG ii 3.7.5 Waters of the United States within the Village 8 West Project .............. 3-25 3.7.6 California Department of Fish and Game Jurisdictional Lakes and Streams within the Village 8 West Project ............................................. 3-26 3.7.7 Regional Water Quality Control Board Jurisdictional Surface Waters within the Village 8 West Project ........................................................... 3-27 3.7.8 City of Chula Vista Wetlands Protection Program ................................. 3-27 Section 4 Impact Assessment ........................................................................................4-1 4.1 Significance Criteria .............................................................................................. 4-1 4.2 Direct Impacts ........................................................................................................ 4-3 4.2.1 Vegetation ................................................................................................. 4-3 4.2.2 Special Status Plants ................................................................................. 4-6 4.2.3 Wildlife ..................................................................................................... 4-6 4.2.4 Wildlife Movement ................................................................................... 4-7 4.2.5 Jurisdictional Waters ................................................................................. 4-8 4.2.6 Consistency with MSCP City of Chula Vista Subarea Plan and Otay Ranch Resource Management Plan .................................................. 4-9 4.3 Indirect Impacts ................................................................................................... 4-17 4.3.1 Vegetation Communities ......................................................................... 4-17 4.3.2 Special Status Plant Species .................................................................... 4-18 4.3.3 Special Status Wildlife Species ............................................................... 4-18 4.3.4 Jurisdictional Waters ............................................................................... 4-18 4.4 Cumulative Impacts ............................................................................................. 4-19 Section 5 Mitigation .........................................................................................................5-1 Section 6 References ......................................................................................................6-1 List of Tables, Figures, and Appendices \23-May-13\SDG iii Tables Table 1 Acreages of Existing Habitats within the Village 8 West Project Table 2 Summary of CNPS List, Global, and State Rankings Table 3 Development Impacts (acres) to Vegetation for Village 8 West Project Table 4 Village 8 West Project Impacts (acres) to Special Status Vegetation Table 5 Impacts to Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands Figures Figure 1 Vicinity Map Figure 2 Development Plan Figure 3 Vegetation Map Figure 4 Sensitive Species Map Figure 5 Soils Map Figure 6 Biological Impact Map Figure 7 Wildlife Corridors and Linkages Figure 8 Delineated Jurisdictional Waters Appendices Appendix A Summary of Biological Surveys Conducted on the Village 8 West Project Appendix B Otay Land Company, Village 8 West Jurisdictional Delineation Data Sheets Appendix C Otay Land Company, Village 8 West Floral Species List Appendix D Otay Land Company, Village 8 West Wildlife Species List Appendix E Sensitive Species with the Potential to Occur On-site Appendix F Site Photographs Appendix G Invasive and Non-invasive Plant Species Lists for Village 8 West List of Acronyms and Abbreviations \23-May-13\SDG iv ACOE Army Corps of Engineers ASMD Area Specific Management Directives BCC Bird of Conservation Concern BMP Best Management Practices CAGN California Gnatcatcher CAWR Cactus Wren CDFG California Department of Fish and Game CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CFD Community Facilities District CFGC California Fish and Game Commission CNDDB California Natural Diversity Database CNPS California Native Plant Society Corps United States Army Corps of Engineers CPF Community Purpose Facility CSS Coastal Sage Scrub CTB concrete-treated base dB(A) Leq-h Decibel hourly equivalent Level EIR Environmental Impact Report EPA Environmental Protection Agency ESA Endangered Species Act EUC Otay Ranch Eastern Urban Center F Degrees Fahrenheit FAC Facultative FACW Facultative Wetland Species ft Feet GDP Otay Ranch General Development Plan GIS Geographical Information System GPS Global Positioning System HLIT Habitat Loss and Incidental Take LBVI Least Bell’s vireo MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act mph Miles per hour MSCP City of Chula Vista Multiple Species Conservation Program Subarea Plan MSL Mean Sea Level MSS Maritime Succulent Scrub NNG Non-Native Grassland NPDES National Pollution Discharge Elimination System NRCS Natural Resource Conservation Service OHWM Ordinary High Water Mark OVRP Otay Valley Regional Park OWUS Other Waters of the United States PC Planned Community PEIR Program Environmental Impact Report PFFP Public Facilities Finance Plan PIA Project Impact Area List of Acronyms and Abbreviations \23-May-13\SDG v POM Preserve Owner Manager Project Village 8 West SPA Plan, Off-site Fuel Modification Zones, Off-site Facilities QCB Quino Checkerspot Butterfly RMP Otay Ranch Resource Management Plan ROW Right-of-Way RPO Resource Protection Ordinance RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board SANDAG San Diego Association of Governments sf Square feet SPA Sectional Planning Area SSC Species of Special Concern SUSMP Standard Urban Stormwater Management Plan SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan TM Tentative Map U.S. United States U.S. Waters of the United States URS URS Corporation USFWS United States Fish and Wildlife Service USGS United States Geological Survey WPP Chula Vista MSCP Wetlands Protection Program WUS Waters of the U.S. Statement of Limitations \23-May-13\SDG This report is based on data, site conditions and other information that is generally applicable as of August, 2010, and the conclusions and recommendations herein are therefore applicable to that time frame. Opinions presented herein apply to the existing and reasonably foreseeable site conditions at the time of our assessment. They cannot apply to site changes of which URS Corporation (URS) is unaware and has not had the opportunity to review. Changes in the condition of the project site or on adjacent properties may occur with time due to natural processes or works of man. Changes in applicable standards may also occur as a result of legislation or the broadening of knowledge. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY \23-May-13\SDG ES-1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY URS Corporation (URS) biologists conducted biological surveys of the Otay Land Co. 284.94-acre Village 8 West Sectional Planning Area (SPA), which includes development and fuel modification zone areas, 15.62 acres of onsite open space preserve, 4.57 acres of temporary grading within the Not-a-Part parcel encompassed by the Village 8 West Parcel, and 1.95 acres of off-site Planned Facility (sewer and access road) and Future Facilities (storm drain pipeline and trail) within a 50-foot construction right-of- way (ROW) through offsite MSCP Preserve lands, in May, June, and July of 2008, June and July 2009, and May and June 2010. The Project is located in the southeastern portion of Chula Vista, California. The Village 8 West SPA Plan area includes impacts to approximately 284.68 acres of land. The Project also includes the conservation of approximately 15.62 acres of mainly coastal sage scrub (CSS) in the MSCP Preserve that is located within the Village 8 West SPA Plan boundary. Off-site impacts includes 4.57 acres of temporary grading within the Not-a-Part parcel encompassed by the Village 8 West Parcel, 0.26 acre of off-site fuel modification zone, and Planned and Future Facilities alignments encompassing 1.95 acres of land. The majority of the impacts are to agricultural land, disturbed vegetation, or developed lands; however approximately 36.31 acres of native vegetation is also proposed to be impacted, including three mostly unvegetated drainages within the Village 8 West SPA Plan parcel and 0.07 acre of off-site wetlands (mulefat scrub) in the Otay River floodplain. The development of Village 8 West Project is associated with the larger, adjacent development of Otay Ranch off-site to the north, and is a Covered Project under the City of Chula Vista’s Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) Subarea Plan. Surveys included the observation and documentation of all plant and wildlife species currently existing on the proposed Village 8 West Project. Special status and MSCP covered species that occur within or adjacent to the Project are discussed in this report. A formal jurisdictional waters and wetland delineation was also conducted, and is discussed in this report. The purpose of this Project is to provide residential and commercial land uses as previously planned and approved under the Otay Ranch General Development Plan (GDP) and Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR). This Project is consistent with the GDP, Program EIR, Otay Ranch Resource Management Plan (RMP Phase I and II), Narrow Endemic Species Protection Program, and Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan. The Project proponent will be required to mitigate impacts to habitat in accordance with the ratios established by both the Otay Ranch RMP and the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan. SECTIONONE Introduction \23-May-13\SDG 1-1 SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION The proposed Village 8 West Project (Project) consists of the follow five components: • The Village 8 West Sectional Planning Area (SPA) Plan parcel owned by Otay Land Company; • Temporary grading area within the Not-a-Part parcel encompassed by the Village 8 West Parcel; • Off-site fuel modification zone located along the western Village 8 West SPA Plan boundary; • Off-site Planned Facilities that includes a sewer lateral and paved access road (this component is associated with Salt Creek Intercept/Otay Trunk Sewer); and • Off-site Future Facilities that includes a storm drain pipeline with associated drainage outfall/energy dissipater structure and pedestrian trail with post and rail fencing along the trail alignment. The Project is one of the designated fourteen villages within the Otay Ranch General Development Plan (GDP) area (Figure 1). The Otay Ranch GDP also includes five planning areas. The GDP designates Village 8 West as an Urban Village with a mixed-use Town Center and low-medium density residential uses to the south of the Town Center. Urban Villages are intended to be adjacent to existing urban development and planned for transit-oriented development with higher densities and mixed uses within a quarter mile of a transit stop or station (Figure 2). This Project is consistent with the Otay Ranch GDP and Program Environmental Impact Report (EIR), Otay Ranch Resource Management Plan (RMP Phase I and II), and the City of Chula Vista’s Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) Subarea Plan. The definition of each of the Project components under the MSCP Subarea Plan is provided here to facilitate the understanding of the impacts analysis for this Project, because the impacts are analyzed based on the component’s status as Covered, Planned or Future facilities. Covered Projects are those projects involving land use development within the City of Chula Vista for which hard-line Preserve boundaries have been established pursuant to the approved Chula Vista Subarea Plan, and where conservation measures consistent with the MSCP Subregional Plan and Chula Vista Subarea Plan have been or will be specified as binding conditions of approval in such Project’s plans and approvals. Planned Facilities are facilities within the Preserve that have been specifically identified by the City to serve development approved by the City and are specified in Table 6-1 of the Subarea Plan. Future Facilities are defined as those components of the Project that are necessary to support City services or planned development in the future, but are not specifically listed in the Subarea Plan. As it relates the to the City’s MSCP Subarea Plan, the Village 8 West SPA Plan is considered a Covered Project, while the off-site sewer line and associated access road, are considered off-site Planned Facilities, and the off-site storm drain pipeline and trail are considered off-site Future Facilities in the Subarea Plan (Figure 2). The Planned Facilities are within a 20-foot easement, and the Future Facilities are located within a 10-foot easement immediately adjacent to the Planned Facilities easement. These off-site facilities have been co- located to minimize impacts to the Preserve. SECTIONONE Introduction \23-May-13\SDG 1-2 Surrounding land uses include existing development to the north and northeast, agricultural lands to the east and west, open space in the MSCP Preserve to the west and south, and an access road that parallels the Otay River to the south (Figure 1). The site is located on the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Otay Mesa 7.5’ Topographic Quadrangle. The topography in the immediate area is a large relatively flat mesa dissected on the southern end by ephemeral drainage swales and the Otay River. The site elevation is approximately 400 feet above mean sea level (MSL). The flat mesa tops have been subjected to annual tilling associated with agricultural land uses. The vegetation associated with the river valley slope at the southern end of the Project supports a mixture of disturbed to relatively undisturbed natural vegetation. An existing water reservoir that is not a part of the Project is in the center of the Project and water pipelines pass through the site on the south, east and north sides of the reservoir (Figure 2). These pipelines will be relocated within public street right-of-ways as part of the development and will not create additional areas of grading beyond the current development grading plan. The proposed development has been organized into transects. Transect, or form-based, planning focuses on the form of development rather than land use and seeks to provide a gradual transition from intense urban development to open space areas. The proposed Project would implement form-based regulations and standards that focus on the physical relationships between buildings, streets, and public spaces. Form- based codes approach the development of land by regulating the form, character, and street presence of a building to focus attention on the public presentation of buildings, creating a public realm that is comfortable for pedestrians. Land uses are still controlled but they play a secondary role to the creation of walkable, pedestrian-friendly communities and streetscapes. This approach eliminates the need for separate Planned Community (PC) Regulations and a Design Plan by providing a more integrated approach to defining neighborhoods in terms of form and character. Development of the Project would be completed in five phases. Phase I would develop 197 to 341 multi- family residential units, 109 to 114 single-family units, and 130,000 to 174,000 square feet (sf) of commercial space in the western portion of the Project. Phase II would develop 260 to 286 single-family residential units in the southwestern area of the Project. Phase III would develop 472 to 776 multi-family units and 70,000 to 126,000 sf of commercial land use in the northern portion of the Project. Phase IV would develop 185 to 220 single-family residential units in the southeast portion of the Project. Phase V would develop 192 to 313 multi-family residential in the eastern portion of the Project. The sequencing of phases will be determined by current market conditions. A Public Facilities Finance Plan (PFFP) is required as part of the Project. The PFFP would implement the City of Chula Vista Growth Management Program and Ordinance. The intent of the document is to ensure that the phased development of the Project is consistent with the overall goals and policies of the City’s General Plan, Growth Management Program, and the Otay Ranch GDP. The PFFP components include an analysis of infrastructure facilities, such as water and sewer, and the provision of community services and facilities including fire protection and emergency services, law enforcement, libraries, schools, and parks. The PFFP will require specific facilities to be built in conjunction with development to ensure that improvements adequately serve such development and meet the City’s threshold standards. The proposed land uses for Village 8 West SPA Plan include mixed use, multi-family, cluster single- family/townhomes, single family homes, schools, community purpose facility, parks, open space, arterial rights-of-way, and the existing City of San Diego reservoir. The Town Center area includes the most intense level of development, has minimal setbacks to the street, and includes high intensity development. SECTIONONE Introduction \23-May-13\SDG 1-3 The neighborhood edge zone includes the lowest level of development, greater setbacks to the street, and low-density development patterns to respect the adjacent open space area. The Village 8 West SPA Plan proposes 42.2 acres of mixed use in the Town Center. This mixed-use area would be centered on pairs of one-way streets, also known as urban couplets, and would be served by transit. Commercial uses would occur on ground floors with minimal setbacks to create an urban, pedestrian-oriented street environment. Also proposed are several recreational opportunities: a Community Park that would extend into the Town Center, providing 17.4 acres of a future 70-acre Community Park within the heart of the Village; a 5.8- acre community purpose facility (CPF) site; a 7.5-acre neighborhood park, to serve residents south of La Media/Otay Valley Road; and an additional 3.1 acres of town square parkland that would serve as a focal point for the Town Center. A 21-acre middle school site and an 11.4-acre elementary school site are proposed within the Town Center. In the event the school district does not select the proposed sites, the sites would be developed as mixed-use or multi-family residential land use, but will not increase the overall densities of the Village. Housing units and commercial area would be redistributed from other mixed use planning areas. The Village 8 West SPA Plan and Tentative Map (TM) include provisions for an off-site pedestrian trail connection to the Otay Valley Regional Park (OVRP). The proposed trail connection would extend from the Village 8 West SPA Plan’s southernmost parcel boundary down to an existing public utilities access road, passing through the City’s MSCP Preserve and areas designated for planned active recreation development under the City’s MSCP Subarea Plan. Residential land uses proposed in the Village 8 West SPA Plan includes multi-family and single-family homes. Multi-family units would occur within and just outside the Town Center, providing a gradual transition in density between the Town Center and single-family homes. Design guidelines would control the design of these multi-family communities to create a strong relationship to the public street and reinforce the pedestrian-oriented character of the adjacent Town Center. Small lot single-family detached homes/town homes are proposed adjacent to La Media/Otay Valley Road. These homes would consist of clustered housing, alley-loaded homes, or other small, detached residences in a variety of possible configurations. This area also could accommodate town homes or other attached residential units that are compatible with single-family neighborhoods. Single-family units on 4,000 square feet minimum lots are also proposed. Second dwelling units would be allowed on lots greater than 4,000 square feet and would provide opportunities for affordable housing. The Project also includes related infrastructure, including a multi-modal transportation network, and open space. The existing City of San Diego Reservoir would remain and is not considered part of this application. Water will be provided to the Project via a connection to the existing 12-inch line located in La Media Road. Water service would be stubbed to both ends of Main Street and the southerly termination of La Media/Otay Valley Road to allow for future connection to adjacent villages. Recycled water would be provided via an existing 12-inch line located in La Media Road. The Project may also be required to construct off-site recycled water lines, in the existing Magdalena Road and Main Street rights- of-way but no service from these lines to the proposed Project will be provided. Recycled water would be stubbed at the westerly termination of Main Street and the southerly termination of La Media/Otay Valley Road to allow for a connection to adjacent villages. The proposed Project will provide electric, gas, telephone and cable television utilities in conjunction with the requirements of the City, Cox SECTIONONE Introduction \23-May-13\SDG 1-4 Communication, AT&T, and San Diego Gas & Electric. A non-renewable Energy Conservation Plan will be prepared for the Project. The off-site improvements required for the proposed Project include construction of a sewer line and access road (off-site Planned Facilities), and storm drain pipeline, and trail facilities (off-site Future Facilities) in the Preserve. The off-site Planned and Future Facilities have been co-located to minimize impacts to the Preserve, and would include a paved all-weather access road that will also provide trail access to the OVRP. The Planned and Future Facilities alignment shall have a post and rail fence designed and installed along both sides of the alignment to discourage pedestrians from leaving the trail without obstructing wildlife movement. The total width of the construction right-of-way (ROW) for the off-site Planned and Future Facilities is 50 feet; this includes 30 feet of permanent impacts, and 20 feet (a 10-foot buffer on each side of the linear alignment) of temporary construction impacts. A 25-foot construction buffer around the storm drain outfall is included as temporary impact associated with the Future Facilities. All of the temporary impact areas will be revegetated after construction in accordance with the City’s MSCP Subarea Plan. All off-site Planned and Future Facilities proposed within the Preserve were subject to the facilities siting criteria contained in the City’s MSCP Subarea Plan and Otay Ranch RMP. These criteria require that the facilities be located in the least environmentally sensitive location to minimize impacts to Covered Species, Narrow Endemic Species, and Wetlands, and to minimize habitat disruption, habitat fragmentation, impediments to wildlife movement and impacts to breeding areas. Based on these criteria, discussed further in Section 4.2.6 of this report, the Future and Planned Facilities were located on existing roads, trails and other disturbed areas where feasible and placed in areas with minimal slope, and outside of wetlands and other areas that may support sensitive habitats where practicable. Agricultural uses will continue to be permitted within the proposed Project to allow utilization of vacant parcels until such time those parcels are developed. An Agricultural Plan has been prepared in conjunction with the Village 8 West SPA Plan to control these uses and ensure that agricultural operations do not conflict with proposed development. Grading for the proposed Project would include primarily on-site improvements with grading practices consistent with the requirements of the City of Chula Vista General Plan, Otay Ranch GDP/EIR, the Otay Ranch Overall Design Plan, and the Otay Ranch Phase 2 RMP. Slopes would occur along roadways, in the 3.5 acres of open space adjacent to the perimeter of the Project, and around the perimeter of the existing City of San Diego Reservoir site. Slopes over 25 feet in height would feature contour grading. All slopes would be landscaped. Grading for the proposed Project will result in 4.8 million cubic yards of balanced cut and fill material on-site. This report addresses biological resources within the Village 8 West Project, potential impacts on those biological resources resulting from the proposed land use, and mitigation measures that would be implemented to reduce these impacts to below a level of significance. The report includes the results of surveys conducted by URS Corporation (URS) and data from previous survey work conducted by other biological consultants for the Otay Ranch GDP EIR. SECTIONTWO Methods \\23-May-13\SDG 2-1 SECTION 2 METHODS URS biologists conducted biological surveys in the Project survey area, defined as the entire approximately 300.3-acre parcel owned by Otay Land Company, LLC. The survey area includes both the approximately 284.68 acres proposed for development and the approximately 15.62 acre area proposed for habitat conservation in the southwestern portion of the Village 8 West SPA Plan parcel. The survey area also includes 0.26 acre of off-site fuel modification zone located along the western Village 8 West SPA Plan parcel boundary and 1.95 acres of off-site Planned and Future Facilities alignments within a 50- foot construction ROW, which make up the sewer and storm drain pipeline alignments, access road, and trail facilities located off-site in the Preserve (Figures 2 and 3). As shown in Figure 3, the Project survey area is defined by the Village 8 West SPA Plan parcel boundary with mapping buffer that extends 100 feet beyond the parcel boundary. The off-site Planned and Future Facilities alignments are defined by a 100-ft wide survey area for the linear alignments south of the Village 8 West SPA Plan parcel boundary through the City’s MSCP Preserve and areas designated for planned active recreation development under the City’s MSCP Subarea Plan. URS biologists conducted vegetation mapping, special status plant surveys including surveys for MSCP narrow endemics in 2008, 2009, and 2010 within the Project (Figure 3). Biologists also conducted general wildlife surveys, U.S. Fish Wildlife Service (USFWS) protocol California gnatcatcher surveys, protocol Quino Checkerspot Butterfly (QCB; Euphydryas editha quino) surveys, burrowing owl surveys, and a jurisdictional wetland delineation on the Project in May, June, and July of 2008, June and July of 2009, May and June of 2010, and additional surveys on the Project alignments in March through April of 2010 (Appendix A). The Project area was surveyed on foot. Plant and wildlife species were identified and recorded. Wildlife was identified by direct observation with the aid of 8 x 42 power binoculars, aurally, and/or based on the presence of “sign” (scat, tracks, burrows, etc.). Biological resources were mapped in the field with the aid of a handheld global positioning unit (GPS) unit (10-16 foot accuracy) and plotted on a 1-inch = 250 feet rectified 2007 aerial photograph (AirPhoto USA 2007). Vegetation communities were digitized and their acreages calculated using geographic information system (GIS) software. Regional biological databases (California Natural Diversity Database, United Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), San Diego Bird Atlas, and San Diego Association of Governments [SANDAG]) were queried to determine historical sightings of sensitive plant and animal species nearing the vicinity of the Project. 2.1 VEGETATION MAPPING Vegetation communities were mapped according to the Holland Vegetation Classification (Holland 1986) as amended by Oberbauer (2002) to fit the unique vegetation communities of San Diego County. Vegetation communities were delineated on aerial photographs (Airphoto USA 2007) at a scale of 1 inch = 200 feet. The minimum mapping unit for vegetation communities is 0.1 acre (estimated as a square approximately 66 feet on a side). Digital photographs of representative areas were taken during the mapping survey for reference. GPS waypoints (10-16 foot accuracy) were plotted using GIS and were compared with the polygons drawn in the field to fine-tune the location of boundaries between various vegetative communities. Polygons were then digitized into GIS for display and to calculate acreages. SECTIONTWO Methods \\23-May-13\SDG 2-2 Vegetation communities were identified according to the percent cover of the combination of dominant plant species observed. Vegetation community classifications are based on a dominant species comprising approximately 50 percent or more of the total cover within the mapped unit relative to the list of dominant species for a given Holland vegetation community (e.g., grasslands must have at least a 50 percent cover of dominant grass species to be mapped as that particular community). Mixed communities are identified where species comprising a second vegetation community are present at approximately 35 percent or higher percent cover and intermixed with the dominant vegetation community. When necessary, modifiers were added to certain vegetation classifications to describe a single species that dominates the vegetation class. Additionally, certain natural vegetation communities were given a “disturbed” modifier when they showed evidence of disturbance, and supported a high density of non-native grasses or weedy species. This is notated on the vegetation maps as a “D” placed in front of the name or acronym of the habitat. 2.2 PLANT SURVEYS Botanical surveys were conducted by qualified biologists familiar with the special status plant species potentially occurring within the Project (Appendix E). Special status plants are defined as any species covered by the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea plan, including covered species and MSCP narrow endemics, federal and state threatened or endangered plants and any plant on California Native Plant Society (CNPS) List 1-4 (see definitions in Section 3). Special status plant surveys were conducted in 2008 throughout the Project to coincide with the blooming periods of the greatest number of target species as possible. Additional late season sensitive plant species surveys were performed in 2009 and 2010 to target Otay tarplant (Deinandra conjugens); the 2010 surveys included the Planned and Future Facilities alignments. Surveys were intensified at locations in unique microhabitats that could potentially support sensitive species, such as clay soils. Locations of individual special status plants were recorded using a GPS unit and imported to a GIS database for display and analysis. 2.2.1 MSCP Narrow Endemic Plant Surveys Southwestern San Diego County includes specific geographic and climatological conditions that support species with limited habitat ranges. These species are referred to as narrow endemic species. They are highly restricted by their habitat affinities, soil conditions and/or other ecological factors, and require additional measures to ensure that their long-term viability is maintained (Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan). Surveys for narrow endemic plant species covered by the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea plan were performed concurrently with special status plant surveys detailed above. Surveys for Otay tarplant, an MSCP narrow endemic, were initiated following blooming at a known reference population. Surveys for this species were conducted on the Village 8 West SPA Plan parcel and off-site fuel modification zone in June and July of 2009 by URS biologists Sundeep Amin and Lee Ripma, and Jim Rocks of Rocks Biological. Surveys were conducted in the Planned and Future Facilities alignments in June 2010 by Brian Lohstroh of Lohstroh Biological Services. SECTIONTWO Methods \\23-May-13\SDG 2-3 2.3 WILDLIFE SURVEYS 2.3.1 California Gnatcatcher Surveys Surveys for the coastal California gnatcatcher (CAGN) were conducted in accordance with the USFWS Protocol for presence/absence surveys (USFWS 1997) during 2008. Suitable CAGN habitat, including coastal sage scrub, disturbed coastal sage scrub, maritime succulent scrub, disturbed maritime succulent scrub was surveyed. Surveys were conducted by USFWS-permitted biologists and recorded CAGN vocalizations were played only to initially detect CAGN. CAGN individuals and family groups, including paired individuals or individuals with nestlings or fledglings, were mapped according to the perceived central location of their territory. These locations were then imported into a GIS database for display and analysis. 2.3.2 Quino Checkerspot Butterfly Surveys Protocols for QCB followed USFWS protocol (2002) and consisted of an initial survey to determine areas which should be excluded from surveys in February 2009 and again in March 2010. Within included survey areas, surveyors were required to conduct a minimum of five survey days during the QCB flight season, which is determined by USFWS based on a number of reference sites throughout QCB’s range. Each of the five survey days were conducted a week apart. Surveys were conducted by URS biologists with valid 10(a)(1)(a) permits and only took place when the following conditions were present: no rain, fog, or drizzle; no sustained winds above 15 miles per hour (mph), and temperatures greater than 60 degrees Fahrenheit (F) on a sunny day and 70 F on an overcast day, with temperatures taken in the shade. Focused flight surveys took place during QCB flight season to determine presence on site. Five surveys were conducted between March 3 and April 9, 2009 on the Project, and between March 29 and April 25, 2010 in the Planned and Future Facilities alignments. 