Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2016/05/17 Agenda Packet
[dalare wder pemlry of perjury t6at I am employed by t6e Ciry of Chula Ysta in the office of the Ciry Clerk aod thu[posted the documrnt acording to Brown Aa requitanenu. Dated:'� j6 Si�ds � / � ;� CHULA VLSTA /� t�����iC� / � � Mary Casillas Salas, Mayor Patricia Aguilar, Councilmember Gary HalbeR. City Manager Pamela Bensoussan, Councilmember Glen R. Googins, City Attomey John McCann. Councilmember ponna R. Norris, City Clerk Steve Miesen. Councilmember Tuesday, May 17, 2016 5:00 PM Council Chambers 276 4th Avenue, Building A Chula Vista, CA 91910 REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL: Councilmembers Aguilar, Bensoussan. McCann, Miesen and Mayor Casillas Salas PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG AND MOMENT OF SILENCE SPECIAL ORDERS OF THE DAY A. 16-017� PRESENTATION BY DEL MAR FAIRGROUND MARKETING REPRESENTATIVE MONICA EMANUELE REGARDING THE 2016 SAN DIEGO COUNTY FAIR B. 16-0258 PRESENTATION OF A PROCLAMATION TO BRUCE BELLO, WINNER OF THE GATES MILLENNIUM SCHOLARSHIP C. 16-0235 PRESENTATION BY LIBRARY DIRECTOR BETTY WAZNIS AND SAN DIEGO LAW LIBRARY DIRECTOR JOHN ADKINS, HIGHLIGHTING THE NEW COOPERATIVE LEGAL REFERENCE SERVICE AT THE CIVIC CENTER BRANCH LIBRARY Ciry o/Ch W YuY P�W/ RfnfW on S^17/lOfe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`!$#! 1W.$ 1V:!<(*`$*5#* /V$/-!*51!T( 1-($/-'!*51! +*$6$* ! W. %$T$1#!T( ! /!>X10U*$(/!U. #. /*!*(!&1+*$(/!JOIKJ\\2\]\\R\]!(T!*51! " %$T( /$ !>/6$ (/01/* %!S. %$* !,+*!&* *1!7.$V1%$/1#: "(./+$%!U% +1!*51!( V$/ /+1!(/!T$ #*! 1 V$/-: !6% ((!7 8'99 /0 %$'/: #$%&!'(!#)*+ !,$-% !3! .$/% 0!'/!12"3234"5 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 2 !" #&.0 '+,-./(@(!";5 "4<;6 7O JKLIIOH9>&ACE?@A<!AD!?8>!"@?B!"AE<"@C!AD!?8>!"@?B!AD! JKLIIOH "8EC,!G@&?,!,"">)?@<7!3@;&_!,N,9;@<7!,! "A<?9,"?!DA9!?8>!Z&>N>9! ,<8AC>! 9>8,3@C@?,?@A<!)9A4>"?'!D@&",C!B>,9!HIJRaHIJY!,?! G,9@AE&!CA",?@A<&!\\"@)b!&NHPR\]!,<;!&>N>9! ,<8AC>!9>8,3@C@?,?@A<!)9A4>"?'!D@&",C!B>,9! HIJYaHIJO!,?!G,9@AE&!CA",?@A<&!\\"@)b!&NHPc\]\[! )9A4>"?!?A!&A",C!),"@D@"!"A<&?9E"?@A<!"A9):! @<!?8>!, AE<?!AD!dYRJ'IcK_!N,@G@<7!"@?B!"AE<"@C! )AC@"B!<A:!OMYLIJ_!,<;!,E?8A9@Q@<7!?8>!;@9>"?A9! AD!)E3C@"!NA9F&!?A!>e>"E?>!,CC!"8,<7>! A9;>9& ).2%$+!N( =#!;1U *01/* !; < .%9 /%: ?51!) (^1+*!W. %$T$1#!T( ! !"% ##!J!" *1-( $+ %!>X10U*$(/!U. #. /*!*(! !=/>$.'/9 /% +!?'%$8 : &1+*$(/!JORIJ!\\>X$#*$/-!D +$%$*$1#\]!(T!*51!" %$T( /$ !>/6$ (/01/* %! S. %$* !,+*!&* *1!7.$V1%$/1#: "(./+$%! V(U*!*51! 1#(%.*$(/: !6% ((!7 8'99 /0 %$'/: =O JKLIJRM9>&ACE?@A<!AD!?8>!"@?B!"AE<"@C!AD!?8>!"@?B!AD! JKLIJRM "8EC,!G@&?,!,"">)?@<7!3@;&!,<;!,N,9;@<7!,! "A<?9,"?!DA9!?8>!f),G> ><?! ,4A9! 9>8,3@C@?,?@A<!DBJYaJO!g!DBJOaJK!\\&? RPR!g!&? RPM\]! ,<;!&>N>9!,"">&&!9A,;!9>8,3@C@?,?@A<!DBJHaJR! \\&NHMM\]f!)9A4>"?!?A!,?)!7><>9,C!><7@<>>9@<7! "A<?9,"?A9&!@<!?8>!, AE<?!AD!dR'cOI'JMJ:OI_! N,@G@<7!"@?B!"AE<"@C!)AC@"B!<A:!OMYLIJ_! ,E?8A9@Q@<7!?8>!>e)><;@?E9>!AD!,CC!,G,@C,3C>! "A<?@<7><"B!DE<;&!<A?!?A!>e">>;!dOcH'OHO:MR_! ,<;!,))9A)9@,?@<7!dYK'IOI!D9A !?8>!,G,@C,3C>! 3,C,<">!AD!?8>!)9A)A&@?@A<!J3!8@78N,B!&,D>?B! DE<;!?A!&? RPR!\\YaO!GA?>!9>SE@9>;\] ).2%$+!N( =#!;1U *01/* !; < .%9 /%: ?51!) (^1+*!W. %$T$1#!T( ! !"% ##!J!" *1-( $+ %!>X10U*$(/!U. #. /*!*(! !=/>$.'/9 /% +!?'%$8 : &1+*$(/!JORIJ!\\>X$#*$/-!D +$%$*$1#\]!(T!*51!" %$T( /$ !>/6$ (/01/* %! S. %$* !,+*!&* *1!7.$V1%$/1#: "(./+$%! V(U*!*51! 1#(%.*$(/: !6% ((!7 8'99 /0 %$'/: #$%&!'(!#)*+ !,$-% !@! .$/% 0!'/!12"3234"5 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤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`!$#! 1W.$ 1V: "(./+$%! V(U*!*51! 1#(%.*$(/: !6% ((!7 8'99 /0 %$'/: 9>&ACE?@A<!AD!?8>!"@?B!"AE<"@C!AD!?8>!"@?B!AD! TO JKLIJOI JKLIJOI "8EC,!G@&?,!,"">)?@<7!,!79,<?!AD!dH'OOI!D9A ! ?8>!",C@DA9<@,!&?,?>!C@39,9B!?A!DE<;!?8>! ZG>?>9,<&!"A<<>"?!h!?8>!C@39,9B\[!)9A4>"?!,?! ?8>!"8EC,!G@&?,!)E3C@"!C@39,9B!,<;! ,))9A)9@,?@<7!?8@&!, AE<?!?A!?8>!C@39,9Bi&! &E))C@>&!,<;!&>9G@">&!3E;7>?!\\YaO!GA?>! 9>SE@9>;\] C$2 !;1U *01/* !; < .%9 /%: ?51! +*$6$* !$#!/(*! !ZU (^1+*\[! #!V1T$/1V!./V1 !&1+*$(/!JORMP!(T!*51! !=/>$.'/9 /% +!?'%$8 : " %$T( /$ !>/6$ (/01/* %!S. %$* !,+*!&* *1!7.$V1%$/1#_!*51 1T( 1'! U. #. /*!*(!&* *1!7.$V1%$/1#!&1+*$(/!JOIKI!\\+\]\\R\]!/(!1/6$ (/01/* %! 16$1`!$#! 1W.$ 1V:! "(./+$%! V(U*!*51! 1#(%.*$(/: !6% ((!7 8'99 /0 %$'/: #$%&!'(!#)*+ !,$-% !A! .$/% 0!'/!12"3234"5 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 4 !" #&.0 '+,-./(@(!";5 "4<;6 :O JOLIKPJ9>&ACE?@A<!AD!?8>!"@?B!"AE<"@C!AD!?8>!"@?B!AD! JOLIKPJ "8EC,!G@&?,!,;A)?@<7! @?@7,?>;!<>7,?@G>! ;>"C,9,?@A<!\\@&LJOLIIK\]!,<;!,))9AG@<7!,! N>?C,<;!9>&?A9,?@A<!,79>> ><?!3>?N>><! 8A >D>;!"A9)A9,?@A<!,<;!?8>!"@?B!AD!"8EC,! G@&?,'!,<;!,E?8A9@Q@<7!?8>! ,BA9!?A!>e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`!$#! 1W.$ 1V: ,UU (61!*51!V161%(U01/*!(T! !T./V$/-!01 #. 1!*(!21!U% +1V!(/!*51! !6% ((!7 8'99 /0 %$'/: <(61021 !HIJK!2 %%(*! /V!V$ 1+*!#* TT!*(!U 1U 1!*51!2 %%(*!% /-. -1'! /V! %%!(*51 !/1+1## !V(+.01/* *$(/!T( ! 16$1`! /V! UU (6 %!2 ! *51!"$* !"(./+$%: #$%&!'(!#)*+ !,$-% !1! .$/% 0!'/!12"3234"5 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤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ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 6 City of Chula Vista Staff Report File#:16-0176, Item#: A. PRESENTATIONBYDELMARFAIRGROUNDMARKETINGREPRESENTATIVEMONICA EMANUELE REGARDING THE 2016 SAN DIEGO COUNTY FAIR City of Chula VistaPage 1 of 1Printed on 5/12/2016 powered by Legistar™ ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 7 City of Chula Vista Staff Report File#:16-0258, Item#: B. PRESENTATIONOFAPROCLAMATIONTOBRUCEBELLO,WINNEROFTHEGATES MILLENNIUM SCHOLARSHIP City of Chula VistaPage 1 of 1Printed on 5/12/2016 powered by Legistar™ ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 8 City of Chula Vista Staff Report File#:16-0235, Item#: C. PRESENTATIONBYLIBRARYDIRECTORBETTYWAZNISANDSANDIEGOLAWLIBRARY DIRECTORJOHNADKINS,HIGHLIGHTINGTHENEWCOOPERATIVELEGALREFERENCE SERVICE AT THE CIVIC CENTER BRANCH LIBRARY City of Chula VistaPage 1 of 1Printed on 5/12/2016 powered by Legistar™ ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 9 City of Chula Vista Staff Report File#:16-0256, Item#: D. PRESENTATIONOFAPROCLAMATIONTOCROWNCOVEAQUATICCENTERLIAISON DIRECTORPATRICEMILKOVICHINMATEEDUCATIONSOUTHWESTERNCOMMUNITY COLLEGE,ANDRECREATIONDIRECTORKRISTIMCCLUREHUCKABYPROCLAIMINGMAY21 -27, 2016 AS NATIONAL SAFE BOATING WEEK IN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA City of Chula VistaPage 1 of 1Printed on 5/12/2016 powered by Legistar™ ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 10 Crown Cove Open House & Expo Life Jacket Giveaway begins at 11:30am Youth MUST BE PRESENT; Limit 2 per family Kayak, Stand-up Paddleboard (SUP), Sailing & Outrigger Canoe Activity Boating & Life-Jacket Safety Info Entertainment, Youth Arts & Crafts Food & Beverage Concessions CCAC Partner Opportunity Drawing ~ Great Prizes -- ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 11 City of Chula Vista Staff Report File#:16-0261, Item#: E. PRESENTATIONOFAPROCLAMATIONPROCLAIMINGMAY15-21,2016ASNATIONALPUBLIC WORKS WEEK IN THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA City of Chula VistaPage 1 of 1Printed on 5/12/2016 powered by Legistar™ ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 12 City of Chula Vista Staff Report File#:16-0262, Item#: 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES of May 10, 2016. RECOMMENDED ACTION Council approve the minutes. City of Chula VistaPage 1 of 1Printed on 5/12/2016 powered by Legistar™ ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤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ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤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ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤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ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤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ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 17 !" #&-6 '+,, -."+ -& ,*"/"01($ +(!"B4 "94B; = CIKJ3I ,7"B43 H(8()* "#+',(-% . ..+ (+ 4( +."##+.(5+#+. N,*3 9((( J#3 6(8(3"%.% =8* ( -3 ICE+O"DE+K)E0"LDK+"CME" KJOEJC" =HEJ0=D 67896WH)R<=5ACF?@A>(>AR(:96789X:(AB(?G=( @?I( AF> @C(AB(?G=( AP @?I(AB( GFC)(D@5?)();;<AD@>E_()>()3=>/3=>?(?A()( A>?<) ?(N@?G(IE<=>=(=>=<EI(BF>/( )C@BA<>@),(CC ( U`IE<=>=aV(<=E)</@>E(?G=()/3@>@5?<)?@A>(AB(?G=( @?Ib5( C=)>(=>=<EI( GFC)(D@5?)(;<A;=<?I8)55=55=/( C=)>( =>=<EI(B@>)> @>E(;<AE<)3\]()>/()>(@>/=3>@B@ )?@A>()>/( @>5F<)> =()E<==3=>?(N@?G(IE<=>= -R<=5ACF?@A>(>AR(:96789XH(AB(?G=( @?I( AF> @C(AB(?G=( @?I(AB( GFC)(D@5?)( A>5=>?@>E(?A(@> CF5@A>(AB( ;<A;=<?@=5(N@?G@>(?G=( @?Ic5(OF<@5/@ ?@A>(@>(?G=( )C@BA<>@)(GA3=(B@>)> =()F?GA<@?I( A33F>@?I(B) @C@?@=5( /@5?<@ ?(>AR(:96J86(U C=)>(=>=<EIV(?A(B@>)> =(<=>=N)-C=( =>=<EI(@3;<AD=3=>?5,(=>=<EI(=BB@ @=> I()>/(N)?=<( A>5=<D)?@A>(@3;<AD=3=>?5()>/(=C= ?<@ (D=G@ C=( G)<E@>E(@>B<)5?<F ?F<=()>/();;<AD@>E()55A @)?=( 3=3-=<5G@;(@>(?G=(OA@>?(=Z=< @5=(AB(;AN=<5()F?GA<@?I( <=C)?=/(?G=<=?A( R<=5ACF?@A>(>AR(:96789XJ(AB(?G=( @?I( AF> @C(AB(?G=( @?I(AB( GFC)(D@5?)( A>5=>?@>E(?A(@> CF5@A>(AB( ;<A;=<?@=5(N@?G@>(?G=( @?Ic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ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 18 !" #&-6 '+,, -."+ -& ,*"/"01($ +(!"B4 "94B; 5G?HI " K++EJCO K-!&! 3!&! *+*!: 5G?HI "ME=DIJFO 678969J A>5@/=<)?@A>(AB()3=>/@>E( G);?=<(6W(AB(?G=( @?Ic5( B9P 3)5?=<(B==(5 G=/FC= <=5ACF?@A>(>AR(:96789XX(AB(?G=( @?I( AF> @C(AB(?G=( @?I( AB( GFC)(D@5?)()3=>/@>E( G);?=<(6W(U3A-@C=GA3=5V(AB( ?G=( @?Ic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c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ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤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�(#&! *!!42= %2 3!$$ %2 9#<$)0 +#(&!%0- ;!!()*"2 &!"%&4)*" (-! .)(/ 2 <#4"!(: +=NKDYO"DE5KDCO '%/+& .%2)$$%2 J%$%2 &!9+&(!4 +* % &!0!*( (&)9 2-! (++F (+ J%0&%;!*(+ 3)(- (-! \[!%"#! +, .%$),+&*)% .)()!2 (+ $+<</ +* <!-%$, +, (-! .)(/ ,+& (&%*29+&(%()+* <)$$2 (-%( 3+#$4 2#99+&( (-! .)(/ 2 )*,&%2(�(#&! *!!42: J-! %$2+ 29+F! 3)(- $!")2$%(+&2 &!"%&4)*" (-! .)(/ 2 9$%*2 ,+& % #*)C!&2)(/: '%/+& .%2)$$%2 J%$%2 29+F! &!"%&4)*" (-! ,+$$+3)*" &!0!*( !C!*(26 G)"-( (+ !;!;<!& 9&+;= D+$)0! I!9%&(;!*( K!!* 0%4!;/ "&%4#%()+*= D+$)0! I!9%&(;!*( 3%&42 %*4 !0+"*)()+* 0!&!;+*/= 1!(!&%* 2 >+;! %**#%$ E+$, .$%22)0= D+&( K!*%*( 2 4)**!&= %*4 .-#$% 1)2(% .+;;#*)(/ \[!%&*)*" .!*(!& 2 \\*)C!&2)(/ .+;;)(;!*( 0!&!;+*/: KGJ IH+E+?EDOY" K++EJCO .+#*0)$;!;<!& H!*2+#22%* 29+F! &!"%&4)*" (-! .)(/ 2 ,)&2( 0&%,( <!!& ,!2()C%$= ;92 %*4 $!2: .+#*0)$;!;<!& "#)$%& 29+F! &!"%&4)*" &!0!*( &<+& I%/ !C!*(2: '%/+& .%2)$$%2 J%$%2 9%)4 (&)<#(! (+ '%&(-% P!%* \]K!&&/\] J(%*0Q%F %*4 2(%(!4 (-! ;!!()*" 3+#$4 <! %4R+#&*!4 )* -!& ;!;+&/: .)(/ ((+&*!/ E++")*2 %**+#*0!4 (-%( (-! .+#*0)$ 3+#$4 0+*C!*! )* 0$+2!4 2!22)+* (+ 4)20#22 (-! )(!;2 $)2(!4 <!$+3: ( A6UT 9:;:= (-! .+#*0)$ 0+*C!*!4 )* .$+2!4 J!22)+*= 3)(- .+#*0)$;!;<!&2 "#)$%&= H!*2+#22%*= ')!2!*= %*4 '%/+& .%2)$$%2 J%$%2 9&!2!*(: HKOE0"OEOOIKJ ; '. + 1(1 (<%. # 1" (> R(6HX97(+ 4( !"#(; #"!2(> R(HJ789H,(AQQ"!"+#(3" 1%.(+ 4( '%! '4.( Q(+!1" (1+d% (4 '" *( # .%4(5%.." .(+'%($+" 1+" %4(&2(1T%( "12()11 ' %2R #$%&!'(!#)*+ !,$-% !3 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 20 !" #&-6 '+,, -."+ -& ,*"/"01($ +(!"B4 "94B; 6789:H: A>B=<=> =(N@?G(C=E)C( AF>5=C(<=E)</@>E(=Z@5?@>E( B<P C@?@E)?@A>(;F<5F)>?(?A(EAD=<>3=>?( A/=(5= ?@A>( KJPK7RP(U4VU6V >+$%( Q(!+.%_ L+1T%'" %(N% '"!T(eR( "12( Q( T #+(D".1+,(%1(+#R,(5+ (/"%* (5 0%'" '( '1,( +.%(> R(HX8:96J8999HX99X8 F8;)8 ?C = CIKJ3J#"1,S#1 (8',"(6 #-P =0ZKGDJ+EJC ( A6^7 9:;:= '%/+& .%2)$$%2 J%$%2 %4R+#&*!4 (-! ;!!()*" (+ (-! !"#$%& .)(/ .+#*0)$ '!!()*" +* '%/ U@= ?7UA= %( 5677 9:;:= )* (-! .+#*0)$ .-%;<!&2: fffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff L%''2(LR(-"*%# g,()..".1+ 1( "12( #%'d #$%&!'(!#)*+ !,$-% !4 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 21 City of Chula Vista Staff Report File#:16-0260, Item#: 2. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS Memorandum from Councilmember McCann requesting an excused absence from the May 3, and 10, 2016 City Council meetings. RECOMMENDED ACTION Council excuse the absences. City of Chula VistaPage 1 of 1Printed on 5/12/2016 powered by Legistar™ ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 22 MEMO __________________________________________________________ Office of John McCann Council : Mayor Salas, Deputy Mayor Miesen, Councilmember Aguilar, Councilmember Bensoussan : John McCann, Councilmember : McCann Absence from May 10 City Council Meeting Mayor Salas, Deputy Mayor Miesen and Councilmembers: rd Please excuse my absence from the City Council meetings on Tuesday May 3 and th May 10. As you know, I underwent emergency surgery last week and am still th recovering. I will be unable to attend the meeting on the 10. If you could put an excused absence on the agenda for health issues at the next meeting I would appreciate it. Should you need anything fr om me or my staff, please contact Melissa Martin at mmartin@chulavistaca.gov or 210-380-3407 (cell). Yours in Service, John McCann Councilmember p.p. Melissa L. Martin Council Aide ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 23 City of Chula Vista Staff Report File#:15-0471, Item#: 3. ORDINANCEOFTHECITYOFCHULAVISTAAMENDINGSECTION15.04.018OFTHECHULA VISTAMUNICIPALCODERELATINGTO“ADDITIONALPLANNING,DESIGN,CONSTRUCTION, ANDPOSTCONSTRUCTIONREQUIREMENTSFORALLLANDDEVELOPMENTAND REDEVELOPMENT PROJECTS”(FIRST READING) RECOMMENDED ACTION Council place the ordinance on first reading. SUMMARY TheproposedamendmenttoMunicipalCode(CVMC)Section15.04.018relatingto“Additional planning,design,constructionandpostconstructionrequirementsforalllanddevelopmentand redevelopmentprojects”willprovideconsistencywithpreviouslyamendedCVMCChapter14.20and willincorporate,byreference;theCityofChulaVistaBestManagementPracticeDesignManual “BMPDesignManualDecember2015”approvedbyCouncilonJanuary12,2016,ResolutionNo. 2016-003. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Environmental Notice Theactivityisnota“Project”asdefinedunderSection15378oftheCaliforniaEnvironmentalQuality ActStateGuidelines;therefore,pursuanttoStateGuidelinesSection15060(c)(3)noenvironmental reviewisrequired.Notwithstandingtheforegoing,theactivityqualifiesforanExemptionpursuantto Section 15061(b)(3) of the California Environmental Quality Act State Guidelines. Environmental Determination TheproposedactivityhasbeenreviewedforcompliancewiththeCaliforniaEnvironmentalQuality Act(CEQA)andithasbeendeterminedthattheactivityisnota“Project”asdefinedunderSection 15378ofthestateCEQAGuidelinesbecauseitwillnotresultinaphysicalchangeinthe environment;therefore,pursuanttoSection15060(c)(3)oftheStateCEQAGuidelines,theactivityis notsubjecttotheCEQA.Notwithstandingtheforegoingithasalsobeendeterminedthatthereisno possibilitythattheactivitymayhaveasignificanteffectontheenvironment;therefore,pursuantto Section15061(b)(3)oftheStateCEQAGuidelines,theactivityisnotsubjecttotheCEQA.Thus,no environmental review is required. BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Not Applicable DISCUSSION OnMay08,2013,theSanDiegoRegionalWaterQualityControlBoard(RegionalBoard)adopted City of Chula VistaPage 1 of 3Printed on 5/12/2016 powered by Legistar™ ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 24 File#:15-0471, Item#: 3. OrderNo.R9-2013-0001(MunicipalPermit).TheMunicipalPermitregulatesdischargestostorm drainsystemswithin18municipalitiesinSanDiegoCounty,theCountyofSanDiego,theSanDiego CountyRegionalAirportAuthority,andtheSanDiegoUnifiedPortDistrict,aswellas13 CopermitteesinOrangeCountyand5CopermitteesinRiversideCounty(collectivelyreferredtoas “Copermittees”). OnJune16,2015,CityCouncilapprovedanamendmenttotheChulaVistaMunicipalCode(CVMC) Chapter14.20tobringtheCodeintocompliancewiththeMunicipalPermit.Theproposed amendmenttoCVMCSection15.04.018relatingto“Additionalplanning,design,constructionand postconstructionrequirementsforalllanddevelopmentandredevelopmentprojects”willprovide consistency with the previous Chapter 14.20 Ordinance amendment. Furthermore,theproposedamendmenttoCVMCSection15.04.018wouldincorporatebyreference theCityofChulaVistaBestManagementPracticeDesignManual“BMPDesignManualDecember 2015”approvedbyCouncilonJanuary12,2016.TheManualestablishesnewrequirementsand guidelinesfordevelopmentandredevelopmentprojectsintheCityofChulaVistatocomplywiththe City’sstormwaterandnon-stormwaterrequirementsonnewdevelopmentandredevelopment projects, during both the construction and post-construction phases of projects. The proposed actions would place the CVMC Section 15.04.018 amendment on first reading. DECISION-MAKER CONFLICT Staffhasreviewedthedecisioncontemplatedbythisactionandhasdeterminedthatitisnotsite- specificandconsequently,the500-footrulefoundinCaliforniaCodeofRegulationsTitle2,section 18702.2(a)(11),isnotapplicabletothisdecisionforpurposesofdeterminingadisqualifyingreal property-relatedfinancialconflictofinterestunderthePoliticalReformAct(Cal.Gov'tCode§87100, et seq.). Staffisnotindependentlyaware,andhasnotbeeninformedbyanyCityCouncilmember,ofany other fact that may constitute a basis for a decision maker conflict of interest in this matter. LINK TO STRATEGIC GOALS TheCity’sStrategicPlanhasfivemajorgoals:OperationalExcellence,EconomicVitality,Healthy Community,StrongandSecureNeighborhoodsandaConnectedCommunity.AmendingCVMC Section15.04.018supportsOperationalExcellenceasitallowstheCitytoimprovethewaterquality throughreducingandprohibitingstormwaterandnon-stormdischargesofpollutantstoitsmunicipal separatestormsewersystem(MS4)receivingwaterswithintheSanDiegoBayWatershed Management Area CURRENT YEAR FISCAL IMPACT UpdatingtheCityofChulaVistaBMPDesignManualisaMS4Permitrequirement,whichinitselfwill nothavefiscalimpactsontheCity.TheCity’scostsforcompliancewiththeMS4PermitinFiscal Year2015-2016havebeenincludedinthePublicWorksbudgetforFiscalYear2015-2016. Therefore, no appropriation is required. ONGOING FISCAL IMPACT City of Chula VistaPage 2 of 3Printed on 5/12/2016 powered by Legistar™ ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 25 File#:15-0471, Item#: 3. TherequestedactionbyitselfwillnotresultinanyongoingfiscalimpacttotheCity.However, compliancewiththeMunicipalPermitdemandsongoingprogramexpenditures.Basedon experience,witheachre-issuanceoftheMunicipalPermit,morestringentandcostlyrequirements can be expected. Projectsubmittalreviewsandinspectionservicesrelatingtodevelopmentprojectsarechargeableto projectdeveloperdepositaccounts.FundsrequiredtocoverBMPDesignManualupdatescostsfor eachadditionalyearwillbeprogrammedaspartoftheCity’sPublicWorksbudgetforthatFiscal Year as part of the normal budget process. ATTACHMENTS (1)Proposed amendments to CVMC Section 15.04.018 StaffContact:BoushraSalemP.E.,SeniorCivilEngineer(DepartmentofPublicWorksEngineering- Stormwater Management Section) City of Chula VistaPage 3 of 3Printed on 5/12/2016 powered by Legistar™ ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 26 ATTACHMENT 1 15.04.018Additional planning, design, construction, and post- construction requirements for all land development and redevelopment projects. The City of Chula Vista Development Storm Water Manual is a part of this chapter and is incorporated by reference as though set forth in full in this chapter. No land owner or development project proponent in the City of Chula Vista shall receive any City permit or approval for land development activity or significant redevelopment activity unless the project meets or will meet the requirements of this chapter, Chapter 14.20and the Development Storm Water City of Chula Vista BMP Design Manual December 2015. A.The Development Storm Water Manual includes, among other requirements, the following requirements: 1.Phased grading during construction (limitation of grading to a maximum disturbed area before either temporary or permanent erosion controls are implemented); 2.Compliance with low impact development (LID) principles; 3.Compliance with interim hydromodification criteria and hydrograph modification management plan (HMP) requirements; 4.Compliance with post-construction best management practices self- inspections, maintenance, record keeping, and maintenance certification. B.The City of Chula Vista generally accepts standards established in the most up- to-date editions of the following documents for best management practices; however, the City Engineer will make the final determination to approve or disapprove any proposed BMPs: 1.Stormwater Best Management Practices Handbooks developed by the California Stormwater Quality Association; 2.CALTRANS Treatment BMP Technology Report; 3.County of San Diego Low Impact Development Handbook. Long-term maintenance obligations of all proposed best management practices must be approved in an agreement that runs with the land in perpetuity prior to the issuance of a grading or other construction permit. (Ord. 3104 §1, 2008). tğŭĻ Њ ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 27 ORDINANCE NO. ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AMENDING SECTION 15.04.018 OF THE CHULA VISTA MUNICIPAL CODE RELATING TO , DESIGN, CONSTRUCTION, AND POST CONSTRUCTION REQUIREMENTS FOR ALL LAND DEVELOPMENT AND REDEVELOPMENT PROJ(FIRST READING) WHEREAS, on May 08, 2013, the San Diego Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Board) adopted Order No. R9-2013-0001 (Municipal Permit); and WHEREAS, the Municipal Permit regulates discharges to storm drain systems within 18 municipalities in San Diego County, the County of San Diego, the San Diego County Regional Airport Authority, and the San Diego Unified Port District, as well as 13 Copermittees in Orange WHEREAS, on June 16, 2015, City Council approved an amendment to the Chula Vista Municipal Code (CVMC) Chapter 14.20 to bring the Code into compliance with the Municipal Permit; and WHEREAS, the proposed amendment to CVMC Section 15.04.018 relating to g, design, construction and post construction requirements for all land provide consistency with the previous Chapter 14.20 Ordinance amendment; and WHEREAS, furthermore, the proposed amendment to CVMC Section 15.04.018 would incorporate by reference the City of Chula Vista Best Management Practice Design Manual WHEREAS, the BMP Design Manual December 2015 establishes new requirements and guidelines for development and redevelopment projects in the City of Chula Vista to comply -storm water requirements on new development and redevelopment projects, during both the construction and post-construction phases of projects. NOW THEREFORE the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does ordain as follows: Section I. That Section 15.04.018 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code is amended as follows: 15.04.018Additional planning, design, construction, and post-construction requirements for all land development and redevelopment projects. ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 28 Ordinance Page 2 No land owner or development project proponent in the City of Chula Vista shall receive any City permit or approval for land development activity or significant redevelopment activity unless the project meets or will meet the requirements of this chapter, Chapter 14.20 and the City of Chula Vista BMP Design Manual December 2015. Section II. Severability If any portion of this Ordinance, or its application to any person or circumstance, is for any reason held to be invalid, unenforceable or unconstitutional, by a court of competent jurisdiction, that portion shall be deemed severable, and such invalidity, unenforceability or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or enforceability of the remaining portions of the Ordinance, or its application to any other person or circumstance. The City Council of the City of Chula Vista hereby declares that it would have adopted each section, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance, irrespective of the fact that any one or more other sections, sentences, clauses or phrases of the Ordinance be declared invalid, unenforceable or unconstitutional. Section III. Construction The City Council of the City of Chula Vista intends this Ordinance to supplement, not to duplicate or contradict, applicable state and federal law and this Ordinance shall be construed in light of that intent. Section IV. Effective Date This Ordinance shall take effect and be in force on the thirtieth day after its final passage. Section V. Publication The City Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this Ordinance and shall cause the same to be published or posted according to law. Presented by Approved as to form by _____________________________________ ____________________________________ Richard A. Hopkins Glen R. Googins Director of Public Works City Attorney ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 29 City of Chula Vista Staff Report File#:16-0052, Item#: 4. RESOLUTIONOFTHECITYCOUNCILOFTHECITYOFCHULAVISTAACCEPTINGBIDS; AWARDINGACONTRACTFORTHE“SEWERMANHOLEREHABILITATIONPROJECT,FISCAL YEAR2013/2014ATVARIOUSLOCATIONS(CIP#SW283)ANDSEWERMANHOLE REHABILITATIONPROJECT,FISCALYEAR2014/2015ATVARIOUSLOCATIONS(CIP#SW289)” PROJECTTOSOCALPACIFICCONSTRUCTIONCORP.INTHEAMOUNTOF$431,096; WAIVINGCITYCOUNCILPOLICYNO.574-01;ANDAUTHORIZINGTHEDIRECTOROFPUBLIC WORKS TO EXECUTE ALL CHANGE ORDERS RECOMMENDED ACTION Council adopt the resolution. SUMMARY OnMarch23,2016,theDirectorofPublicWorksreceivedthree(3)sealedbidsforthe"Sewer ManholeRehabilitationProject,FY2013/2014atvariouslocations(CIP#SW283)andSewer ManholeRehabilitationProject,FY2014/2015atvariouslocations(CIP#SW289)"project.The projectconsistsofinstallingepoxylinersinexistingsewermanholestoextendtheinfrastructure service life. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Environmental Notice TheProjectqualifiesforaClass1CategoricalExemptionpursuanttoSection15301(Existing Facilities) of the California Environmental Quality Act State Guidelines. Environmental Determination TheDirectorofDevelopmentServiceshasreviewedtheproposedprojectforcompliancewiththe CaliforniaEnvironmentalQualityAct(CEQA)andhasdeterminedthatthe"SewerManhole RehabilitationProject,FY2013/2014atvariouslocations(CIP#SW283)andSewerManhole RehabilitationProject,FY2014/2015atvariouslocations(CIP#SW289)"projectqualifiesforaClass 1categoricalexemptionpursuanttoSection15301(ExistingFacilities)Thus,nofurther environmental review is necessary. BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Not Applicable DISCUSSION Basedonfieldinvestigations,anumberofsewermanholeshavebeenidentifiedbythePublicWorks Departmentasrequiringrehabilitation.Thegeneralscopeofthe"SewerManholeRehabilitation Project,FY2013/2014atvariouslocations(CIP#SW283)andSewerManholeRehabilitationProject, City of Chula VistaPage 1 of 3Printed on 5/12/2016 powered by Legistar™ ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 30 File#:16-0052, Item#: 4. FY2014/2015atvariouslocations(CIP#SW289)"projectconsistsofinstallingepoxylinersin existingsewermanholestoextendtheinfrastructureservicelife.Thelocationsofworktobedone are identified in the attached project Location Summary Map (Attachment 1). On March 23, 2016, the Director of Public Works received three (3) sealed bids as follows: CONTRACTORBASE BID AMOUNT 1Sancon Engineering, Inc. - Huntington Beach, CA$304,625* 2SoCal Pacific Construction Corp. dba National$431,096 Coating & Lining Co. - Murrieta, CA 3Quality Pipe Services, Inc. - Denver, CO.$454,100 *Bidder withdrew prior to award. TheapparentlowbidbySanconEngineering,Inc.wasretractedbaseduponaninternal mathematicaldiscrepancymadeintheirbid.TheCityreceivedaformalwithdrawalletterexplaining thebidder’scalculationerror(Attachment2).Asaresult,staffproceededtoexaminethesecond apparentlowbidpresentedbySoCalPacificConstructionCorp.Theirbidof$431,096is$14,096 (approximately3%)abovetheEngineer'sestimateof$417,000.SoCalPacificConstructionCorp.is currentlyanactivelicensedClass“A”,GeneralEngineeringContractor(LicenseNo.443117)andhas performedsimilarworkintheregionwithsatisfactoryperformance.StaffhasreviewedSoCalPacific ConstructionCorp.referencesandbidpackage,anddeterminedthemtobearesponsibleand responsivebidder;therefore,staffrecommendsawardingSW283andSW289toSoCalPacific Construction Corp. TheproposedresolutionwouldalsoauthorizetheDirectorofPublicWorkstoapprovechangeorders overandaboveexistingpolicylimits.UnderCityCouncilPolicyNo.574-01,ifanindividualchange ordercausesthecumulativeincreaseinchangeorderstoexceedtheDirector’sauthority,(“Maximum AggregateIncreaseinChangeOrders”),CityCouncilapprovalisrequired.Thecorresponding maximumaggregatecontractincreasethatmaybeapprovedbytheDirectorofPublicWorksunder PolicyNo.574-01is$33,177.ApprovaloftheresolutionwouldincreasetheDirectorofPublicWorks authoritytoapprovechangeorders,withoutCityCouncilapprovalasnecessary,uptocontingency amountof$64,664(approximately15%ofthecontract),anincreaseof$31,487overPolicyNo.574- 01.IncreasingtheDirector’sauthoritywillallowtheprojecttocontinuewithoutdelayshould unforeseen circumstances arise resulting in increased project costs during the course of construction. Wage Statement TheContractoranditssubcontractorsarerequiredbybidspecificationstopayprevailingwage (“PrevailingWageRates”)topersonsemployedbythemforworkunderthisContract.Inaccordance withtheprovisionsofSection1773oftheLaborCodeoftheStateofCalifornia,theCityofChula Vistahasascertainedthegeneralprevailingwagescalesapplicabletotheworktobedone.The prevailingwagescalesarethosedeterminedbytheDirectorofIndustrialRelations,Stateof California. Disclosure Statement Attachment 3 is a copy of the Contractor’s Disclosure Statement. City of Chula VistaPage 2 of 3Printed on 5/12/2016 powered by Legistar™ ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 31 File#:16-0052, Item#: 4. DECISION-MAKER CONFLICT StaffhasreviewedthepropertyholdingsoftheCityCouncilmembersandhasfoundthatMayorMary CasillasSalasandCouncilMembersJohnMcCannandPamelaBensoussanhavepropertyholdings within500feetoftheboundariesofthepropertywhichisthesubjectofthisaction.However,the decisionsolelyconcernsrepairs,replacementormaintenanceofexistingstreets,water,sewer,storm drainageorsimilarfacilities.Consequently,pursuanttoCaliforniaCodeofRegulationsTitle2, sections18700and18702.2(c(1)),thisitemdoesnotpresentarealproperty-relatedconflictof interest under the Political Reform Act (Cal. Gov't Code § 87100, et seq.). Staffisnotindependentlyaware,andhasnotbeeninformedbyanyCouncilmember,ofanyother fact that may constitute a basis for a decision maker conflict of interest in this matter. LINK TO STRATEGIC GOALS TheCity’sStrategicPlanhasfivemajorgoals:OperationalExcellence,EconomicVitality,Healthy Community,StrongandSecureNeighborhoodsandaConnectedCommunity.The"SewerManhole RehabilitationProject,FY2013/2014atvariouslocations(CIP#SW283)andSewerManhole RehabilitationProject,FY2014/2015atvariouslocations(CIP#SW289)"projectsupportstheStrong andSecureNeighborhoodsStrategicGoalasitmaintainspublicinfrastructurevitaltothequalityof life for residents. CURRENT YEAR FISCAL IMPACT SufficientsewerfundsareavailableinSW283andSW289tocompletetheproject.Therefore,there is no additional impact to the Sewer Facilities Replacement Fund. The table below summarizes the anticipated project costs. FUNDS REQUIRED FOR CONSTRUCTION A. Contract Amount$431,096 B. Contingency (Approximately 15% of contract)$64,664 C. Construction Inspection Staff Cost$65,000 TOTAL FUNDS REQUIRED FOR CONSTRUCTION$560,760 ONGOING FISCAL IMPACT Uponcompletionoftheproject,theimprovementswillrequireonlyroutinemaintenanceofthesewer facilities. ATTACHMENTS 1.Project Locations Map 2.Sancon Engineering Inc.’s bid withdrawal letter 3.Contractor’s Disclosure Statement from SoCal Pacific Corp. Staff Contact: Luis Pelayo, Associate Civil Engineer City of Chula VistaPage 3 of 3Printed on 5/12/2016 powered by Legistar™ ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 32 0 ¦¤ 33 Packet !¦¤£ ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ SANCON ENGINEERING, INC._ _ ___ GENERAL ENGINEERING CONTRACTOR Tel: (714) 891-2323 STATE CONTRACTORS LICENSE #731797 Fax: (714) 891-2524 March 28, 2016 Jose Luis Gomez, P.E. Principal Civil Engineer City of Chula Vista Public Service Building, Building B 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, Calif 91910 Subject: Sewer Manhole Rehabilitation Projects CIP# SW283 & SW289 RE: Withdrawal of bid Dear Mr. Gomez: We ask that our bid be withdrawn from consideration on the above mentioned project. A mistake that was made in our bid makes the bid materially different than intended and would make it impossible to complete your contract without serious financial harm to our company. This mistake would amount to an increased cost of more than 40% of the overall contract value. The mistake was made in filling out the bid and not due to error in judgment or to carelessness in inspecting the site of the work, or in reading the plans or specifications. We request that we are afforded the opportunity to withdraw our bid without penalty and allow the City to award this work to the next lowest bidder and not delay this important project. I would be happy to discuss this matter further should you require any additional information or action on our part. Please notify as soon as possible with the Citytter. Sincerely, Chuck Parsons Sancon Engineering, Inc Chuck@sancon.com Chula Vista bid withdrawl Letter5841 Engineer Drive Huntington Beach, CA 92649 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 34 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 35 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 36 RESOLUTION NO. __________ RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING BIDS;AWARDING A CONTRACT FOR THE “SEWER MANHOLE REHABILITATION PROJECT, FISCAL YEAR 2013/2014 AT VARIOUS LOCATIONS (CIP# SW283) AND SEWER MANHOLE REHABILITATION PROJECT, FISCAL YEAR 2014/2015 AT VARIOUS LOCATIONS (CIP# SW289)” PROJECT TO SOCAL PACIFIC CONSTRUCTIONCORP. IN THE AMOUNT OF $431,096; WAIVING CITY COUNCIL POLICY NO. 574-01; AND AUTHORIZING THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS TO EXECUTE ALL CHANGE ORDERS WHEREAS,thepurpose of the project is to rehabilitate the City’s sewermanholes; and WHEREAS, the Director of Development Services has reviewed the proposed project for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and has determined that the "Sewer Manhole Rehabilitation Project, FY 2013/2014 at various locations (CIP# SW283) and Sewer Manhole Rehabilitation Project, FY 2014/2015 at various locations (CIP# SW289)" project qualifies for a Class 1 categorical exemption pursuant to Section 15301 (Existing Facilities).Thus, no further environmental review is necessary; and WHEREAS, On March 23, 2016, the Director of Public Works received three(3) sealed bids forthe"Sewer Manhole Rehabilitation Project, FY 2013/2014 at various locations(CIP# SW283) and Sewer Manhole Rehabilitation Project, FY 2014/2015 at various locations (CIP# SW289)" project;and WHEREAS, the following bids were received: CONTRACTORBASE BID AMOUNT 1Sancon Engineering, Inc. –Huntington Beach, CA$304,625* SoCal Pacific Construction Corp. dba National Coating 2$431,096 & Lining Co. –Murrieta, CA 3Quality Pipe Services, Inc. –Denver, CO.$454,100 *Bidder withdrew prior to award. WHERAS, a mistake occurred in the apparent low bid submitted by Sancon Engineering, Inc.; and WHEREAS, the mistake made the bid materially different than Sancon Engineering, Inc. intended it to be; and WHEREAS, the mistake was made in filling out the bid and not due to error in judgment or to carelessness in inspecting the site of the work, or in reading the plans and specifications; and ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 37 WHEREAS, the apparent low bid by Sancon Engineering, Inc. was retracted based upon a mathematical discrepancy madeintheir bidin compliance with Section 5101(b)of the Public Contract Code Section; and WHEREAS, SoCal Pacific Construction Corp. is currently an active licensed Class “A”, General Engineering Contractor (License No. 443117) and has performed similar work in the region with satisfactory performance; and WHEREAS, in the City Council Policy No. 574-01, the maximum aggregated contract increase that may be approved by the Director of Public Works for the SW283 and SW289 project is $33,177; and WHEREAS, approval of the resolution would increase the Director of Public Works authority to approve change orders as necessary, without further City Council approval, in an amount not to exceed the contingency amount of $64,664(approximately 15% of the contract); and WHEREAS, a breakdown of construction costs are as follows: FUNDS REQUIRED FOR CONSTRUCTION A.Contract Amount $431,096 B.Contingency (Approximately 15% of contract) $64,664 C.Construction Inspection Staff Cost $65,000 TOTAL FUNDS REQUIRED FOR CONSTRUCTION$560,760 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City ofChula Vista, that it does hereby accept bidsandaward a contract, in the form presented, and with such minor modifications as may be required or approved by the City Attorney,for the"Sewer Manhole Rehabilitation Project, FY 2013/2014 at various locations (CIP# SW283) and Sewer Manhole Rehabilitation Project, FY 2014/2015 at various locations (CIP# SW289)" projectto SoCalPacific Construction Corp. in the amount of $431,096, a copy of such contract shall be kept on file in the Office of the City Clerk. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista, that it doesauthorize and direct the City Manager or his authorized representative to execute the contract. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of ChulaVista, that it does waive City Council PolicyNo. 574-01, authorize the Director of Public Works to execute all change orders,and authorize the expenditure of all contingency funds in an amount not to exceed $64,664. Presented byApproved as to form by ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 38 Resolution No. Page 3 Richard A. HopkinsGlen R. Googins Director of Public WorksCity Attorney ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 39 City of Chula Vista Staff Report File#:16-0137, Item#: 5. RESOLUTIONOFTHECITYCOUNCILOFTHECITYOFCHULAVISTAACCEPTINGBIDSAND AWARDINGACONTRACTFORTHE"PAVEMENTMAJORREHABILITATIONFY14/15&FY15/16 (STM383&STM387)ANDSEWERACCESSROADREHABILITATIONFY12/13(SW277)" PROJECTTOATPGENERALENGINEERINGCONTRACTORSINTHEAMOUNTOF $3,950,171.50;WAIVINGCITYCOUNCILPOLICYNO.574-01;AUTHORIZINGTHE EXPENDITUREOFALLAVAILABLECONTINGENCYFUNDSNOTTOEXCEED$592,525.73; ANDAPPROPRIATING$46,050FROMTHEAVAILABLEBALANCEOFTHEPROPOSITION1B HIGHWAY SAFETY FUND TO STM383 (4/5 VOTE REQUIRED) RECOMMENDED ACTION Council adopt the resolution. SUMMARY OnMarch16,2016,theDirectorofPublicWorksreceivedsealedbidsforthe“PavementMajor RehabilitationFY14/15&FY15/16(STM383&STM387)andSewerAccessRoadRehabilitation FY12/13(SW277)”project.Theprojectconsistsoftheremovalandreplacementoffailedasphalt concretepavement(dig-outs),resurfacingofstreetpavementusingtheAsphaltRubberAggregate Membrane(ARAM)onvariousstreetsintheCity.Additionalscopeofworkonthisprojectincludes therepair/replacementofconcretepedestrianramps;curb,gutter,andsidewalk;trafficcontrol; striping and markings, and other miscellaneous items of work necessary to complete the project. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Environmental Notice TheProjectqualifiesforaClass1CategoricalExemptionpursuanttoSection15301(Existing Facilities) of the California Environmental Quality Act State Guidelines. Environmental Determination TheDirectorofDevelopmentServiceshasreviewedtheproposedprojectforcompliancewiththe CaliforniaEnvironmentalQualityAct(CEQA)andhasdeterminedthattheprojectqualifiesforaClass 1CategoricalExemptionpursuanttoSection15301(ExistingFacilities)oftheStateCEQA Guidelines. Thus, no further environmental review is required. BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Not applicable. DISCUSSION City of Chula VistaPage 1 of 4Printed on 5/12/2016 powered by Legistar™ ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 40 File#:16-0137, Item#: 5. ThePublicWorksDepartmentutilizesaPavementManagementSystem(PMS)andpavement preservationprogramtodeveloptheprioritylistofstreetstorehabilitateandpreservethroughoutthe city.Thispreservationprogramisdesignedtoextendtheroadwaylifeandserviceabilitythroughthe removalandreplacementofdeterioratedsectionsofpavement(dig-outs)orentirepavementsections usingvariousmethodsofreconstructionandtheapplicationofsuitabletypesofsurfacetreatments. There-constructionofsomestreetsegmentsandtheapplicationoftheAsphaltRubberAggregate Membrane(ARAM)surfacetreatmentonthestreetsegmentsshowninAttachments1willcomplete the overall maintenance strategy on these street segments. Additionally,theSewerAccessRoadRehabilitation(SW277)wasaddedtothisprojecttotake advantage of historical cost savings for a larger project versus smaller projects. Inadditiontoapplyingthesurfacetreatment,thescopeofworkalsoincludestheremovaland replacementofpedestrianrampsandotherconcretework,dig-outandrepairofasphaltpavement, weedremovalandtreatmentwithherbicide,crackfilling,pavementstripingandmarkings,traffic control,protectionandrestorationofexistingimprovementsandothermiscellaneousworknecessary to successfully complete the project. OnMarch16,2016,theDirectorofPublicWorksreceivedfive(5)bidsforthe“PavementMajor RehabilitationFY14/15&FY15/16(STM383&STM387)andSewerAccessRoadRehabilitation FY12/13(SW277)” project. The following bids were received: CONTRACTORSUBMITTAL RESULTBID TOTAL SUBMITTED 1ATP General EngineeringAll requirements met$3,950,171.50 Contractors - Chula Vista, CA 2PAL General Engineering -All requirements met but with$4,094,149.47 San Diego, CAminor mathematical error 3TC Construction Co., Inc. -All requirements met$4,176,787.00 Santee, CA 4Ortiz Corp. - National City, CAAll requirements met but with$4,473,024.78 minor mathematical error 5Hazard Const. - San Diego,All requirements met but with$5,220,826.50 CAminor mathematical error StaffreviewedthelowbidsubmittedbyATPGeneralEngineeringContractorsanddeterminedthat theirbidpackagemetallthesubmittalrequirements.ThebidsubmittedbyATPGeneralEngineering ContractorsisbelowtheEngineer’sestimateof$4,188,439.90by$238,268.40(orapproximately 5.69%). City of Chula VistaPage 2 of 4Printed on 5/12/2016 powered by Legistar™ ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 41 File#:16-0137, Item#: 5. TheContractorhassatisfactorilyperformedconstructionprojectsofsimilarscopefortheCityinthe pastandstaffhasdeterminedtheirworktobesatisfactory.TheContractor’sLicenseNo.502506,as wellasalllistedsub-contractors’licenses,arecurrentandactive.Staffrecommendsawardinga contractincludingthealternatebidintheamountof$3,950,171.50toATPGeneralEngineering Contractors. Additionally,CityCouncilPolicyNo.574-01allowstheDirectorofPublicWorkstoauthorizea maximumcumulativechangeorder(s)amountof$73,000plus5%oftheoriginalcontractover $1,000,000withoutCityCouncilpriorapproval.Basedonthecontractamount,themaximum aggregatecontractincreasethatmaybeapprovedbytheDirectorofPublicWorksunderPolicyNo. 574-01is$220,508.58.TheproposedresolutionwouldincreasetheDirectorofPublicWorks’ cumulativechangeorderauthoritytoapprovechangeorders,asnecessary,uptothe15% contingency amount of $592,525.73, which is an increase of $372,017.15 over Policy No. 574-01. Increasingthecontingencyfundswillallowstafftocontinuetheprojectwithoutdelayshould unforeseencircumstancesresultinginincreasedprojectcostsariseduringthecourseofconstruction, aswellasmakeadjustmentstobiditemquantities.Unforeseenconditionsincludesuchitemsas utilityconflicts,hazardousmaterials,unexpectedundergroundconflicts,etc.Anyremainingunused contingency funds will be returned to the project fund balance. Disclosure Statement Attachment 2 is a copy of the Contractor’s Disclosure Statement. Wage Statement ThesourceoffundingforthisprojectisTransNetandSewerFacilityReplacementfunds.Contractorsbiddingthisproject arerequiredtopayprevailingwagestopersonsemployedbythemfortheworkunderthisproject.Disadvantaged businesses were encouraged to bid in the Notice Contractors for various trade publications. DECISION-MAKER CONFLICT StaffhasreviewedthepropertyholdingsoftheCityCouncilandhasfoundnopropertyholdingswithin500feetofthe boundariesofthepropertieswhicharethesubjectofthisaction.Staffisnotindependentlyaware,norhasstaffbeen informedbyanyCityCouncilmember,ofanyotherfactthatmayconstituteabasisforadecisionmakerconflictof interest in this matter. LINK TO STRATEGIC GOALS TheCity’sStrategicPlanhasfivemajorgoals:OperationalExcellence,EconomicVitality,HealthyCommunity,Strong andSecureNeighborhoodsandaConnectedCommunity.Thegoalofthe“PavementMajorRehabilitationFY14/15& FY15/16(STM383&STM387)andSewerAccessRoadRehabilitationFY12/13(SW277)”projectistosupporttheStrong andSecureNeighborhoodstrategyidentifiedintheCity’sStrategicPlan.Themaintenanceandrehabilitationofpublic infrastructureisakeyCityfunctioninprovidingasafeandefficientroadwaysystemforresidents,businessesandvisitors alike. CURRENT YEAR FISCAL IMPACT City of Chula VistaPage 3 of 4Printed on 5/12/2016 powered by Legistar™ ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 42 File#:16-0137, Item#: 5. The following is a summary of anticipated project costs: FUNDS REQUIRED FOR CONSTRUCTION A. Contract Amount B. Contingencies (Approx. 15%) C. Staff Time, Material$3,950,171.50 $ Testing &Other Costs (Approx. 10%)592,525.73 $ 395,017.15 CONSTRUCTION TOTAL$4,937,714.38 FUNDING SOURCES (ROUNDED) A. STM383 (TransNet Funds)$1,157,416 B. STM383 (Prop1B Funds- Appropriation)$46,050 C. STM387 (TransNet Funds)$3,702,248 D. SW277 (Sewer Facility Replacement Funds)$32,000 TOTAL$4,937,714 ApprovaloftheresolutionwillinitiatetheconstructionphaseofSTM383,STM387andSW277andappropriate$46,050in Proposition1BfundstoSTM383.SufficientTransNet,SewerFacilityReplacementandProposition1Bfundsare availabletocovertheconstructionandstaffcostsassociatedwithSTM383&STM387andSW277.Therefore,thereis no additional impact to these funds. ONGOING FISCAL IMPACT Uponcompletionoftheproject,theimprovementswillrequireonlyroutineCitystreetmaintenance.Sincethe improvementsareanticipatedtoincreasethelifeofthestreetsincluded,thereshouldbeapositivelongtermfiscal impact. ATTACHMENTS 1.Project Location 2.Disclosure Statement Staff Contact: Roberto Juan, Associate Engineer City of Chula VistaPage 4 of 4Printed on 5/12/2016 powered by Legistar™ ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 43 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 44 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 45 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 46 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 47 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 48 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 49 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 50 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 51 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 52 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 53 RESOLUTION NO. 2016-_____ RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ACCEPTING BIDS AND AWARDINGA CONTRACT FOR THE "PAVEMENT MAJOR REHABILITATION FY14/15 & FY15/16 (STM383 & STM387) AND SEWER ACCESS ROAD REHABILITATION FY12/13 (SW277)" PROJECT TO ATP GENERAL ENGINEERING CONTRACTORS IN THE AMOUNT OF $3,950,171.50; WAIVING CITY COUNCIL POLICY NO. 574-01; AUTHORIZING THE EXPENDITURE OF ALL AVAILABLE CONTINGENCY FUNDS NOT TO EXCEED $592,525.73; AND APPROPRIATING $46,050FROM THE AVAILABLE BALANCE OF THE PROPOPOSITION 1B HIGHWAY SAFETY FUND TO STM383 (4/5 VOTE REQUIRED) WHEREAS,City staff prepared specifications for the “Pavement Major Rehabilitation FY14/15 &FY15/16 (STM383 & STM387) and Sewer Access Road Rehabilitation FY12/13 (SW277)”projectand advertised the project on February 5, 2016; and WHEREAS,on March 16, 2016, the Director of Public Works Engineering received five (5)sealed bids for the “Pavement Major Rehabilitation FY14/15 &FY15/16 (STM383 & STM387) and Sewer Access Road Rehabilitation FY12/13 (SW277)” project as follows: BID TOTAL CONTRACTORSUBMITTAL RESULT SUBMITTED ATP General Engineering 1All requirements met$3,950,171.50 Contractors–Chula Vista, CA PAL General Engineering –All requirements met but with 2$4,094,149.47* San Diego, CAminor mathematical error TC Construction Co., Inc. – 3All requirements met$4,176,787.00 Santee, CA OrtizCorp., –National City, All requirements met but with 4$4,473,024.78* CAminor mathematical error HazardConstruction –SanAll requirements met but with 5$5,220,826.50* Diego, CAminor mathematical error *The submitted bid proposal contained mathematical errors. Corrections of bid totals did not change the outcome and ranking of the bids. ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 54 Resolution No. 2016-_____ Page 2 WHEREAS, Staff’s review of the apparent low bid submitted by ATP General EngineeringContractors and the minor mathematical corrections to the other three (3) did not change the ranking order of the bids; and WHEREAS, the low bid submitted by ATP General Engineering Contractorsin the amount of $3,950,171.50is below the Engineer’s estimate of $4,188,439.90by $238,268.40 (or approximately 5.69% below the Engineer’s estimate); and WHEREAS, the total “PavementMajor Rehabilitation FY14/15 &FY15/16 (STM383 & STM387) and Sewer Access Road Rehabilitation FY12/13 (SW277)”project is anticipated to cost $4,937,714.38including $987,542.88for contingencies, staff time, material testing and other cost; and WHEREAS, ATP General Engineering Contractorsis a currently active licensed Class A General Engineering Contractor (License No. 502506)andstaff has verified the references and the work performed by the contractor on previous City projects and has found their work to be satisfactory;and WHEREAS, under Council Policy No. 574-01, the Director of Public Works may approve a contract increase up to $220,508.58,based upon the base contract amount. It is recommended that the Director of Public Works be authorized to approve change orders, as necessary, up to the maximum 15% contingency amount of $592,525.73, which is an increase of $372,017.15overPolicy No. 574-01 in order to continue the project without delay. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVEDbythe City Council of the City of Chula Vista,that it does hereby accept bidsandawarda contract for the “Pavement Major Rehabilitation FY14/15 &FY15/16 (STM383 & STM387) and Sewer Access Road Rehabilitation FY12/13 (SW277)”projectto ATP General Engineering Contractorsin the amount of $3,950,171.50;waive City Council Policy 574-01;authorizetheexpenditure of all available contingency funds in the amount not to exceed $592,525.73; and approve an appropriation of $46,050to the CIP expense category of the Proposition 1B Highway Safety Fund to STM383. Presented byApproved as to form by ______________________________________________________ Richard A. HopkinsGlen R. Googins Director of Public Works City Attorney ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 55 City of Chula Vista Staff Report File#:16-0210, Item#: 6. RESOLUTIONOFTHECITYCOUNCILOFTHECITYOFCHULAVISTAWAIVINGTHE COMPETITIVEFORMALBIDREQUIREMENTANDAUTHORIZINGTHECITYTOCONTRACT FORSERVICES,ASNECESSARY,WITHGEOCAL,ITERIS,MERZCONSTRUCTIONCOMPANY, SOUTHBAYFENCEANDYOUNGNICKSENTERPRISES,INC.FORPUBLICWORKS PROJECTS RECOMMENDED ACTION Council adopt the resolution. SUMMARY PursuanttoChulaVistaMunicipalcode2.56.070relatingtocontractsexceeding$100,000,Citystaff isrequestingthatCityCouncilwaivethecompetitiveformalbidrequirementandauthorizestaffto contractwithGEOCAL,ITERIS,MerzConstructionCompany,SouthBayFenceandYoungNicks Enterprises, Inc. for maintenance services for certain Public Works Projects ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Environmental Notice TheProjectqualifiesforaClass1CategoricalExemptionpursuanttoSection15301(Existing Facilities) of the California Environmental Quality Act State Guidelines. Environmental Determination TheDirectorofDevelopmentServiceshasreviewedtheproposedprojectforcompliancewiththe CaliforniaEnvironmentalQualityAct(CEQA)andhasdeterminedthattheprojectqualifiesforaClass 1CategoricalExemptionpursuanttoSection15301(ExistingFacilities)oftheStateCEQA Guidelines. Thus, no further environmental review is required. BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Not Applicable DISCUSSION ChulaVistaMunicipalCodeSection2.56.070(B)(3)permitstheCityCounciltowaiveformal competitivebiddingrequirementswhenthecompetitivebiddingrequirementsasappliedtothat contractareimpractical,impossibleorthatcityinterestswouldbemateriallybetterservedby applyingadifferentpurchasingprocedureapprovedbythepurchasingagentasbeingconsistentwith goodpurchasingpractices.ThePublicWorksDepartmentisrequestingthatCityCouncilwaivethe competitiveformalbidrequirementforGEOCAL,ITERIS,MerzConstructionCompany,SouthBay Fence and Young-Nicks Enterprises, Inc. GEOCALperformsseveralmaintenanceandreplantingprojectswithinOpenSpaceDistrictsand City of Chula VistaPage 1 of 3Printed on 5/12/2016 powered by Legistar™ ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 56 File#:16-0210, Item#: 6. CommunityFacilityDistricts(CFD).Manyofthesitesselectedfortheseprojectsarewithinscenic corridorsandhighlyvisibleareas.GEOCALspecializesinthistypeofmaintenancework;have dedicatedcrews,completeprojectsinatimelymanner,andprovidea90daywarrantyfornewplant installations areas. Additional maintenance tasks performed by GEOCAL within the Districts include: Plant and shrub maintenance Installing and spreading mulch Brush Management Fire clearance GEOCALhasalsoperformedmaintenanceworkwithinCitymedians&parkwaysandprovedtobe efficient and priced lower than other vendors. Beginningin1999theCitybeganusingvideocamerasandsoftwareforvehicledetection.Overthe past15+yearsthecityhasengaged3to4differentvideodetectionsystemmanufacturesincluding ITERIS.ITERIShasprovedtobeareliablemanufacturerofvideodetectionequipmentandthemost maintenanceresponsive.Furthermore,asoriginalequipmentbecomesobsoleteand/orfails replacement equipment is purchased from ITERIS at a 33% “survivor” discount. TheConstruction&Repair(C&R)sectionofthePublicWorksDepartmentseeksestimatesfrom multiplevendorsforPublicWorksbuildingfacilitymaintenanceprojectsMerzConstructionCompany is consistently the lowest responsive bidder for building facility maintenance projects including: Painting Carpet maintenance Restoration of doors Replacement of damaged ceiling tiles SouthBayFenceisalocalvendorusedbymultiplePublicWorksDepartmentsectionsformaintenanceof chainlinkfencesandaccessoriesandformaintenanceofguardrails.Theirbidproposalsarecontinuallythe lowestresponsivebid.SouthBayFenceprovidestimelyresponsetoemergencyneedssuchasenclosures necessary for public safety and fencing for securing construction sites. Young-NicksEnterprises,Inc.iscontractedbytheCityofChulaVistaforstormdrainchannelclearingof invasive/exoticplants.Theyareknowledgeableinchannelmaintenanceguidelines,mandatesand environmentalcontrols.Theyareexpertsinidentifyingandremovinginvasiveplantswithoutaffectingnative plantsaswellaseffectivelycleaningstormdrainchannelswithminimumimpacttotheenvironment.Their consistencyandreliabilityhavebeensecondtononeandtheycontinuetobethelowest-costresponsive contractor. DECISION-MAKER CONFLICT Staffhasreviewedthedecisioncontemplatedbythisactionandhasdeterminedthatitthework proposedtobedonebyGeocal,ITERIS,SouthBayFenceandYoungNicksEnterprises,Inc.isnot site-specificandconsequently,the500-footrulefoundinCaliforniaCodeofRegulationsTitle2, City of Chula VistaPage 2 of 3Printed on 5/12/2016 powered by Legistar™ ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 57 File#:16-0210, Item#: 6. section18702.2(a)(11),isnotapplicabletothisdecisionforpurposesofdeterminingadisqualifying realproperty-relatedfinancialconflictofinterestunderthePoliticalReformAct(Cal.Gov'tCode§ 87100, et seq.). WithrespecttotheworkproposedtobedonebyMerzConstructionCompany,staffhashas reviewedthepropertyholdingsoftheCityCouncilmembersandhasfoundnopropertyholdings within500feetoftheboundariesofthepropertywhichisthesubjectofthisaction.Consequently,this itemdoesnotpresentadisqualifyingrealproperty-relatedfinancialconflictofinterestunder CaliforniaCodeofRegulationsTitle2,section18702.2(a)(11),forpurposesofthePoliticalReform Act (Cal. Gov’t Code §87100,et seq.). Staffisnotindependentlyaware,andhasnotbeeninformedbyany CityCouncil member,ofany other fact that may constitute a basis for a decision maker conflict of interest in this matter. LINK TO STRATEGIC GOALS TheCity’sStrategicPlanhasfivemajorgoals:OperationalExcellence,EconomicVitality,Healthy Community,StrongandSecureNeighborhoodsandaConnectedCommunity.Thisactionsupports theOperationalExcellencegoalbyretainingprofessionalservicesfromthelowest-costresponsive bidsandtheStrongandSecureNeighborhoodsgoalbypreservingsafeandwell-maintainedCity infrastructure. CURRENT YEAR FISCAL IMPACT ApprovalofthisresolutionwillauthorizetheCitytoreceiveservicesfromGEOCAL,ITERIS,Merz ConstructionCompany,SouthBayFenceandYoung-NicksEnterprises,Inc.forPublicWorks projects.ThecostsareincludedwithintheFiscalYear2015-16budgetresultinginnoadditionalfiscal impact. ONGOING FISCAL IMPACT There is no ongoing fiscal impact ATTACHMENTS None Staff Contact: Silvia Cosio, Senior Management Analyst City of Chula VistaPage 3 of 3Printed on 5/12/2016 powered by Legistar™ ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 58 RESOLUTION NO. __________ RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTAWAIVING THE COMPETITIVE FORMAL BID REQUIREMENT AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY TO CONTRACT FORSERVICES, AS NECESSARY,WITH GEOCAL, ITERIS, MERZ CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, SOUTH BAY FENCE AND YOUNG NICKS ENTERPRISES, INC. FOR PUBLIC WORKS PROJECTS WHEREAS, The Public Works Department seeks estimatesfrom multiple vendors for Public Worksmaintenanceprojects; and WHEREAS, City staff continually strives to selectresponsive and responsible vendors for Public Worksmaintenance projects; and WHEREAS, GEOCAL, ITERIS, Merz Construction Company South Bay Fence and Young Nick Enterprises, Inc. have proved to be efficient and consistently priced lower than other vendors; and WHEREAS, the total costs from these vendorswill exceed the $100,000 spending thresholdper the City’s purchasing policies; and WHEREAS, Chula Vista Municipal code Section 2.56.070(B)(3) permits the City Council to waive formal competitive bidding requirementswhen the competitive bidding requirements as applied to that contract are impractical, impossible or that city interests would be materially better served by applying a different purchasing procedure approved by the purchasing agent as being consistent with good purchasing practices; and WHEREAS, in accordance with Chula Vista Municipal code Section 2.56.070(B)(3), the City’s purchasing agent has determinedthat, based on several factors identified in the staff report,such as specialization in particular type of maintenance work, readily available crews, consistently lower pricing and proven efficiency,the City’s best interestswould be best served by waiving the formal competitive bidding requirement. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista, that itdoes hereby waive the competitive formal bid requirements and authorize the City to contract for services, as necessary,from GEOCAL, ITERIS, Merz Construction Company, South Bay Fence and Young Nicks Enterprises, Inc. for minor Public Works projects. Presented byApproved as to form by ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 59 Richard A. HopkinsGlen R. Googins Director Public WorksCity Attorney ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 60 City of Chula Vista Staff Report File#:16-0218, Item#: 7. RESOLUTIONOFTHECITYCOUNCILOFTHECITYOFCHULAVISTAAUTHORIZING SUBMITTALOFAREGIONALUSEDOILPAYMENTPROGRAMAPPLICATIONASTHE REGIONALLEADPARTICIPANT,RELATEDAUTHORIZATIONS,ANDIDENTIFICATIONOF PARTICIPATING JURISDICTIONS FOR A PERIOD OF FIVE YEARS RECOMMENDED ACTION Council adopt the resolution. SUMMARY Staffisrequestingauthorizationtosubmitaregionalusedoilpaymentprogramapplicationonbehalf ofChulaVistaastheleadagencyfortheparticipatingjurisdictionsofCoronado,ElCajon,Imperial Beach,LaMesa,LemonGrove,NationalCity,andSantee.Inaddition,staffisrequestingthis resolution be effective for a period of five (5) years from the date of adoption. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Environmental Notice Theactivityisnota“Project”asdefinedunderSection15378oftheCaliforniaEnvironmentalQuality ActStateGuidelines;therefore,pursuanttoStateGuidelinesSection15060(c)(3)noenvironmental review is required. Environmental Determination TheDirectorofDevelopmentServiceshasreviewedtheproposedactivityforcompliancewiththe CaliforniaEnvironmentalQualityAct(CEQA)andhasdeterminedthattheactivityisnota“Project”as definedunderSection15378oftheStateCEQAGuidelinesbecauseitwillnotresultinaphysical changeintheenvironment;therefore,pursuanttoSection15060(c)(3)oftheStateCEQAGuidelines, the activity is not subject to CEQA. Thus, no environmental review is required. BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION The Resource Conservation Commission recommends City Council approve the resolution. DISCUSSION TheCaliforniaOilRecyclingEnhancementAct(Act),whichisadministeredbytheCaliforniaNatural ResourcesAgency-DepartmentofResourcesRecyclingandRecovery(CalRecycle),isalaw designedtodiscouragetheillegaldisposalofusedlubricatingoils.InSeptember2009,Governor Schwarzenegger signed Senate Bill 546 (Lowenthal) (SB 546), making significant changes to the Act. TheActprovidesfundstocitiesandcountiesforestablishingandmaintainingalocalusedoil recyclingprogram.Theprimarypurposeofthefundsaretoprovidealternativestoillegaldisposalof City of Chula VistaPage 1 of 3Printed on 5/12/2016 powered by Legistar™ ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 61 File#:16-0218, Item#: 7. usedmotoroil(andotherlubricatingoils)throughanetworkofcollectionopportunitiesandoutreach effortsdesignedtoinformandmotivatethepublictorecycleusedoilandoilfiltersaswellasusere- refined oil in their vehicles and equipment. The most significant changes to the used oil recycling program include: Increasedfeepaidbymanufacturers,from$0.16pergallonto$0.26pergallon,which increasesthefundingavailabletocitiesandcountiestooperatetheirusedoilrecycling programs. Available funding to cities and counties is $0.27 per capita, paid every two (2) years. TheActreplacedthetraditionalusedoilgrantprogramwiththeusedoilpayment program.Fundswillbereceivedinadvanceoftheexpendituresandmustbespenton programactivitieswithin18monthsofreceipt.Jurisdictionswillnolongerberequiredto front the money and invoice the state for the expenditures. StaffhassuccessfullyadministeredausedoilprogramforthecitiesofChulaVista,ImperialBeach, andNationalCitysince1993.ChulaVistabecametheleadagencyforthecitiesofCoronado,El Cajon,LaMesa,LemonGrove,andSanteeoncetheusedoilpaymentprogramwasestablishedin 2010. Withusedoilpaymentprogramfunds,staffeducatesthepublicregardingtheproperdisposalofused oilandoilfiltersviaprintedmaterialsandothermediumssuchastelevisionandradio,andoffers residentsconvenientservicessuchascurbsidepick-upofusedoilandoilfilters.Staffalsopurchases functionalitemsassociatedwithoilchanges,suchasdrainpans,shoptowels,andfilterwrenches andholdsspecialeventslikeoilfilterexchangesduringwhichthepubliccanexchangeusedoilfilters for new filters at no charge. In2010,theChulaVistaCouncilapprovedarevisedresolution(Resolutionno.2010-167)authorizing thesubmittalofaregionalusedoilpaymentprogramapplicationonbehalfofChulaVistaasthelead agencyforthecitiesofCoronado,ElCajon,ImperialBeach,LaMesa,LemonGrove,NationalCity, andSantee.Resolutionno.2010-167waseffectiveforfive(5)yearsfromthedateofadoptionon June 22, 2010. Staffisrequestingauthorizationtosubmitaregionalusedoilpaymentprogramapplicationonbehalf ofChulaVistaastheleadagencyfortheaforementionedcities.TheCityManagerordesigneeis authorizedtoexecuteonbehalfoftheCityofChulaVistaalldocumentsandamendmentsnecessary tosecurefundingundertheUsedOilPaymentProgram.Inaddition,staffisrequestingthisresolution be effective for a period of five (5) years from the date of adoption. DECISION-MAKER CONFLICT Staffhasreviewedthedecisioncontemplatedbythisactionandhasdeterminedthatitisnotsite- specificandconsequently,the500-footrulefoundinCaliforniaCodeofRegulationsTitle2,section City of Chula VistaPage 2 of 3Printed on 5/12/2016 powered by Legistar™ ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 62 File#:16-0218, Item#: 7. 18702.2(a)(11),isnotapplicabletothisdecisionforpurposesofdeterminingadisqualifyingreal property-relatedfinancialconflictofinterestunderthePoliticalReformAct(Cal.Gov'tCode§87100, et seq.). Staffisnotindependentlyaware,andhasnotbeeninformedbyanyCouncilmember,ofanyother fact that may constitute a basis for a decision maker conflict of interest in this matter. LINK TO STRATEGIC GOALS TheSouthBay/EastCountyRegionalUsedOilRecyclingProgramsupportstheCity’sHealthy Communitygoalbyprovidingfreeusedmotoroilandfilterrecyclingopportunitiesthroughoutthe SouthBayandEastCountywatershedregionofSanDiegoCountyandisfundedbytheStateof California’sOilRecyclingEnhancementAct.Pollutionknowsnoboundaries,andforthisreason, properhandlingofusedmotoroilandfiltersupstreamensuresthatChulaVista’swaterwaysandbay front will not be the downstream recipient of these pollutants due to improper disposal. CURRENT YEAR FISCAL IMPACT Thereisnocurrentfiscalyearimpact.TheOilPaymentProgramiscashgrantprogram.Fundsare received in advance and are appropriated through the budget process. ONGOING FISCAL IMPACT There will be no ongoing fiscal impact to the General Fund. ATTACHMENTS OPP Guidelines Staff Contact: Lynn France, Environmental Services Manager City of Chula VistaPage 3 of 3Printed on 5/12/2016 powered by Legistar™ ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 63 RESOLUTION NO. __________ RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA AUTHORIZING SUBMITTAL OF A REGIONAL USED OIL PAYMENT PROGRAM APPLICATION AS THE REGIONAL LEAD PARTICIPANT, RELATED AUTHORIZATIONS, AND IDENTIFICATION OF PARTICPATING JURISDICTIONSFOR A PERIOD OF FIVE YEARS WHEREAS, pursuant to Public Resources Code sections 48000 et seq., 14581, and 42023.1(g), the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) has established various payment programs to make payments to qualifying jurisdictions; and WHEREAS, in furtherance of this authority, CalRecycle is required to establish procedures governing the administration of the payment programs; and WHEREAS, the payment program allows regional participant; and WHEREAS, CalRecycle’s procedures for administering payment programs require, among other things, a regional applicant’s governing body to declare by resolution certain authorizations related to the administration of said payment programs; and WHEREAS, staff educates the public regarding the proper disposal of used oil and oil filters with Used Oil Payment Program funds via printed materials and other mediums such as television and radio, and offers residents convenient services such as curbside pick-up of used oil and oil filters; and WHEREAS, Chula Vista has successfully administered the South Bay/East County Regional Used Oil Program as the Regional Lead Participant since 2010 with Used Oil Payment Program funds. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Councilof the City of Chula Vista, that the City Manager, or his designee(“Signature Authority”)is authorized and directed to submit a regional Used Oil Payment Program application on behalf of itself as Regional Lead Participant and the participating jurisdictions of Coronado, El Cajon, Imperial Beach, La Mesa, Lemon Grove, National City, and Santee. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council ofthe City of Chula Vista that the Signature Authorityis hereby authorizedand directedto execute all documents necessary to implement and secure payment; and ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 64 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista that the Signature Authority is hereby authorized and directed to revise the list of participating jurisdictions as necessary with each yearlyapplication; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista that authority and direction set forth in this Resolution is effective for five (5) yearsfrom the date of its adoption. Presented byApproved as to form by Eric CrockettGlen R. Googins Director of Economic DevelopmentCity Attorney ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 65 May 2015 Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery USED OIL PAYMENT PROGRAM Guidelines for Cycle 6 (OPP6) Fiscal Year 201516 Table of Contents Overview and Statutory Authority ............................................................................................... 2 Timeline and Cycle Activity ........................................................................................................ 2 Charter Cities ............................................................................................................................. 3 Eligibility ..................................................................................................................................... 3 Application Process ................................................................................................................... 3 Authorizing Documentation ........................................................................................................ 3 Notice of Award .......................................................................................................................... 4 Application Revisions ................................................................................................................. 4 Denial of Application .................................................................................................................. 4 Term and Payments ................................................................................................................... 5 Expenditure Components ........................................................................................................... 5 Eligible Costs ............................................................................................................................. 5 Ineligible Costs........................................................................................................................... 6 Publicity, Education, and Outreach ............................................................................................ 7 Certified Collection Center (CCC) Site Visit Requirements ......................................................... 8 Annual Reporting ....................................................................................................................... 8 Unspent Funds........................................................................................................................... 8 Audit, Accounting, and Records Retention ................................................................................. 9 Discretionary Termination .......................................................................................................... 9 Termination for Cause ...............................................................................................................10 Indemnity ..................................................................................................................................10 Compliance ...............................................................................................................................10 Definitions .................................................................................................................................11 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 66 Submittal of a Used Oil Payment Program (OPP) Application constitutes acceptance of these Guidelines as the controlling requirements for receiving, spending, and accounting for OPP funds and for annual reporting. The application and these Guidelines shall constitute the OPP Agreement. OVERVIEW AND STATUTORY AUTHORITY The California Public Resources Code (PRC) §48600 et seq. describes the California Oil Recycling Enhancement Act (Act), which, among other things, provides up to $11 million annually in payments to local governments for implementation of local used oil and filter collection programs. The Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle) is responsible for administering the OPP. These Guidelines describe the application and administrative processes to implement the OPP Cycle 6. Payment Recipients (Recipients) are responsible and accountable for ensuring that expenditures are appropriate and that proper internal supporting requirements, OPP applicants/Recipients must adhere to these Guidelines and the program provisions set out in the Act, notably PRC §§ 48674, 48690, and 48691. OPP applications are submitted online through the Local Government Oil Payment Program (LoGOPP) system. AWebPass is required to obtain access to LoGOPP. If you already have a WebPass from applying for previous CalRecycle grant or payment cycles, use the same WebPass for LoGOPP. TIMELINE AND CYCLE ACTIVITY DatesActivity June 30, 2015Application Due Date Applications must be submitted in LoGOPP by 11:59p.m. on this date. Customer service will be available until 4:00 p.m. July 30, 2015Documents Due Date Approved resolution must be uploaded in LoGOPP by this date. April 2016Payments Awarded Unless an October 2015 payment is requested by the applicant and subsequently approved by CalRecycle. July 1, 2015 Cycle Term Dates June30, 2017 August 15, 2016 and Annual ReportDue Dates August 15, 2017 Due no later than August 15th of each year during performance period. ƭĻķ hźƌ tğǤƒĻƓƷ tƩƚŭƩğƒͲ httЏ ΛC ЋЉЊЎΏЊЏΜ Ћ ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 67 CHARTER CITIES California Labor Code section 1782 prohibits a charter city from receiving state funding or financial assistance for construction projects if that charter city does not comply with Labor Code sections 1770-1782. If any applicants or participating jurisdictions are charter cities or joint powers authorities that include charter cities, the lead applicant must certify that Labor Code section 1782 does not prohibit any included charter city from receiving state funds for the project described in this application. If it is determined after award that a participating jurisdiction is a charter city prohibited from receiving state funds for theirproject, the awardwill be terminated and any disbursed OPPfunds shall be returned to CalRecycle. ELIGIBILITY Applicants that comply with PRC §§ 48690 and 48691 are eligible to apply for and, if approved, receive payment through the OPP. Applicants must have a used oil collection program which provides either of the following or a combination of the two: Ensures there is at least one Certified Used Oil Collection Center for every 100,000 residents not served by curbside collection; Provides used oil curbside collection at least once a month. In addition to meeting at least one of the requirements above, applicants must have a public education component that informs the public of locally available used oil recycling opportunities. APPLICATION PROCESS The application process requires that applicants must: 1. Submit a completed online Application to CalRecycle by the application due date and post an electronic (scanned) version of the signed Application Certification page in the online system. 2. Retain in its OPP file the original hard copy of the Application Certification page signed by applicant. 3. Submit the authorizing documents by the documents due date (see the Timeline and Cycle Activity table for due date). An important application approval requirement includes the submittal of the following: 1. Submit a complete Annual Report on LoGOPP (see Timeline and Cycle Activity for due date) for all active OPP cycles. 2. Have no outstanding debt(s) owed to CalRecycle. Submit any unspent funds to CalRecycle by August 15 (see Unspent Funds section). If you have any questions regarding the application process, please call (916) 324-8867 or send an e-mail to: GrantAssistance@CalRecycle.ca.gov. Technical assistance will be provided until 4:00 p.m. on the application due date. AUTHORIZING DOCUMENTATION Examples of Resolutions, Letters of Commitment, Letters of Authorization, and Letters of Designation can be found on our Resolution and Letter Examples webpage. Applicants, subject to a governing body, are required to submit an adopted Resolution that: (1) Authorizes submittal of OPP Applications; and (2) identifies the name of the job title (rather than the name of a person) authorized to sign on behalf of the Applicant ƭĻķ hźƌ tğǤƒĻƓƷ tƩƚŭƩğƒͲ httЏ ΛC ЋЉЊЎΏЊЏΜ Ќ ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 68 (Signature Authority). Resolutions must be specific to the OPP. Resolutions for the OPP can either specify an end date or state that it is effective until rescinded. Applicants not subject to a governing body must submit a Letter of Commitment. This of OPP Applications; (3) contain a specific end date or state that it is effective until rescinded; (4) identify the job title (rather than the name of a person) of the person authorized to execute all documents necessary to secure OPP funds (Signature Authority) and (5) be signed by a person with authority to contractually bind the Applicant. As discussed above for Resolutions, authorizations pursuant to this Letter may be effective until rescinded. For regional Applications, the lead jurisdiction (Regional Lead) must submit an adopted Resolution or Letter of Commitment (as appropriate), and in addition to the above requirements, state that it is applying as a Regional Lead. Each participating jurisdiction (Regional Participant) must submit a Letter of Authorization (or other applicable document as provided in the examples) to the Regional Lead that authorized its Regional Lead to apply for the OPP, implement the program, and administer the OPP funds on its behalf. A new letter of Authorization is required from each Regional Participant for each new OPP Application cycle and will be uploaded to the application system by the Regional Lead. The choice of the Signature Authority is very important because the individual who holds the designated job title is responsible for signing all OPP documents for the entire two-year cycle. When authorized by Resolution or Letter of Designation, which delegates to another person (identified by job title rather than name) the authority to sign and submit required OPP documents, such as Applications, Annual Reports, or extension requests. This delegation may be done either at the time of Application or later; however, it must be uploaded (by the Applicant) into the LoGOPP system and l letterhead; (2) contain a specific end date or state that it is effective until rescinded by the identified Signature Authority; (3) identify the job title of the Designee; (4) identify the scope of the ature Authority. NOTICE OF AWARD Upon approval of Annual Reports and applications, recipients will be notified by email that an OPP award has been made and that they are authorized to incur costs and expend funds in furtherance of their programs. Alisting of the award amounts for all Recipients will be posted on the OPP web page . APPLICATION REVISIONS Once approved, the Recipient/Regional Lead is contractually bound to carry out the used oil program in accordance with the OPP Guidelines. The Recipient and/or any regional participant that has submitted a Letter of Authorization may not withdraw or amend their application. DENIAL OF APPLICATION CalRecycle will notify anapplicant and provide the reasons for denial of an application. In such cases, potential applicants are encouraged to contact and work with CalRecycle ƭĻķ hźƌ tğǤƒĻƓƷ tƩƚŭƩğƒͲ httЏ ΛC ЋЉЊЎΏЊЏΜ Ѝ ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 69 to ensure that its jurisdiction meets the necessary requirements prior to the next application cycle. TERM AND PAYMENTS Funds for the OPP cycle are 24 months (refer to the cycle and timeline table for the cycle term dates) and must be expended or returned to CalRecycle as described in the Unspent Funds section. Payments must be placed into an interest bearing account. Tracking and reporting of interest earned (if any) on the payment is not required for the OPP. All interest accrued and received from the OPP shall be used only for eligible expenses related to the performance of this OPP Agreement. An applicant may request (as part of the application process) receipt of its annual payment in October. For CalRecycle to approve this request, all funds from the previous OPP cycles must be spent. EXPENDITURE COMPONENTS Used oil and used oil filter collection and recycling activities, educational activities, and mitigation of used oil in stormwater runoff are statutory components of local used oil collection programs (PRC § 48691). Accordingly, these activities should be the focus of OPP expenditures. The OPP participant must spend all of the available funds from the oldest OPP cycle prior to spending any funds from more recent OPP cycle. It is acceptable to split an OPP cycle before using funds from a more recent OPP cycle. Expenditures that are split need to be clearly identified and retained in a single file to facilitate review and retention (See the Audits, Accounting, and Records Retention section). ELIGIBLE COSTS All expenditures must be for the purposes of establishing and maintaining a used oil program as set forth in PRC § 48690 and 48691. Eligible costs must be incurred and/or accrued during the term for which they are reported. Preapprovals are required in writing by a Program Advisor for any expenditures not specified. Eligible costs include, but are not limited to: Maintaining a used oil and filter program. Used oil stormwater mitigation activities pursuant to PRC § 48691. Developing, purchasing and/or distributing useful educational materials informing the public about used oil and used oil filter collection and recycling.Examples include, but are not limited to, newspaper advertisements, brochures, flyers, and utility inserts. Developing, purchasing and/or distributing the following Used Oil Program materials that have a functional purpose associated with an environmental benefit: marine absorbent bilge pads, oil funnels, oil drain containers, oil change rags, new oil filters for exchanges, Ziploc-type filter bags, cardboard creepers, filter wrenches, dirty filter recycling containers, maps of collection centers, and tide charts.The Used Oil Program materials can be utilized for oil change kits, but each kit cannot exceed $25.00 (excluding sales tax) and each item, whether it is included in the kit or distributed separately, cannot exceed $12.00 (excluding ƭĻķ hźƌ tğǤƒĻƓƷ tƩƚŭƩğƒͲ httЏ ΛC ЋЉЊЎΏЊЏΜ Ў ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 70 sales tax). Program Advisor approval is required for items not on this pre- approved list. Tablet electronic devices (typically seven inches or more in diameter measured diagonally) with a maximum price of $500.00, used primarily for the purposes of public education or outreach. Additional costs can be spent on accessories for charging, item protection, and security at events. Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) or other agency inspection fees directly related to establishing and maintaining an effective oil and oil filter collection and recycling program. HAZWOPER 8-hour refresher course. Indirect/overhead costs up to 10 percent of the OPP eligible expenditures. (Note: This limitation applies to Recipients and consultants/contractors who administer and/or implement a program.) Travel, per diem, lodging, and mileage costs incurred in the course of establishing and maintaining used oil and/or filter programs.Maximum amounts are based on current travel, per diem, lodging, and mileage rates for State exempt employees. Reasonable costs for a consultant or contractor to administer and/or implement s OPP funded used oil program. Purchase or rental of storage containers or portable sheds dedicated to oil- related activities and supplies; installation of containers or sheds solely for protection of oil related equipment and/or supplies. INELIGIBLE COSTS Any expenditure that does not directly support used oil and/or used oil filter collection, recycling and/or educational activities, mitigation of used oil in stormwater, or expenses are ineligible for funding. Ineligible costs include, but are not limited to: Costs incurred before July 1, 2015 or after June 30, 2017. Developing, purchasing, or distributing strictly promotional give-away items. Examples include, but are not limited to, key chains, letter openers, squeegee toys, coffee mugs, water bottles, Frisbees, hats, t-shirts, chip clips, pens, pencils, beanie babies, screwdrivers, coloring books, small recycling containers for pencils, dried sponges, flash drives, and reusable bags. Purchase or lease of land or buildings. Costs currently covered by or incurred under any other loan, grant, or contract. Remediation activities (any cleanup or restoration of polluted areas). Purchase of data plans. Costs related to computer applications or software. HAZWOPER 40-hour and 24-hour courses. Enforcement activities. Preparation of Household Hazardous Waste (HHW) elements. Construction and development of any HHW facility that does not have a used oil or used oil filter collection component. Construction and development of any HHW permanent facility on non-local government-owned property. Transportation and disposal of non-oil HHW from any facility or event. ƭĻķ hźƌ tğǤƒĻƓƷ tƩƚŭƩğƒͲ httЏ ΛC ЋЉЊЎΏЊЏΜ Џ ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 71 Maintaining equipment, materials, or supplies at HHW facilities or ABOP (antifreeze, battery, oil, and paint) facilities not directly related to the collection of used oil and used oil filters. Fines or penalties due to violation of federal, State or local laws, ordinances, or regulations, including CUPA fines or penalties. Employee time off (vacation or sick leave), overtime costs, or compensated time off (except for local government staffing during specially scheduled evening or requires overtime compensation). Food or beverages (e.g., as part of meetings, workshops, or events). Cell phones, pagers, or cameras. Out-of-state travel. Travel costs exceeding the state-approved rates for mileage, per diem, lodging, etc. Audit expenses. Re-refined oil expenses. Any costs not consistent with local, state, or federal laws, guidelines, and regulations. Costs deemed unreasonable or not related to the project by the Program Advisor. PUBLICITY,EDUCATION, AND OUTREACH Used Oil publicity, education, and outreach material must directly relate to the collection and recycling of used oil and/or used oil filters, proper oil disposal practices, and/or other OPP activities. The materials must be functional, as discussed in Eligible Costs, encourage behavioral change, or provide an educational opportunity for the public. All publicity, education, and outreach must be appropriate for the target audience, durable, and not likely to be disposed of in a short time or contribute to the waste stream or hazardous waste stream (e.g., any item containing batteries, mercury, etc.). Stormwater and HHW recycling program messages may be incorporated with the used oil recycling message on publicity, education, and outreach items. The funding level for the publicity and education portion for these programs is 50 percent for any item which contains a reasonable mention of used oil and/or used oil filter collection and recycling; and, 100 percent if over half of the text or image(s) relates to used oil and/or used oil filter collection and recycling. Acknowledgement Recipients are not support when activities or projects funded, in whole or in part, by this Agreement are publicized in any news media, brochures, articles, seminars or other type of promotional material. Advertising and Public Education Materials must provide: Information on used oil and used oil filter collection and recycling/disposal. A list of used oil collection centers within the targeted community or a local telephone number or website to obtain further information on local collection centers. (Use the 1-800-CLEANUP number or earth911 website if your jurisdiction does not maintain its own 24-hour hotline.) ƭĻķ hźƌ tğǤƒĻƓƷ tƩƚŭƩğƒͲ httЏ ΛC ЋЉЊЎΏЊЏΜ А ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 72 ate. On any material produced in four or more colors, use the State colors (blue oil drop on yellow background) for this logo. (The color designation for professional printing is Yale Blue-Pantone 286C; Golden Yellow-Pantone 123C.) Oil program related graphics and signs. CERTIFIED COLLECTION CENTER (CCC) SITE VISIT REQUIREMENTS For Recipients who administer their used oil program in coordination with a CCC, it is a program requirement that a site visit be made annually to a minimum of one CCC site per 100,000 residents being served by the used oil program. When a site visit is conducted, the jurisdiction needs to complete a site visit checklist form. One of the three available forms may be usedCalRecycle 664, CalRecycle 664-SP, or CalRecycle 665as appropriate for the jurisdiction. The newest versions of these forms may be fouUsed Oil Recycling on the Grant Forms web page. The completed forms are to be retained in the cycle file and jurisdictions will report the total number of site visits made by the jurisdiction in the online Annual Report. ANNUAL REPORTING Annual Reporting is a statutory requirement for ongoing eligibility for all OPP. s for this Cycle must be submitted no later than August 15 of each calendar year. When a due date falls on a Saturday or Sunday, the online report must be submitted by the following Monday. Failure to meet this reporting due date may result in the denial of future funding. Upon completion of the online Annual Report (including the expenditures portion of the report), the Report Certification page is to be printed out and given to the Signature Authority for approval and signature. The signed Annual Report Certification page is to be uploaded to the online system (by the Recipient) and the original signed hard copy is signed Annual Report Certification page, they should scan and email or fax it to their Program Advisor for uploading. Program Advisors will review and approve the submitted reports. All expenditures shall be reported through the LoGOPP system. Failure of Recipient to properly spend or account for OPP funds may result in denial of future OPP funding for Definitions for the OPP expenditure categories can be found on the Definitions for the OPP Fiscal Expenditure Categories page. UNSPENT FUNDS Funds that are unspent at the end of the OPP term must be reimbursed by check to CalRecycle within 45 days of the cycle end term date,which is June 30. Checks must contain the OPP number (i.e., OPP4-13- mailed to: CalRecycle, Accounting OPP Unspent Funds P.O. Box 4025 ƭĻķ hźƌ tğǤƒĻƓƷ tƩƚŭƩğƒͲ httЏ ΛC ЋЉЊЎΏЊЏΜ Б ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 73 Sacramento, CA 95812-4025 If there are questions or other issues related to expenditures, work with your Program Advisor to resolve these issues. Unspent funds due to CalRecycle but left unpaid may result in a Recipient not being eligible for future OPP funding. AUDIT, ACCOUNTING, AND RECORDS RETENTION Recipients are responsible and accountable for ensuring that expenditures are appropriate and that proper internal supporting documentation is maintained to provide clear separate tracking of OPP funds and related transactions for fiscal program management and audit purposes requirements, OPP applicants/Recipients must adhere to these Guidelines and the program provisions set out in the Act, notably PRC §§ 48674, 48690, and 48691. Recipients must account for all OPP funds in a manner that provides for clear tracking of expenditures in accordance with Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. Proper business procedures dictate that OPP supporting documentation (including, but not limited to, the original signed Application Certification and Annual Report summary pages, invoices, payroll registers/logs, travel expense claim forms, etc.) be retained in a single file to facilitate review and retention, as well as maintenance of a clear paper/audit trail contracting policies/requirements and ensure the proper and exclusive use of items purchased with OPP funds. OPP funds are subject to audit. CalRecycle, the Department of Finance, the Bureau of State Audits, or their designated representative(s) shall have the right to review and to copy any records and supporting documentation pertaining to the use of OPP funds and shall have the right to interview staff relevant to the audit. Recipient shall include this provision in all contracts and subcontracts funded in whole or in part from OPP funds. Examples of documentation subject to audit include, but are not limited to, expenditure ledgers, payroll register entries, time sheets, travel logs, paid warrants, contracts and change orders, samples/pictures of items and materials developed with OPP funds, invoices, receipts, and canceled checks. All such records shall be maintained for possible audit for a minimum of three (3) years after the OPP term end date, or until completion of any action and resolution of all issues, which may arise as a result of any litigation, dispute, or audit, whichever is later. Audit findings against Recipients can result in the need for reimbursement of OPP funds, and/or ineligibility for future OPP funds. DISCRETIONARY TERMINATION The Director of CalRecycle or his/her designee shall have the right to terminate this Agreement at his/her sole discretion at any time upon thirty (30) days written notice to the Recipient. Within forty-five (45) days of receipt of written notice, the Recipient is required to: 1. Submit a final written report to the appropriate Program Advisor describing all work performed by the Recipient and provide an accounting of all funds expended up to and including the date of termination; and, 2. Reimburse CalRecycle any unspent funds. ƭĻķ hźƌ tğǤƒĻƓƷ tƩƚŭƩğƒͲ httЏ ΛC ЋЉЊЎΏЊЏΜ В ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 74 TERMINATION FOR CAUSE In the event the Recipient fails to comply with the requirements of these Guidelines at the time and in the manner herein provided, CalRecycle may terminate the OPP Agreement. Recipients are encouraged to discuss any problems they may have in complying with these Guidelines with their Program Advisor to determine if CalRecycle can be of assistance. INDEMNITY Recipient agrees to indemnify, defend and save harmless the State and CalRecycle, and their officers, agents, and employees from any and all claims and/or losses accruing or resulting from the performance of OPP. COMPLIANCE Recipient shall comply fully with all applicable federal, state, and local laws, ordinances, regulations, and permits. ƭĻķ hźƌ tğǤƒĻƓƷ tƩƚŭƩğƒͲ httЏ ΛC ЋЉЊЎΏЊЏΜ ЊЉ ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 75 DEFINITIONS For purposes of the OPP, the following definitions apply: Consultant: A professional who advises on or manages the OPP on behalf of an OPP Recipient. Contractor: An individual, business, or company with which the Recipient enters into an agreement to perform program-related services or activities including providing materials or supplies for oil and oil filter collection/recycling projects. (Note: Also refer to the Subcontractor definition). Indirect/Overhead Costs: These costs are expenditures not capable of being assigned or not readily available to a particular project or activity but considered OPP. Examples include costs of operating and maintaining facilities, accounting services, and administrative salaries. Letter of Authorization: A letter submitted by a Regional Participant to authorize another jurisdiction (Regional Lead) to apply for and to act on its behalf in the implementation and administration of the OPP. Letter of Commitment: A letter from an applicant, not subject to a governing body, that authorizes submittal of OPP applications. Letter of Designation: A letter submitted by an applicant delegates his/her authority to another individual (identified by job title not name) as authorized in the Resolution or Letter of Authorization. The person to whom this OPP : The acronym means the Used Oil Payment Program (see Used Oil Payment Program definition below). Program Advisor: The CalRecycle staff person responsible for monitoring the OPP and related program activities for a particular jurisdiction. Payment Recipient or Recipient: The recipient of funds pursuant to PRC § 48690 et seq. The recipient may be a local government (which includes any chartered or general law city, chartered or general law county, or any city and county) and/or a public agency/entity or special district that has been given the authorization to act on behalf of a local government. Signature Authority: The title of the person authorized by an adopted Resolution, Letter of Commitment, or Letter of Designation to sign all grant-related documents on behalf of the authorizing entity. Subcontractor: Contractor enters into an agreement to perform program-related services or activities, or provide materials or supplies for oil and oil filter recycling/collection-related projects, services or activities. ƭĻķ hźƌ tğǤƒĻƓƷ tƩƚŭƩğƒͲ httЏ ΛC ЋЉЊЎΏЊЏΜ ЊЊ ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 76 Used Oil Payment Program (OPP): The Used Oil Program established pursuant to PRC § 48690 et seq., that provides payments/funding to eligible participants for establishing and maintaining an effective local used oil and used oil filter collection/recycling program.Contact your assigned Used Oil Program Advisor if you have questions about the application process or other questions during the payment term. ƭĻķ hźƌ tğǤƒĻƓƷ tƩƚŭƩğƒͲ httЏ ΛC ЋЉЊЎΏЊЏΜ ЊЋ ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 77 City of Chula Vista Staff Report File#:16-0150, Item#: 8. RESOLUTIONOFTHECITYCOUNCILOFTHECITYOFCHULAVISTAACCEPTINGAGRANT OF$2,550FROMTHECALIFORNIASTATELIBRARYTOFUNDTHE“VETERANSCONNECT@ THELIBRARY”PROJECTATTHECHULAVISTAPUBLICLIBRARYANDAPPROPRIATINGTHIS AMOUNT TO THE LIBRARY’S SUPPLIES AND SERVICES BUDGET (4/5 VOTE REQUIRED) RECOMMENDED ACTION Council adopt the resolution. SUMMARY InpartnershipwiththeCaliforniaDepartmentofVeteransAffairs(CalVet),theChulaVistaLibrary hasjoinedwithotherlibrariesacrosstheStateintheVeteransConnect@theLibraryinitiative.This projectisdesignedtohelpveteransbycreatingaVeteranResourceCenterattheCivicCenter Library.TheVeteranResourceCenterprovidesinformationonstateandfederaleducation, employment,housing,health,disabilityandotherbenefitsthatmaybeavailabletoveteransandtheir families.TheCaliforniaStateLibraryprovidesfundingtoestablishtheVeteranResourceCenter,as wellasresourcestotrainstaff,volunteers,andalsoprovideprograms.TheLibraryhasreceived $2,550 for this purpose. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Environmental Notice Theactivityisnota“project”asdefinedunderSection15378oftheCaliforniaEnvironmentalQuality ActStateGuidelines;therefore,pursuanttoStateGuidelinesSection15060(c)(3)noenvironmental review is required. Environmental Determination TheDirectorofDevelopmentServiceshasreviewedtheproposedactivityforcompliancewiththe CaliforniaEnvironmentalQualityAct(CEQA)andhasdeterminedthattheactivityisnota“Project”as definedunderSection15378oftheStateCEQAGuidelines;therefore,pursuanttoSection15060(c) (3)ofthestateCEQAGuidelines,theactivityisnotsubjecttoCEQA.Thusnoenvironmentalreview is required. BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Not Applicable DISCUSSION InpartnershipwiththeCaliforniaDepartmentofVeteransAffairs(CalVet),theChulaVistaLibrary hasjoinedwithotherlibrariesacrossthestatetohelpveteransbycreatingaVeteranResource City of Chula VistaPage 1 of 3Printed on 5/12/2016 powered by Legistar™ ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 78 File#:16-0150, Item#: 8. CenterattheCivicCenterLibrary.TheVeteranResourceCenterprovidesinformationonstateand federaleducation,employment,housing,health,disabilityandotherbenefitsthatmaybeavailableto veteransandtheirfamilies.TheCaliforniaStateLibraryprovidesfundingtoestablishtheVeterans ResourceCenter,aswellasresourcestotrainstaff,volunteers,andtoprovideprograms.The Libraryhasreceived$2,550forthispurposefromtheCaliforniaStateLibrary,whichisadministering the grant through the Pacific Library Partnership. AspecialfocusofthisprojectistoprovideinformationtoreintegrateCaliforniaveteransintothe Californiaworkforceandourcommunitiesinordertoprovideveteransthequalityoflifeofother Americans. TheChulaVistaLibraryhopestheVeteranResourceCenterwillassistlocalveteranstoacquire veteranbenefitsandlocalserviceinformation,alongwithlinkstootherorganizationsserving veterans,andalsoregisterintheCalVetReintegrationsystem.Thehopeisthatthiswillincrease California veteran benefit claims and also connect veterans and their families to library resources. Tomeetthesegoals,theChulaVistaLibrarywilloperatetheVeteranResourceCenterwithregular openhoursstaffedbytrainedvolunteers.Inaddition,acollectionofbooksandotherresourcesfor veterans,websiteswithlinkstolocalveteransresources,andaccesstocomputerequipmentfor extendedperiodstocompleteonlineapplicationsanddoresearcharebeingoffered.TheVeteran Resource Center is located in the Veterans Wing of the Civic Center Library TheLibrarywillbehostingaseriesofeventsthroughouttheyeartoattractveteranstovisitthelibrary and find out more about the services offered. DECISION-MAKER CONFLICT Staffhasreviewedthedecisioncontemplatedbythisactionandhasdeterminedthatitdoesnot involveadecisionaffectingrealpropertyvalueandconsequently,the500-footrulefoundinCalifornia CodeofRegulationsTitle2,section18702.2(a)(11),isnotapplicabletothisdecisionforpurposesof determiningadisqualifyingrealproperty-relatedfinancialconflictofinterestunderthePolitical Reform Act (Cal. Gov't Code § 87100, et seq.). Staffisnotindependentlyaware,andhasnotbeeninformedbyanyCityCouncilmember,ofany other fact that may constitute a basis for a decision maker conflict of interest in this matter. LINK TO STRATEGIC GOALS TheCity’sStrategicPlanhasfivemajorgoals:OperationalExcellence,EconomicVitality,Healthy Community,StrongandSecureNeighborhoodsandaConnectedCommunity.TheVeteransConnect @theLibraryinitiativeanditscreationofaVeteranResourceCenterattheCivicCenterLibrary supportstheHealthyCommunityandConnectedCommunitygoals,asitseekstoconnectveterans withresourcesincludinghealthinformationandconnectthemandtheirfamiliestolocalnetworks City of Chula VistaPage 2 of 3Printed on 5/12/2016 powered by Legistar™ ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 79 File#:16-0150, Item#: 8. offering veteran support. CURRENT YEAR FISCAL IMPACT Approvalofthisresolutionwillresultinaone-timeappropriationof$2,550totheLibraryDepartment suppliesandservicesbudget.TheCaliforniaStateLibraryisthesourceofthefunding;therefore, there is no net fiscal impact to the City. ONGOING FISCAL IMPACT There is no ongoing fiscal impact for accepting these funds. ATTACHMENTS Staff Contact: Stephanie Loney, Principal Librarian. City of Chula VistaPage 3 of 3Printed on 5/12/2016 powered by Legistar™ ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 80 RESOLUTION NO. __________ RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULAVISTA ACCEPTING A GRANT OF $2,550FROM THE CALIFORNIA STATE LIBRARY TO FUND THE ‘VETERANS CONNECT @ THE LIBRARY” PROJECT AT THE CHULA VISTA PUBLIC LIBRARY AND APPROPRIATING THIS AMOUNT TO THE LIBRARY’S SUPPLIES AND SERVICES BUDGET WHEREAS,in partnership with the California Department of Veterans Affairs (CalVet), the Chula Vista Library has joined with other libraries across the State in the “Veterans Connect @ the Library”initiative; and WHEREAS, this project is designed to help veterans by creating a Veteran Resource Center at the Civic Center Library; and WHEREAS, the Veteran Resource Center provides information on state and federal education, employment, housing, health, disability and other benefits that may be available to veterans and their families; and WHEREAS, the Library has received $2,550for this purpose from the California State Library, which is administering the grant through the Pacific Library Partnership, and WHEREAS, the Libraryhopes the Veteran Resource Center will assist local veterans to acquire veteran benefits and local service information, along with links to other organizations serving veterans, and also register in the CalVet Reintegration system, and WHEREAS, the Library will operate the Veteran Resource Center with regular open hours staffed by trained volunteers and provide a collection of books and other resources for veterans, websites with links to local veterans resources, and access to computer equipment; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Chula Vista, that it accepts a grant of $2,550from the California State Library to fund the “Veterans Connect @ the Library”project at the Chula Vista Public Library and amends the fiscal year 2015-2016 Library Supplies and Services budget to reflect appropriation of these grant funds. Presented byApproved as to form by Betty WaznisGlen R. Googins Library DirectorCity Attorney ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 81 City of Chula Vista Staff Report File#:15-0681, Item#: 9. RESOLUTIONOFTHECITYCOUNCILOFTHECITYOFCHULAVISTAADOPTINGMITIGATED NEGATIVEDECLARATION(IS-15-006)ANDAPPROVINGAWETLANDRESTORATION AGREEMENTBETWEENHOMEFEDCORPORATIONANDTHECITYOFCHULAVISTA,AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT RECOMMENDED ACTION Council adopt the resolution. SUMMARY InordertocompletegradingoperationsforVillages3and8West,andtherelatedextensionof HeritageRoadtoMainStreet,HomeFedCorporation(Applicant)needstosecurewetlandmitigation asrequiredbytheEnvironmentalImpactReports(EIRs)forthosevillages.Withtheavailabilityof landwithinwetlandmitigationbanksbeingextremelylimited,theApplicantapproachedtheCityabout restoringwetlandareaswithinaparcelownedbytheCityofChulaVistaintheOtayRiverValley(see Attachment1-LocationMap).Theattachedagreement(seeAttachment3-AgreementRegarding OtayRiverValleyRestorationor“Agreement”)detailsthetermsoftheAgreementtoinitiallymitigate wetlandimpactsforVillages3and8West,aswellassetupamitigationbankthatintendstocover wetlandmitigationfortheApplicant’sremainingvillageswithinOtayRanch,theUniversityand Innovation District, and other Otay Ranch projects. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Environmental Notice AMitigatedNegativeDeclaration(IS-15-006)hasbeenpreparedfortheAgreementRegardingOtay River Valley Restoration. Environmental Determination TheDirectorofDevelopmentServiceshasreviewedtheproposedprojectforcompliancewiththe CaliforniaEnvironmentalQualityAct(CEQA)andhasconductedanInitialStudy,IS-15-006,in accordancewiththeCEQA.BasedupontheresultsoftheInitialStudy,theDirectorofDevelopment Serviceshasdeterminedthattheprojectcouldresultinsignificanteffectsontheenvironment. However,revisionstotheprojectmadebyoragreedtobytheApplicantwouldavoidtheeffectsor mitigatetheeffectstoapointwhereclearlynosignificanteffectswouldoccur;therefore,theDirector ofDevelopmentServiceshaspreparedaMitigatedNegativeDeclaration(MND),IS-15-006.Adraft MNDwasissuedfora30-daypublicreviewperiodonMarch11,2016,pursuanttotherequirements ofCEQAGuidelinesSection15072.Atotaloffourcommentletterswerereceived,allofwhichwere fromstateandlocalagencies.Allcommentswereofarelativelyminortechnicalnatureandare responded to within the MND. No comments received challenged the adequacy of the MND. City of Chula VistaPage 1 of 4Printed on 5/12/2016 powered by Legistar™ ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 82 File#:15-0681, Item#: 9. BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Not applicable. DISCUSSION DuetotheApplicant’sdesiretocompletegradingforVillages3and8West,includingtheextension ofHeritageRoadtoMainStreet,andtheextremelylimitedamountofwetlandmitigationcredits availableinexistingmitigationbanks,theApplicantapproachedtheCityaboutrestoringwetlandson aCity-ownedparcelofland(APN#644-090-04-00).Thesubjectsiteisapproximately100acresin size(partofanapproximately300acreparcel)andislocatedwithintheeasternOtayRiverValley, approximately1milebelowSavageDam(SeeAttachment1-LocationMap).Therestorationsiteis intheuppermostreachoftheLowerOtayRiverWatershedandprovidesanidealopportunityfor restorationduetoitslocationandlevelofphysicaldisturbance.Thesitewaspreviouslyminedfor sandandgraveloverseveraldecades,andasaresult,theOtayRivercurrentlydoesnotevenrun above ground in this area. Latelastyear,theApplicantbeganworkonaHabitatMitigationandMonitoringPlan(HMMP)to addressResourceAgencypermittingrequirements(SeeAttachment5-OtayRiverRestoration ProjectFinalHabitatMitigationandMonitoringPlan).Ingeneraltheplanlaysoutathreephasework program.Phaseoneincludestheremovalofinvasivespeciesbothupstreamtothedamandwithin thePhaseTwoboundary.PhaseTwoincludesthere-establishmentofapproximately2,300linear feetofrivermainstreamandapproximately13.5acresoffloodplainhabitat,re-establishmentof appropriaterivercrossingsusedbytheU.S.BorderPatrol,SDG&E,OtayWaterDistrictandtrail users,establishmentoftheeasternmostpond,rehabilitationofapproximately4acresofupland transitionalhabitat,andestablishingOtayValleyRegionalParkandGreenbeltMasterPlantrail corridorsthroughtherestorationsite.Thelastphase,orphases,includestherestorationofthe remainderofthemainstream,enhancement(approximately3,000linealfeet)andestablishmentof ponds,re-establishmentofephemeralsecondarychannelsandfloodplains,rehabilitationof approximately31acresofuplandtransitionalhabitatandupgradestooneadditionalcrossing(See Attachment4-PhasingandTrailsMap).TheHMMPanticipatesthatoncethefirsttwophasesofthe restorationsitearecomplete,andthemitigationbankhasbeenestablished,therewillbeexcess mitigationlandavailabletomitigatethewetlandimpactsoftheUniversityandInnovationDistrict,the remainderoftheApplicant’sprojectsaswellasadditionalprojects.Thisexcessmitigation,aboveand beyondthemitigationnecessaryfortheUniversityandInnovationDistrictandtheremainderofthe Applicant’s projects, is intended to be banked and credits sold. InconjunctionwiththepreparationoftheHMMP,theApplicantalsobegannegotiationswiththeCity onaWetlandRestorationAgreement(SeeAttachment3-AgreementRegardingOtayRiverValley Restoration)thatdetailstheresponsibilitiesofeachparty,bothphysicallyandmonetarily,to implementtheplan.TheAgreementisintendedtoensurethatallowinguseofCityownedproperty forprivatedevelopmentmitigationprovidestheCitywithsomedirectquid-pro-quobenefitsthatare discussedhereinanddetailedinthebulletpointsbelow.TheAgreementintendstoallowforthe mitigationofwetlandimpactsforVillages3(includingtheconnectionofHeritageRoadbetween OlympicParkwayandMainStreet)and8Westintheshortterm,whilerequiringthesubsequent establishment of a wetland mitigation bank. The Agreement includes the following deal points: City of Chula VistaPage 2 of 4Printed on 5/12/2016 powered by Legistar™ ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 83 File#:15-0681, Item#: 9. TheApplicantwillrestorenativehabitatonCity-ownedlandintheOtayRiverValley(also withintheOtayRanchPreserveandtheMultipleSpeciesConservationPlanareas)thathad previouslybeenminedforsandandgravelatnocosttotheCityofChulaVistaandtheCity will retain fee title to the restored City-owned land, and; Inthefirstandsecondphases,theApplicantwillrestorelandsufficienttocoverthewetland impactsofVillages3(includingtheconnectionofHeritageRoadbetweenOlympicParkway andMainStreet)and8Westandinstallfencing,signage,educationalkiosksandOtayValley Regional Park and City of Chula Vista Greenbelt trails, at the Applicant’s sole expense, and; Within90daysfromtheexecutionofthisAgreement,theApplicantwillsubmitadraft MitigationBankProspectustotheResourceAgencieswiththeintentofestablishingawetland mitigationbankthatcancoverwetlandmitigationcreditsfortheUniversityandInnovation DistrictandtheremainderoftheApplicant’sprojects,andenabletheCitytosellanyexcess creditstodevelopmentswithinthemitigationbank’sservicearea(i.e.otherOtayRanch projects), and; The Applicant is required to establish the mitigation bank within 36 months, and; TheApplicantisrequiredtobeginconstructionofadditionalwetlandmitigationareawithinthe mitigation bank within 12 months of the approval of the bank, and; Thisadditionalwetlandrestorationofthepropertyandestablishmentofawetlandmitigation bankwillenabletheCitytosatisfyanticipatedResourceAgencyPermitmitigation requirements for the University and Innovation District at no public expense, and; AnyexcessmitigationcreditswillbesoldtodevelopersundertheCity’soversightwithinthe servicearea,andtheApplicantwillbereimbursed“reasonablecosts”forthecreation, processingandimplementingofthemitigationbankaboveandbeyondwhattheywouldhave otherwiseexpendedonmitigationrequirementsfortheirdevelopmentandtheUniversityand Innovation District, and; TheApplicant,atitssoleexpense,willprocessanynecessaryentitlementandenvironmental updates,revisionsoramendmentsnecessarytobuildtheCity’sGreenbeltTrailandOtay Valley Regional Park (OVRP) trails within the area, and; The Applicant will build the Greenbelt Trail and OVRP trails through the restoration site, and; TheApplicantwilloffertotheCity,atnoexpensetotheCity,feetitletojurisdictionalwaters immediatelywestoftherestorationsiteequaltotheacreageofmitigationsatisfyingResource Agency Permits for the remainder of the Applicant’s undeveloped property. Insummary,theAgreementwillallowforrestorationofwetlandhabitatonCity-ownedpropertyto mitigateforthetimelyconstructionofHeritageRoad,aswellasthecompletionofgradingforVillages 3and8Westintheshortterm.TheAgreementalsorequiresthesubsequent,timelycreationofa City of Chula VistaPage 3 of 4Printed on 5/12/2016 powered by Legistar™ ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 84 File#:15-0681, Item#: 9. mitigationbankthatwillcoverwetlandmitigationimpactsfortheUniversityandInnovationDistrict, and serve other development within the service area. DECISION-MAKER CONFLICT StaffhasreviewedthepropertyholdingsoftheCityCouncilmembersandhasfoundnoproperty holdingswithin500feetoftheboundariesofthepropertywhichisthesubjectofthisaction. Consequently,thisitemdoesnotpresentadisqualifyingrealproperty-relatedfinancialconflictof interestunderCaliforniaCodeofRegulationsTitle2,section18702.2(a)(11),forpurposesofthe Political Reform Act (Cal. Gov’t Code §87100,et seq.). Staffisnotindependentlyaware,andhasnotbeeninformedbyanyCityCouncilmember,ofany other fact that may constitute a basis for a decision maker conflict of interest in this matter. LINK TO STRATEGIC GOALS TheCity’sStrategicPlanhasfivemajorgoals:OperationalExcellence,EconomicVitality,Healthy Community,StrongandSecureNeighborhoodsandaConnectedCommunity.Theproposedwetland restorationandcreationofawetlandmitigationbankwouldimplementtheHealthyCommunityGoal. Inparticular,theprojectwouldimplementStrategy3.2,“developandimplementstrategiesand programsthatrestoreandprotectnaturalresourcesandpromotesustainability”,byrestoringand protecting up to approximately 100 acres of wetland and upland habitat. CURRENT YEAR FISCAL IMPACT TheprocessingfortheWetlandRestorationAgreementandallsupportingdocumentswerefunded byadeveloperdepositaccount.ThisaccountfundedCitystaffandconsultantsrepresentingtheCity on this project. ONGOING FISCAL IMPACT TheongoingexpendituresforstafftimeandotherCitycostsassociatedwithimplementationofthe HMMPandmitigationbankwillbefundedbyadeveloperdepositaccount.Relatedfunding/bonding forestablishmentandimplementationofthemitigationbankandtheconstructionoftherestoration improvementswillbetheresponsibilityoftheApplicantwiththeassociatedpermittingagencies. RevenuesassociatedwiththesellingofmitigationcreditswillbeusedfirsttoreimbursetheApplicant forits“reasonablecosts”(asestablishedanddefinedintheAgreement)increating,processingand implementingthemitigationbank.OncetheApplicant’s“reasonablecosts”havebeenreimbursed, any further revenue will accrue to the City. ATTACHMENTS 1.Location Map 2.Mitigated Negative Declaration, IS-15-006 3.Agreement Regarding Otay River Valley Restoration 4.Phasing and Trails Map 5.Otay River Restoration Project Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan Staff Contact: Scott Donaghe, Principal Planner City of Chula VistaPage 4 of 4Printed on 5/12/2016 powered by Legistar™ ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 85 LOCATION MAP twhW9/{L9 ATTACHMENT 1 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 86 Mitigated Negative Declaration PROJECT NAME: Otay River Restoration Project Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan PROJECT LOCATION:Otay River Valley ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NO.:APNs: 644-090-04 (Mitigation Site) Portions of 647-130-00, 647-130-01, 647-130-02, 647-130- 07, 647-130-08, 647-130-10, 647-130-12, and 644-100-01-9 (Weed Treatment Activities to protect Restoration Site) PROJECT APPLICANT: HomeFed Otay Land II, LLC CASE NO.:IS-15-006 DATE OF DRAFT DOCUMENT: March 14, 2016 DATE OF FINAL DOCUMENT: May 10, 2016 A. Project Setting The project site, the focus of which is a 100-acre restoration site, encompassesan approximately 300-acre parcel (mitigation site) located in and owned by the City of Chula Vista in southwestern San Diego County, California (see Attachment 1 for all figures; see Figures 1 and 2, Regional and Local Vicinity Maps). The project site also includes portions of seven additional parcels upstream owned by the County of San Diego, City of San Diego, and United States of America Public Domain, that would be treated for weeds to protect the restoration site (see Figure 3, Parcels Map). The site occurs within the upper portion of the Lower Otay River Watershed, approximately 1 mile downstream from Savage Dam. It is generally south and west of the Lower Otay Reservoir and surrounded by open space largely within the Multi-Species Conservation Program (MSCP) preserve system managed in partnership by the City of Chula Vista, City of San Diego, and County of San Diego. The project site is designated as Open Space Preserve by the City of Chula Vista and Open Space Conservation and Recreation by the County of San Diego. The existing land uses surrounding the site are as follows. North: Chula Vista Water Treatment Plan and Open Space South: Mostly Open Space with the exception of a cluster of development (Otay Water District Roll Reservoir, George F. Bailey Detention Facility, City of San Diego’s Otay Treatment Plant, and Richard J. Donovan Correctional Facility) East: Mostly Open Space with the exception of a cluster of development (Otay Water District Roll Reservoir, George F. Bailey Detention Facility, and City of San Diego’s Otay Treatment Plant) West: Open Space and River Valley 1 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 87 B.Project Description The proposed project involves implementation of the Otay River Restoration Project Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (HMMP) to guide the restoration and enhancement of approximately 100 acres of aquatic and terrestrial habitat in the Otay River Valley. The HMMP would be used to mitigate unavoidable impacts on aquatic and terrestrial resources associated with the implementation of the Otay Ranch University Villages currently under review by regulatory agencies (Village 3 and Village 8 West), located adjacent to and west of the project site. In addition, a mitigation bank would be developed through the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and other regulatory agencies to secure the restoration acreage for projects within the watershed and approved service area, including the remaining Otay Ranch University Villages, the City of Chula Vista University Project, and other private and public projects if approved by the regulatory agencies. The purpose of the HMMP is to address impacts on waters of the United States and State associated with the Village 3 and Village 8 West project, including wetlands and riparian habitat regulated by the federal Clean Water Act (CWA), the California Fish and Game Code, and California’s Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act (Porter-Cologne Act). In this regard, the HMMP supports applications to discharge dredged or fill material into waters of the United States (e.g., a USACE 404 permit and a Regional Water Quality Control Board \[RWQCB\] 401 water quality certification) and to obstruct the natural flow of a river, stream, or lake, including changes to sediment and deposition of debris (e.g., a California Department of Fish and Wildlife \[CDFW\] 1602 streambed alteration agreement). The project proponent, Otay Land Company (OLC), and its contractors would be responsible for installation, maintenance, and monitoring of restoration project activities. It is currently anticipated that the project would be implemented in several phases, the first beginning in Fall 2016. Implementation of the proposed project would occur between September and February (outside the breeding season for nesting birds protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act \[MBTA\]) of each year and would be followed by the completion of a minimum 5-year maintenance, monitoring, and reporting phase. The HMMP includes a detailed description of the project design, project implementation, and project maintenance and monitoring activities associated with the proposed project. Figure 4 depicts the proposed phases for the restoration project. Figure 5 illustrates the Conceptual Plan for the parcel proposed for restoration. The project site and surrounding area are included within the City of Chula Vista General Plan, the Otay Ranch General Development and Resource Management Plan, the County of San Diego MSCP, City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan, Otay River Watershed Management Plan, the Draft Otay River Watershed Special Area Management Plan, City of Chula Vista Greenbelt Master Plan, and the Otay Valley Regional Park (OVRP) Concept Plan and Trails Guidelines. In addition, the proposed project and the HMMP have been developed in compliance with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and USACE Compensatory Mitigation for Losses of Aquatic Resources: Final Rule (40 Code of Federal regulations \[CFR\] Part 230 and 33 CFR Parts 325 and 332) and the USACE Final 2015 Regional Compensatory Mitigation and Monitoring Guidelines for South Pacific Division. 2 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 88 The project site is designated as Open Space Preserve by the City of Chula Vista General Plan and Open Space (Conservation) and Open Space (Recreation) by the San Diego County General Plan.The project site is zoned Residential by the City of Chula Vista’s Zoning Code and Agriculture and Special Purpose by the San Diego County Zoning Code. Figures 6 and 7 show the land use and zoning designations for the project site. The City of Chula Vista is the lead agency under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and responsible for permitting the project; USACE, CDFW, and RWQCB have some approval and/or discretionary authority over the project. Table 1, below, indicates the discretionary approvals that would be required to implement the project. Table 1. Discretionary Approvals Required Agency Role 0¤±¬¨³ȝ!¯¯±®µ « ,¤ £ !¦¤¢¸ #¨³¸ ®¥ #§´« -¨³¨¦ ³¤£ .¤¦ ³¨µ¤ $¤¢« ± ³¨® !£®¯³¨® Vista -¨³¨¦ ³¨® -®¨³®±¨¦ £ 2¤¯®±³¨¦ 0±®¦± ¬ Ȩ--20ȩ !£®¯³¨® (--0 !¯¯±®µ « &¨ ¢¤ 0« !¯¯±®µ « Ȩ¨¢«´£¨¦ ±¤³ ¨¨¦ ³§¤ ¯¯±®¯±¨ ³¤ °´ «¨¥¨¤£ ¯¤±²®¤«Ǿ ² £¤²¢±¨¡¤£ ¨ ³§¤ ¯±®¯®²¤£ ¯« Ȭ¤ȁ¦ȁǾ « £²¢ ¯¤ ¨²³ «« ³¨®ȝ¬ ¨³¤ ¢¤ ¢®³± ¢³®±Ǿ ±¤²³®± ³¨® ecologist\]). '± £¨¦ 0¤±¬¨³ ( ¡¨³ ³ ,®²² £ )¢¨£¤³ « 4 ª¤ !¯¯±®µ « 5ȁ3ȁ !±¬¸ #®±¯² &¤£¤± « !¦¤¢¸ ¶¨³§ ΓΏΓ 0¤±¬¨³ ®¥ %ngineers0¤±¬¨³³¨¦ !´³§®±¨³¸ 5ȁ3ȁ &¨²§ £ &¤£¤± « !¦¤¢¸ ¶¨³§ 3¤¢³¨® Ζ )¥®±¬ « #®²´«³ ³¨® ,¤³³¤± 7¨«£«¨¥¤ 3¤±µ¨¢¤ 0¤±¬¨³³¨¦ !´³§®±¨³¸ # «¨¥®±¨ 4±´²³¤¤ȝ2¤²¯®²¨¡«¤ ΐΕΏΑ 3³±¤ ¬¡¤£ !«³¤± ³¨® !¦±¤¤¬¤³ $¤¯ ±³¬¤³ ®¥ Agency &¨²§ £ 7¨«£«¨¥¤ 2¤¦¨® « 7 ³¤± 2¤²¯®²¨¡«¤ !¦¤¢¸ ΓΏΐ 7 ³¤± 1´ «¨³¸ #¤±³¨¥¨¢ ³¨® 1´ «¨³¸ #®³±®« Board To restore the river valley, the proposed project would temporarily affect small areas of jurisdictional waters of the United States and State as well as native upland habitats, which would need to be authorized by regulatory agencies. These temporary impacts, and the project as a whole, have been evaluated by USACE in accordance with Section 404 of the CWA, the RWQCB in accordance with Section 401 of the CWA and the Porter-Cologne Act, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) in accordance with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, and CDFW in accordance with Section 1600 of the California Fish and Game Code. The resource agencies have reviewed the proposed project in detail, visited the site on numerous occasions, and provided feedback on design and phasing. It is anticipated that USACE will authorize the proposed project through issuance of a Nationwide Permit (NWP) for unavoidable impacts associated with Otay Ranch University Village 3, conclude Section 7 and Section 106 consultation, and issue a provisional 404 permit, pending 401 certification from the RWQCB. The RWQCB is also anticipating authorizing the proposed project 3 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 89 through issuance of 401 certification for Otay Ranch University Village 3 and awaiting only the conclusion of CEQA compliance (i.e., completion of this initial study and mitigated negative declaration). CDFW has approved the proposed project as mitigation for Otay Ranch University Village 3 and issued a Streambed Alteration Agreement (SAA) for Village 3 but will also be processing a separate SAA for the proposed project. The application and fee for the project SAA have been submitted; the SAA is anticipated as soon as CEQA compliance is concluded. Trails As mentioned above, the approximately 100-acre restoration site and the larger 300-acre mitigation parcel owned by the City of Chula Vista are within a portion of the City of Chula Vista Greenbelt Master Plan boundaries and are entirely within the OVRP Concept Plan boundaries. Both of these plans identify future multi-use trails where existing dirt roads and 1 unofficial trailsare currently located (see Figure 8). These existing dirt roadsand unofficial trails are used for a variety of purposes by the U.S. Border Patrol, San Diego Gas and Electric, City of San Diego, and Otay Water District, as well as by hikers, cyclists, and equestrians. Altogether there are approximately 5,720 linear feet of the future Greenbelt Master Plan trail and approximately 9,319 linear feet of OVRP trails that occur on the project site. To prevent the restoration site from being disturbed by existing and future users, wood split- rail fencing would be installed at key locations. The fencing, along with signage indicating the general sensitivity of the restoration site and providing wayfinding, would help to minimize trespassing from trail users who would otherwise be unaware of the sensitivity of the habitat restoration area. The existing roads and trails may be moved slightly to accommodate the installation of the fencing and signage while also avoiding road ponds that support San Diego fairy shrimp. Only disturbed areas would be used to designate the narrow trail corridor or pathway. In addition, educational kiosks would be installed at key viewing locations within the disturbed areas to help inform the readers of the importance of the restoration site. Improvements associated with the portion of the trail identified within the City of Chula Vista’s Greenbelt Master Plan would be consistent with the guidelines of that plan and would be installed on existing roads or disturbed habitatthat cross and meander in and out ofand along the restoration site’s northern boundary. Per the Master Plan, the proposed project would identify a 14-foot-wide trail location (width required per SDG&E right-of-way guidelines) for the Greenbelt Trail to accommodate multiple issues uses. Improvements associated with trails identified under the OVRP Concept Plan would be consistent with the guidelines of that plan and would be installed on existing roads that cut through the restoration site and also meander south and east of it. The restoration project would allow for trail corridors consistent with trail classifications A, B, and C as defined in the OVRP Trail Guides that range between 4 and 8 feet in width. Depending on the classification, these trails function for emergency, maintenance, recreation, and remote recreation uses. Figure 8 1 Unofficial trails are existing roads, trails, and paths that have not been officially designated or opened by the County, City, or other official entity. These roads and trails have been cut or created either for utilities and utility access (San Diego Gas and Electric or Otay Water District), by the Border Patrol for national security, or illegally by humans on foot, bicycles, off-road vehicles, or horses. 4 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 90 identifies the designated Greenbelt Master Plan trail and the OVRP trails, and indicates where these are located within the project site. The figure also indicates which trails (i.e., existing roads) would receive trail improvements such as split-rail fencing, signage, and educational kiosks. All trails within the mitigation site, as identified on Figure 8, are the same as the trails described in the OVRP Concept Plan and City Greenbelt Master Plan, with the exception of the potential scenic trail which will be a narrow 4’ wide trail. Approximately, half of the potential scenic trail is currently used by SDG&E as an access road to existing SDG&E poles and will remain at 14’ wide. The proposed project would armor two at-grade roadcrossings through the active floodplain and would require the roads be over-excavated, underlain by native large rock, and reformed to match the stream profile as much as possible for safe crossing. The armoring would be provided to prevent the washing away of the crossings during flood events and eliminate the current berming resulting from consistent vehicle use during wet conditions. In addition, there are four proposed road closures that would be revegetated per the HMMPas these are either redundant or relocated as discussed with the U.S. Border Patrol, San Diego Gas & Electric, and the Otay Water District. One of these road closures, located in the northern portion of the restorationsite, would be revegetated except for a 4- to 6-foot swath that would remain for potential future trail creation under the OVRP Concept Plan. ICF and the City of Chula Vista have been in communication with these entities on these road closures and all are in agreement that they would not limit their ability to achieve their missions. The Border Patrol has asked to install reflectors along trail fencing at road intersections, trail closures, and at the river crossings at specific locations. The exact location of these reflectors will be coordinated with the Border Patrol to ensure safe passage. With the exception of some grading and avoidance of sensitive resources within the restoration site, no grading, resurfacing, or changes to the drainage patterns of these existing roads would occur under the proposed project. Furthermore, no fencing or other structures would be placed in the floodplain. The split-rail fencing would be made out of wood and installed into the existing roadways using manual and mechanized tools such as a post hole digger or auger. Trail signage and educational kiosks would be developed per the guidelines in the City of Chula Vista Greenbelt Master Plan and the OVRP Concept Plan, and would also be installed using manual and mechanized tools. Altogether, the proposed project would (1) improve approximately 12,800 linear feet of existing dirt roadways with fencing, signs, and kiosks; (2) improve approximately 1,600 linear feet of road crossings in the active floodplain; and (3) close approximately 4,500 linear feet of existing dirt roads. Additional improvements that are not part of the proposed project that would take place within the mitigation site and that may occur at a future date under the OVRP Concept Plan and Greenbelt Master Plan could be developed with subsequent environmental review, if necessary, and would not be precluded as a result of implementation of the proposed project. All proposed improvements would be implemented in compliance with the City of Chula Vista Greenbelt Master Plan and the OVRP Concept Plan. The long- term operation and maintenance of the Chula Vista Greenbelt trail would be performed and managed by the City of Chula Vista per the guidelines in the City of Chula Vista Greenbelt Master Plan. The long-term operation and maintenance of the OVRP trails would be shared by the three responsible jurisdictions (County of San Diego, City of Chula Vista, and City of San Diego) per the guidelines in the OVRP Concept Plan and Trail Guidelines. 