2.3.3 Burrowing Owl Surveys A burrowing owl habitat assessment took place February 27, 2009 in which potential burrowing owl habitat was assessed to determine the potential for burrowing owls to occur within the Project. Burrowing owl suitable habitats, including native and non-native grassland, disturbed habitat, and agricultural vegetation communities were surveyed. Key habitat features, including the presence of fossorial mammal burrows, were identified and recorded. Additional surveys took place July 11, 2009 and June 10, 2010 in conjunction with focused Otay tarplant surveys. 2.4 JURISDICTIONAL DELINEATION This section summarizes the methods used to delineate Federal wetlands, other waters of the U.S. (OWUS), California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) jurisdiction, and surface waters of the State of California, subject to the Porter Cologne Water Quality Act, which are described below. Jurisdictional waters were delineated within the study area for the Project and are shown on Figure 8. Waters of the U.S., including wetlands, were delineated based on field surveys. Supplemental material that was used to facilitate the delineation included information such as USGS topographic maps, recent SECTIONTWO Methods \\23-May-13\SDG 2-4 and historic aerial photographs, published information, mapped or modeled floodplains, and Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) soil maps. Boundaries were mapped in the field to the extent practicable on aerial photographs at a scale of 1 inch = 200 feet. Subsequent review in the office and/or through subsequent field review was performed to generate mapped boundaries of wetlands and waters of the U.S. URS used handheld GPS units with published accuracy ranges of approximately 10 to 16 feet to generate waypoints to assist in the delineation. Maps were finalized in GIS format. Soil pits were dug at locations within the observed ordinary high water mark (OHWM) where there was a potential for hydric soils to occur along with hydrophytic vegetation. Wetland delineation data sheets were completed in the field and in the office to determine wetland and jurisdictional status. The jurisdictional delineations were conducted on June 27, 2008 and July 31, 2008 by URS Biologists Theresa Miller and Brittany Benson. A jurisdictional delineation was conducted in May 7, 2010 on the off-site Planned and Future Facilities alignment and 100-foot buffer of the alignment by Brian Lohstroh of Lohstroh Biological Services. Wetland data sheets are provided in Appendix B. SECTIONTHREE Existing Conditions \23-May-13\SDG 3-1 SECTION 3 EXISTING CONDITIONS A summary of the biological survey dates and conditions is provided in Appendix A. Details of survey protocol used can be found in Section 2 and results of those surveys can be found in this section. A summary of the regulatory setting is provided below. 3.1 REGULATORY SETTING 3.1.1 Otay Ranch Resource Management Plan The Project is part of the Otay Ranch GDP and Otay Ranch RMP. The GDP and RMP were approved by the County of San Diego and the City of Chula Vista in October of 1993. The RMP is comprised of two separate documents, the Phase 1 RMP and Phase 2 RMP. The Phase 1 RMP identifies Preserve areas within Otay Ranch, and contains policies regarding species and habitat conservation and long-term management of the Preserve. The Phase 2 RMP includes ranch-wide studies that were conducted pursuant to the Phase 1 RMP and provides additional detail on conveyance, management and funding. The Otay Ranch RMP identifies a Preserve system of 11,375 acres dedicated within Otay Ranch. Within the Project area, the Preserve includes portions of Wolf Canyon, Salt Creek Canyon, and Otay Valley. To ensure that transfer of Preserve land occurs in step with development, the RMP incorporates a preserve conveyance plan, which includes a conveyance ratio of 1.188 acres of Preserve for each acre of non- common development area. The Otay Ranch RMP and the Otay Ranch Preserve were the primary basis for California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) impact analysis and mitigation of biological impacts identified in the GDP Program EIR resulting from development of less sensitive areas of the GDP. 3.1.2 Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan The Chula Vista Subarea Plan was prepared pursuant to the MSCP Subregional Plan for southern San Diego, as approved by the City of Chula Vista in 2003, and permits were issued by the USFWS and CDFG in 2005. The Subarea Plan identifies lands that would conserve habitat for covered federal and state endangered, threatened, or sensitive species. The Subarea Plan also designates a Preserve and provides a regulatory framework for determining impacts to the Preserve and sensitive habitat throughout the City and identifies mitigation to reduce those impacts. The Subarea Plan also provides a process that allows the City to convey take authorization under the federal and state Endangered Species Acts (ESA) for the incidental take of threatened and endangered species. The Subarea Plan authorizes take in two ways: (1) it establishes "Covered Projects" for which take is authorized and, (2) for projects located within mapped Development Areas that are outside of Covered Projects, take of covered species requires the issuance of a Habitat Loss and Incidental Take (HLIT) Permit. In addition, the Subarea Plan requires issuance of an HLIT permit for "all development within the City's jurisdiction which is not located within the Development Areas of Covered Projects prior to issuance of any land development permit." Otay Ranch is a "Covered Project" in the Subarea Plan. The 100 percent Conservation Areas are either already in public ownership or will be dedicated to the Otay Ranch Preserve as part of the development approval process for Covered Projects. Any portions of Covered Projects that are located within 100 percent Conservation Areas must be consistent with conditions allowing specific land uses within the preserve as outlined in Sections 6.1, 6.2 and 6.3 of the Subarea Plan and will be subject to the Narrow Endemic SECTIONTHREE Existing Conditions \23-May-13\SDG 3-2 Species Policy (avoidance and minimization) and Wetlands Protection Program. The MSCP 100% Preserve Area (Preserve) is located just south of the Village 8 West Project. 3.1.3 Otay Ranch General Development Plan (GDP) The Otay Ranch General Development Plan (GDP) serves as the main document that is used to make fundamental decisions regarding the future development of the city. The GDP contains the city’s goals for land use, circulation, housing, conservation, open space, noise, public safety, and other economic and social services. The Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan was adopted by the GDP and serves as the vehicle that establishes areas of conservation and development within the Chula Vista MSCP Planning Area. 3.1.4 Narrow Endemic Species Protection The following specific provisions are applicable to the Project to protect narrow endemic species: Development Areas within Covered Projects: Covered Projects provide protection of Narrow Endemic Species through consideration of Narrow Endemic Species in the Preserve design for those projects, Take of Covered Species, including Narrow Endemic Species, for development areas within Covered Projects will be extended at the time of development approval, There are no limitations on impacts to Narrow Endemic Species within the development areas of Covered Projects, like the proposed Village 8 West Project. 100% Conservation Areas within Covered Projects: Projects located within the 100% Conservation Areas of Covered Projects (i.e., within the Preserve) are limited to uses described in Sections 6.1, 6.2 and 6.3 of the City's Subarea Plan. Impacts to covered Narrow Endemic Species from planned and future facilities located within the 100% Conservation Areas of Covered Projects will be avoided to the maximum extent practicable. Where impacts are demonstrated to be unavoidable, impacts will be limited to 5% of the total Narrow Endemic Species population within the Preserve. If impacts exceed 5% of the covered Narrow Endemic Species population within the Preserve after comprehensive consideration of avoidance and minimization measures, the City must make a determination of biologically superior preservation, consistent with Section 5.2.3.7 of the City's Subarea Plan. City of Chula Vista Wetlands Protection Program As part of the CEQA review, development projects that contain wetlands will be required to demonstrate that impacts to wetlands have been avoided to the greatest extent practicable and, where impacts are nonetheless proposed, such impacts have been minimized. Generally, all jurisdictional waters under State and Federal regulations are addressed as City wetlands. For unavoidable impacts to wetlands, the City will apply the wetlands mitigation ratios identified in Table 5-6 of the City's Subarea Plan. The wetlands mitigation ratios provide a standard for each habitat type, but may be adjusted depending on the functions and values of both the impacted wetlands as well as the wetlands mitigation proposed by the project. The SECTIONTHREE Existing Conditions \23-May-13\SDG 3-3 City may also consider the wetland habitat type(s) being impacted and utilized for mitigation in establishing whether the Subarea Plan standards have been met. Adjacency Management Section 7.5.2 of the City's MSCP Subarea Plan also provides guidelines to address adjacency Management Issues, in order to address indirect impacts associated with development adjacent to the Preserve areas. All new development must adhere to these guidelines, which address potential drainage issues, overspill of lighting, noise into the Preserve, use of non-invasive plant species, and limiting of public access in sensitive preserve areas. The Project applicant has developed an Edge Plan to ensure consistency with the City’s Adjacency Management Guidelines. 3.2 VEGETATION Four native vegetation communities occur within the proposed Project: freshwater marsh, mulefat scrub, maritime succulent scrub and coastal sage scrub. A disturbed qualifier (D-) is placed on some areas of native habitat to denote that those areas of native vegetation have undergone a significant amount of disturbance, but that they still support enough native vegetation to be considered a functionally native habitat. Four non-native vegetation communities also occur within the Project boundary, including agricultural lands, disturbed vegetation, non-native grassland, and developed land. Figure 3 shows the distribution of vegetation communities documented within a 100-foot buffer of the Project boundary and 100-foot wide assessment area associated with the Planned and Future Facilities alignments. Table 1 presents the acreage of various plant communities that exist within Village 8 West Project. A floral species list compiled from the survey efforts is provided in Appendix C. SECTIONTHREE Existing Conditions \23-May-13\SDG 3-4 Table 1 Acreages of Existing Habitats within the Village 8 West Project Vegetation Type Village 8 West SPA Plan Temporary Grading Area within the Not-a-Part Parcel Off-site Fuel Modification Zone Planned / Future Facilities Alignments in 50-ft Construction ROW Existing Acreage in Entire Project Area Development Area Conserved Habitat Area Agriculture 223.31 0.70 4.57 0 0.97 229.55 Developed 10.07 0.09 0 0 0.05 10.21 Disturbed Vegetation 15.36 0 0 0 0.01 15.37 Non-Native Grassland 0.62 0 0 0 0.19 0.81 Coastal Sage Scrub 14.88 14.83 0 0.26 0.01 29.97 Disturbed Coastal Sage Scrub 19.83 0 0 0 0.16 19.99 Freshwater Marsh 0.05 0 0 0 0 0.05 Maritime Succulent Scrub 0.56 0 0 0 0.49 1.05 Mulefat Scrub 0 0 0 0 0.07 0.07 Grand Total 284.68 15.62 4.57 0.26 1.95 307.08 3.2.1 Coastal Sage Scrub Coastal sage scrub (CSS) is comprised of low, soft-woody sub-shrubs of up to one meter (three feet) high, many of which are facultative drought-deciduous. This association is typically found on dry sites, such as steep, south- and west-facing slopes with clay-rich soils that are slow to release stored water (Holland 1986). Dominant shrub species in this vegetation type may vary depending on local site factors and levels of disturbance. The dominant shrub species found within the coastal sage scrub on-site are San Diego sunflower (Viguiera laciniata), California sagebrush (Artemisia californica), jojoba (Simmondsia chinensis), and California buckwheat (Eriogonum fasciculatum). San Diego sunflower makes up a significant proportion (up to 20%) of cover in non-disturbed coastal sage scrub; the amount of cover depends upon local site factors and levels of disturbance. Common tarplant (Deinandra fasciculata) and purple needlegrass (Nassella pulchra) make up the herbaceous understory in some of the non-disturbed coastal sage scrub on-site. Non-native, weedy species such as brome grasses (Bromus spp.) and Russian thistle (Salsola tragus) are also common as herbaceous understory species in disturbed coastal sage scrub areas. Approximately 29.97 acres of coastal sage scrub, and 19.99 acres of disturbed coastal sage scrub occur within the Project (Figure 3). 3.2.2 Maritime Succulent Scrub Maritime succulent scrub (MSS), a form of sage scrub, occurs on thin, rocky, or sandy soils on steep slopes or bluffs near the coast. This habitat type reaches its northern distributional limits in San Diego County on the mainland and offshore on the California Channel Islands. It is typically confined to dry, SECTIONTHREE Existing Conditions \23-May-13\SDG 3-5 south-facing slopes along the coastal areas, from Torrey Pines State Park south to El Rosario in northern Baja California, Mexico. This community is usually a low, open vegetation type with a poorly developed understory (Holland 1986). Within the proposed impact area, maritime succulent scrub is present in the canyons along the northwest side of the Project boundary (Figure 2). The dominant shrub species in this community includes some of the coastal sage scrub dominants, but it is notable for having a high percentage of cacti and other succulent species. Within the Project area, shrub and suffrutescent species include jojoba, San Diego sunflower, lemonadeberry (Rhus integrifolia), California buckwheat, and California sagebrush. Succulent species include coast barrel cactus (Ferocactus viridescens), coast cholla (Cylinopuntia prolifera), coastal prickly pear (Opuntia littoralis), fishhook cactus (Mammillaria dioica), and chalk-leaf live-forever (Dudleya pulverulenta). Approximately 1.05 acres of maritime succulent scrub occurs within the Village 8 West SPA Plan and associated off-site Planned and Future Facilities alignments. 3.2.3 Non-native Grassland Non-native grassland (NNG) generally occurs on fine-textured loam or clay soils which are moist or even waterlogged during the winter rainy season and very dry during the summer and fall. This habitat is a disturbance-related community most often found in old fields or openings in native scrub habitats and is characterized by a dominate cover (greater than 50% cover) of non-native annual grasses, and occasionally native and nonnative annual forbs (Holland 1986). Non-native grasses have replaced native grassland and coastal sage scrub at many localities throughout Southern California. Approximately 0.62 acre of NNG is present within the Village 8 West SPA Plan. Approximately 0.19 acre of NNG occurs in the off-site Planned and Future Facilities alignments. This vegetation includes slender wild oat (Avena barbata), wild oat (Avena fatua), ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus), soft chess (Bromus hordeaceus), foxtail chess (Bromus madritensis ssp. Rubens), cheatgrass (Bromus tectorum), crabgrass (Cynodon dactylon), nit grass (Gastridium ventricosum), hare barley (Hordeum murinum ssp. leporinum), goldentop (Lamarckia aurea), perennial ryegrass (Lolium perenne), canary grass (Phalaris aquatica), annual beard grass (Polypogon monspeliensis), Mediterranean schismus (Schismus barbatus), and wheat (Triticum aestivum). 3.2.4 Mulefat Scrub (MFS) Mulefat Scrub is characterized as a depauperate, tall, herbaceous riparian scrub strongly dominated by mule fat (Baccharis salicifolia). This community is found within intermittent stream channels with fairly coarse substrate and moderate depth to the water table, and is maintained by frequent flooding (Holland 1986). Mulefat scrub may also contain several willow species, including arroyo willow (Salix lasiolepis), narrow-leaf willow (Salix exigua), or red willow (Salix laevigata). Approximately 0.07 acre of mulefat scrub is associated with the off-site Future Facilities alignment. 3.2.5 Freshwater Marsh Freshwater marsh is dominated by perennial, emergent monocots that grow to 1.3 to 2 m (4.3 to 6.6 feet [ft]) tall. Uniform stands of bulrushes (Scirpus spp.) or cattails (Typha spp.) often characterize this habitat. Freshwater marsh occurs in wetlands that are permanently flooded by standing fresh water (Holland 1986). Examples of this habitat occur around several of the larger bodies of open water, such as SECTIONTHREE Existing Conditions \23-May-13\SDG 3-6 Sweetwater Reservoir, as well as around many of the smaller lakes, ponds, creeks, and reservoirs in the study region. Approximately 0.05 acre of freshwater marsh is present in Drainage 1 in the northwestern corner of the Village 8 West SPA Plan. 3.2.6 Agricultural Land Agricultural land is defined as habitat that is regularly plowed or cultivated to produce a dense crop of vegetation that functions as forage for cattle. The approximately 229.55 acres of pasture/agricultural land within the Village 8 West SPA Plan, Not-a-Part parcel, and off-site Planned and Future Facilities alignments occurs primarily on the relatively flat mesa terraces where repeatedly tilled land had been planted with cereal wheat (Triticum aestivum) and cucumber (Cucumus sp.). Other subdominant species observed within the agricultural land included wild oat, foxtail chess, fennel (Foeniculum vulgare), Russian thistle, and short-pod mustard (Hirschfeldia incana). 3.2.7 Disturbed Vegetation Disturbed vegetation typically develops on sites with heavily compacted soils following intense levels of disturbance such as grading, agriculture, off-road activities, or previous development. Disturbed areas are dominated by broad-leaf herbaceous species such as mustards (Brassica spp., Hirschfeldia incana), fennel, thistles (Centaurea spp., Silybum spp., Carduus spp. etc.), and often have a subdominant cover (less than 50% cover) of annual non-native grasses. Approximately 15.36 acres of disturbed vegetation occurs within the Village 8 West SPA Plan and 0.01 acre is associated with the off-site Planned and Future Facilities alignments (Figure 3). 3.2.8 Developed Developed areas support no native vegetation and may be additionally characterized by the presence of human-made structures such as buildings or roads. The level of soil disturbance is such that only the most ruderal plant species would be expected. The agricultural component of developed areas includes actively cultivated lands or lands that support nursery operations; however, pasturelands are mapped as disturbed or undisturbed grassland, depending upon the intensity of grazing. Developed areas are found in varying densities in rural areas. Approximately 10.21 acres of developed land occurs within the Village 8 West SPA Plan and associated off-site Planned and Future Facilities alignments. 3.2.9 Special Status Vegetation Communities Special status vegetation communities are those that are considered rare within the region, support special status plant and/or wildlife species, or are important in providing connections for wildlife movement. Maritime succulent scrub and coastal sage scrub are special status vegetation communities that occur within the Project area. Both are considered a special status vegetation community by USFWS and CDFG (Holland 1986) because they are limited geographically, support special status species, and are under development pressure throughout their respective ranges. Coastal sage scrub is considered a special status habitat by USFWS and CDFG. CSS has been assigned global and state conservation status rankings of G5 and S5 respectively. In San Diego County, CSS was listed as the third most extensive vegetation community in the county over 25 years ago (CDFG 1965); SECTIONTHREE Existing Conditions \23-May-13\SDG 3-7 however, Oberbauer (1991) suggested that up to 72% of the county's original sage scrub habitat has been destroyed or modified, and this loss has continued throughout the last decade, primarily due to agriculture, grazing, and urban expansion. Additional evidence of the decline of this once common habitat is the growing number of declining wildlife species dependent upon it, including the California gnatcatcher, cactus wren, southern California rufous-crowned sparrow, coast horned lizard, orange- throated whiptail, as well as many of the County’s sensitive plant species. Maritime succulent scrub is also considered a special status habitat by the resource agencies because it is limited geographically, supports special status species, and is under development pressure. MSS has been assigned global and state conservation status rankings of G2 and S1 respectively. MSS has been known to support the highest species diversity compared to other sage scrub communities (Rundel and Gustafson 2005). Wetland vegetation types include the freshwater marsh and mulefat scrub vegetation that occur within the Village 8 West Project. These vegetation types are regulated as sensitive resources by federal, state and City wetland regulations. Non-native grassland is considered sensitive vegetation under the City’s MSCP, requiring compensatory mitigation for the loss of this habitat due to its use by MSCP Covered Species. 3.3 PLANTS In general, undisturbed areas of the Project are comprised of CSS shrubs such as San Diego sunflower, California sagebrush, jojoba, and California buckwheat. Active agriculture areas consist almost exclusively of cereal wheat and weedy non-native plant species. 3.3.1 Special Status Plant Species Biologists conducted focused surveys for special status plants, including covered MSCP narrow endemic species. Species with historic records from the area, or which were thought to have a high likelihood of occurring due to the presence of suitable habitat, were the focus of surveys. A list of sensitive species with a potential to occur in the Project vicinity is provided in Appendix E. Biologists recorded special status plant species detected within the Project and in adjacent MSCP Preserve. Results of the surveys are discussed below and Figure 4 displays the special status species that were observed within the Project survey area. Table 2 provides a summary of the CNPS Rare plant list ranking, as well as Global and State conservation status ranking descriptions of plants used by USFWS and CDFG. 3.3.2 CNPS List 1 and List 2 species 3.3.2.1 Coast barrel cactus (Ferocactus viridescens var. viridescens) MSCP: Covered CNPS: List 2.1 Coast barrel cactus is limited to San Diego County and Baja California. In San Diego County, this species is occasional on dry slopes below 5,000 feet and is found along the coastal slope from Oceanside south to Boundary Monument. Coast barrel cactus is seriously threatened by urbanization, off-road vehicle SECTIONTHREE Existing Conditions \23-May-13\SDG 3-8 activity, and commercial exploitation. It can grow in many different soil types and in varying habitats (Reiser 1994), but it is most often found on cliff faces and open areas within CSS and MSS communities. It often makes up a large percentage of the succulent component within MSS regions. Approximately 200 individuals of coast barrel cactus occur within the Project (Figure 4). 3.3.2.2 Otay Tarplant (Deinandra conjugens) MSCP: Covered; Narrow Endemic CDFG: Endangered USFWS: Threatened CNPS: List 1B.1 Otay tarplant is an annual ranging from 25-100 inches tall with yellow flower heads, each of which has a characteristic eight to10 ray flowers. This species was State Listed as Endangered by the CDFG in 1979, and was listed as Federally Threatened by the USFWS in 1998. It is currently listed by CNPS as List 1B.1. Otay tarplant is narrowly endemic to southern San Diego County and is listed as a Covered, MSCP narrow endemic species. It typically occurs on fractured clay soils with little or no woody shrub cover (Reiser 1994). During surveys in 2009 approximately 3,500 individuals were documented within the Village 8 West SPA Plan parcel (Figure 4). 3.3.2.3 San Diego Marsh Elder (Iva hayesiana) CNPS: List 2.2 San Diego marsh elder is a low-growing, conspicuous shrub with bright green foliage and gland-dotted leaves (Hickman 1993) that grows below 800 feet and blooms from April to September (Beauchamp 1986). It grows along creeks or intermittent streambeds with an open riparian canopy which allows substantial sunlight to reach the marsh elder. Sandy alluvial embankments with cobbles are also frequently utilized. Within the southwestern portion of the County this plant may occur in steep watercourses where other riparian vegetation is not present. San Diego marsh elder is considered stable but potentially affected by modifications and degradation of coastal drainages in San Diego County (Reiser 1994). Less than 10 individuals of San Diego marsh elder were observed within the Village 8 West Project (Figure 4). 3.3.2.4 South Coast Saltbush (Atriplex pacifica) CNPS: List 1B.2 South coast saltbush is a small annual with prostrate to decumbent reddish stems (Holland 1993). It grows in xeric, often mildly disturbed locales (Reiser 1994). It occurs on bluffs and in coastal scrublands in areas with elevations less than 300 ft (CNPS 2009). South coast saltbush is severely declining throughout its coastal range on the mainland (Reiser 1994). South coast saltbush occurs within the conserved areas of the Village 8 West SPA Plan parcel and will not be directly impacted (Figure 4). SECTIONTHREE Existing Conditions \23-May-13\SDG 3-9 Table 2 Summary of CNPS List, Global, and State Rankings CNPS List Comments List 1A – Presumed Extinct in California Thought to be extinct in California based on a lack of observation or detection for many years. List 1B – Rare or Endangered in California Species that are generally rare throughout their range that are also judged to be vulnerable to other threats such as declining habitat. List 2 - Rare or Endangered in California, More Common Elsewhere Species that are rare in California, but more common outside of California List 3 – Need More Information Species that are thought to be rare or in decline but CNPS lacks the information needed to assign to the appropriate list. In most instances, the extent of surveys for these species is not sufficient to allow CNPS to accurately assess whether these species should be assigned to a specific list. In addition, many of the List 3 species have associated taxonomic problems such that the validity of their current taxonomy is unclear. List 4 – Plants of Limited Distribution Species that are currently thought to be limited in distribution or range whose vulnerability or susceptibility to threat is currently low. In some cases, as noted above for List 3 species above, CNPS lacks survey data to accurately determine status in California. CNPS recommends that species currently included on this list should be monitored to ensure that future substantial declines are minimized. List is followed by threat code (e.g. CNPS List 1B.2) .1 - Seriously endangered in California (over 80% of occurrences threatened / high degree and immediacy of threat) .2 – Fairly endangered in California (20-80% occurrences threatened) .3 – Not very endangered in California (<20% of occurrences threatened) Global and State Rankings Comments G1/S1 Critically Imperiled —At very high risk of extinction due to extreme rarity (often 5 or fewer populations), very steep declines, or other factors. G2/S2 Imperiled —At high risk of extinction or elimination due to very restricted range, very few populations, steep declines, or other factors. G3/S3 Vulnerable —At moderate risk of extinction or elimination due to a restricted range, relatively few populations, recent and widespread declines, or other factors. G4/S4 Apparently Secure —Uncommon but not rare; some cause for long-term concern due to declines or other factors. G5/S5 Secure —Common; widespread and abundant. SECTIONTHREE Existing Conditions \23-May-13\SDG 3-10 3.3.3 CNPS List 4 Species 3.3.3.1 Graceful Tarplant (Holocarpha virgata ssp. elongata) CNPS: List 4.2 Graceful tarplant is a strongly scented glandular annual with yellow flower heads (Hickman 1993). This plant frequents annual and perennial grasslands without well-developed shrub cover, often including a heavy incidence of invasive non-native grasses and herbs (Reiser 1994). Like Otay tarplant, it is a late blooming species usually detected from May to November (CNPS 2009). It is often abundant where it occurs, usually in mildly disturbed or overgrazed grassland. Since occupied habitat is usually situated on comparatively level, sparsely vegetated terrain, it is presumed to be substantially declining in San Diego County and western Riverside County due to urban development (Reiser 1994). A population of approximately one hundred individuals was detected within the western boundary of the Village 8 West SPA Plan (Figure 4). 3.3.3.2 Palmer’s Grappling-hook (Harpagonella palmeri) CNPS: List 4.2 Palmer’s grappling-hook is a small and easily overlooked annual member of the Borage family with distinctive hooked fruit. It occurs in dry sites in chaparral, coastal scrub and grassland under 3000 ft (CNPS 2009). Clay soils with open grassy slopes or open Diegan Sage Scrub are typical habitats for this plant. Palmer's grappling hook is declining throughout Southern California. Many historical sites are likely extirpated by urban development and agricultural disking (Reiser 1994). A small population of this species was detected within the Village 8 West SPA Plan (Figure 4). 3.3.3.3 San Diego sunflower (Viguiera laciniata) CNPS: List 4.2 This species occurs in southern San Diego County and northwestern Baja California. In San Diego County, San Diego sunflower is a yellow-flowered, spring-blooming (January-July), xerophytic shrub that occurs in coastal sage scrub. San Diego sunflower is declining but still found at hundreds of locales where it is occasionally a dominant shrub. This species shows some ability to colonize areas of mild disturbance and is readily grown from seed. This species is recommended for de-listing by the CNPS; it is too common and wide-ranging in San Diego County to warrant such a listing (Reiser 1994). This species is a relatively common component of CSS habitat within the Project (Figures 4 and 6). 3.3.3.4 Seaside Calandrinia (Calandrinia maritima) CNPS: List 4.2 Seaside calandrinia is an annual with flat spoon-shaped leaves and red to purple petals (Hickman 1993). Sandy bluffs near the beach and sandy openings in CSS are the preferred habitat of this distinctive annual. Seaside calandrinia is severely declining in mainland Southern California, and is approaching extirpation SECTIONTHREE Existing Conditions \23-May-13\SDG 3-11 in San Diego County and Orange County; only a limited number of small sites are now known from San Diego (Reiser 1994). Seaside calandrinia occurs within the conserved areas of the Village 8 West SPA Plan parcel and will not be directly impacted (Figure 4). 3.3.3.5 Small-Flowered Morning-Glory (Convulvulus simulans) CNPS: List 4.2 Small-flowered morning-glory is a diminutive annual found in chaparral openings, coastal scrubs, and grasslands including non-native grasslands, clay lenses and serpentine seeps. Its current range is the San Francisco bay area south into Baja, Mexico. In San Diego County this species is found below 800 feet and blooms between March and May (Reiser 1994). A small population of small-flowered morning-glory was found within Preserve areas located adjacent to the Village 8 West Project. 3.3.3.6 Southwestern spiny rush (Juncus acutus ssp. leopoldii) CNPS List 4.2 Southwestern spiny rush is a relatively common plant associated with moist, saline or alkaline soils. This species is found in drainages and wetland areas south of Aqua Hedionda to the Otay River Valley. The sensitivity of this plant is due to the decline in wetland habitats throughout the County (Reiser 1994). Populations of this species occur within the three drainages on-site (Figures 4 and 8). Approximately 50 individuals occur within the Village 8 West SPA Plan parcel. 3.4 WILDLIFE The Project supports a diverse assemblage of wildlife species, which were primarily distributed throughout the south facing slopes of the Otay River Valley in the southern portion of the site. However, a few wildlife species were present in the highly disturbed agricultural land in the northern and eastern portion of the Village 8 West SPA Plan parcel. A list of wildlife species detected can be found in Appendix D. Bird species that were common within the Project vicinity included California towhee (Pipilo crissalis), western meadowlark (Sturnella neglecta), Anna’s hummingbird (Calypte anna), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), common raven (Corvus corax), and blue grosbeak (Passerina caerulea). The Project area also supports sensitive wildlife species including, but not limited to, the federally threatened California gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica), northern harrier (Circus cyaneus, CDFG Species of Special Concern [SSC]), and southern California rufous-crowned sparrow (Aimophila ruficeps canescens, watch list, MSCP Covered Species). A detailed discussion of these and other MSCP- covered wildlife species observed on-site is found below. Mammal species detected include coyote (Canis latrans), bobcat (Felis rufus), California ground squirrel (Spermophilus beecheyi nudipes), Audubon’s cottontail (Sylvilagus auduboni), and San Diego black- tailed jackrabbit (Lepus californicus bennettii, SSC). Reptiles that were observed or recorded previously on or near the Project include orange-throated whiptail (Cnemidophorus hyperythrus, SSC), western fence lizard (Sceloporus occidentalis), and southern Pacific rattlesnake (Crotalus oreganus helleri). SECTIONTHREE Existing Conditions \23-May-13\SDG 3-12 The primary larval host plant for QCB (dot-seed plantain [Plantago erecta]) was observed within the Project area. Although no historical QCB observations are known within the Project (CNDDB 2010), QCB has been documented previously within 3 miles of the Project (USFWS database). Protocol QCB surveys performed in 2009 and 2010 were negative. 3.4.1 MSCP Covered Wildlife Species Four MSCP covered bird species were observed within the Project: California gnatcatcher, northern harrier, rufous-crowned sparrow, and burrowing owl (Figure 4). Least Bell’s vireo was not detected during the various project survey efforts, but this listed species is known to occur within the Otay River flood plain in the vicinity of the Project. Coastal cactus wren is known to occur in the MSCP Preserve west of the Project, but was not detected within the Project. 3.4.1.1 Coastal California Gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica) USFWS: Threatened CDFG: Species of Special Concern MSCP: Covered The population of the coastal California gnatcatcher within the United States is estimated to be approximately 5,000 pairs. Of this, roughly 2,500 pairs reside in San Diego County (Mock 2004). Like other species that rely on coastal sage scrub, the decline of the coastal California gnatcatcher has been instigated by cumulative loss of coastal sage scrub vegetation to urban and agricultural development. Coastal California gnatcatchers are federally listed as Threatened, and are covered under the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan. A single adult male of this species was observed within the preserve but not in the Project impact area (PIA); multiple sightings of this individual were made were during protocol surveys. The lone gnatcatcher was detected within CSS habitat within the conserved area of the Village 8 West SPA Plan parcel (Figure 4). Gnatcatchers were not detected in the off-site components of the Project, but the CSS habitat associated with these off-site areas are assumed to be utilized by gnatcatcher. 3.4.1.2 Burrowing Owl (Athene cunicularia) USFWS: Bird of Conservation Concern CDFG: Species of Special Concern MSCP: Covered The western burrowing owl (Athene cunicularia) is a ground dwelling bird that inhabits grasslands, agricultural fields, and disturbed areas in the western half of the United States down into Baja California and central Mexico (Johnsgard 1988). Burrowing owls use rodent burrows throughout the year for shelter from weather and predators and for nesting during the breeding season (February 1 to August 31). In southern California the most commonly used rodent burrow is that of the California ground squirrel (Spermophilus beecheyi) and nesting distribution is strongly correlated to local burrow distribution (Collins 1979). Burrowing owls form short term pair bonds with male territoriality peaking during pair formation and declining after egg-laying. Not all individuals capable of breeding do so every year. Burrowing owls have declined through much of their range because of habitat loss due to urbanization, agricultural conversion, and control of ground squirrel colonies (Remsen 1978). The incidental poisoning SECTIONTHREE Existing Conditions \23-May-13\SDG 3-13 of burrowing owls and the destruction of their burrows during rodent eradication programs aimed at squirrel colonies has also been a large factor in their decrease (Collins 1979; Remsen 1978; Zarn 1974). Burrowing owls are relatively tolerant of lower levels of human activity, but have been negatively impacted by high levels of human related disturbances such as shooting and the introduction of non- native predators (Zarn 1974). This species often nests and perches near roads where they are vulnerable to roadside shooting, being hit by cars, road maintenance operations, and general harassment (Remsen 1978). Two active burrowing owl burrows were documented in the Village 8 West SPA Plan parcel, and one active owl burrow was detected in the adjacent Preserve (Figure 4). Both active burrows that were observed on-site in July 2009 will be directly impacted by the Village 8 West SPA Plan. Four burrowing owl individuals were detected in 2010; three individuals at one location within the conservation area of the Village 8 West SPA Plan parcel, and one individual outside the Project limits. No burrowing owls were detected within the off-site component areas of the Project; however, the CSS, grassland and agricultural habitats are potentially used by owls as foraging habitat. 3.4.1.3 Southern California Rufous-Crowned Sparrow (Aimophila ruficeps canescens) CDFG: Watch List MSCP: Covered Southern California rufous-crowned sparrow is a resident species in San Diego County that prefers grassy or rocky slopes with open scrub at elevations from sea level to 600 meters. It forages and nests on the ground, usually near vegetative cover, and maintains year-round territories. Most of the species’ population occurs in coastal sage scrub, so it has undoubtedly been reduced greatly by urban development. This species was formerly listed as a State of California SSC, but was removed due to it being relatively common within suitable habitat. It is currently a covered species under the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea plan. One individual of this species was observed within the conserved area of the Village 8 West SPA Plan parcel (Figure 4). This species was not detected in the off-site component areas of the Project. 3.4.2 Least Bell’s Vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus) USFWS: Endangered CDFG: Endangered MSCP: Covered Historically, this subspecies was a common summer visitor to riparian habitat throughout much of California. Currently, Least Bell's vireo (LBVI) (Vireo bellii pusillus) is found only in riparian woodlands in southern California, with the majority of breeding pairs in San Diego, Santa Barbara, and Riverside Counties. Substantial vireo populations are currently found on five rivers in San Diego County: Tijuana, Sweetwater, San Diego, San Luis Rey, and Santa Margarita, with smaller populations on other drainages. Least Bell’s vireo is restricted to riparian woodland and is most frequent in areas that combine an understory of dense young willows or mulefat with a canopy of tall willows. The least Bell’s vireo arrives in San Diego County in late March and early April and leaves for its wintering ground in September. Because the vireos build their nests in dense shrubbery three to four feet above the ground, SECTIONTHREE Existing Conditions \23-May-13\SDG 3-14 they require young successional riparian habitat or older habitat with a dense understory. Therefore, riparian plant succession is an important factor maintaining vireo habitat. Nests are also often placed along internal or external edges of riparian thickets. Six site visits to the vicinity of the off-site storm drain outfall were made by Brian Lohstroh during the 2010 vireo breeding season. No vireo were detected during this survey effort, but vireo are known from the project vicinity and suitable vireo habitat (mulefat scrub) is impacted by the off-site Future Facilities alignment. For the purposes of impact assessment this mulefat scrub vegetation is assumed to be utilized by LBVI. 3.4.3 San Diego Cactus Wren (Campylorhynchus brunneicapillus sandiegensis) CDFG: SSP USFWS: Bird of Conservation Concern (BCC) MSCP: Covered The San Diego cactus wren is a subspecies of the coastal California cactus wren (Campylorhynchus brunneicapillus sandiegensis). The San Diego cactus wren is seriously endangered throughout its range, which is restricted to coastal lowlands from the San Juan Creek drainage basin in Orange County south to the River drainage basin in extreme northwestern Baja California (Rea and Weaver 1990). The San Diego cactus wren is found only in CSS and MSS with extensive stands of Opuntia sp. cacti. Once widespread in San Diego County by 1990 it had been reduced to fewer than 400 pairs in about 55 colonies. Most of the remaining San Diego cactus wrens are threatened by proposed developments and viability is doubtful (Mock 1993). The long term viability of almost all others is questionable because of habitat fragmentation and degradation. Some of the larger colonies occur near Lake Jennings and around the San Diego Wild Animal Park. Coastal cactus wrens found in San Diego County nest almost exclusively in prickly pear or cholla cactus. Cactus wren was detected several hundred feet from southwestern site corner outside of the site boundary during surveys in cactus patches. Sighting location occurs within MSCP open space west of the project, beyond the mapping limits of this report. 3.4.3.1 Northern Harrier (Circus cyaneus) CDFG: Species of Special Concern MSCP: Covered The northern harrier is distributed throughout North America and Eurasia (Johnsgard 1990). Northern harriers breed from northern Alaska and Canada south into roughly the northern two-thirds of the western United States, and the northern one-third of the eastern United States, and are uncommon to fairly common winter visitor and rare and local summer resident in the coastal lowlands of San Diego County (Unitt 2004). Since the mid-1970s, documented nesting locations in San Diego County include Camp Pendleton and Sweetwater River estuary (Bloom 1983), Otay Ranch Mesa and Proctor Valley (Ogden 1993, Unitt 2004). Nesting has also been suspected at Otay Mesa, Tijuana River Estuary, Sorrento Valley, northeast Lake Hodges, and south of San Marcos (Unitt 2004). Harriers breed in marshes and grasslands and forage in grasslands, agricultural fields, wetlands, and open coastal sage scrub. This species responds to local prey abundance and can therefore be spatially unpredictable. Harriers have declined in California in recent decades, but can be locally abundant where sufficient suitable habitat remains, especially from intensive agriculture (Zeiner et al. 1990). This species is listed as a State of California SSC. One northern harrier was observed foraging along the northern most drainage channel on-site (Figure 4). Foraging is the SECTIONTHREE Existing Conditions \23-May-13\SDG 3-15 primary use for the Project area, but harriers may use the land as breeding habitat when it is not actively used for agriculture. Active agricultural tilling would prevent harriers from nesting on-site. Raptor breeding activity was not detected during the URS biological surveys. 3.4.3.2 White-tailed Kite (Elanus leucurus) CDFG: Fully Protected MSCP: Covered In North America, the white-tailed kite (Elanus leucurus) is distributed along the Pacific Coast from Washington south to Baja California Norte, Mexico, with a small population in southeast Arizona, and along the Gulf Coast from Florida south into Mexico (Johnsgard 1990). This species also occurs in Central and South America, Australia, southern Eurasia, and Africa. In California, kites are found along the coast and in the Central Valley (Zeiner et al. 1990). The white-tailed kite is a fairly common resident in San Diego County (Unitt 1984). Apparently uncommon in the county in the 19th century, the kite was extirpated from 1892 to 1920. In the 1930s, it began to recolonize with the population increasing rapidly between the late 1940s and 1970 (Unitt 1984). This species nests in riparian or oak woodland adjacent to grassland or open fields where it hunts rodents. This species was detected within the Otay River flood plain in the project vicinity and potentially uses the Project component areas as foraging habitat. 3.4.3.3 Quino Checkerspot Butterfly (Euphydryas editha quino) USFWS: Endangered MSCP: Covered The QCBs historical range included Los Angeles, Riverside, Orange, and San Diego Counties, extending south into Baja California. It formerly occurred from Otay Mesa in southern San Diego County north to Rancho Bernardo. Fifty years ago, this species was described as one of the most common in the county (Murphy 1990). However, the current distribution of this species has been greatly reduced due to loss of habitat to development, habitat degradation, complex metapopulation dynamics, and pressures resulting from a prolonged drought in California during the late 1980s and early 1990s (Murphy 1991; Brown 1991). Currently, populations are known from a single location in northern San Diego County and from Otay Mesa east through Otay Mountain to Jamul, Marron Valley, Tecate Border Crossing, Potrero, La Posta, Campo, and Jacumba in the southern part of the county. Distribution of this species is complicated by complex metapopulation dynamics involving local extinctions and population explosions which lead to recolonization of habitat. Further complications arise from the fact that the QCB larvae can diapause for as long as seven years. Adults emerge from mid- January through April but peak emergence is from March to April. There is very little migration of adults between centers of population abundance (Ehrlich et al. 1980). According to Ehrlich et al. (1975) the principal larval host plants of this species in San Diego are dot-seed plantain, wooly plantain (Plantago patagonica), white snapdragon (Antirrhinum coulterianum), Thread-leaved bird’s beak (Cordylanthus rigidus), purple owl’s clover (Castilleja exserta), and Chinese houses (Collinsia concolor). Adults will take nectar from plants such as chia (Salvia columbariae) and tidy-lips (Layia platyglossa). Potential habitat for QCB in the region includes vegetation communities with relatively open areas that typically include patches of dot-seed and other plantains, owl's clover, and nectaring plants. These habitats include SECTIONTHREE Existing Conditions \23-May-13\SDG 3-16 vernal pools (Allen 1990), lake margins (Emmel and Emmel 1973), nonnative grassland, perennial grassland, disturbed habitat, disturbed wetlands, and open areas within shrub communities. It is estimated that the two primary Plantago host species are expected to occur in scattered patches within portions of these habitats. Although no historical QCB observations were known within the Project boundary (CNDDB), QCB has been previously documented within four miles of the Project (USFWS database) and suitable host plant habitats (Plantego erecta patches) were detected in the conserved area of the Village 8 West SPA Plan parcel. No QCB were detected within the Project area during protocol surveys in 2009 or 2010. 3.4.3.4 Orange-Throated Whiptail (Aspidocelis hyperythrus beldingi) CDFG: SSC MSCP: Covered The orange-throated whiptail is restricted to the extreme southwest of California and northwest of Baja California Norte, Mexico (Stebbins 1985). In California, it is found on the west side of the Peninsular Ranges between sea level and 3,000 feet, in Los Angeles, San Bernardino, Orange, Riverside, and San Diego counties (Zeiner et al 1988). This species appears to prefer sage scrub that covers about 50 percent of the ground without dense grasses in between, but it also inhabits dense to extremely open stands of sage as well as chamise chaparral and floodplain areas. A limiting factor to the species’ range is the availability of its primary food item, the termite. The mean home range of this lizard has been estimated at 0.11 acre (Bostic 1965) and is documented at up to one acre. The principal threated to this species is loss of open sage scrub, its preferred habitat. One individual orange-throated whiptail was detected in the western portion of the Village 8 West SPA Plan parcel. This species was not detected in the off-site component areas of the Project. 3.4.4 Special Status Wildlife Species not Covered by the MSCP 3.4.4.1 Grasshopper Sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum) CDFG: Species of Special Concern MSCP: Not Covered This species occurs in grassland with sparse brush, primarily in the coastal lowland. Grasshopper sparrows are seen mainly from late March through mid-July, when they sing from exposed perches; the species is nearly impossible to find when not singing, and most or all of the population migrates out of California for the winter. Grasshopper sparrows were detected within the Village 8 West SPA Plan parcel. This species was not detected in the off-site component areas of the Project. 3.4.4.2 San Diego Black-tailed jackrabbit (Lepus californicus bennettii) CDFG: Species of Special Concern MSCP: Not Covered The San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit is found from the coast to the western slope of the coastal mountains, up to 6,000 feet, in San Diego County. It inhabits relatively open land, but requires some SECTIONTHREE Existing Conditions \23-May-13\SDG 3-17 shrubs for cover. Typical habitats include early stages of chaparral, open coastal sage scrub, and grasslands near the edges of brush. Grasses and forbs are the rabbit's preferred foods. Chew and Chew (1970) reported a diet of 65% shrub browse and 35% herbage. Breeding occurs throughout the year, and young are born under shrubs with no special nest structure. Home ranges averaging 45 acres have been recorded in California (Lechleitner 1958). Black-tailed jackrabbit is a state SSC. Three San Diego black- tailed jackrabbit were observed within the Village 8 West SPA Plan parcel (Figure 4). This species was not detected in the off-site component areas of the Project. 3.4.4.3 Northwestern San Diego Pocket Mouse (Chaetodipus fallax fallax) CDFG: Species of Special Concern MSCP: Not Covered Northwestern San Diego pocket mouse occurs on the coastal slope of Southern California and northern Baja California. Its range extends as far north as Claremont and San Bernardino and as far east as Banning and Jacumba in California (Hall 1981). This is often associated with open, arid habitats including CSS, annual grassland, and desert habitat. Small mammal trapping was not performed onsite; therefore, no northwestern San Diego pocket mice were detected. This species is presumed to occur within the CSS and MSS located within the Project. 3.4.4.4 Dulzura California Pocket Mouse (Chaeodipus californicus femoralis) CDFG: Species of Special Concern MSCP: Not Covered The range of Dulzura California pocket mouse extends from north of the Santa Margarita River mouth to northern Baja California, and as far east as Dulzura in San Diego County (Hall 1981). It generally occurs in coastal sage scrub, chaparral, woodlands and grasslands, often at the scrub-grassland interface. Much of the suitable habitat within the small range of the Dulzura California pocket mouse has been converted to urban and agricultural uses and the remainder is vulnerable to similar conversion. Small mammal trapping was not performed onsite; therefore, no Dulzura California pocket mice were detected. This species is presumed to occur within the CSS and MSS located within the Project component areas 3.4.4.5 San Diego Desert Woodrat (Neotoma lepida intermedia) CDFG: Species of Special Concern MSCP: Not Covered This San Diego desert woodrat occurs in coastal Southern California south of San Luis Obispo and northern Baja California (Hall 1981). Like other woodrats, it constructs large middens, usually of small twigs, cactus pads and other plant material. Middens are often constructed under patches of prickly pear or cholla (Opuntia spp.), or in rock outcrops or under low trees. Although the middens are easily detectable, trapping is usually necessary to distinguish between the middens of the dusky-footed woodrat (Neotoma fuscipes) and those of the desert woodrat. The primary threat to this species is urbanization and habitat degradation. Small mammal trapping was not performed onsite; therefore, no San Diego desert SECTIONTHREE Existing Conditions \23-May-13\SDG 3-18 woodrat were detected. This species is presumed to occur within the CSS and MSS located within the Project component areas. 3.5 WILDLIFE MOVEMENT A wildlife corridor is defined as a linear area that allows for the movement of wildlife between patches of habitat or from habitat to some other resource such as water. The quality of a particular corridor to wildlife is evaluated based on the focal target species expected to use the corridor. Focal species commonly used to evaluate corridor usage in San Diego County include large mammals such as mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus), bobcat, or coyote, or special status birds such as coastal California gnatcatcher or San Diego cactus wren. Types of corridors often used by focal target species include canyons and road underpasses such as culverts, bridges, and freeway interchanges of varying dimensions (Ogden Environmental 1993). The Project currently supports a movement area utilized by CAGN and Cactus Wren (CAWR). The Planned and Future Facilities alignments will traverse through a known wildlife corridor associated the Otay River (Ogden Environmental 1993; Figure 7). The Wolf Canyon linkage is west of the Project and the Otay River is the main east-west linkage in the Project vicinity. The canyons west of the Project are conserved open space, and the biological open space associated with Rock Mountain provides access to Wolf Canyon. Therefore, the continuity of suitable wildlife habitat associated with the adjacent east-west trending Otay River Valley and Rock Mountain open space is conserved per the Chula Vista Subarea Plan and Otay Ranch GDP and RMP. Wolf Canyon will not be isolated by the proposed project. Installation of the linear facilities in the preserve will be a temporary construction impact and will not interfere with wildlife movement over the long-term. The post and rail fencing associated with the off-site pedestrian trail will allow for continued wildlife movement through this area. 3.6 SOILS Soils found on the Project are predominantly Diablo clay 9-15 percent slope in the upper 2/3 of the site (with some areas of 2-9 percent slopes). Las Posas stony fine sandy loam is most common in the southwestern third of the Site and Huerhuero loam, Linne clay, and Olivenhain cobbly loams are present in the southeastern corner. Soils in the Preserve area beyond the limits of the Project are dominated by Olivenhain loams (Figure 5). 3.7 JURISDICTIONAL WETLAND DELINEATION The results of the jurisdictional delineations performed for the Project are displayed in Figure 8 and described in the following sections. Field work for the jurisdictional delineation was conducted on June 27, 2008 and July 31, 2008 by URS Biologists Theresa Miller and Brittany Benson. A jurisdictional delineation was conducted on May 7, 2010 on the off-site Planned and Future Facilities alignments by Brian Lohstroh of Lohstroh Biological Services. Wetland data sheets are provided in Appendix B. SECTIONTHREE Existing Conditions \23-May-13\SDG 3-19 3.7.1 Waters of the United States Waters of the United States (U.S.) include potential jurisdictional wetlands and other waters that may occur in the study area. URS biologists conducted formal jurisdictional/wetland delineations along three drainages on the north side of the Otay River Valley that exist within the Project component areas, and along the Otay River to delineate the limits of the wetland and thus the best location for the off-site Planned and Future Facilities alignment. The definition of waters of the U.S., including Federal wetlands, are based on the Federal Clean Water Act. Waters of the U.S., including wetlands, will be delineated based on the definition and guidance described in the following text. Waters of the U.S. are defined at 33 CFR 328.3 and 328.4: Section 328.3 - Definitions “For the purpose of this regulation these terms are defined as follows: a. The term "waters of the United States" means 1. All waters which are currently used, or were used in the past, or may be susceptible to use in interstate or foreign commerce, including all waters which are subject to the ebb and flow of the tide; 2. All interstate waters including interstate wetlands; 3. All other waters such as intrastate lakes, rivers, streams (including intermittent streams), mudflats, sandflats, wetlands, sloughs, prairie potholes, wet meadows, playa lakes, or natural ponds, the use, degradation or destruction of which could affect interstate or foreign commerce including any such waters: i. Which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes; or ii. From which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce; or iii. Which are used or could be used for industrial purpose by industries in interstate commerce; 4. All impoundments of waters otherwise defined as waters of the United States under the definition; 5. Tributaries of waters identified in paragraphs (a)(1)-(4) of this section; SECTIONTHREE Existing Conditions \23-May-13\SDG 3-20 6. The territorial seas; 7. Wetlands adjacent to waters (other than waters that are themselves wetlands) identified in paragraphs (a)(1)-(6) of this section. (Waste treatment systems, including treatment ponds or lagoons designed to meet the requirements of CWA (other than cooling ponds as defined in 40 CFR 123.11(m) which also meet the criteria of this definition) are not waters of the United States.) 8. Waters of the United States do not include prior converted cropland. Notwithstanding the determination of an area's status as prior converted cropland by any other federal agency, for the purposes of the Clean Water Act, the final authority regarding Clean Water Act jurisdiction remains with the EPA. b. The term "wetlands" means those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas. c. The term "adjacent" means bordering, contiguous, or neighboring. Wetlands separated from other waters of the United States by man-made dikes or barriers, natural river berms, beach dunes and the like are "adjacent wetlands." d. The term "ordinary high water mark" means that line on the shore established by the fluctuations of water and indicated by physical characteristics such as clear, natural line impressed on the bank, shelving, changes in the character of soil, destruction of terrestrial vegetation, the presence of litter and debris, or other appropriate means that consider the characteristics of the surrounding areas. Section 328.4 - Limits of jurisdiction a. Territorial Seas. The limit of jurisdiction in the territorial seas is measured from the baseline in a seaward direction a distance of three nautical miles. (See 33 CFR 329.12) b. Tidal Waters of the United States. The landward limits of jurisdiction in tidal waters: 1. Extends to the high tide line, or SECTIONTHREE Existing Conditions \23-May-13\SDG 3-21 2. When adjacent non-tidal waters of the United States are present, the jurisdiction extends to the limits identified in paragraph (c) of this section. c. Non-Tidal Waters of the United States. The limits of jurisdiction in non- tidal waters: 1. In the absence of adjacent wetlands, the jurisdiction extends to the ordinary high water mark, or 2. When adjacent wetlands are present, the jurisdiction extends beyond the ordinary high water mark to the limit of the adjacent wetlands. 3. When the water of the United States consists only of wetlands the jurisdiction extends to the limit of the wetland. Isolated, intrastate waters, including wetlands, will not be delineated as waters of the U.S. Guidance from the Corps (2001), Final Summary Report: Guidelines for Jurisdictional Determinations for Waters of the United States in the Arid Southwest, was used. Guidance of relevance to this delineation includes consideration that: “In dryland fluvial systems typical of the desert areas, the most common physical characteristics indicating the OHWM for a channel usually include, but are not limited to: a clear natural scour line impressed on the bank; recent bank erosion; destruction of native terrestrial vegetation; and the presence of litter and debris. For many small desert wash systems, the presence of continuous well-developed upland vegetation in the stream channel is a good indicator that it only conveys surface flow during extremely large storm events and, as a result, would not usually constitute a jurisdictional water of the United States.” This guidance is also consistent with the Corps Regulatory Guidance Letter (RGL) 88-06, which states “…the OHWM is meant to mark the within-channel high flows, not the average annual flood elevation that generally extends beyond the channel. …” and guidance provided in Corps (2004). The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has issued specific guidance that excavations on dry land, temporary puddles, and ditches constructed in uplands for the purpose of stormwater conveyance are not jurisdictional waters of the United States. This guidance will also be applied to ephemeral drainages. Ephemeral drainages were not be mapped as waters of the U.S. unless they bear a true OHWM. Drainages with discontinuous waters marks, such as may result from human induced events or rare high rainfall years, do not meet the definition of an OHWM and such drainages were not be delineated as waters of the U.S. Federal jurisdictional wetlands were delineated according to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) Wetland Delineation Manual Online Edition (Corps 1987), which is published at http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/elpubs/pdf/wlman87.pdf. Corps regional supplements for arid southwest delineation methodology were also used to delineate waters on the Project component areas (ACOE 2008a and 2008b). SECTIONTHREE Existing Conditions \23-May-13\SDG 3-22 3.7.2 California Department of Fish and Game Jurisdictional Lakes and Streams Lakes and streams are delineated to support potential Lake or Streambed Alteration Agreements with the CDFG as required pursuant to Section 1602(a) of the California Fish and Game Code, if it is necessary to substantially divert or obstruct the natural flow of, or substantially change or use any material from the bed, channel, or bank of, any river, stream, or lake, or deposit or dispose of debris, waste, or other material containing crumbled, flaked, or ground pavement where it may pass into any river, stream, or lake. Streams are defined at 14 CCR 1.72 as: A stream is a body of water that flows at least periodically or intermittently through a bed or channel having banks and supports fish or other aquatic life. This includes watercourses having a surface or subsurface flow that supports or has supported riparian vegetation. Lakes are defined at 14 CCR 1.56 as: Includes natural lakes or man-made reservoirs. Streams and lakes meeting the definitions described above will be mapped based on field observation and use of collateral material, such as aerial photographs, USGS topographic maps, and other information. Streams and lakes subject to CDFG jurisdiction will be mapped based on their OHWMs. The California Fish and Game Commission (CFGC) has issued a policy statement regarding wetlands, which is published on the internet at http://www.fgc.ca.gov/html/p4misc.html#WETLANDS and is summarized herein. The CFGC’s wetland policy is not a regulatory program. The CDFG and the CFGC possess only limited regulatory authority over potential uses within wetlands not owned by the Department. The CFGC’s role in wetland protection is primarily advisory in nature. Wetlands are not defined pursuant to CFGC or CDFG rules or regulations. The CFGC recommends using the wetland classification presented in Cowardin et al., (1979), which states: The primary objective of this classification is to impose boundaries on natural ecosystems for the purposes of inventory, evaluation, and management. … In general terms, wetlands are lands where saturation with water is the dominant factor determining the nature of soil development and the types of plant and animal communities living in the soil or on its surface. The single feature that most wetlands share is soil or substrate that is at least periodically saturated with or covered by water. The water creates severe physiological problems for life in water or in saturated soil. Wetlands are lands transitional between terrestrial and aquatic systems where the water table is usually at or near the surface or the land is covered by shallow water. For purposes of this classification, wetlands must have one or more of the following three attributes: (1) at least periodically, the land SECTIONTHREE Existing Conditions \23-May-13\SDG 3-23 supports predominantly hydrophytes; (2) the substrate is predominantly undrained hydric soil; and (3) the substrate is non-soil and is saturated with water or covered by shallow water at some time during the growing season of each year. The term wetland includes a variety of areas that fall into one of five categories: (1) areas with hydrophytes and hydric soils, such as those commonly known as marshes, swamps, and bogs; (2) areas without hydrophytes but with hydric soils – for example, flats where drastic fluctuation in water level, wave action, turbidity, or high concentration of salts may prevent the growth of hydrophytes; (3) areas with hydrophytes but nonhydric soils, such as margins of impoundments or excavations where hydrophytes have become established but hydric soils have not yet developed; (4) areas without soils but with hydrophytes such as the seaweed-covered portion of rocky shores; and (5) wetlands without soil and without hydrophytes, such as gravel beaches or rocky shores without vegetation. The context and environmental setting of a wetland relative to periodic and regular saturation or inundation of the soil or substrate is, therefore, an important consideration in designating wetlands using the classification system in Cowardin et al., (1979). The Cowardin et al., (1979) wetland classification publication also describes the upper (landward) and lower (waterward) limits of wetlands. These limits are described in Cowardin et al., (1979) as follows: The upland limit of wetland is designated as (1) the boundary between land with predominantly hydrophytic cover and land with predominantly mesophytic or xerophytic cover; (2) the boundary between soil that is predominantly hydric and soil that is predominantly non-hydric; or (3) in the case of wetlands without vegetation or soil, the boundary between land that is flooded or saturated at some time each year and land that is not. The boundary between wetland and deepwater habitat in the Marine and Estuarine Systems coincides with the elevation of the extreme low water of spring tide; permanently flooded areas are considered deepwater habitats in these Systems. The boundary between wetland and deepwater habitats in the Riverine and Lacustrine Systems lies at a depth of 2 m (6.6 feet) below low water; however, if emergent, shrubs, or trees grow beyond this depth at any time, their deepwater edge is the boundary. The CFGC policy states that the Cowardin et al. (1979) wetland definition includes swamps; freshwater, brackish water, and saltwater marshes; bogs; vernal pools; periodically inundated saltflats; intertidal mudflats; wet meadows; wet pastures; springs and seeps; portions of lakes, ponds, rivers and streams; and all other areas which are periodically or permanently covered by shallow water; or dominated by hydrophytic vegetation, or in which the soils are predominantly hydric in nature. The CDFG recommends the Cowardin et al., (1979) definition as its principal means of wetland identification in conjunction with on-site inspections for implementation of the CFGC’s advisory policy. SECTIONTHREE Existing Conditions \23-May-13\SDG 3-24 Therefore, vegetation communities that are otherwise defined within the Cowardin et al., (1979) classification system are also indicated in this report to assist the CDFG in its review and advisory comment pursuant to the CFGC policy. These areas with Cowardin classifications will generally coincide with vegetation communities described according to the approach for vegetation mapping. 