5 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 91 C.Compliance with Zoning and Plans The project site and surrounding area are designated as Open Space Preserve by the General Plan and within the planning boundaries of the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan. Other applicable planning documents include the Otay Ranch General Development and Resource Management Plan, the County of San Diego Multiple Species Conservation Program Subarea Plan, the Otay River Watershed Management Plan (ORWMP), and the Otay River Watershed Special Area Management Plan. The proposed project would restore and enhance hydrologic and sediment transport processes and native habitats in the Otay River Valley. Implementation of the proposed project would not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the proposed project. Figures 6 and 7 provide the existing land use designations and zoning within and surrounding the project site. D.Public Comments On March 14, 2016, a Notice of Availabilitywas circulated to property owners within a 500- foot radius of the proposed project site. The public review period will ended on April 12, 2016. Five comment letters were received.The comment letters and responses to comments are provided in Attachment 2. Additions to the MND and Initial Study in response to comments received on the Draft are indicated as underlined text, and deletions are indicated as strikeout text. E.Identification of Environmental Effects An Initial Study conducted by the City of Chula Vista (including the attached Environmental Checklist form) determined that, although the proposed project could have a significant environmental effect, there would not be a significant effect in this case because mitigation measures described in Section F below have been added to the project. The preparation of an Environmental Impact Report will not be required. This Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with Section 15070 of the CEQA Guidelines. Air Quality Construction of the proposed project would result in short-term emissions of reactive organic gases, nitrogen oxides, carbon monoxide, sulfur oxides, particulate matter 10 microns in diameter or less (PM10), and particulate matter 2.5 microns in diameter or less (PM2.5) through the use of off-road construction equipment, material haul trucks, and employee vehicles. Ground disturbance and material movement would also generate fugitive PM10 and PM2.5. Emissions would vary from day to day, depending on the level of activity, the specific type of construction activity occurring, and, for fugitive dust, prevailing weather conditions. The proposed project’s construction emissions were estimated and compared to San Diego County Air Pollution Control District (SDAPCD) air quality impact analysis trigger levels, as shown in SDAPCD Rule 20.2. Although proposed project construction emissions would be below applicable SDAPCD trigger levels for all criteria pollutants, the proposed project would include Mitigation Measure AQ-1, requiring implementation of construction best management practices (BMPs) during construction and grading activities, to ensure it would meet SDAPCD Rules 50, 51, and 55 (SDAPCD 2010) for regulating dust emissions. Thus, construction of the proposed project would not result in an impact on air quality because emissions would not exceed applicable air quality standards or contribute to existing air quality violations. 6 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 92 Project maintenance and monitoring activities are expected to be minimal, requiring only hand tools and some minor equipment (e.g., chainsaws, hedge trimmers). In addition, only two truck trips per year are anticipated to haul debris. Maintenance and monitoring activities would be far less disruptive than construction activities, and consequently, emissions would be expected to be minimal and far below SDAPCD trigger levels. Therefore, operation of the proposed project would not result in an impact on air quality because emissions would not exceed applicable air quality standards or contribute to existing air quality violations. Cumulative impacts could result if the proposed project were to exceed established thresholds for pollutants for which the region is in nonattainment status and be constructed at the same time as other development projects in the area, thereby exposing sensitive receptors to cumulative emission concentrations. However, as discussed above, the proposed project would implement Mitigation Measure AQ-1 to ensure that it would not result in construction emissions that would exceed SDAPCD trigger levels; therefore, it would not negatively affect regional air quality. Maintenance and monitoring activities would be minor and would not contribute to any significant cumulative impacts related to the nonattainment status for ozone, PM10, or PM2.5. Given the rural nature of the project area, it is not anticipated that extensive construction or operationalactivities related to other development projects would be occurring while the proposed project is being constructed. Possible cumulative impacts on air quality as a result of construction activities in the area wouldbe addressed by compliance with SDAPCD rules and regulations, which apply to all construction projects. Therefore, project construction and maintenance and monitoring would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase in emissions. This impact would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Biological Resources To assess potential biological resources impacts, a biological resources technical report, dated March 2016, was prepared by ICF International (ICF International 2016). The analysis evaluated potential impacts on biological resources with the implementation of the proposed project. Wildlife: Special-Status Species Fifteen special-status wildlife species have been documented on site: San Diego fairy shrimp, western spadefoot toad, Belding’s orange-throated whiptail, Blainville’s horned lizard, least Bell’s vireo, coastal California gnatcatcher, western yellow-billed cuckoo, northern harrier, white-tailed kite, San Diego cactus wren, grasshopper sparrow, yellow warbler, yellow- breasted chat, San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit, and San Diego woodrat. The project site also provides suitable habitat for other special-status wildlife species. Project grading activities would temporarily impact special-status wildlife species via the temporary loss of vegetation and the potential loss of individuals and direct impacts on avian species protected under the MBTA. However, as described in the project description and the Biological Resources Report (ICF International 2016), to the extent practicable (and consistent with Mitigation Measure BIO-6), all construction activities would occur between September and February of each year and, therefore, take place outside the breeding season and avoid impacts on nesting birds. Furthermore, Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-8 would be implemented, requiring approval of all applicable resource agency permits, biological awareness training for all construction personnel, temporary fencing to clearly distinguish the limits of the project site, biological monitoring to ensure grading activities occur within 7 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 93 designated areas, implementing BMPs outlined in the Biological Resources Report (ICF International 2016), and ensuring nesting birds, burrowing owl, and vernal-pool-dependent species are avoided. These mitigation measures would avoid or minimize impacts on sensitive natural communities and special-status wildlife species that could occur as a result of the temporary loss of habitat, direct impacts on individuals, or the loss of active nests for birds that are protected under the MBTA. Restoration of native vegetation communities would ultimately increase the acreage and quality of suitable breeding habitat for special- status wildlife species over the long term. Moreover, as a project feature, wood split-rail fencing would be installed to designate trail corridors in compliance with the OVRP Concept Plan and City of Chula Vista Greenbelt Master Plan, as well as signage (educational kiosks and general trail signage) would be installed to limit trespassing into the restoration project and adjacent habitats (Mitigation Measure BIO-10). Therefore, after implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-8 and BIO-10, impacts related to special-status wildlife species would be less than significant. Wildlife: Critical Habitat The project site is within USFWS-designated critical habitat for both the coastal California gnatcatcher and the Quino checkerspot butterfly. Grading and restoration activities would temporarily impact designated critical habitat for both species. Coastal California gnatcatcher critical habitat is designated over the entire City of Chula Vista parcel, while Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat is located to the east of the City of Chula Vista parcel. Grading activities would occur in areas not typically used by coastal California gnatcatcher for nesting; enhancement activities would take place in Diegan coastal sage scrub, which is appropriate breeding habitat for coastal California gnatcatcher.Ultimately, restoration actions would improve the acreage and quality of habitat for coastal California gnatcatcher. The restoration grading is located outside of designated Quino critical habitat on previously gravel-mined riverwash alluvium that does not support the Quino checkerspot butterfly. However, as described above, the proposed project would implement Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-6 to avoid and minimize impacts that could occur on sensitive natural communities and special-status wildlife species as a result of the temporary loss of habitat, as well as direct impacts on individuals or the loss of active nests for birds protected under the MBTA. Therefore, after implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-6, impacts related to special-status species critical habitat would be less than significant. Flora: Special-Status Species Twenty-two special-status plant species were identified on site: singlewhorl burrobrush, Otay manzanita, south coast salt scale, San Diego sunflower, San Diego goldenstar, Otay Mountain ceanothus, snake cholla, Otay tarplant, variegated dudleya, San Diego barrel cactus, Palmer’s grapplinghook, Tecate cypress, graceful tarplant, decumbent goldenbush, San Diego marsh elder, Southwestern spiny rush, small flowered microseris, spreading navarretia, Munz’s sage, ashy spike-moss, blue streamwort, and San Diego County needlegrass. Grading activities would result in the temporal loss of vegetation that could result in impacts on special-status plant species, including the loss of individuals. However, implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-5 and BIO-9 would require biological awareness training for all construction personnel, temporary fencing to clearly distinguish the limits of the project site, biological monitoring to ensure grading activities occur within designated areas, implementing BMPs, and developing and implementing a 8 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 94 salvage plan for special-status plants that would be directly impacted by grading activities. These mitigation measures would avoid or minimize impacts on sensitive natural communities and special-status plant species that could occur as a result of the temporary loss of habitat. The restoration of native vegetation communities would, however, ultimately increase the acreage and quality of suitable habitat for these special-status floral species over the long term. As a project feature, wood split-rail fencing would be installed to designate trail corridors in compliance with the OVRP Concept Plan and City of Chula Vista Greenbelt Master Plan, as well as signage (educational kiosks, general trail signage) and safety reflectors to limit trespassing into the restoration project and special-status plant populations (Mitigation Measure BIO-10). Therefore, after implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-5 and BIO-9 and BIO-10, impacts related to special-status floral species would be less than significant. Flora: Critical Habitat A portion of the project site is within USFWS-designated critical habitat for Otay tarplant, and enhancement and grading activities would temporarily affect a portion of the habitat. However, Otay tarplant does not have reasonable potential to occur in the grading area because of the lack of appropriate soils and the disturbed nature of the former gravel mine. However, as mentioned above, Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-5 and BIO-9 would be implemented to minimize potential impacts on critical habitat. As mentioned above, the proposed project is a restoration project that would ultimately increase and enhance suitable habitat for special-status plant species; therefore, after implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-5 and BIO-9, impacts on USFWS-designated critical habitat for Otay tarplant would be less than significant. Federally Protected Waters The existing Otay River channel was substantially altered by gravel and sand mining activities that began in the 1920s and lasted until approximately the late 1980s; consequently, the floodplain has undergone the removal of a significant amount of streambed material and now contains a multitude of tailing rows and mounds, several pits, and other artifacts of such operations. As a result, floodplain drainage patterns have been significantly changed. The proposed project would restore a portion of the Otay River and re-create appropriate channel morphology, along with a floodplain with low and high terraces that would be activated during various flood events. Restoration efforts would be conducted in compliance with applicable state and federal water quality laws. The temporary impacts on small areas of jurisdictional waters of the United States and State and native upland habitats, and the project as a whole, have been evaluated by USACE in accordance with Section 404 of CWA, the RWQCB in accordance with Section 401 of the CWA and the Porter-Cologne Act, USFWS in accordance with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, and the CDFW in accordance with Section 1600 of the California Fish and Game Code. The resource agencies have reviewed the project in detail, visited the site on numerous occasions, and provided feedback on design and phasing. It is anticipated that USACE will authorize the proposed project through issuance of an NWP for unavoidable impacts associated with Otay Ranch University Village 3, conclude Section 7 and Section 106 consultation, and issue a provisional 404 permit, pending 401 certification from the RWQCB. The RWQCB is also anticipating authorizing the proposed project through issuance of 401 certification for Otay Ranch University Village 3 and awaiting only 9 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 95 the conclusion of CEQA compliance (i.e., completion of this initial study and mitigated negative declaration). CDFW has approved the proposed project as mitigation for Otay Ranch University Village 3 and issued an SAA for Village 3 but will also be processing a separate SAA for the proposed project itself. The application and fee for the project SAA have been submitted; the SAA is anticipated as soon as CEQA compliance is concluded (i.e., completion of this initial study and mitigated negative declaration). Furthermore, implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1, Obtain Approval of All Necessary Resource Agency Permits, would be required prior to the issuance of grading permits and the start of restoration activities to ensure that all necessary agency permits have been approved and impacts on protected waters are minimized per the conditions set forth in the permits. Therefore, after implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1, the proposed project would not have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected waters, as defined by Section 404 of the CWA, and impacts would be less than significant. With implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-10, as outlined in Section F, Mitigation Necessary to Avoid Significant Impacts, biological resources impacts would be less than significant. Cultural Resources To assess potential impacts affecting cultural resources, a CEQA Cultural Resources Technical Report was prepared by ICF International (ICF International 2016). The cultural resources analysisis summarized below. A records review revealed that two isolated artifacts and one archaeological site were previously documented within the restoration site: site CA-SDI-10875 and isolates 37- 015385 and 37-015386. The artifacts associated with the isolates were collected during their initial documentation (Kyle et al. 1993a, 1993b). A subsequent cultural resources survey performed in support of the proposed project between June 2 and 3, 2015, did not locate any additional artifacts in the vicinity of either isolated find. This same survey identified only two surface-exposed lithic artifacts within the previously defined boundary for CA-SDI-10875. Historic documentation review and a pedestrian survey revealed that the central portion of the project area has been subject to deep and widespread ground disturbance associated with a sand and gravel mining operation that occurred in the project area during the late twentieth century. This area is considered to have limited potential to contain archaeological resources and intersects with the southern edge of the previously defined boundary for CA-SDI-10875. CA-SDI-10875 has not been determined eligible for, or listed in, the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) or National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Considering that only two non-diagnostic lithic artifacts were documented within a 17-acre portion of the site that occurs within the restoration site, that previous recent studies could not relocate any artifacts within the site boundary (AECOM 2013), and that no features or chronologically diagnostic artifacts have been documented within the site, the portion of the site that occurs within the project area does not appear to be eligible under Criterion 4 of the CRHR (Public Resources Code SS5024.1, Title 14, Section 4852). This site is not directly associated with any recognized historic or prehistoric event or person (Criteria 1 and 2), does not appear to embody a characteristic or method of construction that would warrant special recognition, and is not located in a cohesive neighborhood or grouping (Criterion 3). Therefore, impacts related to the proposed project causing a substantial adverse change in the significance of an 10 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 96 archaeological resource pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 would be less than significant. One archaeological site, CA-SDI-14218, is located within the mitigation parcel where project-related ground disturbing activities (i.e., fence and sign installation) are proposed. The resource was not surveyed during the June 2 and 3, 2015, cultural resources survey and has not been evaluated for its eligibility for listing in the CRHR or NRHP. In accordance with guidance from the California Office of Historic Preservation, the site must be treated as though it were a significant resource until the necessary studies have been performed to determine its eligibility for the CRHR or NRHP. In order to minimize impacts to the resource, the proposed project would incorporate Mitigation Measure CUL-1, which would redesign the portion of the project that would result in ground disturbance within CA-SDI- 14218 to avoid the site by relocating it to an area that does not occur within CA-SDI-14218 or any other previously documented archaeological sites. Implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-1 would reduce impacts to archaeological sites to less than significant. If CA- SDI-14218 cannot be avoided, the proposed project would incorporate Mitigation Measure CUL-2. This mitigation measure would require cultural resources investigations designed to evaluate the CRHR and NRHP eligibility of CA-SDI-14218 and consider whether proposed project activities would result in significant impacts to this resource. If CA-SDI-14218 is determined not eligible for listing in the CRHR or NRHP, or that the project would not result in significant impacts to the character-defining elements of the resource, then impacts to archaeological sites would be less than significant. If CA-SDI-14218 is determined eligible for listing in the CRHR or NRHP, then an archaeological treatment plan will need to be developed and implemented to reduce impacts to less than significant. Despite the paucity of archaeological deposits identified within the 300-acre mitigation site during previous surveys, the proposed project would incorporate Mitigation Measure CUL- 3, which would require the development and implementation of an unanticipated discovery plan, and Mitigation Measure CUL-4, which would require archaeological monitoring for any ground-disturbing activities within the 300-acre mitigation parcel. These mitigation measures would be used to account for the potential for encountering redeposited artifacts in the sediment stockpiles on site and the potential for encountering as-yet undocumented archaeological deposits in areas with poor ground surface visibility. Therefore, after implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-3 and CUL-4, impacts related to archaeological resources would be less than significant. Geology and Soils Implementation of the proposed project would not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. Erosion is a condition that could adversely affect development on any site. Construction activities would include the removal of all invasive nonnative tree, shrub, and herbaceous species, followed by grading of the channel and floodplain areas to remove spoil piles, berms, and pits and restore the area to the desired functions. Other improvements would include installation of wood split-rail fencing, signage, and educational kiosks as well as armoring two roadway crossings in the floodplain and closing four existing dirt roads. The proposed project would not add any new impervious surfaces. Construction activities could exacerbate erosion conditions by exposing soils and adding water to the soil from irrigation. As discussed in more detail below in Section IX, Hydrology and Water Quality, the General Construction Permit, which was adopted by the State Water Resources Control Board as 11 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 97 Water Quality Order 2012-0006-DWQ on July 17, 2012, is required for soil disturbance activities that greater than 1acre. Compliance with the General Construction Permit requires development and implementation of a site-specific Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) by a Qualified SWPPP Developer that includes BMPs to be employed during construction to control soil erosion. The selection of erosion control BMPs is based on minimizing disturbed areas, stabilizing disturbed areas, and protecting water quality. Preliminary erosion control measures for the proposed project would include, but not be limited to, the use of hydraulic mulch, soil binders, geotextiles and mats, hydroseeding, straw mulch, earth dikes, and velocity dissipation devices. Furthermore, as discussed above in Section V, Biological Resources, the proposed project would implement Mitigation Measure BIO-1 to ensure that all necessary agency permits, including a CWA Section 402 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Construction General Permit (Order No. 2012-0006-DWQ) from the Regional Water Quality Control Board, are approved before initiating grading activities and impacts related to geology and soils are minimized per the conditions set forth in the permits. As a result, after implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1, the proposed project would result in less-than-significant impacts related to soil erosion during construction activities. Operation of the proposed project would restore the portion of the Otay River within the boundaries of the restoration site by creating complex channel morphology, including primary and secondary channels. A floodplain would be re-created with low and high terraces that would be activated during various flood events. This would improve drainage patterns compared with existing conditions and would not increase erosion because the restoration site would be restored to the desired functions, with native habitat that would prevent substantial erosion or siltation on- or off site. Furthermore, a restoration ecologist, be retained by the project applicant, would work in coordination with the installation and maintenance contractors and oversee the protection of existing native vegetation, nonnative plant removal, contour grading, site preparation, planting and seeding, maintenance and monitoring, and reporting. If deemed necessary by the restoration ecologist, maintenance activities would include remedial measures for erosion control. In addition, operation and maintenance of the minor trail improvements would be performed and managed by the City of Chula Vista per the guidelines in the City of Chula Vista Greenbelt Master Plan and OVRP Concept Plan and Trail Guidelines. As these improvements would occur in the disturbed areas of existing dirt roads, long-term soil erosion is not expected to be an issue for these project components. Thus, long-term operational impacts related to soil erosion or loss of topsoil would be less than significant. Hazards and Hazardous Materials Implementation of the proposed project is not expected to create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. Construction-related hazardous materials would be used during construction of the proposed project, including fuel, solvents, chemicals, and oils, for the operation of construction equipment. It is possible that any of these substances could be released in small amounts during construction activities. However, compliance with federal, state, and local regulations in combination with construction BMPs implemented from a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) as required under the State WaterResources Control Board’s Construction General Permit 12 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 98 would ensure that all hazardous materials are transported, used, stored, and disposed properly, which would minimize potential impacts related to a hazardous materials release during the construction phase of the project. Furthermore, Mitigation Measure BIO-1 would ensure that all necessary agency permits, including a CWASection 402 NPDES Construction General Permit (Order No. 2012-0006-DWQ) from the Regional Water Quality Control Board, are approved before initiating grading activities. No hazardous materials are expected to be transported, used, disposed of, or stored on site during the operational phase, which would be similar to the existing operations at the project site. A records search was conducted to determine if there are any known hazards or hazardous materials located on or close to the project site that could result in a significant hazard to the public or the environment. The following summarizes the findings of this records search. GeoTracker and EnviroStor Existing Leaking Underground Storage Tanks Research conducted on GeoTracker and EnviroStor during an online records review provided no current or historical