3.7.3 Regional Water Quality Control Board Jurisdictional Surface Waters Section 401 of the Federal Clean Water Act and the California Porter Cologne Water Quality Act is administered through the Regional Water Quality Control Boards within California. Section 401 Water Quality Certification applies to any person applying for a Federal permit or license which may result in a discharge of pollutants into waters of the United States, and 401 Water Quality Certification must document that the activity complies with applicable water quality standards, limitations, and restrictions. The following permits are usually considered subject to 401 Water Quality Certification by the California Water Boards: Clean Water Act Section 404 permits and authorizations; permits issued under Sections 9 and 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act; licenses for hydroelectric power plants issued by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission under the Federal Power Act; and licenses issued by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. In this case, the primary applicable Federal permit that will be associated with the Project will be Section 404 permits for the construction of the Project where discharges of dredged or fill material will occur within waters of the U.S. Section 401 Water Quality Certification only applies to waters of the U.S. because this certification is a Federal rule within the Federal Clean Water Act that has been delegated to the State. Waters of the U.S., including wetlands, delineated using the approach described above will, therefore, serve to meet the requirements of delineation of waters that may be subject to Section 401 Water Quality Certification as delegated to the Regional Water Quality Control Boards in California. The Porter Cologne Water Quality Act otherwise defines waters of the State as any surface water or groundwater, including saline waters, within the boundaries of the State. Therefore, surface waters subject to potential regulation pursuant to the Porter Cologne Water Quality Act include isolated, intrastate waters, which are not considered pursuant to Section 401 Water Quality Certification. The limits of surface waters of the State, including wetlands, are not defined within the Porter Cologne Water Quality Act. Wetlands are not defined within the Porter Cologne Water Quality Act. The Porter Cologne Water Quality Act also accepts the Federal definition of waters of the U.S. within its sections dealing with Section 401 Water Quality Certification. Therefore, waters of the State pursuant to the Porter Cologne Water Quality Act were delineated if they bear an OHWM or meet the criteria for wetlands from the Federal Wetland Delineation Manual Online Edition (Corps 1987), and regional supplements, if appropriate, with the addition of isolated, intrastate waters considered as potentially subject to regulation pursuant to the Porter Cologne Water Quality Act. As such, vernal pools, including isolated, intrastate vernal pools, would be delineated at their boundaries if boundaries can be determined based on the presence of an OHWM or wetlands as defined by the Corps. 3.7.4 City of Chula Vista Wetlands Protection Program Wetlands regulated by the City of Chula Vista are generally defined as those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency or duration sufficient to support a prevalence of SECTIONTHREE Existing Conditions \23-May-13\SDG 3-25 vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions. For purposes of the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan, wetlands are those lands which contain naturally occurring wetland communities listed on Table 5-6 of the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan. Wetlands also include areas lacking wetland communities due to non-permitted filling of previously existing wetlands. Other waters of the U.S./State are regulated under the category of ‘natural flood channel’ under the WPP, and therefore, this program applies to all OWUS/State found on the Project component areas. The Wetlands Protection Program has been adapted as part of the City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea plan for all projects impacting wetland areas. These measures have been enacted in addition to the federal and state wetlands permits that are required for projects. To avoid double mitigation for projects, the City may allow the substitution of alternative mitigation requirements imposed through the Federal and State permitting processes as described in Appendix B of the Subarea Plan, "provided that the mitigation measures are equivalent or greater than those imposed by the City". As part of the CEQA review, development projects that contain wetlands will be required to demonstrate that impacts to wetlands have been avoided to the greatest extent practicable and, where impacts are nonetheless proposed, such impacts have been minimized. For unavoidable impacts to wetlands, the City will apply the wetlands mitigation ratios identified in Table 5-6 of the City's Subarea Plan. The wetlands mitigation ratios provide a standard for each habitat type, but may be adjusted depending on the functions and values of both the impacted wetlands as well as the wetlands mitigation proposed by the Project. The City may also consider the wetland habitat type(s) being impacted and utilized for mitigation in establishing whether the Subarea Plan standards have been met. 3.7.5 Waters of the United States within the Village 8 West Project The three drainages present within the Village 8 West SPA Plan parcel are identified as waters of the U.S. (WUS) under the jurisdiction of the Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE), as shown in Figure 8. The estimated federal jurisdictional WUS, including vegetated wetlands, within the Project component areas is approximately 0.23 acre (see Table 5 in Section 4). Drainage 1 is located along the northern border of the Village 8 West SPA Plan parcel. It drains water from a cement culvert that is located in the northeastern corner of the Village 8 West SPA Plan parcel; a concrete-lined French drain that is identified as an OWUS also feeds into this cement culvert. Drainage 1 can be distinctly separated into two portions, one being the eastern portion that has been channelized by man, and the other as a western portion that appears to be a natural channel. The ACOE jurisdiction is defined by the width at the OHWM, which ranges from six inches to six feet throughout both portions of the drainage. Throughout the eastern portion, there are hydric soils and approximately three inches of standing water, but wetland vegetation is not present. The vegetation within the standing water does contain a facultative (FAC) wetland plant (horseweed, Conyza canadensis), but the dominance of this facultative species’ cover does not meet the criteria for hydrophytic vegetation, which must be greater than 20% cover to qualify as a dominant cover. This portion of the drainage does not qualify as ACOE- jurisdictional wetlands because there is not sufficient cover of hydrophytic vegetation. There is a small wetland present along the western section of Drainage 1, located in the northwest corner of the Village 8 West SPA Plan parcel. Although the majority of this section of this drainage is not a wetland, it is an OWUS. The drainage that begins along the boundary of the western edge of the Village 8 West SPA Plan parcel is an OWUS that starts out at a width of two feet and opens up into a wide swale with large banks SECTIONTHREE Existing Conditions \23-May-13\SDG 3-26 (15’ wide) and a distinct OHWM, and also supports ruderal/upland vegetation (black mustard, red brome, and wild oats). The unvegetated OWUS within Drainage 1 encompasses 0.08 acre. Drainage 1 swale quickly narrows to a 0.05-acre freshwater marsh wetland that has an OHWM and bank width of approximately one foot. This wetland is dominated by hydrophytic plant species such as salt grass (Distichlis spicata), cat-tail (Typha latifolia), and bulrush (Scirpus americanus). This location is classified as a wetland under ACOE jurisdiction because in addition to hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils and hydrology are also present. Drainage 2 is located throughout most of the eastern border of the Village 8 West SPA Plan parcel and flows in a southerly direction, ultimately draining into the Otay River flood basin. The channel on-site does not support wetland plant species or hydric soil types, but does form a steep water-eroded drainage channel within a well-defined bed and bank, along with a distinct OHWM. The ACOE jurisdiction is defined by the 1 foot width of the OHWM. Several southwestern spiny rush (facultative wetland species [FACW] wetland indicator species) individuals were observed throughout the southern half of the channel; however, because it is not the dominant species (does not account for greater than 20% cover), this drainage does not meet the parameters for the presence of hydrophytic vegetation. Two cement culverts are present along the northern half of this channel. The unvegetated OWUS within Drainage 2 encompasses 0.07 acre. Drainage 3 is the smallest of the channels on-site, and is located within the southwestern portion of the Village 8 West SPA Plan parcel. The drainage flows off-site to the south into the Otay River. This area was found to lack wetland vegetation and soil types, but flowing water leaves a discrete channel with a poorly defined bed and bank. Approximately ten southwestern spiny rush individuals were observed growing on the banks of the channel; however, this species is not dominant and does not indicate the presence hydrophytic vegetation. The dominant species at this location include upland species such as lemonadeberry (Rhus integrifolia), Russian thistle (Salsola tragus), ripgut brome (Bromus diandrus), and deerweed (Lotus scoparius). The roughly one-foot wide OHWM defines the ACOE jurisdiction. The unvegetated OWUS within Drainage 3 encompasses 0.03 acre. The limits of Otay River federal jurisdictional waters associated with the off-site Future Facility component were delineated on May 2010, and are shown on Figure 8. The wetland area is shown along the edge of the Otay River flood plain, approximately 1 foot from the surface of open water. The off-site Planned and Future Facilities alignments were designed to avoid the federal jurisdictional wetland boundary within the Otay River. No federal waters or wetlands are within the construction ROW for the off-site Planned and Future Facilities alignments. 3.7.6 California Department of Fish and Game Jurisdictional Lakes and Streams within the Village 8 West Project CDFG jurisdiction generally parallels the federal waters boundaries found in all three drainages, except that CDFG jurisdiction is taken from the top of the channel banks. No riparian vegetation occurs outside the channels. The estimated state jurisdictional waters within the Project is approximately 0.95 acre, including 0.12 acre of vegetated wetlands. See Table 5 in Section 4. The CDFG jurisdiction of Drainage 1 is measured between the top of the channel banks and ranges from 1.5 to 15 feet wide. The banks of SECTIONTHREE Existing Conditions \23-May-13\SDG 3-27 Drainage 2 range in width from 3 to 8 feet. Well defined bed and banks are not present north of the Not-a- Part reservoir. The CDFG jurisdiction of Drainage 3, as defined by the top of the banks, ranges in width from 2 to 5 feet. The bank of Otay River is well defined and defines the CDFG jurisdictional boundary. Approximately 0.07 acre of mulefat scrub habitat associated with the Planned and Future Facilities alignments is considered state jurisdictional waters. 3.7.7 Regional Water Quality Control Board Jurisdictional Surface Waters within the Village 8 West Project All delineated waters of the U.S. are also waters of the State, subject to the jurisdiction of the Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). No non-Federal isolated, intrastate waters, such as vernal pools, exist at this location. The site is dominated by agricultural and coastal sage scrub habitat, and has been graded in many locations as shown in photographs 1-3, 7, 9 and 11 in Appendix F of this document. Soils that may potentially support vernal pools are found in a portion of the Project (Diablo clay with 2-9 percent slope); however, no vernal pools or vernal pool indicative plant species were detected on the Project during any surveys conducted over the last 3 years. The Project supports a 0.05-acre area of vegetated wetlands and three jurisdictional OWUS. The ACOE and CDFG will likely claim jurisdiction over the channel and OHWM of all of the drainages. The estimated state jurisdictional waters within the Project is approximately 0.95 acre. The estimated federal jurisdictional waters within the Project is approximately 0.23 acre (see Table 5 in Section 4). 3.7.8 City of Chula Vista Wetlands Protection Program As part of the CEQA review, development Projects which contain wetlands will be required to demonstrate that impacts to wetlands have been avoided to the greatest extent practicable and, where impacts are nonetheless proposed, that such impacts have been minimized. The 0.05-acre freshwater marsh at the western end of the Project and 0.07 acre of mulefat scrub are classified as wetlands under ACOE or CDFG jurisdiction, and is also protected under the City’s WPP. The total impact area applicable to the WPP is 0.95 acre, which includes the jurisdictional waters of the US/State. Impacts to these wetlands are considered significant under the WPP. The City will apply the wetlands mitigation ratios identified in Table 5 in the City’s MSCP Subarea Plan, which range from 1:1 to 2:1 for freshwater marsh and mulefat scrub habitats. Jurisdictional other waters of the U.S/State are also regulated by the WPP and mitigation ratios provide a standard mitigation for each habitat type, but may be adjusted depending on the functions and values of both of the impacted wetlands and OWUS/State as well as the wetlands mitigation proposed by the Project. SECTIONFOUR Impact Assessment \\23-May-13\SDG 4-1 SECTION 4 IMPACT ASSESSMENT 4.1 SIGNIFICANCE CRITERIA The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines define “significant effect on the environment” as a “substantial or potentially substantial adverse change in the environment”. According to Appendix G of the state-wide CEQA Guidelines, impacts to biological resources would be considered significant if the project: 1. Has a substantial adverse effect, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive, or special status species in local or regional plans, polices, or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; The Project will result in significant impacts on several special status species. As part of the Otay Ranch Planning component, the Project is a Covered Project under the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan. Impacts from this Project will be mitigated through land conveyance and habitat restoration, as specified in the MSCP and Otay Ranch RMP, as well as through preparation and implementation of species-specific ASMDs. The off-site sewer, storm drain, access road, and trail facilities are Planned and Future Facilities under the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan, and thus impacts from these facilities are also covered through the MSCP and are mitigable through consistency with the MSCP and the RMP. 2. Has a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, polices, or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service; The proposed Project will result in the direct impact to 15.15 acres of CSS, 19.99 acres of disturbed CSS, 1.05 acres of MSS, 0.81 acre of NNG, 0.07 acre of MFS, and 0.05 acre of FWM. Impacts to special status vegetation communities are considered significant, but mitigable through consistency with the RMP, MSCP Subarea Plan and wetland permitting processes. 3. Has a substantial adverse effect on any federally protected wetlands as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means; Approximately 0.23 acre of federally regulated jurisdictional waters, including 0.05 acre of federal vegetated wetlands will be impacted by implementation of the Project, which is considered significant, but mitigable. 4. Interferes substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native or migratory wildlife corridors, or impedes the use of wildlife nursery sites; Implementation of the Project will not interfere substantially with the movement of fish or wildlife species or with established native or migratory wildlife corridors and no wildlife nursery sites are present in the Project area. Therefore, impacts to wildlife corridors are not significant. SECTIONFOUR Impact Assessment \\23-May-13\SDG 4-2 5. Conflicts with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance; The Village 8 West Project, a MSCP Covered Project, complies with the MSCP Subarea Plan and MSCP Siting Criteria, which are described in detail in Section 4.2.6 (See Section 3.1 for a summary of the Regulatory Setting). Consistent with the Otay Ranch GDP, the proposed Project is in conformance with the conservation goals and Preserve boundaries of the Otay Ranch GDP and RMP. The Project shall implement the open space land conveyance plan, Edge Plan, and Fire Plan, which are consistent with the City’s Adjacency Management Guidelines. The Project properly addresses Narrow Endemic Species protection requirements and limits impacts to 100% Conservation Areas to only specific planned and future facilities that are required to support the Project. The Project shall restore wetlands and MSS habitats as required by the RMP and City Wetland Protection Plan. The project would comply with the Preserve design and conservation standards of the RMP. An Edge Plan has been prepared in accordance with RMP Policy 7.2 for the control edge effects, and the project will be required to meet the RMP’s restoration requirements for impacts to MSS. Without compliance with the Edge Plan and MSS restoration requirements of the RMP, development of Village 8 West would result in significant impacts to implementation of the RMP. As previously discussed, the Otay Ranch RMP and the Otay Ranch Preserve were the primary basis for CEQA mitigation of biological impacts identified in the GDP Program EIR. The RMP includes conveyance procedures for dedicating parcels of land to the Otay Ranch Preserve and for determining the proportionate share for each village. The Otay Ranch GDP identified that the entire Otay Ranch GDP area contained 9,575 developable acres. The estimated conveyance obligation of 11,375 acres to the Otay Ranch Preserve would be met on a village-by-village basis. The conveyance ratio for all development is 1.188 acres for each acre of project area, less common areas, including schools, parks, and roadways. The proposed project would have significant impact related to biological resources management unless the Otay Ranch regional open space is preserved proportionally and concurrently with development. The development of Village 8 West would be within the area designated for development under the RMP and the MSCP Subarea Plan (which is based on the RMP in the Otay Ranch area) with the exception of some offsite facilities that encroach into the Preserve. The Village 8 West off-site facilities include the construction of a sewer lateral and associated access road (MSCP Planned Facilities) and a storm drain pipeline and a recreation trail (MSCP Future Facilities), a portion of which would impact the Preserve. The City’s MSCP Subarea contains siting criteria for “planned facilities” and "future facilities" that are to be located within the Preserve. See Section 4.2.6 for details. Therefore, the Project does not conflict with local policies or ordinances that protect biological resources. SECTIONFOUR Impact Assessment \\23-May-13\SDG 4-3 6. Conflicts with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Communities Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. The Village 8 West Project is a Covered Project under the Chula Vista MSCP; the Project and the off-site Future and Planned facilities associated with the Project comply with the MSCP Siting Requirements, which are described in detail in Section 4.2.6. Therefore, the Project does not conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Communities Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. 4.2 DIRECT IMPACTS 4.2.1 Vegetation The Village 8 West SPA Plan will develop approximately 291.46 acres of land (including 4.57 acres of temporary grading within the Not-a-Part parcel and 0.26 acre of off-site fuel modification zone) and conserves approximately 15.62 acres of mostly CSS as biological open space (Table 3). The majority of this open space is located within the Chula Vista MSCP 100% Preserve Area. Approximately 1.54 acres of MSCP Preserve habitats will be impacted by the Planned and Future Facilities alignments. About 0.56 acre of impact through a planned active recreation area is also associated with the off-site Planned/Future Facilities component. Sensitive habitats are those that support sensitive species and are identified as Tier I, Tier II, or Tier III in the City’s MSCP Subarea Plan (Table 4). Impacts to three upland vegetation types are considered significant and will require mitigation: MSS (Tier I), CSS (Tier II), and non-native grassland (Tier III). Tier IV vegetation types do not require mitigation. Freshwater marsh and mulefat scrub are wetland habitat types that are not covered by the MSCP Tier classification system; however, impacts to these wetland vegetation types are considered significant and will be mitigated. SECTIONFOUR Impact Assessment \\23-May-13\SDG 4-4 Table 3 Development Impacts (acres) to Vegetation for Village 8 West Project Vegetation Type MSCP Habitat Tiers Existing Acreage in Entire Project Area Village 8 West SPA Plan Off-site Planned / Future Facilities SPA Development Area, Off-site Fuel Modification Zones, (1) Conserved Habitat Area Off-site Grading in Not- a-Part Parcel (2) Off-site Planned and Future Facilities within Planned Active Recreation Area (3) Off-site Planned Facilities Permanent Impacts within MSCP Preserve (4) Off-site Future Facilities Permanent Impacts within MSCP Preserve (5) Temporary Construction Impacts of Planned and Future Facilities within MSCP Preserve (6) Grand Total Impacts (Columns 1-6 combined) Coastal Sage Scrub II 29.97 * 15.14 * 14.83 0 0 0 0.01 15.15 Disturbed Coastal Sage Scrub II 19.99 19.83 0 0.16 0 0 0 19.99 Maritime Succulent Scrub I 1.05 0.56 0 0 0.17 0.08 0.24 1.05 Non-Native Grassland III 0.81 0.62 0 0.19 0 0 0 0.81 Freshwater Marsh wetland 0.05 0.05 0 0 0 0 0 0.05 Mulefat Scrub wetland 0.07 0 0 0 0 0.01 0.06 0.07 Agriculture IV 229.55 223.31 0.70 4.57 0 0.39 0.19 0.39 228.85 Developed IV 10.21 10.07 0.09 0.05 0 0 0 10.12 Disturbed Vegetation IV 15.37 15.36 0 0.01 0 0 0 15.37 Total 307.08 284.94 15.62 4.57 0.41 0.56 0.28 0.70 291.46 # includes SPA, off-site Planned and Future Facilities, and off-site fuel modification zone. * includes 0.26 acre of off-site CSS impacts associated with fuel modification zone. SECTIONFOUR Impact Assessment \\23-May-13\SDG 4-5 4.2.1.1 Special Status Vegetation Communities The Project will result in direct impacts to five special status vegetation communities: freshwater marsh, coastal sage scrub (including disturbed coastal sage scrub), maritime succulent scrub, mulefat scrub, and non-native grassland. Approximately 0.05 acre of freshwater marsh in the northern drainage (Drainage 1) would be impacted by the Project. Coastal sage scrub and disturbed coastal sage scrub occurs primarily in the southwest portion of the Project, with an additional band of disturbed coastal sage scrub in the southeast section. The Project will impact 15.15 acres of coastal sage scrub and 19.99 acres of disturbed coastal sage (Tables 1, 3, and 4, Figure 6). Approximately 0.56 acre and 0.49 acre of MSS habitat will be impacted by the Village 8 West SPA Plan and associated off-site Planned / Future Facilities. Approximately 0.07 acre of mulefat scrub (0.06 acre of which would a temporary impact) will be impacted by the off-site Future Facilities alignment. Impacts to non-native grassland will occur within the Village 8 West SPA Plan parcel (0.62 acre) and within the off-site Planned / Future Facilities alignments (0.19 acre). Impacts to special status vegetation communities are considered significant, but mitigable. Table 4 Village 8 West Project Impacts (acres) to Special Status Vegetation Vegetation Type MSCP Habitat Tier SPA Plan Impacts including Off-site Fuel Modification Zones Off-site Planned and Future Facilities within Planned Active Recreation Area Off-site Planned Facilities Permanent Impacts within MSCP Preserve Off-site Future Facilities Permanent Impacts within MSCP Preserve Temporary Impacts of Planned and Future Facilities within MSCP Preserve Grand Total Coastal Sage Scrub II 15.14 0 0 0 0.01 15.15 Disturbed Coastal Sage Scrub II 19.83 0.16 0 0 0 19.99 Maritime Succulent Scrub I 0.56 0 0.17 0.08 0.24 1.05 Non-Native Grassland III 0.62 0.19 0 0 0 0.81 Freshwater Marsh wetland 0.05 0 0 0 0 0.05 Mulefat Scrub wetland 0 0 0 0.01 0.06 0.07 Grand Total 36.20 0.35 0.17 0.09 0.31 37.12 SECTIONFOUR Impact Assessment \\23-May-13\SDG 4-6 4.2.2 Special Status Plants 4.2.2.1 CNPS List 1 and List 2 species The Project will result in impacts to approximately 200 coast barrel cactus. The Project will result in a direct impact to approximately 3,500 Otay tarplant individuals. Otay tarplant is a MSCP covered narrow endemic. The Project will result in impacts to approximately ten San Diego marsh elder individuals. The Project will not result in impacts to south coast saltbush, which is only found within the conserved area within the Village 8 West SPA Plan parcel. Direct impacts to special status plant species including MSCP Narrow Endemic and CNPS List 1 and List 2 plant species are considered significant, but mitigable. 4.2.2.2 CNPS List 4 species Impacts to graceful tarplant, Palmer’s grappling-hook, San Diego sunflower and southwestern spiny rush would occur as part of the Project; however, these species are also conserved in the Otay Ranch Preserve. Additionally, impacts to CNPS List 4 (“watch list”) plant species are not considered significant because List 4 plant species are still relatively common in San Diego County. No impacts would occur to small- flowered morning glory or seaside calandrinia as they only occur with the conserved area of the Village 8 West SPA Plan. 4.2.3 Wildlife 4.2.3.1 MSCP Covered Wildlife Species One occupied CAGN territory occurs in coastal sage scrub within the Preserve. Sufficient CSS is being conserved on-site to support this one gnatcatcher territory. The CSS and MSS habitats proposed for impact are also suitable habitat for CAGN. Direct impacts to CAGN from the Project are considered significant, but will be mitigated to less than significant through consistency with the MSCP and RMP. Per the MSCP Subarea Plan, no clearing of CAGN-occupied habitat shall occur during the breeding season for this species (February 15 to August 15). Please see Section 5 for detailed mitigation measures and pre-construction survey requirements. Potentially significant impact to least Bell’s vireo and coastal cactus wren may occur if these two species are detected in suitable habitat during pre-construction surveys and subsequent construction biological monitoring. No clearing cover of species-suitable vegetation can occur during the species’ breeding season (least Bell’s vireo: March 15 to September 15; coastal cactus wren: February 15 to August 15). Potential impacts to LBVI and CAWR are considered significant, but mitigable. Please see Section 5 for detailed mitigation measures and pre-construction survey requirements for these two species. The rufous-crown sparrow sighting location will not be impacted. The CSS and MSS habitats proposed for impact are also suitable for this species. Impacts to rufous-crowned sparrow and loss of suitable habitat are considered significant, but mitigable. One orange-throated whiptail was observed in CSS habitat that will be impacted by the Project. Impacts to orange-throated whiptail are considered significant, but mitigable. SECTIONFOUR Impact Assessment \\23-May-13\SDG 4-7 Burrowing owl occupied habitat will be impacted by the Project. Two burrows (active in 2009) will be directly impacted by the Project. Burrowing owls are known to occupy agricultural areas such as those found on-site, and use such areas for both nest and foraging. Although the agricultural areas on-site have been recently surveyed for burrowing owl with no observations, the potential for this species to occur on- site is high based on 2009 detections and presence of burrows. A third active burrow is located outside the impact area within the adjacent preserve area and no impacts to this burrow location will occur as a result of the proposed Project. If pre-construction survey results for this species are positive, impacts would be considered significant, but mitigable. See Section 5 for details regarding owl survey requirements and mitigation measures for occupied owl habitat. No suitable QCB habitat will be impacted by the Project and associated off-site components. Focused flight season surveys were negative for QCB in 2009 and 2010. Impacts to QCB are not considered significant due to the absence of this species and lack of suitable habitat. The habitat in the Project falls in three categories: Non-Preserve Habitat Category B, Preserve Habitat Category B, and Planned Development Areas excluded from the QCB habitat suitability assessment based on regulatory and habitat considerations. Impacts to QCB are considered less than significant. Habitats in the existing on-site agricultural areas provide foraging areas for sensitive raptor species including burrowing owl, white-tailed kite, northern harrier, and golden eagle. The Project would reduce foraging area available to these species by reducing the size of the agricultural area on Otay Ranch Mesa. Impacts on these species as a result of the Project are considered significant, but mitigable. Impacts to avian species protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) may occur if habitat that may potentially support active nests is removed or impacted during the bird breeding season (February 15 through August 31). All vegetated habitats found within the Project may potentially support active bird nests. Direct impacts to breeding migratory birds are considered significant, but mitigable. 