hazardous material information regarding the proposed project site. However, two Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) sites were identified within a 1- mile radius of the proposed project site; the Lower Lake Filtration Plant located northeast of the proposed project at 2200 Wueste Road and the East Mesa Detention Center located southeast of the proposed project at 446 Alta Road (State Water Resources Control Board 2015). Contamination found in the Lower Lake Filtration Plant site included gasoline- impacted soil only, while the East Mesa Detention Center was a diesel-impacted soil-only site. Remediation was conducted and both sites were granted closure in September of 2006 and December of 2007, respectively. Thus, the likelihood of contamination migrating to the proposed project area and adversely affecting construction workers or the environment from the two surrounding sites is very low. Brown Field Bombing Range Formerly Used Defense Site The western portion of the project site is located within the Brown Field Bombing Range Formerly Used Defense Site (FUDS). Figure 9 shows where the project site, restoration site, trails, and the FUDS property boundaries overlap. The Brown Field Bombing Range was identified in the EnviroStor database as being part of the Department of Toxic Substances Control’s (DTSC’s) Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List – Site Cleanup (Cortese List). The Cortese List is a planning document used by the state, local agencies, and developers to comply with CEQA requirements in providing information about the location of hazardous materials release sites (DTSC 2015). The Brown Field Bombing Range (also known as the Otay Mesa Bombing Range, the Otay Bombing Target, or Otay Mesa Bombing Target #32) was used by the Navy between 1942 and 1960 as a dive-bombing practice range, and later as an aerial rocket range. In 1961, the bombing range was assigned for disposal. Construction of the proposed project could create a significant hazard to construction workers or the environment by exposing or encountering any remaining unearthed unexploded ordnances (UXO), munitions and explosives of concern (MEC), and munitions debris (MD). UXOs are defined as military munitions that have been prepared for action, remain unexploded, and have been fired, dropped, launched, projected, or placed in such a manner as to constitute an explosive hazard. MECs specify specific categories of military munitions that may pose unique explosive safety risks, of which UXOs 13 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 99 are one. Other MECs include discarded military munitions, which are munitions that have been abandoned without proper disposal or removed from storage in a military magazine or other storage area for proper disposal, and munitions constituents, which are any materials originating from unexploded ordnances, discarded military munitions, or other military munitions (Office of the Under Secretary 2003). MD are remnants of munitions (i.e., penetrators, projectiles, shell casings, links, fins) remaining after munitions use, demilitarization, or disposal (Parsons 2007). Parsons Site Inspection Report A site inspection (SI) evaluation consisting of a qualitative reconnaissance and surface soil sampling was conducted by Parsons in 2007 to evaluate the presence of MECs, MDs, and munitions constituents (MCs) within the Former Brown Field Bombing Range. The qualitative reconnaissance encompassed 15.9 miles of the former bombing range and a total of 10 soil samples (as depicted in Figure 9). Results of the laboratory analysis were as follows. Explosives were not detected in any of the soil samples collected. MC contamination was detected in surface soil samples, in particular, aluminum, copper, iron, lead, potassium, manganese, and zinc. Due to the laboratory results, a MC Screening Level Risk Assessment (SLRA) and a Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment (SLERA) were conducted for aluminum, copper, lead, manganese, and zinc (iron and potassium were determined to not pose an unacceptable risk). Based on the results of the SLRA and SLERA, the Former Brown Field Bombing Range was determined not to pose an unacceptable risk to human health or ecological receptors resulting from potential exposure to MC in surface soil. As surface water and sediment samples were not collected at the time of the evaluation, the SI recommended the need for further investigation to determine the presence of MEC hazards in these types of media. Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 would reduce potential impacts associated with unacceptable risks to human health or ecological receptors resulting from exposure to MC in surface water and sediment by requiring sampling and completion of the associated SLRA and SLERA studies, along with either avoidance or remediation of any affected areas before any construction activities may proceed. Implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ-2 would further reduce potential impacts related to historic Brown Field FUDS site activities by performing a surface clearance sweep prior to initiating any construction activities and removing and disposing of any remaining unearthing UXO, MEC and MD. In addition, Mitigation Measure HAZ-2 would require two UXO qualified technicians to support the project’s restoration and grading activities to detect the presence of MEC in disturbed soil. Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Hydrology and Water Quality Pollutant Discharges to Receiving Waters The proposed project would not result in an increase in pollutant discharges to receiving waters, result in significant alteration of receiving water quality during or following construction, or violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. The project area is situated within the Otay River watershed and contains a floodplain and the Otay River main channel. Three creeks flow into the project area. Two are un-named 14 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 100 drainages that meet the Otay River from the south; the third is O’Neal Canyon Creek, which meets the Otay River toward the downstream end of the project area and originates in the Otay Mountain Wilderness near Otay Mountain. The restoration area is in a post-disturbance state. The floodplain was mined for sand/gravel in the 1980s, and a portion near Savage Dam was burned in 2003. As a result, floodplain drainage patterns have been significantly altered, creating a poorly defined channel and a number of large and small avulsions and abandoned channels. The Otay River is not listed as a 303d impaired water body (State Water Resources Control Board 2010). Construction activities would include the removal of all invasive nonnative tree, shrub, and herbaceous species, followed by grading of the channel and floodplain areas to remove spoil piles, berms, and pits and restore the area to the desired functions. In addition, the project would include installation of fencing around the borders of the restoration site and signs and educational kiosks on existing dirt roads. The potential impacts of these construction activities on water quality are related primarily to sediment and sediment-bound pollutants that may be mobilized during construction. Ground-disturbing construction activities, such as grading, excavation, and stockpiling of spoil materials, and runoff from construction areas could cause soil erosion and sedimentation and reduce water quality in the Otay River. Additionally, hazardous materials (e.g., gasoline, oils, grease, lubricants) from construction equipment could be accidently released during construction. Accidental discharge of these materials to surface waters could adversely affect water quality, endanger aquatic life, and/or result in a violation of water quality standards. Because the proposed project would disturb more than 1 acre of land, the proposed project would be subject to the California State Water Resources Control Board’s NPDES General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Constructions and Land Disturbance Activities (General Construction Permit). The General Construction Permit was adopted by the State Water Resources Control Board as Water Quality Order 2012-0006-DWQ and became effective on July 17, 2012. Compliance with the General Construction Permit requires development and implementation of a SWPPP by a Qualified SWPPP Developer, elimination of or reductions to non-stormwater discharges off-site into storm drainage systems or other water bodies, and the implementation of BMPs throughout the construction period. The SWPPP requires a description of the restoration site, identification of sources of sediment and other pollutants that may affect the quality of stormwater discharges, a list of BMPs to provide sediment and erosion control, waste handling measures, and non- stormwater management. The preliminary list of BMPs to be employed at the restoration site is shown in Table 3 (see Environmental Checklist Form). Various BMPs may be needed at different times during construction because activities are constantly changing site conditions. The selection of erosion control BMPs is based on minimizing disturbed areas, stabilizing disturbed areas, and protecting water quality. The selection of sediment control BMPs is based on retaining sediment on-site and controlling the site perimeter. The SWPPP would contain the final BMP list and meet or exceed measures required by the Construction General Permit. In addition, the SWPPP is required to be implemented by a Qualified SWPPP Practitioner to ensure all BMPs are implemented correctly to protect water quality. Furthermore, as discussed under Biological Resources, the proposed project would implement Mitigation Measure BIO-1 to ensure that all necessary agency permits would be approved before initiating grading activities and impacts on hydrology and water quality would be minimized per the conditions set forth in the permits. As a result, after 15 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 101 implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1, the proposed project would result in less- than-significant impacts related to water quality standards during construction activities. Alter Existing Drainage Patterns The existing channel has been disturbed through gravel and sand mining during the twentieth century. Dozens of mine tailing mounds exist within the historic channel, and drainage patterns have been severely altered as a result. In addition, regular vehicular and foot traffic have created disruptions in the floodplain hydrology, and artificial ruts or ponds have developed in existing roads and unofficial trails where they cross the river. Moreover, the artificial ruts or ponds are causing artificial deepening and the subsequent creation of berms, which are impounding water upstream and forcing the limited surface hydrology subsurface. Construction activities would include the removal of all invasive nonnative tree, shrub, and herbaceous species, followed by grading of the channel and floodplain areas to remove spoil piles, berms, and pits and restore the area to the desired functions. The proposed project would armor two at-grade road crossings through the active floodplain and would require the roads be over-excavated, underlain by native large rock, and reformed to match the stream profile as much as possible for safe crossing. The armoring would be provided to prevent erosion of the crossings during flood events and eliminate the current berming resulting from regular vehicle and foot traffic. The SWPPP, required as part of compliance with the Construction General Permit identified above, would address impacts from erosion or siltation on- or off site during construction. Furthermore, implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1 would ensure that all necessary agency permits would be approved before initiating grading activities and impacts on hydrology and water quality would be minimized per the conditions set forth in the permits. Operation of the proposed project would restore the portion of the Otay River within the boundaries of the restoration site by creating complex channel morphology, including primary and secondary channels. A floodplain would be re-created with low and high terraces that would be activated during various flood events. This would improve drainage patterns compared with existing conditions and would not increase erosion or siltation off-site. The restoration site would be restored to the desired functions with native habitat that would prevent substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site. As previously stated, the proposed project would armor two at-grade road crossings through the active floodplain to allow for safe crossing and prevent erosion during flood events. The proposed project is required to comply with the OVRP Trail Guidelines, which identify erosion control requirements for trail design, especially for soft-surface, multi-use trails. Trails designed for multiple user groups may need additional maintenance due to higher use and the potential for higher levels of erosion. Per City requirements, the OVRP Trail Guidelines shall be implemented in order to reduce soil erosion and ensuing trail damage. A restoration ecologist, retained by the project applicant, would work in coordination with the installation and maintenance contractors and oversee the protection of existing native vegetation, nonnative plant removal, contour grading, site preparation, planting and seeding, maintenance and monitoring, and well as reporting. Therefore, after implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1, the proposed project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the restoration site or area in a manner that would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site. Impacts would be less than significant. 16 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 102 Land Use and Planning Implementation of the proposed project would not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the proposed project. The project site is designated as Open Space Preserve by the City of Chula Vista General Plan and Open Space (Conservation) and Open Space (Recreation) by the San Diego County General Plan. The project site is zoned Residential by the City of Chula Vista’s Zoning Code and Agriculture and Special Purpose by the San Diego County Zoning Code. Other applicable planning documents include the Otay Ranch Phase 1 and 2 Resource Management Plan (RMP), the County of San Diego Multiple Species Conservation Program and City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan, Otay River Watershed Management Plan (ORWMP), and the Draft Otay River WatershedSpecial Area Management Plan (SAMP), City of Chula Vista Greenbelt Master Plan, and the OVRP Concept Plan and Trails Guidelines. As discussed within the initial study environmental checklist, the project would be consistent with all applicable plans. Moreover, to ensure all trail improvements are consistent with the City’s Greenbelt Master Plan and the OVRP Concept Plan and Trail Guidelines, Mitigation Measure LU-1 is required. Mitigation Measure LU-1 would require that all applicable grading plans would contain the applicable trail guidelines from both the City’s Greenbelt Master Plan and the OVRP Trail Guidelines. It would also require approval of the design of the proposed fencing and signage, which would be designed in accordance with these two documents. Finally, it would require the City to confirm installation of these improvements matched the approved designs. With this mitigation, impacts related to land use and planning would be less than significant. F. Mitigation Necessary to Avoid Significant Impacts Air Quality 1. Mitigation Measure AQ-1: Implement Construction BMPs. The following best management practices shall be shown on all applicable grading and building plans as details, notes, or as otherwise appropriate: Minimize simultaneous operation of multiple construction equipment units. Use low pollutant-emitting construction equipment. Use electrical construction equipment as practical. Use catalytic reduction for gasoline-powered equipment. Use injection-timing retard for diesel-powered equipment. Water the construction area at least three times daily to minimize fugitive dust. Stabilize graded areas as quickly as possible to minimize fugitive dust. Pave permanent roads as quickly as possible to minimize dust. Use electricity from power poles instead of temporary generators during building, if available. Apply stabilizer or pave the last 100 feet of internal travel path within a construction site prior to public road entry. Install wheel washers adjacent to a paved apron prior to vehicle entry on public roads. 17 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 103 Remove any visible track-out into traveled public streets within 30 minutes of occurrence. Wet wash the construction access point at the end of each workday if any vehicle travel on unpaved surfaces has occurred. Provide sufficient perimeter erosion control to prevent washout of silty material onto public roads. Cover haul trucks or maintain at least 12 inches of freeboard to reduce blow-off during hauling. Suspend all soil disturbance and travel on unpaved surfaces if winds exceed 25 miles per hour. Biological Resources 2. Mitigation Measure BIO-1: Obtain Approval of All Necessary Resource Agency Permits. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall obtain all necessary resource agency permits and provide copies to the City. All conditions identified within each of the resource agency permits shall be implemented in accordance with the permit. The applicable resource agency permits for the proposed project include a Clean Water Act Section 404 Permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, a Section 7 Informal Consultation Letter from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, a Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification from the Regional Water Quality Control Board,a Clean Water Act Section 402 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Construction General Permit (Order No. 2012-0006-DWQ) from the Regional Water Quality Control Board, and a Section 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. In addition to the agency permits, a conservation easement or other approved site protection mechanism and endowment would be established per the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Environmental Protection Agency Compensatory Mitigation Rule. 3. Mitigation Measure BIO-2: Biological Awareness Training. Prior to initiation of grading activities, biological resource awareness training will be provided by a qualified biologist to all construction personnel. The training will include information regarding sensitive species with the potential to occur at the site as well as minimization and avoidance measures to reduce potential indirect effects on the habitat. A log of personnel who have completed the training and a copy of the training report/outline (including special-status species photos, targeted invasive plant species, and descriptions of the measures discussed in the training session) will be maintained at the construction office. 4. Mitigation Measure BIO-3: Temporary Fencing. Prior to the initiation of grading activities, the limits of grading will be clearly marked by well-installed temporary fencing that is prominently colored. The fence will be installed by the construction contractor and will remain in place during all grading activities. 5. Mitigation Measure BIO-4: Biological Monitor. A qualified biological monitor will be on site during vegetation clearing activities to ensure that grading activities occur within designated areas. The monitor will also ensure that any special-status species that becomes entrapped within the grading limits is moved away from construction equipment. The biological monitor will also periodically inspect the limits of disturbance 18 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 104 fence to ensure that it is in good condition. Any parts of the fence that need repair will be brought to the contractor’s attention to be fixed immediately. In the event that a special- status species is located within the grading limits, the biological monitor would temporarily stop construction. Removal of sensitive species should be done by a biologist qualified to handle that specific species. If needed, the California Department of Fish and Wildlifewill be informally consulted if there is a question on the best manner to safely address a situation with a sensitive wildlife species. 6. Mitigation Measure BIO-5: Best Management Practices. Best management practices (BMPs) will be implemented per the conditions outlined in the Biological Resources Report (ICF International 2016) by the construction contractor during all grading activities to reduce potential indirect effects on special-status species and habitat. BMPs will include but will not be limited to the following. All trash will be properly storedand removed from the site daily to prevent attracting wildlife to the construction area. Vehicles and equipment will be stored only on pre-designated staging areas in disturbed or developed areas. Fueling should be conducted in a manner that prevents spillage of fuel into the Otay River or into riparian or wetland habitats. All maintenance of vehicles and equipment will be conducted in a manner so that oils and other hazardous materials will not discharge into the Otay River, or into riparian habitat areas (including Freshwater and Freshwater Marsh). Dust control measures will be implemented to minimize the settling of dust on vegetation. Appropriate firefighting equipment (e.g., extinguishers, shovels, water tankers) will be available on the site during all phases of project construction, and appropriate fire prevention measures will be taken to help minimize the chance of human-caused wildfires. All construction will be performed between dawn and dusk to the degree feasible to minimize potential indirect effects (e.g., increased depredation) on the species beyond the limits of disturbance. 7. Mitigation Measure BIO-6: Nesting Bird Avoidance. To avoid any direct impacts on nesting coastal California gnatcatchers (Polioptila californica californica), least Bell’s vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus), western yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus occidentalis), raptors, or other birds protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, removal of habitat, including the removal of any riparian woodland, upland vegetation, and eucalyptus trees that may support active nests on the proposed area of disturbance will occur outside of the breeding season when feasible. The breeding season is defined as February 15–September 15. If work, including any trail improvement work, must be conducted during the breeding season, nesting bird surveys would need to be completed in order to clear the area or locate active nests for avoidance. Adequate avoidance buffers would be established around any active nests and coordinated with the wildlife agencies. 8. Mitigation Measure BIO-7: Preconstruction Burrowing Owl Survey. To avoid any direct impacts on burrowing owls (Athene cunicularia), an approved biologist shall conduct focused pre-construction surveys for burrowing owls. The surveys shall be performed no earlier than 10 days prior to the commencement of any clearing, grubbing, or grading activities. If occupied burrows are detected, the biologist shall prepare a 19 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 105 passive relocation mitigation plan, subject to review and approval by the Wildlife Agencies and the City, including any subsequent burrowing owl relocation plans to avoid impacts from construction-related activities. 9. Mitigation Measure BIO-8: Vernal Pool–Dependent Species Avoidance. The San Diego Mesa vernal pool complex located in the northeastern corner of the property is outside of the restoration boundary and will be completely avoided. To avoid all other potential fairy shrimp habitat areas and potential impacts on San Diego fairy shrimp (Branchinecta sandiegonensis), other ponding features such as road ruts and road ponds will be identified by an aquatic resource and fairy shrimp specialist and fenced by the construction contractor ensuring they are not impacted by restoration activities including truck traffic and storage. Construction access routes will be rerouted within the proposed grading footprint to avoid these ponding features. These new routes will replace existing roads/trails to avoid future impacts associated with vehicular and recreational use. The uplands surrounding the ponds will be restored with native species. Wood split-rail fencing, boulders, and signage will be installed outside of these sensitive areas and used to inform the public of the sensitivity of the area and deter them from trespassing into the ponded areas and river restoration project. 10. Mitigation Measure BIO-9: Special-Status and Succulent Plant Salvage Plan. During grading and enhancement activities, special-status and succulent plant species should be avoided where feasible. Salvage and relocation of target species to adjacent areas will be implemented for unavoidable impacts. Target species include the special-status plant species detected within the restoration project boundary: singlewhorl burrobush (Ambrosia monogyra), San Diego sunflower (Bahiopsis laciniata), San Diego barrel cactus (Ferocactus viridescens), Palmer’s grapplinghook (Harpagonella palmeri), Tecate cypress (Hesperocyparis forbesii), decumbent goldenbush (Isocoma menziesii var. decumbens), San Diego marsh-elder (Iva hayesiana), southwestern spiny rush (Juncus acutus ssp. leopoldii), small-flowered microseris (Microseris douglasii ssp. platycarpha), blue streamwort (Stemodia durantifolia), and San Diego needlegrass (Stipa diegoensis), as well as Otay tarplant if detected within the restoration project boundary. A special-status plant and succulent salvage plan willbe prepared for the areas of grading and habitat enhancement. The plan will be prepared and implemented prior to grading and enhancement activities. The plan will include a special-status and succulent plant target species list, seed collection, succulent plant salvage, and transplanting methods. 