4.2.3.2 Wildlife Species not Covered by MSCP San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit would be adversely affected by the loss of CSS, MSS, and grassland habitats, but this impact is less than significant due to this species being still common in the project vicinity. Northwestern San Diego pocket mouse, Dulzura California pocket mouse, San Diego woodrat, and coast rosy boa were not observed on the Project, but are typically found in CSS and may be impacted by removal of this vegetation on-site if they are present. Direct impacts to regional populations of these species are considered to be less than significant due to the relatively small amount of CSS and MSS being impacted on-site and the low risk of endangerment associated with these species. Grasshopper sparrow would be impacted by the loss of grassland and fallow agricultural lands, but this species is still too common for such an impact to be considered significant at a range-wide scale. 4.2.4 Wildlife Movement Figure 7 identifies the wildlife movement corridors in the vicinity of the Project. A wildlife corridor is defined as a linear area that allows for the movement of wildlife between patches of habitat or from live- in habitat to some other resource such as water. The quality of a particular corridor to wildlife is evaluated based on the focal target species expected to use the corridor. Focal species commonly used to evaluate corridor usage in San Diego County include large mammals such as mule deer (Odocoileus hemionus), SECTIONFOUR Impact Assessment \\23-May-13\SDG 4-8 bobcat, or coyote, or special status birds such as coastal California gnatcatcher or San Diego cactus wren. Types of corridors often used by focal target species include canyons and road underpasses such as culverts, bridges, and freeway interchanges of varying dimensions (Ogden Environmental 1993). The Project currently supports a wildlife movement for CAGN and CAWR (Ogden Environmental 1993; Figure 7). The Wolf Canyon linkage is west of the Project and the Otay River is the main east-west linkage in the Project vicinity. The canyons west of the Project are within designated conservation areas, and the biological open space around Rock Mountain provides access to Wolf Canyon. Therefore, the continuity of suitable wildlife habitat associated with the adjacent east-west trending Otay River Valley and Rock Mountain open space is conserved per the Chula Vista Subarea Plan and Otay Ranch GDP and RMP. Wolf Canyon will not be isolated by the proposed project. Installation of the linear facilities in the preserve will be a temporary construction impact and will not interfere with wildlife movement over the long-term since this much of the construction impact area and easement will be revegetated. The post and rail fencing associated with the off-site pedestrian trail shall be designed and constructed to allow for wildlife movement across the trail. 4.2.5 Jurisdictional Waters Formal jurisdictional delineations conducted by URS, show that the Project will impact a total of 0.05 acre of ACOE-jurisdictional wetlands (freshwater marsh), and 0.18 acre of ACOE-jurisdictional OWUS (Table 5). Direct impacts to ACOE jurisdictional wetlands adjacent to the Future Facilities alignment will be avoided during construction. Impacts to federal jurisdictional waters are considered significant and will require mitigation in accordance with the terms and conditions of a 404 permit from the ACOE. A Section 401 Water Quality Certification from the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board must be issued before the Project can receive a 404 permit from the ACOE. A total of 0.83 acre of CDFG non-vegetated channel within the impact limits for the Project (Table 5). Approximately 0.12 acre of CDFG wetlands (0.5 acre of freshwater marsh in the Village 8 West SPA Plan parcel and 0.07 acre of mulefat scrub within the Future Facilities alignment). Impacts to 0.95 acre of State jurisdictional waters are considered significant and will require mitigation in accordance with the terms and conditions of a 1602 agreement with the California Department of Fish and Game. Impacts to 0.95 acre of wetlands and channels must be mitigated to be consistent with the City of Chula Vista Wetlands Protection Program. The impacted wetlands and other waters of the U.S. /State delineated meets the definition of Chula Vista’s Wetlands Protection Program (WPP) and mitigation ratios presented in Table 5 are consistent with Table 5-6 in the Chula Vista’s MSCP Subarea Plan. SECTIONFOUR Impact Assessment \\23-May-13\SDG 4-9 Table 5 Impacts to Jurisdictional Waters and Wetlands ACOE OWUS CDFG Channel Length (ft) Width (ft) Area (sq ft) Area (acres) 2:1 Mitigation Ratio (acres) Length (ft) Width (ft) Area (sq ft) Area (acres) 2:1 Mitigation Ratio (acres) SPA Plan - Drainage 1 OWUS/State 1,828 1-3 3,644 0.08 0.16 1,828 4-6 9,996 0.23 0.46 Drainage 1 Wetland 726 3 2,178 0.05 0.1 726 3 2,178 0.05 0.1 SPA Plan - Drainage 2 OWUS/State 2,953 1 2,953 0.07 0.14 2,953 8 2,2651 0.52 1.04 SPA Plan - Drainage 3 OWUS/State 1,403 1 1,403 0.03 0.06 1,403 2.5 3,508 0.08 0.16 Future Facilities Alignment (Storm Drain Outfall) Wetland 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,050 0.07 0.14 Total 6,910 10,178 0.23 0.46 6,910 41,383 0.95 1.90 4.2.6 Consistency with MSCP City of Chula Vista Subarea Plan and Otay Ranch Resource Management Plan The Project design is consistent with the MSCP Subarea Plan and the Otay Ranch RMP through specific adherence to conditions of coverage and mitigation/conveyance requirements for Covered Projects, as defined in the Chula Vista MSCP, Section 7.6 and the Otay Ranch RMP. The Planned and Future facilities that are located within the Preserve were designed to minimize impacts to covered habitats and species by following the MSCP Siting Criteria described in Section 4.2.6.1 of this report. The Otay Ranch RMP and the Otay Ranch Preserve were the primary basis for CEQA mitigation of biological impacts identified in the GDP Program EIR. The RMP includes conveyance procedures for dedicating parcels of land to the Otay Ranch Preserve and for determining the proportionate share for each village. The Otay Ranch GDP identified that the entire Otay Ranch GDP area contained 9,575 developable acres. The estimated conveyance obligation of 11,375 acres to the Otay Ranch Preserve would be met on a village-by-village basis. The conveyance ratio for all development is 1.188 acres for each acre of project area, less common areas, including schools, parks, and roadways. The proposed Project would have significant impact related to biological resources management unless the Otay Ranch SECTIONFOUR Impact Assessment \\23-May-13\SDG 4-10 Preserve is assembled proportionally and concurrently with development in accordance with provisions of the City’s MSCP and Otay Ranch RMP. The development of Village 8 West SPA Plan would be within the area designated for development under the Otay Ranch RMP and the MSCP Subarea Plan with the exception of the off-site facilities component that will traverse through designated Preserve areas. The off-site facilities component include the construction of a sewer lateral and associated access road (MSCP Planned Facilities) and a storm drain pipeline and a pedestrian trail (MSCP Future Facilities). Land uses within the Preserve (including roads and infrastructure) that are considered compatible with the need to permanently protect Covered Species and their habitats are further described in Section 6.0 (Land Use Consideration in the Preserve) of the City’s MSCP Subarea Plan. In accordance with Section 6.0 of the City’s MSCP Subarea Plan, projects located within the Preserve shall be subject to the Facilities Siting Criteria contained in Section 6.3.3.4 of the City’s MSCP Subarea Plan. Compliance with the Facilities Siting Criteria ensures that the facilities located within the Preserve have been sited within the least environmentally sensitive areas and that impacts to the Preserve have been minimized to the maximum extent practical. The following section provides an analysis of the Facilities Siting Criteria relative to the Project’s off-site Planned and Future Facilities component. 4.2.6.1 Planned and Future Facilities/Siting Criteria Located within the Preserve (CCV MSCP Sections 6.3.3, 6.3.3.1, 6.3.3.4) The proposed off-site Planned (sewer pipeline and access road) and Future Facilities (storm drain pipeline and pedestrian trail) supporting a Covered Project are allowed in the Preserve under the City’s MSCP Subarea Plan, subject to the Siting Criteria identified in Sections 6.3.3,6.3.3.1, and 6.3.3.4 of the City’s Subarea Plan. The following is an analysis of the Facilities Siting Criteria (Section 6.3.3.4 and Table 6-1 of the Subarea Plan) relative to the Project’s off-site Planned and Future Facilities that have been co-located within a single 50-foot construction ROW: (a) Such facilities will be located in the least environmentally sensitive location feasible, and use existing roads, trails and other disturbed areas, including use of the active recreation areas in the Otay River Valley, as much as possible (except where such areas are occupied by the QCB). Facilities should be routed through developed or developing areas where possible. If no other routing is feasible, alignments should follow previously existing roads, easements, rights of way, and disturbed areas, minimizing habitat fragmentation. The off-site facilities were co-located within a single construction ROW and clustered with existing facilities (i.e., City of San Diego waterlines) to minimize habitat fragmentation and impacts to covered species. To further reduce impacts within designated Preserve areas, the off-site facilities alignment was sited to align with and utilize development areas associated with planned active recreation to the maximum extent practicable. The permanent easement width needed for the storm drain pipeline was reduced from the City’s engineering standard width of 20-feet down to 10-feet due to the co-location with the 20-foot easement width required for the sewer pipeline. In addition, the access road associated with the planned sewer SECTIONFOUR Impact Assessment \\23-May-13\SDG 4-11 lateral will be also be used to not only access the storm drain pipeline but will also serve as the future pedestrian trail connection to the OVRP. As a result, a separate ROW will not be required for the construction of the pedestrian trail. Through the co-location of these facilities, impacts associated with habitat fragmentation have been minimized as compared to if these facilities were geographically separated. Temporary impacts associated with the construction the Project’s off-site facilities component will be revegetated pursuant to an approved revegetation plan (see Section 5 for the timing and requirements of the revegetation plan). (b) Such facilities shall avoid, to the maximum extent practicable, impacts to Covered Species and Wetlands, and will be subject to the provisions, limits, and mitigation requirements for Narrow Endemic Species and Wetlands pursuant to Section 5.2.3 and 5.2.4 of the Subarea Plan. As previously discussed, the off-site facilities were co-located within a single alignment and clustered with existing facilities to minimize impacts to covered species and their habitats. Given the relatively even distribution of CSS, MSS, and NNG located along the Project’s southern boundary the southern boundary, moving the alignment further east or west would not substantially reduce impacts to these habitat communities and the Covered Species that they support. While these sensitive habitat communities cannot be avoided, it is important to note that the majority of the off-site facilities alignment has been sited through less sensitive agricultural areas and designated active recreation development areas. Wetland impacts have been minimized to the greatest extent possible by placing the off-site Planned and Future Facilities alignments adjacent to, but not within federal wetlands and other jurisdictional waters. Impacts to mulefat scrub were minimized by restricting the temporary construction ROW associated with the storm drain outfall/point of discharge to 25 feet to avoid ACOE jurisdictional waters. The construction and location of the facilities has been sited and designed to avoid, to the maximum extent practicable, minimize impacts to Covered Species, their potential habitats and wetlands by co-locating the facilities and minimizing the extent of the construction ROW. Alternative alignments nearby would result in equal or greater impacts to habitats potentially utilized by Covered Species. A previous alignment considered at the southeastern portion of the Project area supported several sensitive plant species, including Otay tarplant, a narrow endemic species. The proposed alignment avoids direct impacts to Narrow Endemic Species. All temporary impacts associated with the construction of the off-site Planned and Future Facilities component will be revegetated (see Section 5 for the timing and requirements of the revegetation plan). This criterion has been satisfied. (c) Where roads cross the Preserve, they should provide for wildlife movement in areas that are graphically depicted on and listed in the MSCP Subregional Plan Generalized Core Biological Resource Areas and Linkages map as a core biological area or a regional linkage between core biological areas. All roads crossing the Preserve should be designed to result in the least impact feasible to Covered Species and Wetlands. Where possible at wildlife crossings, road bridges for vehicular traffic rather than tunnels for wildlife use will be employed. Culverts will only be used when they can achieve the wildlife crossing/movement goals for a specific location. To the extent feasible, crossings will be designed as follows: the substrate will be left in a natural condition or revegetated if soils engineering requirements force subsurface excavation SECTIONFOUR Impact Assessment \\23-May-13\SDG 4-12 and vegetated with native vegetation if possible; a line-of-sight to the other end will be provided; and if necessary, low-level illumination will be installed in the tunnel. The proposed construction associated with the off-site Planned and Future Facilities alignments will include a permanent access road and pedestrian trail that will be paved with concrete or asphalt. The access road will not impede a major regional linkage and culverts will not be required within the Preserve. In addition, the post and rail fence associated with pedestrian trail will be designed and constructed to allow for continued wildlife movement through this area. By co-locating the facilities within a minimal width construction ROW and revegetating areas of temporary construction impact, these linear facilities would not impede wildlife movement. Redundant facilities through the preserve are avoided. These facilities do not include lighting that may indirectly impact wildlife. The remainder of the Otay River Valley south of the proposed facilities is also available for wildlife movement (Figure 7). Therefore, this criterion has been satisfied. (d) To minimize habitat disruption, habitat fragmentation, impediments to wildlife movement and impact to breeding areas, road and/or right-of-way width shall be narrowed from existing City design and engineering standards, to the maximum extent practicable. In addition, roads shall be located in lower quality habitat or disturbed areas to the maximum extent practicable. The access road has been narrowed to 12 feet wide from the original design of 25 feet wide and will be used for both sewer and storm water facilities, thus avoiding redundant access roads through the preserve and minimizing impacts to wildlife habitats. The inclusion of the pedestrian trail will not cause additional habitat impacts, as the trail throughway will overlap the paved access road. As previously discussed, given the relatively even distribution of CSS, MSS, and NNG located along the Project’s southern boundary the southern boundary, moving the access road/pedestrian trail east or west would not substantially reduce impacts to sensitive habitat communities and the Covered Species that they support. While these sensitive habitat communities cannot be avoided, it is important to note that the majority of the off-site facilities alignment has been sited through less sensitive agricultural areas and designated active recreation development areas. Therefore, this criterion has been satisfied. (e) Impacts to Covered Species and habitats within the Preserve resulting from construction of Future Facilities will be evaluated by the City during project review and permitting. The City may authorize Take for impacts to Covered Species and habitats resulting from construction of Future Facilities located outside the Preserve, pursuant to the Subarea Plan and consistent with the Facility Siting Criteria in this Section. The off-site storm drain facilities and pedestrian trail are considered Future Facilities under the City’s MSCP Subarea Plan. Impacts to Covered Species and habitats in the Preserve have been minimized by co-locating the trail, storm drain, and sewer facilities within a single 30-foot permanent easement within a 50-foot construction ROW though the Preserve. Covered Species potentially utilizing the 0.57 acre of impacted Preserve habitats are California gnatcatcher, burrowing owl, cactus wren, and least Bell’s vireo. (f) The City may authorize "Take" for impacts to Covered Species resulting from construction of Future Facilities located within the Preserve, subject to a limitation of 2 acres of impact for individual projects and a cumulative total of 50 acres for all Future Facilities. Wildlife Agency SECTIONFOUR Impact Assessment \\23-May-13\SDG 4-13 concurrence will be required for authorization of Take for any impacts to Covered Species and habitat within the Preserve that exceed 2 acres that may result from construction of any individual Future Facility. Wildlife Agency concurrence will be required for authorization of Take for impacts to Covered Species and habitat within the Preserve that exceed 50 acres that may result from all Future Facilities combined. The total permanent impact to Covered Species habitat associated with the development of the Future Facilities component is 0.09 acres, which is consistent with the 2 acre per project limitation. Temporary impacts shall be revegetated and are not subject to the Future Facilities acreage limitations (see Section 5 for the timing and requirements of the revegetation plan). This criterion has been satisfied. (g) Planned and Future Facilities must avoid impacts to covered Narrow Endemic Species and the QCB to the maximum extent practicable. When such impacts cannot be avoided, Planned and Future facilities located within the Preserve are subject to the provisions of Section 5.2.3.6 of the Subarea Plan. Impacts to QCB that will result from construction of Planned and Future Facilities within the Preserve are subject to the provisions of Section 5.2.8 of the Subarea Plan. No narrow endemic species were observed during the updated surveys conducted for the off-site Planned and Future Facilities. Likewise, results for updated QCB surveys that were conducted for the alignment were negative. Therefore, consistent with Section 5.2.8 of the Subarea Plan, the Project as designed will avoid impacts to covered narrow endemic species and QCB, and this criterion is satisfied. (2) Additional Measures In accordance with Section 5.2.8.1 of the Subarea Plan, infrastructure projects constructed within the Preserve will be subject to the following sequence of measures to avoid and minimize impacts to QCB and QCB habitat: (a) A habitat assessment will be conducted in potential facility locations as part of the project siting and design process. As noted above, multiple habitat assessments have been conducted within the Future and Planned Facilities alignment within the Preserve. Therefore, this criterion has been satisfied. (b) QCB surveys will be conducted in appropriate habitat by a qualified biologist in accordance with the most recent survey protocol adopted by the USFWS. Surveys for the QCB using current USFWS protocol were conducted in 2009, and 2010. No QCB were detected during these surveys. Therefore, this criterion has been satisfied. (c) If QCB are observed within the proposed project area, the project will be designed to avoid impacts to QCB habitat to the maximum extent practicable. No QCB were observed within or adjacent to the Planned and Future Facilities alignments, and no avoidance is required. Therefore this criterion has been satisfied. SECTIONFOUR Impact Assessment \\23-May-13\SDG 4-14 (d) The following avoidance criteria will be applied specifically to Preserve Habitat-Category A areas located east of SR 125. The Planned and Future Facilities alignment is located west of SR-125. Therefore this criterion is not applicable. (e) For construction in areas adjacent to occupied habitat, dust control measures (i.e., watering) will be applied during grading activities. Because there is no occupied, Category A Modeled Habitat, this measure does not apply. Therefore this criterion has been satisfied. However, air quality dust control measures and previously adopted air quality mitigation measures from the Otay Ranch GDP Program Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) will be implemented during project construction, which will minimize indirect impacts to sensitive biological resources. (f) As part of the overall Preserve management strategy, a weed control program will be established for all water/sewer line access roads built through potential QCB habitat. This will include road construction using a concrete-treated base material with aggregate rock to prevent vegetation growth on the road surface, while allowing sufficient percolation to minimize flows. The zone of influence to be subject to the weed control program will be determined by the City’s Habitat Manager based on-site-specific conditions. No occupied habitat has been found adjacent to the Planned and Future Facilities alignments; however, suitable habitat exists in the vicinity. The access road has been designed to be consistent with this requirement. The access road/pedestrian trail will be 12 feet wide and constructed of concrete or asphalt. The areas on either side will contain aggregate to minimize vegetation growth. Therefore this criterion has been satisfied. (3) Implementation Criteria/Assurances Table 6-1 of the MSCP Subarea Plan identifies Implementation Criteria/Assurances for Planned Facilities. The offsite sewer lateral and access road are associated with the Salt Creek Intercept/Otay Trunk Sewer. These Implementation Criteria/Assurances include: (a) Siting of these sewer facilities is subject to the Otay Ranch RMP Phase 1 Policy 6.6 and the RMP Infrastructure Plan, Section 6.0; and Otay Ranch RMP Phase 2 Conceptual Infrastructure Plan. The development associated with the Planned Facilities in the Preserve are consistent with the Otay Ranch RMP Phase 2 Conceptual Infrastructure Plan in that the Project has been sited primarily in development, disturbed and/or low quality agricultural areas to the extent practicable, temporary impacts to Diegan coastal sage scrub and maritime succulent scrub will be mitigated, potential impacts to sensitive wildlife species will be mitigated, erosion control is required through Project BMPs, and wetland impacts have been minimized through site design. Therefore, this criterion is satisfied. SECTIONFOUR Impact Assessment \\23-May-13\SDG 4-15 (b) Best Management Practices (BMPs) will be used to design and maintain these facilities. Prior to issuance of land development permits, including clearing or grubbing and grading and/or construction permits, the Project Applicant shall prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The BMPs contained in the SWPPP shall include, but are not limited to, silt fences, fiber rolls, gravel bags, and soil stabilization measures such as erosion control mats and hydro-seeding. Therefore, this criterion is satisfied. (c) Sewer lines will be sited to avoid mitigation-sites created as mitigation for other projects. No mitigation sites are known to occur within the immediate vicinity of the Planned Facilities alignments. Therefore, this criterion is satisfied. (d) Maintenance access roads related to these sewer facilities will be sited to avoid to the maximum extent practicable impacts to Covered Species and habitats, including Covered Narrow Endemic Species, pursuant to the Facilities Siting Criteria in Section 6.3.3.4 of the Subarea Plan. A new access road will be constructed in conjunction with the Planned Facilities component. The access road has been narrowed, to the maximum extent practical to 12 feet wide from the original design of 25 feet wide, This access road will also be used to access the storm water facilities, thus avoiding redundant access roads through the preserve and minimizing impacts to wildlife habitats. No narrow endemic species are located within the access road footprint. Therefore, this criterion is satisfied. (e) Through the Otay River Valley where existing unpaved roads will be utilized, road widths will be limited to 20 feet. Maintenance access roads will be constructed as follows: – Access roads will be constructed of concrete-treated base (CTB) material with aggregate rock to minimize frequency of maintenance. – Where access roads exceed a 5 percent grade, concrete or asphalt may be permitted to ensure maintenance vehicle traction. – Where cross-drainage occurs, concrete aprons may be permitted to minimize erosion. The proposed access road will be constructed in association with the off-site sewer lateral (Planned Facility). The access road has been narrowed, to the maximum extent practical to 12 feet wide from the original design of 25 feet wide. This access road will also be used to access the storm water facilities, thus avoiding the need to construct redundant access roads through the Preserve and minimizing impacts to wildlife habitats. Therefore, this criterion is satisfied. SECTIONFOUR Impact Assessment \\23-May-13\SDG 4-16 (f) Temporary impacts related to these sewer facilities will be revegetated pursuant to Section 6.3.3.5 of the Subarea Plan. All temporary impacts resulting from the Planned and Future Facilities alignments will be revegetated (see Section 5 for the timing and requirements of the revegetation plan). Therefore, this criterion is satisfied. (g) Public access to finger canyons associated with the primary canyons involving these facilities will be limited, pursuant to the Otay River Valley Framework Management Plan, Section 7.6.3 of the Subarea Plan. The proposed pedestrian trail connection to OVRP will include signage and lodge pole fencing along the trail throughway to direct pedestrian traffic along designated trail routes and discourage public access to potentially sensitive habitat areas. Access connecting the Village 8 West SPA Plan development area to future OVRP trail connections to the south will be restricted using gates, fences, and signs until the OVRP trail system in this area has been completed. This criterion is satisfied. Based on the preceding discussion, the proposed off-site Planned and Future Facilities alignments that will be located within the Preserve are considered to be consistent with the requirements and criteria of the City’s MSCP Subarea Plan and would not conflict with the adopted MSCP. The proposed off-site facilities will not impact MSCP Narrow Endemic Species. All impacts to Covered Species and their habitats within the Preserve are mitigated through implementation criteria for these facilities and through conservation strategies of the City’s MSCP Subarea Plan. Therefore, impacts would be considered less than significant. 4.2.6.2 Adjacency Management In accordance with Policy 7.2 of the Otay Ranch RMP II, a Preserve Edge Plan has been developed for this Project (OLC 2010). The Preserve Edge is located within the SPA and consists of a 100-foot buffer strip of land adjacent to the Preserve. The Preserve Edge Plan addresses adjacency issues such as drainage, contaminants, invasive species, lighting and noise, and measures to minimize impacts to the adjacent habitats. In accordance with the Otay Ranch GDP and RMP, a Draft Agricultural Plan has also been developed to discuss the phased elimination of agricultural activities on site. Grazing and dry farming are the only activities currently permitted on the Project. The plan also includes measures to reduce agricultural impacts such as a requiring a minimum 200-foot buffer between agricultural operations and developed areas, the use of vegetation to shield development within at least 400 feet from areas where pesticide may be applied, fencing off of areas for safety/security, and preliminarily notifying local residents of any pesticide use. A Fire Protection Plan has been developed to address fire safety for the Project (OLC 2010). The Fire Protection Plan outlines fire response strategies, fire prevention strategies, and fire potential in relation to the native habitat along the southern edge of the Project, in the Preserve area. This document also outlines fuel modification specifications for vegetation, including acceptable plant lists. The fuel modification zone does not encroach into the Preserve. SECTIONFOUR Impact Assessment \\23-May-13\SDG 4-17 To further reduce indirect impacts to special status vegetation communities as a result of edge effects from development, the following directives are included in the Village 8 West SPA Plan and must be implemented accordingly. 1) No invasive, non-native plant species shall be introduced into areas immediately adjacent to the Preserve. All slopes immediately adjacent to the Preserve shall be planted with native species that are consistent with the adjacent native habitat. The Edge Plan includes plant lists that can and cannot be used in the revegetation of natural areas. (see Appendix G) 2) All agricultural uses, including animal-keeping activities, and recreational uses that use chemicals or general by-products such as manure, potentially toxic to special status habitats or plants need to incorporate methods on-site to reduce impacts caused by the application and/or drainage of such material into Preserve areas. 3) A 100 ft. buffer has been installed around the edge of the Preserve areas. This buffer is not part of the Preserve, but is a privately or publicly owned area included in lots within the urban portion of Otay Ranch. This buffer may include the fuel modification zones. 4) An onsite detention basin will be installed to control the post-development peak stormwater runoff discharge rates and velocities prior to discharging project flows into Wolf Canyon. This is consistent with the City’s storm water management plans and the MSCP’s adjacency management guidelines related to reducing the potential for erosion and protecting downstream habitat. These documents are incorporated into the Village 8 West SPA Plan and were prepared to address the relevant adjacency management guidelines including, but not limited to, access control, noise, drainage, lighting, buffers/brush management, and toxic substances. Implementation of the design features contained in these SPA Plan documents will reduce short and long-term indirect impacts associated with the Project to a level below significant. 4.3 INDIRECT IMPACTS 4.3.1 Vegetation Communities Indirect impacts to vegetation communities would result primarily from adverse “edge effects.” Sensitive vegetation located at or near the limits of grading for the Project have the greatest probability of suffering from edge effects. Edge effects can be observed in habitats that are 100 or more feet beyond the limits of grading, depending on the species of concern. During construction of the Project, edge effects may include dust that could disrupt plant vitality in the short term, or construction-related soil erosion and runoff. Long-term indirect impacts on vegetation communities most likely would occur as a result of invasion by exotic species, alteration of the natural fire regime, or chronic erosion and sedimentation, noise and lighting impacts. Indirect impacts to vegetation communities are considered potentially significant. An Edge Plan was developed for the Project to offset and minimize edge effects within the MSCP Preserve, consistent with the Adjacency Management requirements in the MSCP. Indirect adverse effects to jurisdictional waters as a result of the Project include potential increased runoff, sedimentation, erosion, and invasive exotic plant introduction. Indirect impacts to vegetation are SECTIONFOUR Impact Assessment \\23-May-13\SDG 4-18 reduced to below significant levels through the design features outlined in the Project drainage and hydromodification studies and water quality technical report (Hale Engineering 2011). Indirect impacts to downstream vegetation in Otay River and Wolf Canyon are less than significant. See Section 4.3.4 for more detailed discussion. 4.3.2 Special Status Plant Species Most of the indirect impacts to vegetation communities cited above can also affect special status and MSCP covered plants. During construction of the Project, excess dust from construction work could disrupt short term plant vitality by clogging reproductive structures. Development related soil erosion and runoff could also have a negative short-term effect on sensitive species. Long-term negative edge effects on sensitive plants are also possible. These could include intrusions by exotic plant species, continued exposure to agricultural pollutants (fertilizers, pesticides, and herbicides), soil erosion, and fire. These potential indirect impacts are considered significant. 4.3.3 Special Status Wildlife Species Short-term indirect impacts to sensitive nesting bird species consists of noise, lighting, toxic substances and water quality and drainage. Species potentially affected by such activities include, but are not limited to: California gnatcatchers located adjacent to the Project, nesting raptors, such as northern harrier, burrowing owl, and black-tailed jackrabbits. Construction noise exceeding 60 Decibel hourly equivalent level (dB(A) Leq-h) at the location of any occupied habitat areas can impact special status wildlife species in many ways by inhibiting audible communication between potential mates and between parents and offspring. Long-term indirect impacts to covered wildlife species would also occur as a result of the Project. The long-term indirect impacts could include increased human activity in the Preserve, and domestic animal predation on listed wildlife species in the Preserve. These impacts are all considered to be adverse to covered species residing in this area. Indirect impacts to covered wildlife species as a result of the Project are considered significant and will require mitigation. Impacts to wildlife species not covered by the MSCP would be similar to covered species, but would be less than significant due to their less sensitive status and the extensive habitat conservation in the project vicinity. 4.3.4 Jurisdictional Waters Indirect adverse effects to jurisdictional waters as a result of the Project include potential increased runoff, sedimentation, erosion, and invasive exotic plant introduction. Indirect impacts to jurisdictional waters are reduced to below significant levels through the design features outlined in the Project drainage and hydromodification studies and water quality technical report (Hale Engineering 2011). The expected velocities at the end of the energy dissipation structure and rip-rap apron of the storm water outfall in Otay River will be reduced to below the calculated velocities in Otay River during the 100-year and 50-year frequency storms events. It is not anticipated that the dissipated flows from the Village 8 West Otay River outfall will significantly affect the river streambed (Hale Engineering, pers. comm., February 2011, AGS 2011a). Outfall velocities for less intense storm events are predicted to be slower SECTIONFOUR Impact Assessment \\23-May-13\SDG 4-19 and non-erosive. No significant impacts to downstream riparian vegetation within Otay River are anticipated as a result of scouring and/or erosion. The inclusion of an onsite retention basin at Wolf Canyon will preclude potential downstream erosion/hydromodification. The post-construction discharge velocity from the outfall is expected to be less than the pre-construction condition, thus no significant project-related erosion within Wolf Canyon is anticipated (Hale Engineering, pers. comm. February 2011, AGS 2011b). Discharge of storm water runoff associated with construction activities will be addressed in a SWPPP. The Construction General Permit SWPPP will be prepared in accordance with the RWQCB and City of Chula Vista Development Storm Water Manual requirements. The construction activity BMPs will be implemented to reduce construction-related impacts and provide acceptable stabilization of the Project. It may be necessary to implement some BMPs prior to clearing and grubbing. If the proposed Project incorporates phased grading operations, the construction activity BMPs shall take into account the interim grading conditions. The Village 8 West Development Water Quality Technical Report addresses post- construction water quality requirements and related BMPs during the operational phase of the project. 4.4 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS Implementation of the Project would contribute to the cumulative loss of biological resources within the Otay Ranch and City of Chula Vista Subarea. Compliance with the Subarea plan conditions for coverage, the Otay Ranch RMP, and conveyance of compensatory mitigation lands to the Preserve Owner Manager (POM) and compensatory wetland mitigation required by state and federal wetlands permitting agencies will ensure long-term sustainability of Covered Species, their associated habitats, Cumulative impacts consider the potential regional effects of a project and how a project may affect an ecosystem or one of its members beyond the project limits and on a regional scale. The Otay Ranch PEIR analyzed the existing conditions, potential impacts, and mitigation measures related to biological resources for the entire Otay Ranch area, including the Project site, which consists of approximately 23,000 acres in the County of San Diego, the City of Chula Vista, and the City of San Diego. The Otay Ranch PEIR identified significant unavoidable impacts to biological resources in Otay Ranch due to loss of raptor foraging habitat. Subsequent to the certification of the PEIR and adoption of the Otay GDP, the City adopted the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan, which is described in more detail in Section 3.1 of this report. The MSCP planning program provided for mitigation of impacts on sensitive species and their habitats on a regional, basis. Such mitigation was not available at the time the Otay Ranch PEIR was certified. Because of the level of conservation provided for habitats that support raptor foraging on a regional basis, new feasible mitigation for the impacts not identified in the PEIR to raptor foraging habitat is now available to mitigate project-level impacts. The Project would also result in the loss of 0.05 acre of freshwater marsh, 0.07 acre of mulefat scrub, 15.15 acres of coastal sage scrub, 19.99 acres of disturbed coastal sage scrub, and 1.05 acre maritime succulent scrub, which would be mitigated with conveyance of Preserve lands as required by the Otay Ranch RMP. Temporary construction areas and the graded portion of the fuel modification zone will be revegetated with native vegetation. Additional wetlands mitigation is also expected as conditions of wetlands permits. The loss of sensitive plant species and vegetation communities would be mitigated through the conveyance of 1.188 acres of land to the City of Chula Vista for every developed acre SECTIONFOUR Impact Assessment \\23-May-13\SDG 4-20 impacted, along with habitat restoration of maritime succulent scrub at a 1:1 ratio, pursuant to the Otay Ranch RMP. This conveyance program, coupled with the maritime succulent scrub restoration program will adequately conserve a greater or equal amount of special status vegetation types within Otay Ranch. Implementation of these measures and consistency with the Chula Vista Subarea Plan and Otay Ranch RMP mitigates cumulative biological impacts to MSCP Covered Species and their associated habitats. SECTIONFIVE Mitigation \\23-May-13\SDG 5-1 SECTION 5 MITIGATION Mitigation for Project Effects on Sensitive Species and Habitats, including Riparian Habitats • Prior to the approval of the First Final Map for the Project, the project Applicant shall coordinate with the City Engineer and annex the project area within the Otay Ranch Preserve Community Facilities District (CFD) No. 97-2. • Prior to recordation of each Final Map Applicant shall convey land within the Otay Ranch Preserve to the Otay Ranch POM or its designee at a ratio of 1.188 acres for each acre of development area, as defined in the RMP. Access for maintenance purposes shall also be conveyed to the satisfaction of the POM, and each tentative map shall be subject to a condition that the Applicant shall execute a maintenance agreement with the POM stating that it is the responsibility of the Applicant to maintain the conveyed parcel until the Preserve CFD has generated sufficient revenues to enable the POM to assume maintenance responsibilities. The Applicant shall maintain and manage the offered conveyance property consistent with the RMP Phase 2 until the Preserve CFD has generated sufficient revenues to enable the POM to assume maintenance and management responsibilities. • Prior to the POM’s formal acceptance of the conveyed land in fee title, the project Applicant shall prepare, to the satisfaction of the POM, Area Specific Management Directives (ASMDs) for the associated conveyance areas. The ASMDs shall incorporate the guidelines and specific requirements of the Otay Ranch RMP plans and programs, management requirements of Table 3- 5 of the MSCP Subregional Plan and information and recommendations from any relevant special studies. Guidelines and requirements from these documents shall be evaluated in relationship to the Preserve configuration and specific habitats and species found within the associated conveyance areas and incorporated into the ASMDs to the satisfaction of the POM. • Prior to the issuance of any land development permits (including clearing and grubbing or grading permits) the project Applicant shall prepare a restoration plan to restore 1.05 acres of MSS. The MSS restoration shall be prepared by a City approved biologist and to the satisfaction of the Development Services Director (or their designee) pursuant to the Otay Ranch RMP restoration requirements. The restoration plan shall include, at a minimum, an implementation strategy; species salvage and relocation, appropriate seed mixtures and planting method; irrigation; quantitative and qualitative success criteria; maintenance, monitoring, and reporting program; estimated completion time; and contingency measures. The project Applicant shall also be required to implement the revegetation plan subject to the oversight and approval of the Development Services Director (or their designee). • Prior to issuance of land development permits, including clearing or grubbing and grading permits, the project Applicant shall prepare a Resource Salvage Plan for areas with salvageable resources, including, but not limited to, Otay tarplant – a Chula Vista Narrow Endemic Species, Plantago erecta (QCB larval host plant), coast barrel cactus, and San Diego sunflower. The Resource Salvage Plan shall be prepared by a City approved biologist and to the satisfaction of the Development Services Director (or their designee). The Resource Salvage Plan shall, at a minimum, evaluate options for plant salvage and relocation, including native plant mulching, selective soil salvaging, application of plant materials on manufactured slopes, and SECTIONFIVE Mitigation \\23-May-13\SDG 5-2 application/relocation of resources within the preserve. Relocation efforts may include seed collection and/or transplantation to a suitable receptor site and will be based on the most reliable methods of successful relocation. The program shall contain a recommendation for method of salvage and relocation/application based on feasibility of implementation and likelihood of success. The program shall include, at a minimum, an implementation plan, maintenance and monitoring program, estimated completion time, and any relevant contingency measures. The Project Applicant shall also be required to implement the Resource Salvage Plan subject to the oversight of the Development Services Director (or their designee). • For any work proposed between February 15 and September 15, prior to issuance of any land development permits, including clearing, grubbing, grading, and construction permits associated with the off-site facilities located within the preserve, a pre-construction survey for the coastal California gnatcatcher, coastal cactus wren, and least Bell’s vireo shall be performed in order to reaffirm the presence and extent of occupied habitat. The pre-construction survey area for the species shall encompass all potentially suitable habitat within the project work zone, as well as a 300-foot survey buffer. The pre-construction survey shall be performed to the satisfaction of the Development Services Director (or their designee) by a qualified biologist familiar with the City’s MSCP Subarea Plan. The results of the pre-construction survey must be submitted in a report to the Development Services Director (or their designee) for review and approval prior to the issuance of any land development permits and prior to initiating any construction activities. If California gnatcatcher, cactus wren or least Bell’s vireo is detected, a minimum 300-foot buffer delineated by orange biological fencing shall be established around the detected species to ensure that no work shall occur within the occupied habitat from February 15 through August 15 for California gnatcatcher, February 15 to August 15 for cactus wren, and March 15 through September 15 for least Bell’s vireo and on-site noise reduction techniques shall be implemented to ensure that construction noise levels not exceed 60 dB(A) Leq-h at the location of any occupied sensitive habitat areas. The Development Services Director (or their designee) shall have the discretion to modify the buffer width depending on-site-specific conditions. If the results of the pre-construction survey determine that the survey area is unoccupied, the work may commence at the discretion of the Development Services Director (or their designee) following the review and approval of the pre- construction report. • Prior to issuance of any land development permits (including clearing and grubbing or grading permits), the project Applicant shall retain a City-approved biologist to conduct focused pre- construction surveys for burrowing owls. The surveys shall be performed no earlier than 30 days prior to the commencement of any clearing, grubbing, or grading activities. If occupied burrows are detected, the City-approved biologist shall prepare a passive relocation mitigation plan subject to the review and approval by the Wildlife agencies and City including any subsequent burrowing owl relocation plans to avoid impacts from construction-related activities. • Prior to issuance of land development permits, including clearing or grubbing and grading permits that impact jurisdictional waters, the developer(s) shall prepare a Wetlands Mitigation and Monitoring Plan to the satisfaction of the City, ACOE, and CDFG. This plan shall include, at a minimum, an implementation plan, a maintenance and monitoring program, estimated completion time, and any relevant contingency measures. Areas under the jurisdictional authority SECTIONFIVE Mitigation \\23-May-13\SDG 5-3 of ACOE and CDFG shall be delineated on all grading plans. Creation areas shall occur within the Otay River watershed in accordance with the Wetlands Mitigation and Monitoring Plan to the satisfaction of the City, ACOE, and CDFG. The project Applicant shall also be required to implement the Wetlands Mitigation and Monitoring Plan subject to the oversight of the City, ACOE, and CDFG. • Prior to issuance of land development permits, including clearing or grubbing and grading permits for areas that impact jurisdictional waters, the project Applicant shall provide evidence that all required regulatory permits, such as those required under Sections 404 and 401 of the federal Clean Water Act, Section 1600 of the California Fish and Game Code, and the Porter Cologne Water Quality Act. • Prior to issuance of land development permits, including clearing, grubbing, grading and construction permits for the off-site facilities, the project Applicant shall provide a revegetation plan for temporary impacts to 0.01 acre of CSS, 0.24 acre of MSS, and 0.06 acre of mulefat scrub. The revegetation plan must be prepared by a qualified City-approved biologist familiar with the City’s MSCP Subarea Plan and must include, but not be limited to, an implementation plan; appropriate seed mixtures and planting method; irrigation method; quantitative and qualitative success criteria; maintenance, monitoring, and reporting program; estimated completion time; and contingency measures. The Project Applicant shall be required to prepare and implement the revegetation plan subject to the oversight and approval of the Development Services Director (or their designee). • Prior to issuance of land development permits, including clearing or grubbing and grading and/or construction permits for any areas adjacent to the preserve and the off-site facilities located within the preserve, the project Applicant shall provide written confirmation that a City-approved biological monitor has been retained and shall be on-site during clearing, grubbing, and/or grading activities. The biological monitor shall attend all pre-construction meetings and be present during the removal of any vegetation to ensure that the approved limits of disturbance are not exceeded and provide periodic monitoring of the impact area including, but not limited to, trenches, stockpiles, storage areas and protective fencing. The biological monitor shall be authorized to halt all associated project activities that may be in violation of the City’s MSCP Subarea Plan and/or permits issued by any other agencies having jurisdictional authority over the project. • Before construction activities occur in areas containing sensitive biological resources within the off-site facilities area, all workers shall be educated by a City-approved biologist to recognize and avoid those areas that have been marked as sensitive biological resources. • To avoid any direct impacts to raptors and/or any migratory birds protected under the MBTA, removal of habitat that supports active nests on the proposed area of disturbance should occur outside of the breeding season for these species (January 15 to August 31). If removal of habitat on the proposed area of disturbance must occur during the breeding season, the project Applicant shall retain a City-approved biologist to conduct a pre-construction survey to determine the presence or absence of nesting birds on the proposed area of disturbance. The pre-construction survey must be conducted within 10 calendar days prior to the start of construction, the results of which must be submitted to the City for review and approval prior to initiating any construction SECTIONFIVE Mitigation \\23-May-13\SDG 5-4 activities. If nesting birds are detected, a letter report or mitigation plan as deemed appropriate by the City, shall be prepared and include proposed measures to be implemented to ensure that disturbance of breeding activities are avoided. The report or mitigation plan shall be submitted to the City for review and approval and implemented to the satisfaction of the City. The City’s Mitigation Monitor shall verify and approve that all measures identified in the report or mitigation plan are in place prior to and/or during construction. • Prior to issuance of any land development permits, including clearing and grubbing or grading permits, the project Applicant shall retain a City-approved biologist to conduct focused surveys for northern harrier to determine the presence or absence of this species within 900-feet of the construction area. The pre-construction survey must be conducted within 10 calendar days prior to the start of construction. The results of the survey must be submitted to the City for review and approval. If active nests are detected by the City-approved biologist, a bio-monitor shall be on- site during construction to minimize construction impacts and ensure that no nests are be removed or disturbed until all young have fledged. • Prior to issuance of land development permits, including clearing or grubbing and grading and/or construction permits, the project Applicant shall install fencing in accordance with CVMC 17.35.030. Prominently colored, well-installed fencing and signage shall be in place wherever the limits of grading are adjacent to sensitive vegetation communities or other biological resources, as identified by the qualified monitoring biologist. Fencing shall remain in place during all construction activities. All temporary fencing shall be shown on grading plans for areas adjacent to the preserve and for all off-site facilities constructed within the preserve. Prior to release of grading and/or improvement bonds, a qualified biologist shall provide evidence that work was conducted as authorized under the approved land development permit and associated plans. • In accordance with the City’s Adjacency Management Guidelines and the Otay Ranch Village 8 West Edge Plan, the following Mitigation Measures shall be implemented to further reduce indirect impacts (from lighting, noise, invasives, toxic substances, and public access) to sensitive biological resources located in the adjacent Preserve areas: – Prior to issuance of a building permit, a lighting plan and photometric analysis shall be submitted to the satisfaction of the Development Services Director (or their designee) to ensure lighting of all developed areas adjacent to the preserve has been directed away from the Preserve, wherever feasible and consistent with public safety. The lighting plan shall illustrate the location of the proposed lighting standards and, if applicable, type of shielding measures required to minimize light spillage into the preserve. Where necessary, development shall provide adequate shielding with non-invasive plant materials (preferably native), berming, and/or other methods to protect the Preserve and special status species from night lighting. Consideration shall be given to the use of low-pressure sodium lighting. – Construction-related noise shall be limited within and adjacent to the preserve during the typical breeding season of January 15 to August 31. Construction activity within and adjacent to any occupied sensitive habitat areas must not exceed 60 dB(A) Leq-h, or ambient noise levels if higher than 60 dB(A) Leq-h, during the breeding season. Prior to issuance of land development permits, including clearing or grubbing and grading and/or construction permits for areas within or adjacent to the preserve, the Project Applicant shall prepare and submit to SECTIONFIVE Mitigation \\23-May-13\SDG 5-5 the satisfaction of the Development Services Director (or their designee) , an acoustical analysis to demonstrate that the 60 dB(A) Leq-h noise level is not exceeded at the location of any occupied sensitive habitat areas as determined based on the results the required biological pre-construction surveys. The acoustical analysis shall describe the methods by which construction noise will not exceed 60 dB(A) Leq-h. Noise abatement methods may include, but are not limited to, reoperation of specific construction activities, installation of noise abatement at the source, and/or installation of noise abatement at the receiving areas. – Prior to issuance of land development permits, including clearing or grubbing and grading and/or construction permits, the Project Applicant shall obtain an National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit for Construction Activity from SWRCB. Adherence to all conditions of the General Permit for Construction Activity is required. The project Applicant shall be required under the RWQCB General Construction Permit to develop a SWPPP and a Monitoring Program Plan. The SWPPP shall specify both construction and post-construction structural and non-structural pollution prevention measures. The SWPPP shall also address operation and maintenance of post-construction pollution prevention measures, including short-term and long-term funding sources and the party or parties that will be responsible for the implementation of said measures. Permanent Treatment, Site Design, and Source Control BMPs shall be included as part of the project in accordance with the City of Chula Vista Standard Urban Stormwater Management Plan (SUSMP) requirements. At a minimum, the SWPPP shall incorporate the following construction and post-construction BMPs as described in the Village 8 West Edge Plan. Construction-Related Measures: • Existing vegetation will be retained where possible. To the extent feasible, grading activities will be limited to the immediate area required for construction. • Temporary erosion control measures will be installed in disturbed areas. These control measures may include but are not limited to silt fencing, straw waddles, jute netting, or hydroseeding. • Disturbed surfaces will not be left without erosion control measures in place from October 1 through April 1, or when there is a potential for a rain event. • Landscaping will be installed as soon as practical to reduce erosion potential. Design/Post-Construction Measures: • Sediment will be retained on-site by a system of sediment basins, traps, or other appropriate measures. • Where deemed necessary, storm drains will be equipped with silt and oil traps to remove oils, debris, and other pollutants. Storm drain inlets shall be labeled “NO Dumping-Drains to Ocean.” Storm drain inlets shall be regularly maintained to ensure their effectiveness. • The parking lots will be designed where possible to allow storm water runoff to be directed to vegetative filter strips and/or oil-water separators to control sediment, oil, and other contaminants. SECTIONFIVE Mitigation \\23-May-13\SDG 5-6 • Permanent energy dissipation structures will be installed for each drainage outfall to a natural watercourse. • The project area drainage basins will be designed to provide effective water quality control measures, as outlined in the Water Quality Technical Report (Hale Engineering 2010). Design and operational features of the drainage basins will include design features to provide maximum infiltration, maximum detention time for settling of fine particles; maximize the distance between basin inlets and outlets to reduce velocities; and establish maintenance schedules for periodic removal of sedimentation, excessive vegetation and debris. – Prior to issuance of land development permits, including clearing or grubbing and grading and/or construction permits for areas within the 100-foot preserve edge, the project Applicant shall prepare and submit to the satisfaction of the Development Services Director (or their designee), landscape plans to ensure that the proposed plant palette is consistent with the plant list contained in Attachment A of the Otay Ranch Village 8 West Preserve Edge Plan. The landscape plan shall also incorporate a manual weeding program for areas adjacent to the preserve. The manual weeding program that shall describe at a minimum, the entity responsible for controlling invasive species, the maintenance activities and methods required to control invasives, and a maintenance/monitoring schedule. – Prior to issuance of land development permits, including clearing or grubbing and grading and/or construction permits for the Project, the Project owner shall submit wall and fence plans depicting appropriate barriers to prevent unauthorized access into the Preserve. The wall and fence plans shall, at a minimum, illustrate the locations and cross-sections of proposed walls, fences, informational and directional signage, access controls, and/or boundary markers along the preserve boundary and off-site pedestrian trails as conceptually described in the Otay Ranch Village 8 West Edge Plan. The required wall and fence plan shall be subject to the approval the Development Services Director (or their designee). SECTIONSIX References \\23-May-13\SDG 6-1 SECTION 6 REFERENCES 2003. Natural Diversity Data Base. 2006. Fish and Game Code. Advanced Geotechnical Solutions, Inc. (AGS). 2011. Geotechnical opinion letter regarding scour and stability storm drain outfall from Village 8 West into Otay River, Chula Vista, California AGS, Inc. 2011. Geotechnical opinion letter, hydro-modification and scour in Wolf Canyon, Otay Ranch, Village 8 West into Otay River, Chula Vista, California. AirPhoto USA. 2003. Aerial Photograph of Project. Atwood, H. L. 1992. A maximum estimate of the California gnatcatcher’s population size in the United States. Western Birds 23:1-9. Beauchamp, R.M. 1986. A flora of San Diego County. Sweetwater River Press. 241 pp. Bloom, P. H. 1983. Raptor inventory and habitat assessment for the Santa Margarita River Basin area, San Diego, CA. April. Bostic, D L. 1965. Home range of the orange-throated whiptail lizard, Cnemidophorus hyperythrus beldingi. The Southwestern Naturalist 10(4): 278-281. California Burrowing Owl Consortium, The. 1993. Burrowing Owl Survey Protocol and Mitigation Guidelines. April 1993. California Department of Fish and Game, 2008. “California Bird Species of Special Concern,” review information: website: http://www.dfg.ca.gov/hcpb/bsscrevu/bsscindex.html. California Department of Fish and Game. 1965. California fish and wildlife plan. The Resources Agency, Volume 3©:908. City of Chula Vista. 2003. City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan. California Native Plant Society (CNPS). 2009. Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants (online edition, v7- 09d). California Native Plant Society. Sacramento, CA. Accessed on Wed, Oct. 21, 2009 from http://www.cnps.org/inventory. Collins, C.T. 1979. The ecology and conservation of burrowing owls. Pages 6-17 Proceedings of the National Audubon Society symposium of owls of the west, their ecology and conservation, Scheaffer, P.P. and S.M. Ehlers (editors). National Audubon Society Western Education Center, Tiburon, CA. Hale Engineering. 2010. Village 8 West Hydromodification Study. SECTIONSIX References \\23-May-13\SDG 6-2 Hale Engineering. 2011. Village 8 West Drainage Study. Hale Engineering. 2011. Village 8 West Water Quality Technical Report. Hickman, J. C. 1993. The Jepson manual: Higher plants of California. University of California, Berkeley. California Press, Berkeley, California. 1400 pp. Holland, R.F. 1986. Preliminary descriptions of the terrestrial natural communities of California. State of California, The Resources Agency. Johnsgard, Paul A. 1990. North American Owls: Biology and Natural History. Washington D. C.: Smithsonian Institution Press. Lechleitner, R. R. 1958. Movements, density, and mortality in a black-tailed jackrabbit population. J. Wildlife Manage. 22: pp. 371-384. Milstead, W. W. 1957. Some aspects of competition in natural populations of whiptail lizards (genus Cnemidophorus). Texas Journal of Science 9(4):410-447. Mock, P.J. 2004. California Gnatcatcher. In Unitt, P. San Diego County Bird Atlas. San Diego Natural History Museum. Oberbauer, T. 1991. Comparison of pre-European and 1988 vegetation coverage for San Diego County. In. Abbot, P. and B. Elliot. Geol. Soc. North America., So. Calif. Reg. Sympos. Oct. 21-24, 1991, San Diego, California. Ogden Environmental and Energy Services. 1993. Baldwin Otay Ranch Wildlife Corridor Studies. Prepared for: Otay Ranch Project Team. December. Otay Land Company (OLC). 2010. Village 8 West Preserve Edge Plan. Otay Land Company (OLC). 2010. Village 8 West Agricultural Plant. RC Biological Consulting, Inc. (RC). 2009. Fire Protection Plan for Otay Ranch, Village 8 West. Reiser, C. H. 1994. Rare plants of San Diego County. Imperial Beach: Aquifer Press. May. 180 pp. Remsen, V. 1978. The species of special concern list: an annotated list of declining or vulnerable birds in California. Western Field Ornithologist, Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, University of California, Berkeley. Rundel, P. and Gustafson, R. 2005. Introduction to the Plant Life of Southern California. Los Angeles: University of California Press. Stebbins. 1985. A field guide to western reptiles and amphibians. Second edition. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston. 336 pp. SECTIONSIX References \\23-May-13\SDG 6-3 U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1973. Soil survey, San Diego area, California. Soil Conservation Service, Washington, D.C. December. United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 1987. Corps of Engineers wetland delineation manual. Environmental Laboratory, Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MI. Technical Report y-87. USACE. 2008a. A Field Guide to the Identification of the Ordinary High Water Mark (OHWM) in the Arid West Region of the Western United States. Robert W. Lichvar and Shawn M. McColley. ERDC/CRREL TR-08-12. August 2008. USACE. 2008b. Regional Supplement to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual: Arid West Region (Version 2.0). ERDC/EL TR-08-28. September 2008. United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1997. Coastal California Gnatcatcher (Polioptila californica californica); Presence/Absence Survey Guidelines. 5 pp. Unitt, P. 2004. San Diego County Bird Atlas. San Diego Natural History Museum. Zarn, M. 1974. Burrowing Owl, report no. 11. Habitat management series for unique or endangered species. U. S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Land Management, Denver, Colorado. 25pp. Zeiner. et al., 1988. California Statewide Wildlife Habitat Relationships System. Volume 1: Amphibians and Reptiles. David Zeiner, W. Laudenslayer and K. Mayer eds. The Resource Agency. Sacramento. 269 pp. Zeiner. et al., 1990a. California Statewide Wildlife Habitat Relationships System. Volume 2: Birds. David Zeiner, W. Laudenslayer K. Mayer, and Marshal White eds. The Resource Agency. Sacramento. 732 pp. Figures W:\27659026\00100-d-r.doc\\1-Sep-11\SDG Proj e c t L o c a t i o n %&s( !"_$ AË !"a$ Ag %&u( %&^( Vi l l a g e 8 W e s t Ap Po i n t L o m a Aä Ot a y Jamul Bo n i t a La M e s a Co r o n a d o Sa n D i e g o Ch u l a V i s t a Le m o n G r o v e Sp r i n g V a l l e y Im p e r i a l B e a c h Na t i o n a l C i t y MexicoLOWER OTAY RESERVOIR SW E E T W A T E R R E S E R V O I R UPPER OTAY RESERVOIR Po r t i o n s o f t h i s D E R I V E D P R O D U C T c o n t a i n s g e o g r a p h i c i n f o r m a t i o n c o p y r i g h t e d b y S a n G I S . A l l R i g h t s R e s e r v e d . Path: G:\gis\projects\1577\27653027\support\Otay Land Co\mxd\Report_Figures\October_2010\Village_8_West\SD_Regional_Map.mxd, 10/14/10, paul_moreno SO U R C E S : S A N D A G ( F r e e w a y s , C o u n t y B o u n d a r y , La k e s , E l e v a t i o n 2 0 0 5 ) ; S a n G I S ( H i g h w a y s 2 0 0 7 ) ; T I G E R (C i t i e s 2 0 0 0 ) . SI T E V I C I N I T Y M A P VI L L A G E 8 W E S T OT A Y L A N D C O . CR E A T E D B Y P M PM : P M P R O J . N O : 2 7 6 5 4 0 3 6 . 0 5 0 0 0 DATE: 10-14-10FIG. NO:1 SC A L E : 1 " = 2 . 5 M i l e s ( 1 : 1 5 8 4 0 0 ) 1. 2 5 0 1 . 2 5 2 . 5 M i l e s O SC A L E C O R R E C T W H E N P R I N T E D A T 8 . 5 X 1 1 [_ Pr o j e c t S i t e Not a Part Inset WILEY RD SR-125 SB SR-125 NB SANTA LUNA ST RO CK MTN RD MAGDALENA AV L A M E D I A R D Source: Esri, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, GeoEye, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, and the GIS User CommunityPa t h : G : \ g i s \ p r o j e c t s \ 1 5 7 7 \ 2 7 6 5 3 0 2 7 \ s u p p o r t \ O t a y L a n d C o \ m x d \ R e p o r t _ F i gu r e s \ S e p t e m b e r _ 2 0 1 2 \ D e v e l o p m e n t P l a n . m x d , C o l i n _ M a t t i s o n , 9 / 1 2 /2 0 1 2 LEGEND SOURCES: HALE ENGINEERS, (June 2010) SanGIS (Parcels, Roads, 2010) AERIALS EXPRESS, (JAN 2009) DEVELOPMENT PLAN VILLAGE 8 WEST OTAY LAND CO CREATED BY PM PM: PMPROJ. NO: 27654036.05000 DATE: 9-12-12 FIG. NO: 5SCALE: 1" = 500' (1:6,000) 2500250500Feet O SCALE CORRECT WHEN PRINTED AT 11X17 Storm Water Line Sewer Line Village 8 West Village 8 West Design June 2010 Chula Vista MSCP 100% Preserve Area Fuel Modification Zone Not a Part Temporary Storm/Sewer Construction Developed (Includes Planned & Future ROW Storm/Sewer Easements Offsite) Fuel Mod Zone Beyond Limits of Grading Fuel Mod Zone Offsite Existing developed land not affected by Project Temporary Grading impacts in Not-a-Part Parcel Source: Esri, i-cubed, USDA, USGS, AEX, GeoEye, Getmapping, Aerogrid, IGN, IGP, and the GIS User Community INSET Not a Part d-cssmfs ag ag css ag ag ag dev ag dev d-css ag dist dist dist d-css mss d-css d-css d-css d-css d-css ag dist d-css dev mss d-nng d-css d-css d-css d-css dev dist d-css d-css nng nng d-nng d-css d-css d-css fwm dev d-css dist css WILEY RD R O C K M T N R D M A G D A L E N A A V SANTA LUNA ST L A M E D I A R D WILEY RD L A M E D I A R D Pa t h : G : \ g i s \ p r o j e c t s \ 1 5 7 7 \ 2 7 6 5 3 0 2 7 \ s u p p o r t \ O t a y L a n d C o \ m x d \ R e p o r t _ F i g u r e s \ O c t o b e r _ 2 0 1 0 \ V i l l a g e _ 8 _ W e s t \ V e g . m x d , 1 0 / 1 4 / 1 0 , p a ul _ m o r e n o LEGEND SOURCES: SANGIS (Parcels, Roads 2010) URS (field survey, 2008) AERIALS EXPRESS, (Jan 2009) VEGETATION VILLAGE 8 WEST OTAY LAND CO CREATED BY PM PM: PMPROJ. NO: 27654036.05000 DATE: 10-14-10 FIG. NO: 3SCALE: 1" = 500' (1:6,000) 2500250500Feet O SCALE CORRECT WHEN PRINTED AT 11X17 Village 8 West Not a Part Chula Vista MSCP 100% Preserve Area Vegetation 18300 - Extensive Agriculture 32500 - Coastal Sage Scrub 32500 - Disturbed Coastal Sage Scrub 52400 - Freshwater Marsh 32400 - Maritime Succulent Scrub 63110 - Mulefat Scrub 42000 - Non Native Grassland 42200 - Disturbed Non Native Grassland 12000 - Developed 11300 - Disturbed Habitat ag css d-css fwm mss mfs nng d-nng dev dist ! !.!.!. !U!U 3500+ Otay Tarplant Individuals Scattered Throughout this Area Not a Part WILEY RD PRIVATE RD R O C K M T N R D SANTA LUNA ST M A G D A L E N A A V L A M E D I A R D Pa t h : G : \ g i s \ p r o j e c t s \ 1 5 7 7 \ 2 7 6 5 3 0 2 7 \ s u p p o r t \ O t a y L a n d C o \ m x d \ R e p o r t _ F i g u r e s \ O c t o b e r _ 2 0 1 0 \ V i l l a g e _ 8 _ W e s t \ S S . m x d , 1 0 / 1 4 / 1 0 , p a u l_ m o r e n o LEGEND SOURCES: SANGIS (Parcels, Road 2010) URS (field survey, 2008-2010) AERIALS EXPRESS, (Jan 2009) SENSITIVE SPECIES VILLAGE 8 WEST OTAY LAND CO CREATED BY PM PM: PMPROJ. NO: 27654036.05000 DATE: 10-14-10 FIG. NO: 4SCALE: 1" = 500' (1:6,000) 2500250500Feet O SCALE CORRECT WHEN PRINTED AT 11X17 Storm Water Line Sewer Line Village 8 West Chula Vista MSCP 100% Preserve Area San Diego Barrel Cactus 52400- Freshwater Marsh Sensitive Animal Species (URS) #San Diego Black-Tailed Jackrabbit #Y Northern Harrier #S California gnatcatcher &3 Southern California rufous-crowned sparrow !P Active Raven's nest ’4 Grasshopper Sparrow Burrowing Owl Burrowing Owl burrow $+Orange-throat Whiptail #0 Sharp-shinned Hawk Sensitive Plant Species (URS) &-San Diego sunflower hg Southwestern spiny rush "/San Diego barrel cactus $Plantago erecta patches !<Palmer's grapplinghook ")San Diego marsh-elder !?South coast saltbush !U Seaside calandrinia !.Otay tarplant !.Graceful tarplant !Small flowered Morning Glory Otay tarplant population Not a Part DaD LrG DaC DaC Rm OhE HrC DaC GP LsE DaC OhC Rm LsE OhC DaC DaC TeF LsE DaD LsE DaE Pa t h : G : \ g i s \ p r o j e c t s \ 1 5 7 7 \ 2 7 6 5 3 0 2 7 \ s u p p o r t \ O t a y L a n d C o \ m x d \ R e p o r t _ F i g u r e s \ O c t o b e r _ 2 0 1 0 \ V i l l a g e _ 8 _ W e s t \ S o i l s . m x d , 1 0 / 1 4 / 1 0 , pa u l _ m o r e n o LEGEND SOURCES: SANGIS (Parcels, Roads 2010) URS (field survey, 2008), NRCS (Soils, 2008) AERIALS EXPRESS, (Jan 2009) SOILS VILLAGE 8 WEST OTAY LAND CO CREATED BY PM PM: PMPROJ. NO: 27654036.05000 DATE: 10-13-10 FIG. NO: 5SCALE: 1" = 500' (1:6,000) 2500250500Feet O SCALE CORRECT WHEN PRINTED AT 11X17 Village 8 West Not a Part Chula Vista MSCP 100% Preserve Area Soils (Codes & Descriptions) DaC = Diablo clay, 2 to 9 percent slopes DaD = Diablo clay, 9 to 15 percent slopes DaE, Diablo clay = 15 to 30 percent slopes GP = Gravel pits HrC = Huerhuero loam, 2 to 9 percent slopes LrG = Las Posas stony fine sandy loam, 30 to 65 percent slopes LsE = Linne clay loam, 9 to 30 percent slopes OhC = Olivenhain cobbly loam, 2 to 9 percent slopes OhE = Olivenhain cobbly loam, 9 to 30 percent slopes Rm = Riverwash TeF = Terrace escarpments Not a Part P04 P03 P01 P02 Inset ag ag css ag ag ag dev ag dev d-css ag dist dist dist d-css mss d-css d-css d-css d-css d-css dist mss d-css dev d-nng d-css d-css d-css d-css nng d-css nng dev dist d-css d-css d-nng d-css d-css fwm d-css Pa t h : G : \ g i s \ p r o j e c t s \ 1 5 7 7 \ 2 7 6 5 3 0 2 7 \ s u p p o r t \ O t a y L a n d C o \ m x d \ R e p o r t _ F i g u r e s \ S e p t e m b e r _ 2 0 1 2 \ B i o _ I m p a c t s . m x d , C o l i n _ M a t t i s o n , 9 / 1 3 / 2 0 1 2 LEGEND SOURCES: HALE ENGINEERS, (June 2010) SanGIS (Parcels, Roads, 2010) URS (field survey, 2008, 2009) AERIALS EXPRESS, (JAN 2009) BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES IMPACTS VILLAGE 8 WEST OTAY LAND CO CREATED BY PM PM: PMPROJ. NO: 27654036.05000 DATE: 9-12-12 FIG. NO: 6SCALE: 1" = 500' (1:6,000) 2500250500Feet O SCALE CORRECT WHEN PRINTED AT 11X17 Village 8 West Chula Vista MSCP 100% Preserve Area Existing developed land not affected by Project Vegetation 18300 - Extensive Agriculture 32500 - Coastal Sage Scrub 32500 - Disturbed Coastal Sage Scrub 52400- Freshwater Marsh 42000 - Non Native Grassland 42200 - Disturbed Non Native Grassland 32400 - Maritime Succulent Scrub 63100 - Mulefat Scrub 12000 - Developed 11300 - Disturbed Habitat San Diego Barrel Cactus Sensitive Animal Species (URS) #San Diego Black-Tailed Jackrabbit #Y Northern Harrier #S California gnatcatcher &3 Southern California rufous-crowned sparrow !P Active Raven's nest '4 Grasshopper Sparrow Burrowing Owl Burrowing Owl burrow $+Orange-throat whiptail #0 Sharp-shinned Hawk Sensitive Plant Species (URS) &-San Diego sunflower kj southwestern spiny rush "/San Diego barrel cactus !.Otay tarplant !<Palmer's grapplinghook ")San Diego marsh-elder !?South coast saltbush !U Seaside calandrinia $Plantago erecta patches !.Graceful tarplant !Small flowered Morning Glory Otay tarplant population (3500 + individuals) Federal OWUS within OHWM !.Sample Points ACOE Jurisdictional Boundary Federal and State Wetlands within OHWM (0.05 acre) CDFG Wetlands (0.07 acre) ag css d-css fwm nng d-nng mss mfs dev dist P04 P03 P01 P02 d-css nng nng mfs dev dist d-csscss INSET Path: G:\gis\projects\1577\27653027\support\Otay Land Co\mxd\Report_Figures\October_2010\Village_8_West\Wildlife.mxd, 10/14/10, paul_moreno LEGEND SOURCES: Otay River Watershed Management Plan (Aspen 2006),Baldwin Otay Ranch Wildlife Corridor Studies (Ogden 1993),Multiple Species Conservation Program (Ogden 1993).WILDLIFE CORRIDORS AND HABITAT LINKAGES VILLAGE 8 WEST OTAY LAND CO CREATED BY PM PM: PMPROJ. NO: 27654036.05000DATE: 10-14-10FIG. NO:7 O Not to Scale [_ Vi l l a g e 8 W e s t !( !( !(!( !( !(!( !( !( !(!( !( !( !( !( !( !( !( !(!( !( !( 1' W OHWM 8' W BANK 1' W OHWM 8' W BANK 1' W OHWM 8' W BANK CULVERT 1' W OHWM 3' W BANK 4" W OHWM 2' W BANK 1' W, OHWM 2.5' W, BANK 1' W OHWM 2' W BANK 1' W OHWM 4' W BANK 1.5' W OHWM 5' W BANK CONCRETE-LINED OWUS 4' W OHWM 14' BANK 15" OHWM 4' BANK 6' OHWM 6' BANK 6' OHWM 6' BANK 6" W OHWM 2' W BANK 2' W OHWM 15'' W BANK 2' W OHWM 10' W BANK CULVERT CULVERT DEFINED BED AND BANK BEGINS AT THIS LOCATION NO DEFINED BED AND BANKDrainage 1 Drainage 2 Drainage 3 Not a Part P04P03 P01 P02 INSET MAP W I L E Y R D SANTA LUNA ST PRIVATE RD R O C K M T N R D M A G D A L E N A A V L A M E D I A R D Pa t h : G : \ g i s \ p r o j e c t s \ 1 5 7 7 \ 2 7 6 5 3 0 2 7 \ s u p p o r t \ O t a y L a n d C o \ m x d \ R e p o r t _ F i g u r e s \ S e p t e m b e r _ 2 0 1 2 \ W e t l a n d s . m x d , p a u l _ m o r e n o , 1 0 / 1 / 2 0 1 2 SOURCES: Parcels, Roads (SanGIS, 2010). Field Survey (URS, 2008). Aerial (Aerial Express, 2010). JURISDICTIONAL IMPACTS VILLAGE 8 WEST OTAY LAND CO CREATED BY PM PM: PMPROJ. NO: 27654036.05000 DATE: 10/1/2012 FIG. NO: 8SCALE: 1" = 500' (1:6,000) 2500250500Feet O SCALE CORRECT WHEN PRINTED AT 11X17 Storm Water Line Sewer Line Village 8 West Not a Part Limits of Disturbance Existing developed land not affected by Project Chula Vista MSCP 100% Preserve Area !(Channel Width Segment Indicator Federal OWUS within OHWM !.Sample Points ACOE Jurisdictional Boundary Federal and State Wetlands within OHWM (0.05 acre) CDFG Wetlands (0.07 acre) LEGEND P04 P03 P01 P02 INSET MAP Summary of Biological Surveys Conducted APPENDIXA on the Village 8 West Project \\2-Oct-12SDG Summary of Biological Surveys Conducted APPENDIXA on the Village 8 West Project \\2-Oct-12\SDG A-1 Date Time on site Survey Type Personnel Weather Conditions 5/27/2008 0800-1205 Vegetation Mapping; Focused CAGN survey Brittany Benson, Ellen Howard Partly cloudy sky, 70-75°F; winds 0- 2mph 6/9/2008 0715-1130 Vegetation Mapping; Focused CAGN survey Ricky Bailey, Brittany Benson Cloudy to clear, 59-77°F; winds 0-6mph 6/18/2008 0955-1255 Vegetation Mapping; Focused Plant Survey Brittany Benson, Darren Burton Clear sky, 78-92°F, winds 0-15mph 6/27/2008 0755-1118 Focused CAGN Survey; Wetland Delineation Brittany Benson, Theresa Miller Clear sky, 68-82°F; winds 0-5mph 7/30/2008 0745-1010 Focused Plant Survey Brittany Benson, Glen Kinoshita Cloudy to partly cloudy sky, 73-80°F; winds 0-6mph 2/26/2009 0945-1410 QCB Assessment B. Lohstroh, S. Amin Clear, 62-68ºF, 2-5 mph 2/27/2009 BUOW survey S. Amin, T. Miller 3/3/2009 0930-1300 QCB Survey B. Lohstroh 40% cirrus, 70-75ºF, 1-4 mph 3/13/2009 1030-1220 QCB Survey B. Lohstroh, S. Amin Clear, 67-71ºF, 0-4 mph 3/17/2009 0845-1030 QCB Survey B. Lohstroh, J. Rocks, S. Amin Clear, 60-74ºF, 0 mph 3/26/2009 1100-1400 QCB Survey B. Lohstroh, S. Amin Clear, 67-73ºF 0-8 mph 4/9/2009 0845-1015 QCB Survey B. Lohstroh, S. Santulli 40% Cover, 68-65ºF, 0-4 mph 6/18/2009 Reference population for Otay tarplant Lee Ripma, Michelle Balk Overcast, 74.2°F, wind 2.3-3.3 mph 6/29/2009 Reference population for Otay tarplant Lee Ripma, Jim Rocks Clear, 70°F, winds 0.8-3.1 mph 6/29/2009 0800-0340 Rare plant survey for Otay tarplant on waterline Lee Ripma, Jim Rocks Clear, 70-84°F, winds 0.8-3.1 mph 7/9/2009 0750-0230 Rare plant survey for Otay tarplant on waterline Lee Ripma, Jim Rocks Clear, 66-81.4°F, winds 1.3-4.1 mph 7/11/2009 1620-1745 Rare plant survey for Otay tarplant Lee Ripma, Sundeep Amin Clear, 82.3-87.2°F, winds 1-2.7 mph 3/29/2010 0900-1520 Assessment/ QCB Protocol Survey Brian Lohstroh Clear, 70-77°F, winds 0-7 mph 4/2/2010 1040-1500 QCB Protocol Survey Brian Lohstroh Clear, 62-66°F, winds 0-9 mph 4/10/2010 1130-1430 QCB Protocol Survey Brian Lohstroh Clear, 70-69°F, winds 0-10 mph Summary of Biological Surveys Conducted APPENDIXA on the Village 8 West Project \\2-Oct-12\SDG A-2 Date Time on site Survey Type Personnel Weather Conditions 4/19/2010 1300-1530 QCB Protocol Survey Brian Lohstroh Clear, 76-77°F, winds 4-12 mph 4/25/2010 1130-1320 QCB Protocol Survey Brian Lohstroh Clear, 69-70°F, winds 0-3 mph 5/7/2010 1045-1545 Jurisdictional delineation of off- site sewer and storm drain conveyance utilities alignment Brian Lohstroh Clear, 68-78°F, winds 0-6 mph 6/11/2010 0915-1230 Rare Plant Survey (Otay tarplant) Brian Lohstroh 100-60% Cover, 65-67°F, winds 0-3 mph Jurisdictional Delineation Data Sheets APPENDIXB for the Village 8 West Project \\2-Oct-12\SDG Project/Site: OLC Parcel B City/County:Chula Vista/San DiegoSampling Date: Applicant/Owner:Otay Land Company, LLC State:CA Sampling Point:P01 Investigator(s):Brian Lohstroh Section, Township, Range:NA, T18S, R1W Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):River Bank Local Relief (concave, convex, none):none Slope (%):10 Subregion (LRR):LRR C Lat:N32.58954Long:Datum: WGS 84 Soil Map Unit Name:Riverwash (Rm)NWI Classification:PSS/EMA Are climatic/hydrological conditions on the site typical for this time of the year? Are Vegetation,Soil,or Hydrology significantly disturbed?Are "Normal Circumstances" Present? Are Vegetation,Soil,or Hydrology naturally problematic?(If needed, explain answers in remarks) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Hydric Soil Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? Remarks: Site is on bank of river, 3.5 feet from surface water. VEGETATION 1.Tamarix ramosissima 30YFAC5(A) 2. 3.5(B) 4. 30 100%(A/B 1.Juncus acutus 20YFACW 2.x1 = 3.x2 = 4.x3 = 5.x4 = 30 x5 = (A)(B) 1.Polypogon monspeliensis 60YFACW+ 2.Cyperus eragrostis 20YFACW Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 3.Cotula coronopifolia 20YFACW+Dominance Test is >50% 4. 5.Prevalence Index is ≤3.01 6. 7. 8. 100 1. 2. Remarks: 5/7/2010 % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum: 0%% Cover of Biotic Crust: Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Tree Stratum (Use scientific names.) Sapling/Shrub Stratum Herb Stratum Woody Vine Stratum Dominant Species? Indicator Status Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) Column Totals: Prevalence Index = B/A = OBL species Total % Cover of: WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Arid West Region Multiplied by: Total Cover: Total Cover: Total Cover: Total Cover: Absolute % Cover Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) FACW species FAC species FACU species UPL species W116.97573 Dominance Test Worksheet: Prevalence Index worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West - Version 11-1-2006J:\27659026 OLC Parcel B,C Wetland Permit\046 Work in Progress\Lohstroh 2010 effort\delineation forms-BL\Wetland Delin FormOLC BP01 Sampling Point:P01 %%Type1 90 10RM 100 2Location: PL=Pore Lining, RC=Root Channel, M=Matrix Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1)Sandy Redox (S5)1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C) Histic Epipedon (A2)Stripped Matrix (S6)2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR B) Black Histic (A3)Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1)Reduced Vertic (F18)yy() Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)Red Parent Material (TF2) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C)Depleted Matrix (F3)Other (Explain in Remarks) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D)Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Thick Dark Surface (A12)Redox Depressions (F8) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)Vernal Pools (F9) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) B) Type: Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Water Marks (B1) (Riverine) Surface Water (A1)Salt Crust (B11)Sediment Deposits (B2) (Riverine) High Water Table (A2)Biotic Crust (B12)Drift Deposits (B3) (Riverine) Saturation (A3)Aquatic Invertebrates (B13)Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) (Nonriverine)Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Nonriverine)Oxidized Rhizopheres along Living Roots (C3)Thin Muck Surface (C7) Drift Deposits (B3) (Nonriverine)Presence Of Reduced Iron (C4)Crayfish Burrows (C8) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)Recent Iron Reduction in Plowed Soils (C6)Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)Other (Explain in Remarks)Shallow Aquitard (D3) Water-Stained Leaves (B9)FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Depth (inches): Depth (inches):10 Depth (inches): 9 Wetland Hydrology Present? Texture RemarksColor (moist) Redox FeaturesDepth Matrix Depth (inches): Color (moist)Loc2 wetland hydrology must be present. 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Hydric Soil Present? (inches) 610YR 5/2 G2 2.5/5PB Saturation Present? (Includes capillary fringe) loamy clay Coarse gravel also present 1210YR 5/1 Mloamy clay o Yes No Yes Yes Yes No No No Yes No US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West - Version 11-1-2006J:\27659026 OLC Parcel B,C Wetland Permit\046 Work in Progress\Lohstroh 2010 effort\delineation forms-BL\Wetland Delin FormOLC BP01 Project/Site: OLC Parcel B City/County:Chula Vista/San Diego Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner:Otay Land Company, LLC State:CA Sampling Point:P02 Investigator(s):Brian Lohstroh Section, Township, Range:NA, T18S, R1W Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):River Bank Local Relief (concave, convex, none):none Slope (%):10 Subregion (LRR):LRR C Lat:N32.58956Long:Datum: WGS 84 Soil Map Unit Name:Riverwash (Rm)NWI Classification:PSS/EMA Are climatic/hydrological conditions on the site typical for this time of the year? Are Vegetation,Soil,or Hydrology significantly disturbed?Are "Normal Circumstances" Present? Are Vegetation,Soil,or Hydrology naturally problematic?(If needed, explain answers in remarks) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Hydric Soil Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? Remarks: VEGETATION 1.Tamarix ramosissima 10YFAC 3(A) 2. 3.4(B) 4. 10 75%(A/B) 1.Isocoma menziesii 100YN/A 2.x1 = 3.x2 = 4.x3 = 5.x4 = 100 x5 = (A)(B) 1.Ambrosia psilostachya 70YFAC 2.Polypogon monspeliensis 30YFACW+Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 3.Dominance Test is >50% 4. 5.Prevalence Index is 3.01 6. 7. 8. 100 1. 2. Remarks: 5/7/2010 % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum: 0%% Cover of Biotic Crust: Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Tree Stratum (Use scientific names.) Sapling/Shrub Stratum Herb Stratum Woody Vine Stratum Dominant Species? Indicator Status Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) Column Totals: Prevalence Index = B/A = OBL species Total % Cover of: WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Arid West Region Multiplied by: Total Cover: Total Cover: Total Cover: Total Cover: Absolute % Cover Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) FACW species FAC species FACU species UPL species W116.97570 Dominance Test Worksheet: Prevalence Index worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West - Version 11-1-2006J:\27659026 OLC Parcel B,C Wetland Permit\046 Work in Progress\Lohstroh 2010 effort\delineation forms-BL\Wetland Delin FormOLC BP02 SOIL Sampling Point:P02 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) %%Type1 100 100 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix.2Location: PL=Pore Lining, RC=Root Channel, M=Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1)Sandy Redox (S5)1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C) Histic Epipedon (A2)Stripped Matrix (S6)2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR B) Black Histic (A3)Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1)Reduced Vertic (F18)Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)Red Parent Material (TF2) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C)Depleted Matrix (F3)Other (Explain in Remarks) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D)Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Thick Dark Surface (A12)Redox Depressions (F8) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)Vernal Pools (F9) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Remarks: Coarse gravel fill material present. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators:Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Primary Indicators (any one indicator is sufficient)Water Marks (B1) (Riverine) Surface Water (A1)Salt Crust (B11)Sediment Deposits (B2) (Riverine) High Water Table (A2)Biotic Crust (B12)Drift Deposits (B3) (Riverine) Saturation (A3)Aquatic Invertebrates (B13)Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) (Nonriverine)Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Nonriverine)Oxidized Rhizopheres along Living Roots (C3)Thin Muck Surface (C7) Drift Deposits (B3) (Nonriverine)Presence Of Reduced Iron (C4)Crayfish Burrows (C8) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)Recent Iron Reduction in Plowed Soils (C6)Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)Other (Explain in Remarks)Shallow Aquitard (D3) Water-Stained Leaves (B9)FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Field Observations: Surface Water Present?Depth (inches): Water Table Present?Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Texture RemarksColor (moist) Redox FeaturesDepth Matrix Depth (inches): Color (moist)Loc2 wetland hydrology must be present. 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Hydric Soil Present? (inches) 710YR 4/3 Saturation Present? (Includes capillary fringe) sandy loam Coarse gravel also present Coarse gravel also present1410YR 3/3 sandy loam Yes No Yes Yes Yes No No No Yes No US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West - Version 11-1-2006J:\27659026 OLC Parcel B,C Wetland Permit\046 Work in Progress\Lohstroh 2010 effort\delineation forms-BL\Wetland Delin FormOLC BP02 Project/Site: OLC Parcel B City/County:Chula Vista/San Diego Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner:Otay Land Company, LLC State:CA Sampling Point:P03 Investigator(s):Brian Lohstroh Section, Township, Range:NA, T18S, R1W Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):River Bank Local Relief (concave, convex, none):none Slope (%):60 Subregion (LRR):LRR C Lat:N32.58976Long:Datum: WGS 84 Soil Map Unit Name:Riverwash (Rm)NWI Classification:PSS/EMA Are climatic/hydrological conditions on the site typical for this time of the year? Are Vegetation,Soil,or Hydrology significantly disturbed?Are "Normal Circumstances" Present? Are Vegetation,Soil,or Hydrology naturally problematic?(If needed, explain answers in remarks) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Hydric Soil Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? Remarks: Site is on Bank of river, 1 foot from surface water VEGETATION 1.2 (A) 2. 3.2(B) 4. 100%(A/B) 1.Baccharis salicifolia 20YFACW 2.x1 = 3.x2 = 4.x3 = 5.x4 = 20 x5 = (A)(B) 1.Typha latifolia 70YOBL 2.Heliotropium curassavicum 10NOBL Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 3.Dominance Test is >50% 4. 5.Prevalence Index is 3.01 6. 7. 8. 80 1. 2. Remarks: 5/7/2010 % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum: 20%% Cover of Biotic Crust: Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Tree Stratum (Use scientific names.) Sapling/Shrub Stratum Herb Stratum Woody Vine Stratum Dominant Species? Indicator Status Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) Column Totals: Prevalence Index = B/A = OBL species Total % Cover of: WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Arid West Region Multiplied by: Total Cover: Total Cover: Total Cover: Total Cover: Absolute % Cover Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) FACW species FAC species FACU species UPL species W116.97575 Dominance Test Worksheet: Prevalence Index worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West - Version 11-1-2006J:\27659026 OLC Parcel B,C Wetland Permit\046 Work in Progress\Lohstroh 2010 effort\delineation forms-BL\Wetland Delin FormOLC BP03 SOIL Sampling Point:P03 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) %%Type1 100 9010RM 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix.2Location: PL=Pore Lining, RC=Root Channel, M=Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1)Sandy Redox (S5)1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C) Histic Epipedon (A2)Stripped Matrix (S6)2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR B) Black Histic (A3)Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1)Reduced Vertic (F18)Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)Red Parent Material (TF2) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C)Depleted Matrix (F3)Other (Explain in Remarks) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D)Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Thick Dark Surface (A12)Redox Depressions (F8) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)Vernal Pools (F9) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Restrictive Layer (if present): Type:Rock 10 Remarks: Cobbles common, created restrictive layer at 10 inches. HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators:Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Primary Indicators (any one indicator is sufficient)Water Marks (B1) (Riverine) Surface Water (A1)Salt Crust (B11)Sediment Deposits (B2) (Riverine) High Water Table (A2)Biotic Crust (B12)Drift Deposits (B3) (Riverine) Saturation (A3)Aquatic Invertebrates (B13)Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) (Nonriverine)Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Nonriverine)Oxidized Rhizopheres along Living Roots (C3)Thin Muck Surface (C7) Drift Deposits (B3) (Nonriverine)Presence Of Reduced Iron (C4)Crayfish Burrows (C8) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)Recent Iron Reduction in Plowed Soils (C6)Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)Other (Explain in Remarks)Shallow Aquitard (D3) Water-Stained Leaves (B9)FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Field Observations: Surface Water Present?Depth (inches): Water Table Present?Depth (inches):8 Depth (inches): 7 Wetland Hydrology Present? Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Texture RemarksColor (moist) Redox FeaturesDepth Matrix Depth (inches): Color (moist)Loc2 wetland hydrology must be present. 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Hydric Soil Present? (inches) 410YR 3/2 Saturation Present? (Includes capillary fringe) sandy clay810YR 4/1 G2 2.5/5PB M clayey sand Yes No Yes Yes Yes No No No Yes No US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West - Version 11-1-2006J:\27659026 OLC Parcel B,C Wetland Permit\046 Work in Progress\Lohstroh 2010 effort\delineation forms-BL\Wetland Delin FormOLC BP03 Project/Site: OLC Parcel B City/County:Chula Vista/San Diego Sampling Date: Applicant/Owner:Otay Land Company, LLC State:CA Sampling Point:P04 Investigator(s):Brian Lohstroh Section, Township, Range:NA, T18S, R1W Landform (hillslope, terrace, etc.):River Bank Local Relief (concave, convex, none):none Slope (%):0 Subregion (LRR):LRR C Lat:N32.58956Long:Datum: WGS 84 Soil Map Unit Name:Riverwash (Rm)NWI Classification:PSS/EMA Are climatic/hydrological conditions on the site typical for this time of the year? Are Vegetation,Soil,or Hydrology significantly disturbed?Are "Normal Circumstances" Present? Are Vegetation,Soil,or Hydrology naturally problematic?(If needed, explain answers in remarks) SUMMARY OF FINDINGS - Attach site map showing sampling point locations, transects, important features, etc. Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Hydric Soil Present? Wetland Hydrology Present? Remarks: Pit on bank, approximately 6 feet above surface water. VEGETATION 1.1 (A) 2. 3.5(B) 4. 20%(A/B) 1.Isocoma menziesii 30YN/A 2.Baccharis sarothroides 30YFAC x1 = 3.Salvia apiana 20YN/A x2 = 4.Artemisia californica 20YN/A 30x3 =90 5.x4 = 90x5 =450 120(A)540(B) 1.Hirschfeldia incana 20YN/A 2.Hydrophytic Vegetation Indicators: 3.Dominance Test is >50% 4. 5.Prevalence Index is 3.01 6. 7. 8. 1. 2. Remarks: 5/7/2010 % Bare Ground in Herb Stratum: 80% Cover of Biotic Crust: Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Tree Stratum (Use scientific names.) Sapling/Shrub Stratum Herb Stratum Woody Vine Stratum Dominant Species? Indicator Status Is the Sampled Area within a Wetland? 1Indicators of hydric soil and wetland hydrology must be present. Problematic Hydrophytic Vegetation1 (Explain) Column Totals: Prevalence Index = B/A = 4.5 OBL species Total % Cover of: WETLAND DETERMINATION DATA FORM - Arid West Region Multiplied by: Total Cover: Total Cover: Total Cover: Total Cover: Absolute % Cover Morphological Adaptations1 (Provide supporting data in Remarks or on a separate sheet) FACW species FAC species FACU species UPL species W116.97570 Dominance Test Worksheet: Prevalence Index worksheet: Number of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Total Number of Dominant Species Across All Strata: Percent of Dominant Species That Are OBL, FACW, or FAC: Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No Yes No US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West - Version 11-1-2006J:\27659026 OLC Parcel B,C Wetland Permit\046 Work in Progress\Lohstroh 2010 effort\delineation forms-BL\Wetland Delin FormOLC BP04 SOIL Sampling Point:P04 Profile Description: (Describe to the depth needed to document the indicator or confirm the absence of indicators.) %%Type1 100 1Type: C=Concentration, D=Depletion, RM=Reduced Matrix.2Location: PL=Pore Lining, RC=Root Channel, M=Matrix Hydric Soil Indicators: (Applicable to all LRRs, unless otherwise noted.)Indicators for Problematic Hydric Soils3: Histosol (A1)Sandy Redox (S5)1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR C) Histic Epipedon (A2)Stripped Matrix (S6)2 cm Muck (A10) (LRR B) Black Histic (A3)Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1)Reduced Vertic (F18)Loamy Mucky Mineral (F1) Hydrogen Sulfide (A4)Loamy Gleyed Matrix (F2)Red Parent Material (TF2) Stratified Layers (A5) (LRR C)Depleted Matrix (F3)Other (Explain in Remarks) 1 cm Muck (A9) (LRR D)Redox Dark Surface (F6) Depleted Below Dark Surface (A11)Depleted Dark Surface (F7) Thick Dark Surface (A12)Redox Depressions (F8) Sandy Mucky Mineral (S1)Vernal Pools (F9) Sandy Gleyed Matrix (S4) Restrictive Layer (if present): Type: Remarks: HYDROLOGY Wetland Hydrology Indicators:Secondary Indicators (2 or more required) Primary Indicators (any one indicator is sufficient)Water Marks (B1) (Riverine) Surface Water (A1)Salt Crust (B11)Sediment Deposits (B2) (Riverine) High Water Table (A2)Biotic Crust (B12)Drift Deposits (B3) (Riverine) Saturation (A3)Aquatic Invertebrates (B13)Drainage Patterns (B10) Water Marks (B1) (Nonriverine)Hydrogen Sulfide Odor (C1)Dry-Season Water Table (C2) Sediment Deposits (B2) (Nonriverine)Oxidized Rhizopheres along Living Roots (C3)Thin Muck Surface (C7) Drift Deposits (B3) (Nonriverine)Presence Of Reduced Iron (C4)Crayfish Burrows (C8) Surface Soil Cracks (B6)Recent Iron Reduction in Plowed Soils (C6)Saturation Visible on Aerial Imagery (C9) Inundation Visible on Aerial Imagery (B7)Other (Explain in Remarks)Shallow Aquitard (D3) Water-Stained Leaves (B9)FAC-Neutral Test (D5) Field Observations: Surface Water Present?Depth (inches): Water Table Present?Depth (inches): Depth (inches): Wetland Hydrology Present? Describe Recorded Data (stream gauge, monitoring well, aerial photos, previous inspections), if available: Remarks: Texture RemarksColor (moist) Redox FeaturesDepth Matrix Depth (inches): Color (moist)Loc2 wetland hydrology must be present. 3Indicators of hydrophytic vegetation and Hydric Soil Present? (inches) 122.5Y 5/3 Saturation Present? (Includes capillary fringe) Coarse gravel and cobbles also presentsandy loam Yes No Yes Yes Yes No No No Yes No US Army Corps of Engineers Arid West - Version 11-1-2006J:\27659026 OLC Parcel B,C Wetland Permit\046 Work in Progress\Lohstroh 2010 effort\delineation forms-BL\Wetland Delin FormOLC BP04 APPENDIXC Otay Land Company Village 8 West Floral Species List \\2-Oct-12\SDG APPENDIXC Otay Land Company Village 8 West Floral Species List \\2-Oct-12\SDG C-1 FERNS AND FERN ALLIES PTERIDACEAE BRAKE FAMILY Pellaea mucronata var. mucronata bird's foot cliff-brake SELAGINELLACEAE SPIKE-MOSS FAMILY Selaginella bigelovii Bigelow's spike-moss Selaginella cinerascens ashy spike-moss ANGIOSPERMS (DICOTYLEDONS) ADOXACEAE ADOXA FAMILY Sambucus mexicana blue elderberry AMARANTHACEAE AMARANTH FAMILY Amaranthus albus* white tumbleweed Atriplex canescens four-wing saltbush Atriplex pacifica (CNPS list 1B.2) south coast saltbush Atriplex suberecta peregrine Saltbush Atriplex semibaccata* Australian saltbush Chenopodium album* lambsquarters Salsola tragus* Russian thistle ANACARDIACEAE SUMAC OR CASHEW FAMILY Malosma laurina laurel sumac Rhus integrifolia lemonadeberry Rhus ovata sugarbush Schinus molle* Peruvian pepper tree APIACEAE CARROT FAMILY Daucus pusillus rattlesnake weed Foeniculum vulgare fennel ASTERACEAE SUNFLOWER FAMILY Ambrosia acanthicarpa annual bur-sage Ambrosia psilostachya western ragweed Artemisia californica California sagebrush Baccharis pilularis coyote brush Baccharis salicifolia mulefat Baccharis sarothroides broom baccharis Centaurea melitensis* tocalote Cirsium vulgare* bull thistle Conyza canadensis horseweed Corethrogyne filaginifolia var. filaginifolia common sand-aster Deinandra conjugens (FT, SE, CNPS List 1B.1, MSCP covered) Otay tarplant Deinandra fasciculata fascicled tarplant Ericameria linearifolia interior goldenbush Ericameria palmeri var. palmeri Palmer's goldenbush Filago californica California filago Lactuca serriola* prickly lettuce Gnaphalium sp. everlasting Gutierrezia californica California matchweed Hazardia squarrosa sawtooth goldenbush APPENDIXC Otay Land Company Village 8 West Floral Species List \\2-Oct-12\SDG C-2 FERNS AND FERN ALLIES Hedypnois cretica* crete hedypnois Helianthus annuus annual sunflower Heterotheca grandiflora telegraph weed Holocarpha virgata ssp. elongata (CNPS List 4.2) graceful tarplant Hypochaeris glabra* smooth cat’s ear Isocoma menziesii coastal goldenbush Iva hayesiana (CNPS List 2.1) San Diego Marsh-elder Lactuca serriola* prickly lettuce Lasthenia gracilis common goldfields Picris echioides* bristly ox-tongue Sonchus asper* prickly sow thistle Sonchus oleraceus* sow thistle Stephanomeria exigua small wreath-plant Viguiera laciniata(CNPS List 4.2) San Diego sunflower BORAGINACEAE BORAGE FAMILY Harpagonella palmeri Palmer's grappling-hook BRASSICACEAE MUSTARD FAMILY Brassica nigra* black mustard Brassica rapa* field mustard Hirschfeldia incana* short-pod mustard Lepidium nitidumvar. nitidum shining peppergrass Sisymbrium irio London rocket CACTACEAE CACTUS FAMILY Cylindropuntia prolifera coast cholla Cylindropuntia californica var. californica snake cholla Ferocactus viridescens (CNPS List 2.1) coast barrel cactus Mammillaria dioica fish-hook cactus Opuntia littoralis coast prickly-pear CAPPARACEAE CAPER FAMILY Isomeris arborea bladder pod CARYOPHYLLACEAE PINK FAMILY Silene gallica* common catchfly CONVOLVULACEAE MORNING-GLORY FAMILY Calystegia macrostegia ssp. intermedia California morning glory Convolvulus arvensis* bindweed Convolvulus simulans (CNPS List 4.2) small-flower bindweed CRASSULACEAE STONECROP FAMILY Crassula connata pygmy-weed Dudleya pulverulenta chalk leaf liveforever CUCURBITACEAE GOURD FAMILY Cucumus sp.* cucumber (agricultural variety) Marah macrocarpus wild cucumber EUPHORBIACEAE SPURGE FAMILY Chamaesyce polycarpa golondrina APPENDIXC Otay Land Company Village 8 West Floral Species List \\2-Oct-12\SDG C-3 FERNS AND FERN ALLIES Croton setigerus doveweed FABACEAE LEGUME FAMILY Lathyrus vestitus var. alefeldi San Diego sweet pea Lotus scoparius deerweed Lupinus bicolor miniature lupine Vicia villosa* winter vetch GERANIACEAE GERANIUM FAMILY Erodium cicutarium red-stem filaree Erodium moschatum* white-stem filaree HYDROPHYLLACEAE WATERLEAF FAMILY Phacelia cicutaria var. hispida caterpillar phacelia Phacelia sp. scorpionweed Pholistoma membranaceum white fiesta flower LAMIACEAE MINT FAMILY Marubium vulgare* horehound Salvia apiana white sage Salvia mellifera black sage LOASACEAE LOASA FAMILY Mentzelia sp. blazing star MALVACEAE MALLOW FAMILY Malacothamnus fasciculatus chaparral bushmallow Malva neglecta* common mallow Malva parviflora* cheeseweed Sidalcea malviflora ssp. sparsifolia checker-bloom NYCTAGINACEAE FOUR O'CLOCK FAMILY Mirabilis laevis var. crassifolia coastal wishbone plant ONAGRACEAE EVENING-PRIMROSE FAMILY Epilobium canum California fuchsia PAPAVERACEAE POPPY FAMILY Eschscholzia californica California poppy PLANTAGINACEAE PLANTAIN FAMILY Plantago erecta dot-seed plantain POLYGONACEAE BUCKWHEAT FAMILY Eriogonum fasciculatum var. fasciculatum California buckwheat Polygonum arenastrum common knotweed Rumex crispus* curly dock PORTULACEAE PURSLANE FAMILY Calandrinia maritima (CNPS list 4.2) seaside calandrinia PRIMULACEAE PRIMROSE FAMILY Anagallis arvensis* scarlet pimpernel Dodecatheon clevelandii ssp. clevelandii padre's shooting star RHAMNACEAE BUCKTHORN FAMILY Rhamnus crocea spiny redberry RUBIACEAE MADDER OR COFFEE APPENDIXC Otay Land Company Village 8 West Floral Species List \\2-Oct-12\SDG C-4 FERNS AND FERN ALLIES FAMILY Galium aparine common bedstraw SALICACEAE WILLOW FAMILY Salix goodingii Gooding's willow Salix lasiolepis arroyo willow SCROPHULARIACEAE FIGWORT FAMILY Scrophularia californica California figwort SIMMONDSIACEAE JOJOBA FAMILY Simmondsia chinensis jojoba SOLANACEAE NIGHTSHADE FAMILY Nicotiana glauca* tree tobacco Datura wrightii jimson weed TAMARICACEAE TAMARISK FAMILY Tamarix ramosissima* tamarisk ANGIOSPERMS (MONOCOTYLEDONS) AGAVACEAE AGAVE FAMILY Yucca schidigera Mojave yucca CYPERACEAE SEDGE FAMILY Scirpus americanus bulrush IRIDACEAE IRIS FAMILY Sisyrinchium bellum blue-eyed-grass JUNCACEAE RUSH FAMILY Juncus acutus ssp. leopoldii (CNPS List 4.2) southwestern spiny rush Juncus mexicanus Mexican rush LILIACEAE LILY FAMILY Bloomeria crocea common goldenstar Calochortus splendens lilac mariposa lily Calochortus sp. mariposa lily Chlorogalum parviflorum small-flowered amole Dichelostemma capitatum ssp. capitatum blue dicks POACEAE GRASS FAMILY Achnatherum coronatum giant stipa Avena barbata* slender wild oat Avena fatua* wild oat Brachypodium distachyon* false-brome Bromus diandrus* ripgut brome Bromus hordeaceus* soft chess Bromus rubens* foxtail chess Bromus tectorum* cheatgrass Cynodon dactylon* crabgrass Distichlis spicata spiked salt grass Gastridium ventricosum* nit grass Hordeum murinum ssp. leporinum* hare barley Hordeum vulgare var. trifurcatum* cultivated barley Lamarckia aurea* goldentop APPENDIXC Otay Land Company Village 8 West Floral Species List \\2-Oct-12\SDG C-5 FERNS AND FERN ALLIES Lolium multiflorum* Italian ryegrass Mellica imperfecta oniongrass Muhlenbergia asperifolia scratch grass Muhlenbergia microsperma little seed muhly Muhlenbergia rigens deer grass Nassella lepida foothill needlegrass Nassella pulchra purple needlegrass Phalaris aquatica* canary grass Piptatherum miliaceum* smilo grass Polypogon monspeliensis* rabbits foot grass Schismus barbatus* Mediterranean schismus Triticum aestivum* cereal wheat Vulpia myuros var. myuros* rat-tail fescue TYPHACEAE CATTAIL FAMILY Typha latifolia cat-tail Notes: * = non-native FT: Federally Listed as Threatened by USFWS SE: Califoronia Listed as Endangered by CDFG MSCP Covered: Chula Vista Multiple Species Conservation Program Covered Species CNPS: California Native Plant Society List 1A: Plants presumed extinct in California. List 1B: Plants rare and endangered in California and throughout their range. List 2: Plants rare, threatened, or endangered in California but more common elsewhere in their range. List 3: Plants about which we need more information; a review list. List 4: Plants of limited distribution; a watch list. Threat Codes: 1 Seriously endangered in California (over 80% of occurrences threatened / high degree and immediacy of threat) 2 Fairly endangered in California (20-80% occurrences threatened) 3 Not very endangered in California (<20% of occurrences threatened or no current threats known) APPENDIXD Otay Land Company Village 8 West Wildlife Species List \\2-Oct-12\SDG APPENDIXD Otay Land Company Village 8 West Wildlife Species List \\2-Oct-12\SDG D-1 Scientific Name Common Name Butterflies Anthocharis sara sara Pacific sara orangetip Apodemia mormo virgulti Behr's metalmark Brephidium exila western pygmy blue Coenonympha californica californica common California ringlet Danaus gilippus striated queen Erynnis funeralis funereal duskywing Junonia coenia grisea commom buckeye Papilio eurymedon pale swallowtail Papilio zelicaon anise swallowtail Pontia protodice checkered white Vanessa annabella west coast lady Vanessa atalanta rubria red admiral Vanessa cardui painted lady Amphibians and Reptiles Lichanura trivirgata roseofusca Coastal rosy boa Aspidocelis hyperythrus ssp. beldingi Orange-throated whiptail Pseudacris regilla Pacific chorus frog Sceloporus occidentalis biseriatus western fence lizard Uta stansburiana elegans California side-blotch lizard Birds Accipiter striatus sharp-shinned hawk (WL) Aeronautes saxatalis white-throated swift Agelaius phoeniceus red-winged blackbird Aimophila ruficeps canescens So. Cal. rufous-crowned sparrow (WL) Ammodramus savannarum grasshopper sparrow (SSC) Aphelocoma californica western scrub-jay Athene cunicularia burrowing owl (SSC) Buteo jamaicenis red-tailed hawk Callipepla californica California quail Calypte anna Anna’s hummingbird Campylorhynchus brunneicapillus coastal cactus wren Carduelis lawrencei Lawrence's goldfinch Carduelis psaltria lesser goldfinch Carpodacus mexicanus house finch Chamaea fasciata wrentit Charidrius vociferus killdeer Circus cyaneus northern harrier Colaptes auratus northern flicker Corvus corax common raven Elanus leucurus white-tailed kite (FP) Eremophila alpestris horned lark Eremophila alpestris actia California horned lark (WL) Falco sparverius American kestrel Geococcyx californianus greater roadrunner APPENDIXD Otay Land Company Village 8 West Wildlife Species List \\2-Oct-12\SDG D-2 Scientific Name Common Name Icteria virens Yellow-breasted chat Larus californicus California gull Melospiza melodia song sparrow Mimus polyglottos northern mockingbird Myiarchus cinerascens ash-throated flycatcher Passerina amoena lazuli bunting Passerina caerulea blue grosbeak Pipilo crissalis California towhee Pipilo maculatus spotted towhee Polioptila californica californica coastal California gnatcatcher (SSC, FT) Psaltriparus minimus bushtit Salpinctes obsoletus rock wren Sayornis nigricans black phoebe Sayornis saya Say’s phoebe Selasphorus sp. Selasphorus hummingbird Stelgidopteryx serripennis northern rough-winged swallow Sturnella neglecta western meadowlark Thryomanes bewickii Bewick’s wren Toxostoma redivivum California thrasher Zenaida macroura mourning dove Mammals Canis latrans coyote Felis rufus bobcat Lepus californicus bennettii San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit (SSC) Spermophilus beecheyi nudipes California ground squirrel Sylvilagus audubonii Audubon’s cottontail Notes: FE= Federally listed as Endangered FT = Federally listed as Threatened FP = State Fully Protected SE = State listed as Endangered SSC = California Species of Special Concern APPENDIXE Sensitive Species with the Potential to Occur On-site \\2-Oct-12\SDG APPENDIXE Sensitive Species with the Potential to Occur On-site \\2-Oct-12\SDG E-1 Common Name Scientific Name Sensitivity Status Primary Habitat Associations/Life Form/Blooming Period Potential to Occur or Status On-site Plants San Diego thornmint Acanthomintha ilicifolia FT/SE/Covered Narrow Endemic/ CNPS 1B.2 Chaparral, coastal sage scrub, Valley and foothill grassland, vernal pools, clays/annual herb/April- June Not detected during focused surveys conducted at the appropriate time of year.. Moderate potential to occur on- site. San Diego County needlegrass Achnatherum diegoense CNPS 4.1 Chaparral, coastal sage scrub/perennial herb/May-June Not detected during focused surveys conducted at the appropriate time of year.. Moderate potential to occur on- site. California adolphia Adolphia californica CNPS 2.1 Chaparral, coastal sage scrub, Valley and foothill grassland, clays/shrub/December- April Not detected during focused surveys conducted at the appropriate time of year. Moderate potential to occur on- site. Shaw’s agave Agave shawii FSC/CNPS 2.3 Coastal bluff scrub, coastal sage scrub/shrub/May-July Not detected during focused surveys. Low potential to occur on-site. San Diego bursage Ambrosia chenopodiifolia CNPS 2.3 Coastal sage scrub/shrub/April-June Not detected during focused surveys conducted at the appropriate time of year.. Moderate potential to occur on- site. San Diego ambrosia Ambrosia pumila FE/SE/CNPS 1B.2 Chaparral, coastal sage scrub, Valley and foothill grassland, vernal pools, clays/perennial herb/June-September Not detected during focused surveys. Low potential to occur on-site. Alphanisma Aphanisma blitoides FSC/CNPS 1B.2 Coastal bluff scrub, coastal sage scrub, sandy soils/annual herb/April-May Not detected during focused surveys. Low potential to occur on-site. San Diego sagewort Artemisia palmeri CNPS 4.1 Chaparral, coastal sage scrub, riparian forest and scrub, sandy soils/shrub/July- September Not detected during focused surveys conducted at the appropriate time of year.. Moderate potential to occur on- site. APPENDIXE Sensitive Species with the Potential to Occur On-site \\2-Oct-12\SDG E-2 Common Name Scientific Name Sensitivity Status Primary Habitat Associations/Life Form/Blooming Period Potential to Occur or Status On-site San Diego milkvetch Astragalus oocarpus FSC/CNPS 1B.3 Chaparral (openings), cismontane woodland/perennial herb/May-August Not detected during focused surveys. Low potential to occur on-site. South Coast saltscale Atriplex pacifica FSC/CNPS 1B.3 Coastal bluff scrub, coastal sage scrub, playas/annual herb/March-October Detected on site. Brewer’s calindrinia Calindrinia breweri CNPS 4.1 Chaparral, coastal sage scrub, disturbed and burned areas/annual herb/March-June Not detected during focused surveys. Low potential to occur on-site. Seaside calindrinia Calindrinia maritima CNPS 4.1 Coastal bluff scrub, Valley and foothill grassland, sandy soils/annual herb/March- May Detected on site. Dunn’s mariposa lily Calochortus dunnii FSC/SR/MSCP Covered/CNPS 1B.2 Closed-cone conifer forest, chaparral, gabbroic soils/perennial herb/May-June Not detected during focused surveys. Low potential to occur on-site. Lewis’s evening primose Camissonia lewisii CNPS 3 Coastal bluff scrub, cismontane woodland, coastal dunes, coastal sage scrub, Valley and foothill grassland, sandy or clay soils/annual herb/March-June Not detected during focused surveys. Low potential to occur on-site. Payson’s jewelflower Caulanthus simulans FSC/CNPS 4.1 Chaparral, coastal sage scrub, sandy and granitic soils/annual herb/March- June Not detected during focused surveys. Low potential to occur on-site. Slender-pod jewelflower Caulanthus stenocarpus FSC/SR/MSCP Covered Chaparral, coastal sage scrub/annual herb, fire follower/March-May Not detected during focused surveys. Low potential to occur on-site. Southern mountain misery Chamaebatia australis CNPS 4.1 Chaparral/shrub/ November-May Not detected during focused surveys. Low potential to occur on-site. APPENDIXE Sensitive Species with the Potential to Occur On-site \\2-Oct-12\SDG E-3 Common Name Scientific Name Sensitivity Status Primary Habitat Associations/Life Form/Blooming Period Potential to Occur or Status On-site Peninsular spineflower Chorizanthe leptotheca CNPS 4.1 Chaparral, coastal sage scrub, lower montane conifer forest, alluvial fan, granitic soils/annual herb/May-August Not detected during focused surveys. Low potential to occur on-site. Orcutt’s spineflower Chorizanthe orcuttiana FE/SE/CNPS 1B.3 Chaparral, closed-cone conifer forest, coastal sage scrub/annual herb/March-April Not detected during focused surveys. Low potential to occur on-site. Small-flower bindweed Convolvulus simulans (CNPS List 4.2) small- flower bindweed CNPS 4.2 Non-native perennial herb found in orchards and agricultural fields/May- October Detected on the Project. Snake cholla Cylindropuntia californica var. californica MSCP Covered/CNPS 1B.3 Coastal sage scrub, chaparral, shrub (stem succulent)/April-May Detected during focused surveys.. Coast Cholla Cylindropuntia prolifera CNPS-not listed Dry coastal scrub slopes/April-June. Detected during focused surveys. Tecate tarplant Deinandra (Hemizonia) floribunda FSC/CNPS 1B.2 Chaparral, coastal sage scrub/annual herb/August-October Not detected during focused surveys. Low potential to occur on-site. Otay tarplant Deinandra conjugens FT/CE/MSCP Covered Narrow Endemic/CNPS 1B.3 Openings in coastal sage scrub, chaparral, grasslands; clay soils. Annual/May-June Detected during focused surveys. Western dichondra Dichondra occidentalis CNPS 4.2 Chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal sage scrub, Valley and foothill grassland/perennial herb/March-May Not detected during focused surveys conducted at the appropriate time of year.. Moderate potential to occur on- site. Blochman’s dudleya Dudleya blochmaniae spp. blochmaniae FSC/CNPS 1B.1 Coastal bluff scrub, coastal sage scrub, Valley and foothill grassland, rocky, often clay or serpentinite soil/perennial herb/April- June/ Not detected during focused surveys. Low potential to occur on-site. Short-leaved dudleya Dudleya brevifolia FSC/SE/MSCP Covered/CNPS 1B.1 Chaparral, coastal sage scrub, Torrey sandstone/perennial herb/April Not detected during focused surveys. Low potential to occur on-site. APPENDIXE Sensitive Species with the Potential to Occur On-site \\2-Oct-12\SDG E-4 Common Name Scientific Name Sensitivity Status Primary Habitat Associations/Life Form/Blooming Period Potential to Occur or Status On-site Variegated dudleya Dudleya variegata FSC/Covered Narrow Endemic/ CNPS 1B.2 Chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal sage scrub, Valley and foothill grassland, vernal pools/ perennial herb/May-June Not detected during focused surveys conducted at the appropriate time of year. Moderate potential to occur on- site. Palmer’s goldenbush Ericameria palmeri ssp. palmeri FSC/MSCP Covered/CNPS 2.3 Coastal sage scrub/ shrub/September- November Not detected during focused surveys conducted at the appropriate time of year. Moderate potential to occur on- site. Coastal wallflower Erysimum ammophilum FSC/MSCP Covered/CNPS 1B.2 Coastal dunes/perennial herbs/February-June Not detected during focused surveys. Low potential to occur on-site. Cliff spurge Euphorbia misera CNPS 2.2 Coastal bluff scrub, coastal sage scrub, rocky areas/shrub/January- August Not detected during focused surveys. Low potential to occur on-site. coast barrel cactus Ferocactus viridescens var. viridescens FSC/MSCP Covered/CNPS 2.1 Chaparral, coastal sage scrub, Valley and foothill grassland, vernal pools/shrub/May-June Detected during focused surveys. This species is common within the scrub in the southwestern portion of the Project that is MHCP preserve. A few individuals were also found within impact area. Mexican flannelbush Fremontodendron mexicanum FE/SR/CNPS 1B.3 Closed-cone conifer forest, chaparral, cismontane woodland, gabbroic or serpentinite soils/shrub/March-June Not detected during focused surveys. Low potential to occur on-site San Diego gumplant Grindelia hirsutula var. hallii CNPS 1B.2 Chaparral, lower montane conifer forest, meadows and seeps, Valley and foothill grassland/perennial herb/July-October Not detected during focused surveys. Low potential to occur on-site. Palmer’s grapplinghook Harpagonella palmeri CNPS 4.1 Chaparral, coastal sage scrub, Valley and foothill grassland, clays/annual herb/March-April Detected on site APPENDIXE Sensitive Species with the Potential to Occur On-site \\2-Oct-12\SDG E-5 Common Name Scientific Name Sensitivity Status Primary Habitat Associations/Life Form/Blooming Period Potential to Occur or Status On-site Graceful tarplant Holocarpha virgata ssp. elongata FSC/CNPS 4.1 Coastal sage scrub, cismontane woodland, chaparral, Valley and foothill grassland/annual herb/August-November Detected on site. Southwestern spiny rush Juncus acutus ssp. leopoldii CNPS List 4.2 Coastal dunes, meadows and alkaline seeps and coastal salt marshes and swamps/ May- June. Found in all drainages on-site. Short-lobed broom- rape Orobanche parishii ssp. brachyloba CNPS 4.1 Coastal bluff scrub, coastal dunes, coastal sage, scrub, sandy soils/perennial herb/May- August Not detected during focused surveys. Low potential to occur on-site. Brand’s phacelia Phacelia stellaris CNPS 1B.3 Coastal dunes, coastal sage scrub/annual herb/March-June Not detected during focused surveys. Low potential to occur on-site. San Diego mesa mint Pogogyne abramsii FE/SE/MSCP Covered/CNPS 1B.2 Vernal pools/annual herb/April-June Not detected during focused surveys. Low potential to occur on-site due to lack of vernal pools. Otay Mesa mint Pogogyne nudiuscula FE/SE/Covered; CNPS 1B.3 Vernal pools/annual herb/May-June Not detected during focused surveys. Low potential to occur on-site. Nuttall’s scrub oak Quercus dumosa FSC/CNPS 1B.2 Chaparral, coastal sage scrub, sandy and clay loam soils/shrub/February- March Not detected during focused surveys. Low potential to occur on-site. Engelmann oak Quercus engelmannii CNPS 4.1 Chaparral, cismontane woodland, riparian woodland, Valley and foothill grassland/tree/April-May Not detected during focused surveys. Low potential to occur on-site. Small-leaved rose Rosa minutifolia FSC/SE/MSCP Covered; CNPS 2.3 Chaparral/shrub/January- June Not detected during focused surveys. Low potential to occur on-site. APPENDIXE Sensitive Species with the Potential to Occur On-site \\2-Oct-12\SDG E-6 Common Name Scientific Name Sensitivity Status Primary Habitat Associations/Life Form/Blooming Period Potential to Occur or Status On-site Munz’s sage Salvia munzii CNPS 2.2 Chaparral, coastal sage scrub/shrub/February- April Not detected during focused surveys conducted at the appropriate time of year.. Moderate potential to occur on- site. San Miguel savory Satureja chandleri CNPS 1B.2 Chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal, sage scrub, riparian woodland, Valley and foothill grassland/perennial herb/March-May Not detected during focused surveys. Low potential to occur on-site. Invertebrates Quino checkerspot butterfly Euphydryas editha quino FE/MSCP covered Open coastal sage scrub, chaparral and grasslands Not detected during 2009 or 2010 focused surveys. Reptiles Orange-throated whiptail Aspidocellis (Cnemidophorus) hyperythrus beldingi SSC/MSCP Covered Open coastal sage scrub, chaparral and often in brushy patches on stream terraces and other sandy areas. Detected on site. Coastal rosy boa Charina [Lichanura] trivirgata roseofusca SSC Coastal sage scrub and chaparral and drainages Not detected, but suitable habitat is present at base of canyons. San Diego horned lizard Phrynosoma coronatum blainvillei SSC/MSCP Covered Openings in coastal sage scrub and chaparral with sandy, friable soils Not detected on-site, but suitable habitat is present within the undisturbed portions of the site; moderate potential to occur on site Birds Golden eagle Aquila chrysaetos SSC/MSCP Covered Open grasslands, usually in mountainous areas away from people Not detected on site. Site does not support suitable habitat for nesting, but does provide foraging habitat. Grasshopper sparrow Ammodramus savannarum SSC Grasslands and open CSS Detected on-site So. California rufous- crowned sparrow Aimophila ruficeps canescens CDFG watch list/MSCP Covered Coastal sage scrub and chaparral – typically with prominent rock outcrops Detected on-site. APPENDIXE Sensitive Species with the Potential to Occur On-site \\2-Oct-12\SDG E-7 Common Name Scientific Name Sensitivity Status Primary Habitat Associations/Life Form/Blooming Period Potential to Occur or Status On-site Ferruginous hawk Buteo regalis SSC Arid grasslands, treeless areas Not detected on-site, site does not support suitable habitat for nesting, but there is a moderate potential for foraging to occur, during migration. Swainson’s hawk Buteo swainsonii CT/MSCP Covered Open grasslands, agricultural land Not detected on-site, but known from the Otay River Valley and mesas immediately east of Project, during migration. Coastal cactus wren Campylorhnchus brunneicapillus couesi SSC/MSCP Covered Cactus patches in coastal sage scrub/chaparral Detected several hundred feet from southwestern site corner outside of the site boundary during surveys in cactus patches. Sighting location occurs within MSCP open space west of the project. Least Bell’s Vireo Vireo bellii pusillus FE/CE/MSCP Covered Riparian Scrub and Woodlands Not detected in the immediate vicinity, but is known to occur within the Otay River floodplain. Mulefat scrub habitat potentially used by this species Southwestern willow flycatcher Empidonax trailli extimus FE/CE/MSCP Covered Riparian thickets, woodlands and forests Not detected within the Project area. No suitable habitat is present. American peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus anatum CE/MSCP Covered Open grasslands, agricultural fields especially near water Not detected within the Project area. Not expected to nest, but low potential for foraging to occur. Northern harrier Circus cyaneus SSC/MSCP Covered Marshes, agricultural fields, grasslands Detected on-site, and known from the Otay River Valley and mesas immediately east and west of Project, Potential nesting habitat is present if agricultural land is fallowed. Coastal California gnatcatcher Polioptila californica californica FT/MSCP Covered Coastal sage scrub, occasional in chaparral Detected on-site. There is one territory within the Project that is within the MSCP lands. Burrowing owl Athene cunicularia SSC/MSCP Covered Open grasslands, agricultural fields Detected within MSCP area in SW corner of Project. One APPENDIXE Sensitive Species with the Potential to Occur On-site \\2-Oct-12\SDG E-8 Common Name Scientific Name Sensitivity Status Primary Habitat Associations/Life Form/Blooming Period Potential to Occur or Status On-site burrow was detected within the impact area. Tri-colored blackbird Agelaius tricolor SSC/MSCP Covered Freshwater marsh for breeding; grasslands and agriculture for foraging Not detected during recent surveys. No suitable breeding habitat occurs on-site although the species may utilize the site for foraging. Mammals Pacific pocket mouse Perognathus longimembris pacificus- FE/SSC Fine or sandy soils with sparse coastal sage scrub or disturbed grassland Not encountered. Outside of known range and appropriate soil type do not occur on-site. Suitable habitat is present. Northwestern San Diego pocket mouse Chaetodipus fallax SSC Coastal sage scrub and chaparral Not encountered. Presumed to occur in coastal sage scrub and maritime succulent scrub. Suitable habitat is present. Dulzura California pocket mouse Chaetodipus californicus femoralis SSC Coastal sage scrub and chaparral Not encountered. Presumed to occur in coastal sage scrub and maritime succulent scrub. Suitable habitat is present. San Diego desert woodrat Neotoma lepida intermedia SSC Coastal sage scrub and chaparral Not encountered. Presumed to occur in coastal sage scrub and maritime succulent scrub. Suitable habitat is present. San Diego black- tailed jackrabbit Lepus californicus bennettii SSC Coastal sage scrub, grassland Detected; known to be relatively common in the area. Status: Federal Endangered (FE) Federal Threatened (FT)Federal Species of Concern (FSC) State Endangered (SE) State Threatened (ST) State Species of Special Concern (SSC) State Fully Protected (SFP) California Native Plant Society listed (CNPS). CNPS Lists: List 1A Plants Presumed Extinct in California List 1B Plants Rare, Threatened or Endangered in California and Elsewhere List 2 Plants Rare, Threatened, or Endangered in California, But More Common Elsewhere List 3 Plants About Which We Need More Information, A Review List List 4 Plants of Limited Distribution, A Watch List List is follwed by threat code (e.g. CNPS List 1B.2) .1 - Seriously endangered in California (over 80% of occurrences threatened / high degree and immediacy of threat) .2 – Fairly endangered in California (20-80% occurrences threatened) .3 – Not very endangered in California (<20% of occurrences threatened) APPENDIXF Site Photographs \\2-Oct-12\SDG APPENDIXF Site Photographs \\2-Oct-12\SD F-1 Photograph # 1 May 28, 2008 Overall view of Village 8 West standing along the southwestern border facing SR125 bridge crossing the Otay River to the southeast. Photograph # 2 May 28, 2008 A portion of historic coastal sage scrub was tilled in the southwestern portion of the Project. The area is now dominated by non- natives and weedy species, such as Russian thistle (Salsola tragus), black mustard (Brassica nigra), and slender wild oat (Avena barbata). APPENDIXF Site Photographs \\2-Oct-12\SD F-2 Photograph # 3 May 28, 2008 Overall view of the graded areas on the east facing slopes. Photograph # 4 June 18, 2008 San Diego sunflower (Viguiera laciniata) makes up a significant proportion (up to 20%) of cover in nondisturbed coastal sage scrub; the amount of cover depends upon local site factors and levels of disturbance. APPENDIXF Site Photographs \\2-Oct-12\SD F-3 Photograph # 5 July 31, 2008 As stated above, San Diego sunflower is prominent in coastal sage scrub habitat. Note the change in appearance of the sunflower later in the blooming season. The blooming season of this species occurs from February-June. Photograph # 6 June 9, 2008 An adult male California gnatcatcher, a federally threatened species, occupying portions of the coastal sage scrub within the southwest portion of the site. Multiple sightings of this individual were made during several site visits. APPENDIXF Site Photographs \\2-Oct-12\SD F-4 Photograph # 7 June 27, 2008 Overall view of the disturbed coastal sage scrub throughout the channel on the east side of the Project. A large culvert exists at the northern limit of the disturbed coastal sage scrub. Note that the channel is surrounded by active and extensive agriculture fields. Photograph # 8 June 18, 2008 View of a cement culvert that is located in the eastern drainage. Disturbed coastal sage scrub continues from this point on into a southerly direction. APPENDIXF Site Photographs \\2-Oct-12\SD F-5 Photograph # 9 June 18, 2008 Southeastern corner of the site showing a drainage with highly disturbed coastal sage scrub along the banks. Southwestern spike rushes (Juncus acutus ssp. leopoldii, CNPS list 4.2) are interspersed throughout the middle of the drainage, as indicated by the arrows. Photograph # 10 June 16, 2008 Southwestern spike rush is found in all 3 of the major drainages on Village 8 West. They are typically found in/along waterways, but a few individuals were interspersed throughout the hillsides of the coastal sage scrub. APPENDIXF Site Photographs \\2-Oct-12\SD F-6 Photograph # 11 June 18, 2008 A patch of maritime succulent scrub exists on the far northwestern-most corner of the Project; this region is dominated by a high proportion of succulent taxa, Photograph # 12 June 18, 2008 Close-up of coast barrel cactus. This species is frequently found in dense clusters that form between rock crevices with an open slope. Fishhook cactuses (Mammillaria dioica) are seen at lower right (arrow). APPENDIXF Site Photographs \\2-Oct-12\SD F-7 Photograph # 13 July 31, 2008 A waters delineation pit that was dug in the freshwater marsh located in the northwestern portion of the Project. In order to meet the definition of a wetland, 3 parameters must be met. All wetland parameters are met at this location. Photograph # 14 July 31, 2008 Cattail (Typha latifolia) is an example of wetland vegetation. Hydric soils and hydrology are also present. APPENDIXF Site Photographs \\2-Oct-12\SD F-8 Photograph # 15 July 31, 2008 An upland pit that was dug in close proximity to the wetland. This specific location was chosen to delineate the boundary of the wetland. Note the absence of all wetland indicators: hydrology, hydric soils, and wetland vegetation. Photograph # 16 July 31, 2008 View of a cement culvert and rip-rap that is located in the northeastern corner of Village 8 West. Run-off from nearby development accumulates here and travels in a southwesterly direction. APPENDIXF Site Photographs \\2-Oct-12\SD F-9 Photograph # 17 July 31, 2008 A wetland pit that was dug in the drainage near the culvert in photograph # 16. Note the relatively bare ground cover and lack of hydrology within the area. Photograph # 18 July 31, 2008 View of the vegetation present along the northern drainage. This photograph was taken approximately 100 feet from the culvert in photograph # 16. APPENDIXF Site Photographs \\2-Oct-12\SD F-10 Photograph # 19 July 31, 2008 View of vegetation present along the northern drainage. This photograph was taken approximately 350 feet from the culvert in photograph # 16. Note the prevalence of weedy species as the distance from the culvert increases. Photograph # 20 February 27, 2009 Burrowing owl burrow located in the southwestern corner of Village 8 West within planned MSCP conservation area. APPENDIXG Invasive and Non-invasive Plant Species Lists for Village 8 West \\2-Oct-12\SD