11. Mitigation Measure BIO-10: Public Access, Trails, and Recreation.To deter trespassing into the restoration site, wood split-rail fencing will be installed to designate road/trail corridors along existing roads and existing unofficial trails that border the restoration site. Other barriers (boulders, brush piles, logs. and plantings) will be placed at strategic locations when protection of sensitive resources is required where fencing is not present. For safety purposes, reflectivematerial will be placed on the wood fencing at specific locations to aid Border Patrol and other night-time users from unintentionally breaking through fencing into sensitive habitat. Additionally, signage and informational kiosks will be installed for educational purposes and to inform the public of the sensitivity of the restoration site and adjacent habitats. All installation activities (signage, fencing, kiosks) and reflective materials will occur outside of the breeding season defined 20 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 106 as February 15–September 15 or be in accordance with Mitigation Measure BIO-6 and require preconstruction surveys. Cultural Resources 12. Mitigation Measure CUL-1: Avoidance of CA-SDI-14218. The portion of the proposed project that would require ground disturbance within CA-SDI-14218 will be redesigned to avoid the resource, either by rerouting or eliminating the activity that would require ground disturbance within the site boundary. If rerouting is selected, the new route would avoid any other previously documented unevaluated, CRHR-eligible, or NRHP-eligible resources. 13. Mitigation Measure CUL-2: Testing of CA-SDI-14218. If ground disturbance within CA-SDI-14218 cannot be avoided, a cultural resources study designed to evaluate the CRHR and NRHP eligibility of the resource will be performed prior to ground disturbing activities. If the archaeological site is determined to be eligible for the CRHR and NRHP, the study will also determine whether the proposed ground disturbance would result in significant impacts to CA-SDI-14218. If the study determines that CA-SDI-14218 is not eligible for listing in the CRHR or NRHP, or that the project would not result in significant impacts to the character-defining elements of the resource, then impacts to archaeological resources would be less than significant. If CA-SDI-14218 is determined eligible for listing in the CRHR or NRHP, then an archaeological treatment plan will need to be developed and implemented for CA-SDI14218 to reduce impacts to archaeological resources to less than significant. 14. Mitigation Measure CUL-3: Unanticipated Discovery Plan. Prior to any ground disturbing activities associated with project construction, an unanticipated discovery plan will be developed and will be implemented and enforced during all project-related ground disturbance activities. The plan will establish the procedures to follow in the event of an unanticipated discovery of archaeological deposits or human remains, describe the anticipated range of archaeological resource types, list the character-defining elements that would render archaeological resources eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and/or California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) and identify documentation procedures to follow in the event that an archaeological discovery does not retain the necessary character-defining elements to be considered eligible for listing in the NRHP or CRHR. In the event that an unanticipated discovery is determined to be eligible for listing in the NRHP and/or CRHR, the procedures to follow regarding the treatment of the resource will be developed in consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer and the affected tribes. The plan will contain resource avoidance procedures to follow while treatment is being developed. 15. Mitigation Measure CUL-4: Archaeological Monitoring. All ground disturbing activities within the 300-acre mitigation parcel will be monitored by a professional archaeologist. In the event of an unanticipated archaeological discovery, the archaeological monitor will assess the discovery in accordance with the project’s Unanticipated Discovery Plan described in Mitigation Measure CUL-3. Hazards and Hazardous Materials 16. Mitigation Measure HAZ-1: Sampling and SLRA/SLERA Studies for On-site Surface Water and Sediment and Water/Sediment Remediation if Necessary. Prior 21 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 107 to construction activities associated with the project, surface water and sediment sampling will be conducted by an environmental consultant with experience in proper sample handling procedures. Samples will be collected from the western portion of the site where the project site boundaries overlap with the Brown Field Bombing Range Formerly Used Defense Site boundary, the number and location of which will be determined by a qualified environmental professional with experience in screening level risk assessments. Using the laboratory results, a Munitions Constituents Screening Level Risk Assessment and a Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment will be conducted to assess potential risk associated with munitions constituents exposure to human and ecological receptors. A report will be prepared with the results of the study and submitted to the City for review and approval. Should results indicate the presence of contamination levels that would pose a risk to human health, the project proponent (in consultation with the City) will coordinate with the San Diego County Department of Environmental Health, the Department of Toxic Substances Control, and the Regional Water Quality Control Board regarding avoidance or remediation of affected water and soils in compliance with applicable federal, state, and local laws prior to any project-specific construction activities occurring. If the condition at the site requires it, the project proponent will not proceed with construction activities until a letter of closure is provided by the lead hazardous materials agency. Should the results indicate that no serious risk is present, project-related construction activities may proceed, pending compliance with any other applicable mitigation. 17. Mitigation Measure HAZ-2:Surface Clearance Prior to Construction. Prior to initiating invasive species removal, restoration site grading activities, or trail improvements, a surface clearance will be conducted where the restoration site and trail improvements intersect the Brown Field Bombing Range Formerly Used Defense Site (FUDS) boundary and along any access roads and staging areas to identify all munitions and explosives of concern (MEC) and munitions debris (MD). A qualified survey company with experience in unearthed unexploded ordnances (UXO) will be retained to sweep the area for metallic items including those that may be obscured by vegetation or surface debris, and MD will be evaluated to determine if any explosive residue remains. If it is determined that there is the potential for an explosive hazard, the City of Chula Vista and County of San Diego will be contacted to respond to the item and dispose of it appropriately. Upon identifying an explosive hazard, the survey company will establish an exclusion zone around the material. The exclusion zone radius will depend on the type of material identified and will be expanded, if needed, while material is being worked on or if setting a charge to explode the material in place. If setting a charge, all personnel will be required to evacuate the area. All personnel will be required to remain out of the exclusion zone until the responders provide clearance. All MD determined to no longer contain explosive residue will be inspected by qualified personnel and containerized in lockable 55-gallon drums for later disposal by an approved recycler. During construction, the qualified survey company will supply two UXO–qualified technicians to support the project’s restoration and grading activities. The technicians will use magnetometers to detect the presence of MEC in disturbed soil. If no MEC items are identified, excavations will be advanced to desired depth. If MEC are detected during excavation/grading, these activities will stop immediately and the survey company technician(s) will contact the City of Chula Vista and County of San Diego for disposal 22 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 108 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 109 H. Consultation 1. Individuals and Organizations City of San Diego: Laura Ball, Project Officer II City of San Diego: Nikki McGinnis, Natural Resources Manager California Department of Fish and Wildlife: Kelly Fisher, Environmental Scientist County of San Diego: Melanie Tylke, Land Use and Environmental Planner Otay Valley Regional Park – Citizen Advisory Committee, Trails Subcommittee Otay Water District: Lisa Coburn-Boyd, Environmental Compliance Specialist Regional Water Quality Control Board: Lisa Honma, Environmental Scientist San Diego Border Patrol: Amber Craig, Supervisory Border Patrol Agent San Diego Border Patrol: Agent Ben Hollinder, Special Operations Office San Diego Gas & Electric: Scott Boczkiewicz, Environmental Programs Manager U.S. Army Corps of Engineers: Rose Galer, Project Manager, Carlsbad Field Office U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service: Eric Porter, Carlsbad Office 2. Documents AECOM. 2013. Archaeological Site Survey Record Update, CA-SDI-10875. On file at the South Coastal Information Center. Chen Ryan Associates. 2015. Otay River Restoration Project Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan – Traffic Analysis. San Diego, CA. December 2015. City of Chula Vista. 2015. Chula Vista Vision 2020. Chula Vista, CA. Adopted: December 13, 2005, Amended: March 2015. Department of Toxic Substances Control. 2015. DTSC's Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List – Site Cleanup (Cortese List). Available: http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/SiteCleanup/Cortese_List.cfm. Accessed: December 9, 2015. ICF International. 2015a. CalEEMod Emission Output Sheets for the Otay River Restoration Project. November 2015. 24 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 110 ———. 2015b. CEQA Cultural Resources Technical Report, Otay River Restoration Project; City of Chula Vista Mitigation Parcel, San Diego County, California. Prepared for Otay Land Company, LLC. A subsidiary of HomeFed Corporation. ———. 2015c. Noise Field Sheets and Construction Noise Analysis for the Otay River Restoration Project. December 2015. ———. 2016. Biological Resources Report, Otay River Restoration Project; City of Chula Vista Mitigation Parcel, San Diego County, California. Prepared for Otay Land Company, LLC. A subsidiary of HomeFed Corporation. March. Kyle, C., R. Phillips, S. Briggs, and L. Tift. 1993a. Isolate Record, P-37-105385. On file at the South Coastal Information Center. ———. 1993b. Isolate Record, P-37-105386. On file at the South Coastal Information Center. Office of the Under Secretary. 2003. Memorandum for Assistant Secretary of the Army, Assistant Secretary of the Navy, Assistant Secretary of the Air Force, Definitions Related to Munitions Response Actions. December 18, 2003. Available: http://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/documents/mrp_definitions_12-18-03.pdf. Accessed: December 16, 2015. Otay River Watershed Joint Powers Authority (JPA). 2006. Otay River Watershed Management Plan. May 2006. Available: http://www.projectcleanwater.org/images/stories/Docs/Otay/otay_wmp_final_2008.p df. Accessed: November 10, 2015. Parsons. 2007. Site Inspection Report Former Brown Field Bombing Range. Available: http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/regulators/deliverable_documents/2060010612/bfb r_si_1.pdf. Accessed: December 7, 2015. San Diego Air Pollution Control District (SDAPCD). 2010. Rules and Regulations. Last Updated: July 2010. Available: http://www.sdapcd.org/rules/current_ rules.html. San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). 1985. Water in the San Diego Region. October. San Diego County. 2015. 2015 GHG Guidance – Recommended Approach to Addressing Climate Change in CEQA Documents. January 21. San Diego County Airport Land Use Commission. 2010. Compatibility Policy Map: Safety. Available: http://www.san.org/DesktopModules/Bring2mind/DMX/Download.aspx?Command= Core_Download&EntryId=2976&language=en-US&PortalId=0&TabId=225. Accessed: November 9, 2015. 25 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 111 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 112 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 113 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 114 Jamacha Jamacha Lemon Lemon ST ST Spring 54 Spring Grove Grove 94 ST 15 Valley Valley San Diego Jamul Jamul National Wildlife Refuge Encanto Encanto La Presa La Presa Paradise Paradise Hills Hills National National City City Lincoln Lincoln Bonita Bonita Acres Acres ¨ ¦§ 805 Upper Otay ST Rancho Rancho Chula Lake Chula 125 del Ray del Ray Vista Vista ¨ ¦§ Lower Otay 5 San Lake/Reservoir Castle Castle Diego Savage Dam Park Park Bay Not a Part Palm Palm ST Otay Otay City City 75 Mesa Mesa Nestor Nestor o Imperial Imperial ST Beach Beach 905 San Bernardino Los Angeles ± Legend Otay Ranch University Villages Riverside Orange Project Site 00.751.53 Restoration Site Miles Pacific Imperial San Diego Streams Ocean SOURCE: ESRI Streetmap (2012) Map Prepared: 2/16/2016 MSCP Figure 1 Regional Vicinity Otay River Restoration Project HMMP IS/MND ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 115 Upper Otay Lake Savage Dam Lower Otay Lake/Reservoir Restoration Site Project Site ± Figure 2 Local Vicinity Otay River Restoration Project HMMP IS/MND ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 116 K:\\San Diego\\projects\\Otay_Land_Co_Village\\Villages_8E_3_10\\mapdoc\\ISMND\\Fig3_Parcels.mxd Date: 2/16/2016 35528 K:\\San Diego\\projects\\Otay_Land_Co_Village\\Villages_8E_3_10\\mapdoc\\ISMND\\Fig4_Potential_Resto_Phases.mxd Date: 4/27/2016 35528 K:\\San Diego\\projects\\Otay_Land_Co_Village\\Villages_8E_3_10\\mapdoc\\ISMND\\Fig5_Concept_Plan.mxd Date: 4/26/2016 35528 Lower Otay Lake/Reservoir CHULA VISTA S.D. COUNTY Legend Commercial and OfficeParks & Recreation Restoration Site Project Site Shopping CentersRecreation Municipal Boundaries Commercial and OfficeOpen Space Preserve (City of SAN DIEGO Chula Vista) Land Use Industrial Open Space Conservation and Residential Light Industry Recreation (County of San Public Facilities and Utilities Spaced Rural ResidentialDiego) Agriculture Single Family Detached Transportation, Communications, Utilities ± Single Family Intensive Education Mobile Homes Extensive Institutions Multiple Family Undeveloped 02,0004,000 Undeveloped Feet Water Road Rights of Way Sources: ESRI Basemaps (2015) Sangis Land Use (2015) Figure 6 Land Use Otay River Restoration Project HMMP IS/MND ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 120 CHULA VISTA S.D. COUNTY SAN DIEGO Legend ± Zoning Restoration SiteResidential Project SiteAgriculturalSan Ysidro Community Plan Area Municipal BoundariesCommercialSpecial Purpose 00.51 IndustrialSpecific Planning Area Miles Mixed UseUnzoned Sources: ESRI Basemaps (2015) Park / Open Space Sangis Zoning; City of Chula Vista Zoning (2015) Figure 7 Zoning Otay River Restoration Project HMMP IS/MND ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 121 K:\\San Diego\\projects\\Otay_Land_Co_Village\\Villages_8E_3_10\\mapdoc\\ISMND\\Fig8_Trails.mxd Date: 4/26/2016 35528 K:\\San Diego\\projects\\Otay_Land_Co_Village\\Villages_8E_3_10\\mapdoc\\ISMND\\Fig9_FUDS.mxd 2/16/2016 35528 K:\\San Diego\\projects\\Otay_Land_Co_Village\\Villages_8E_3_10\\mapdoc\\ISMND\\Fig10_Landforms.mxd Date: 2/16/2016 35528 Receptor 2: High Tech High Chula Vista !. Lower Otay Lake/Reservoir Receptor 1: Otay Lake County Park !. ST-1 ! . ST-2 ! . Receptor 3: ST-3 George Bailey ! . Detention Facility !. ± Legend 01,0002,000 Richard J. Donovan Project Site Correctional Facility Restoration Site Feet !. Receptor Considered in Construction and Vibration Analysis Source: Bing Imagery (2010) Map Prepared: 2/16/2016 Short-Term Measurement Location ! . Figure 11 Noise Measurement and Modeling Locations Otay River Restoration Project HMMP IS/MND ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 125 K:\\San Diego\\projects\\Otay_Land_Co_Village\\Villages_8E_3_10\\mapdoc\\ISMND\\Fig12_CumulativeProjects.mxd Date: 2/16/2016 35528 A2:CRRC TTACHMENT OMMENTS ECEIVED AND ESPONSES TO OMMENTS ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 127 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 128 A2–CRRC TTACHMENT OMMENTS ECEIVED AND ESPONSES TO OMMENTS Introduction The Cityof Chula Vista (City) has evaluated the comments received on the Otay River Restoration Project Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (HMMP) Draft Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND).This Attachment contains copies of the comments received during the public review process and provides written responses for each of the comments. In accordance with Section 15074 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, the lead agency will consider the IS/MND together with any comments received during the public review process. While written responses are not required for an IS/MND, the City has elected to provide written responses to all comments received during the public review process for the record. Comments Received The Draft IS/MND was made available by the City for public review from March 14, 2016 through April 12, 2016. During this time, five comment letters were received from state and local agencies and one utility provider. The comments addressed concerns related to conservation easements, utility easements, trails, development of a mitigation bank, restoration credits, and biological resources. The commenting parties are listed below. Each of the commenting parties is labeled with a letter, which corresponds to the comment letters and the responses to comments provided herein. State Agencies State Clearinghouse (SCH) – Comment Letter A California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) – Comment Letter B Local Agencies County of San Diego Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) – Comment Letter C City of San Diego – Comment Letter D Utilities San Diego Gas & Electric Company (SDG&E) – Comment Letter E 1 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 129 with the State Clearinghouse’s public review requirements for This comment does not raise 130 This comment notes the public review period, states that no state agencies submitted comments during the public review period, and acknowledges the proposed project has complied 0 ¦¤ therefore, no response is required. draft environmental documents. -1: to Comment A ; an environmental issue Response 2 State Clearinghouse Packet !¦¤£ – Letter A ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ 131 0 ¦¤ 3 Packet !¦¤£ ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ This comment summarizes the proposed project and does not CEQA, to provide comments administrator of the Natural Community Conservation Planning P by This comment does not raise an 132 therefore, no response is required. e and It also identifies CDFW as the Multiple Species Conservation Program 0 ¦¤ C This comment notes the intent of CDFW, as a Truste (NCCP) program and the City as participating in the NC therefore, no response is required. Responsible Agency pursuant to -1: -2: MND and HMMP. (MSCP) Subarea Plan (SAP). ; al issue Response to Comment BResponse to Comment B ; raise an environment environmental issue implementing the IS/ on the 4 California Department of Fish and Wildlife Packet !¦¤£ – Letter B ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ with the SAP and again expresses CDFW’s intent to provide This comment notes that the IS/MND does not elaborate on the “Future Phases” of the HMMP, also analyzed and covered by Service Area. Impacts associated with the Restoration Project through Village 3 permits. CDFW has requested a Compensatory Mitigation Rule. This text has been updated in This comment notes the efforts that have been made to comply This therefore, no MND identified the mitigation for Villages 3 and the IS/MND, would be authorized by resource and regulatory through the development and “Future Phases”) is t for the Restoration Project. The applicant has submitted ) Biological protection mechanism per the the IS/MND are 133 need for a conservation easement and endowment to ensure 8 West through the implementation of Phases 1 and 2. The for future projects within the approved U.S. Army Corps of Regional Water Quality Control U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service SAA and provided an extension to The Restoration Area will be protected in a conservation 1 of the IS/MND, Mitigation separate permit authorization (Streambed Alteration Agreemen 0 ¦¤ EPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ( MND. and IS/ ; CDFW on issuance of the SAA to May 23, 2016. not raise an environmental issue ), to comments and recommendations on the MMRP No other changes The IS/ , ( as compensatory mitigation ng authorized by the described in the HMMP (Phases 1, 2 required as a result of this comment. and Reporting Program compensatory conservation occurs in perpetuity. easement or other approved site -3: -4: - , and Mitigation Measure BIO ). Response to Comment BResponse to Comment B , n BRR Engineers (USACE) mitigation bank the application for a response is required. proposed project as Board (RWQCB) es Report ( comment does USACE and currently bei Monitoring (USFWS) agencies ) Resourc SAA\] of a \[ 5 Packet !¦¤£ ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ used by SDG&E as an access road to existing SDG&E poles Greenbelt Master Plan, and in the IS/MND and HMMP are consistent tional measures for Mitigation MND, MND, Otay Valley Regional Park addition, the comment references the City’s SAP and notes that areas being set aside for mitigation (or future mitigation credits) will need to be carefully evaluated for compatibility with future 5 related to trash removal and fueling activities. status species. 134 In This comment states that the IS/MND does not clarify if the trails identified within the HMMP are the same as the future that other potential future uses will need to be agreed to by CDFW and USFWS and identified in the conservation those identified in the OVRP Concept with the exception of the potential scenic trail which will be a narrow 4’ wide trail. ial scenic trail is currently No other changes to the IS/MND are This comment recommends additional measures for Mitigation No other changes to the IS/MND are 0 ¦¤ . mechanism IS/IS/ 4 has been updated in the 5 has been updated in the - 4 related to removal of special or other approved site protection , Greenbelt Master Plan required as a result of this comment.f this comment. Approximately, half of the potent City’s ribed within the This comment recommends addi -5: -6: B-7: . OVRP) Concept Plan and and will remain at 14’ wide Response to Comment BResponse to Comment B -- Response to Comment Mitigation Measure BIOMitigation Measure BIO and the same as . and BRR.and BRR. required as a result o The trails identified trails and trail areas trails that are desc City’s - - Measure BIO Measure BIO Plan and easement , , MMRPMMRP with ( 6 Packet !¦¤£ ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ The comment requests early coordination with CDFW should This comment identifies discrepancies between the species lists both the BRR and HMMP was conducted. All inconsistences any burrowing owls be identified on or adjacent to the project site so an appropriate relocation or avoidance strategy can be 7, if occupied burrows related No changes to the IS/MND are required as a result of that are included within Table 3 and Appendices B, C, D, and E A thorough review of Table 3 and corresponding appendices for No other changes are are detected, the applicant would prepare a passive relocation 135 mitigation plan, subject to review and approval by the Wildlife Agencies and the City, including any subsequent burrowing 0 ¦¤ . of the HMMP - construction owl relocation plans to avoid impacts from , and Appendices C and D -have been corrected in both documents. e BIO ent. Per Mitigation Measur required as a result of this comm -8: -9: Response to Comment BResponse to Comment B this comment. BRR developed. activities. the of 7 Packet !¦¤£ ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ s hairstreak will be addressed status cypress. The intent of sensitive , the inclusion of Tecate cypress in the salvage and No changes to the IS/MND are required as a result This comment thanks the City for the opportunity to comment The City appreciates CDFW’s notify CDFW of any future environmental documents on them. 136 Mitigation Measure rts Thorne’s on the IS/MND and provides contact information for any interest in the project and the agency’s expertise in biological continue to coordinate with CDFW 0 ¦¤ - 9 focuses on the salvage and relocation of special on up not only the wildlife that depend 9) also directly suppo the salvage plan is to minimize the impact within the salvage and relocation plan. species and specifically references Tecate -10: -11: ’ . This comment asks if Thorne have. related to the proposed project on Response to Comment BResponse to Comment B resources. The City will questions the City may - plant species but also relocation plan (BIO of this comment. hairstreak. Therefore and will - BIO 8 Packet !¦¤£ ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ This therefore, no projects developed within the OVRP have the opportunity to of the proposed mitigation bank, River Watershed, Tijuana River Watershed, and Sweetwater No changes to the IS/MND are required include the adjacent vegetation clearance because the City of be The comment recommends has been updated wide Greenbelt Trail be revised. 137 This comment notes DPR has received and reviewed the IS/MND and supports the project and the wetland restoration This comment requests that passive and active recreation At this time the applicant and the City will be initiating development of a formal mitigation bank for the future phases of this restoration anticipated to be Otay River Watershed and it is anticipated that credits will be asks if the trail widths provided in the IS/MND wide trail is a width requirement 0 ¦¤ shall and habitat enhancement it will bring to the OVRP. Chula Vista Greenbelt Master Plan indicates trails ; way guidelines. comment does not raise an environmental issue as they would be considered public projects. MND of the project. The approved service area is constructed at a width of 10 feet. - of , Project Description, -1: -2: -3: utilize the restoration acreage - associated with SDG&E right - - foot foot as a result of this comment. Response to Comment CResponse to Comment CResponse to Comment C - - to a 14 to indicate that the 14 available for purchase. response is required. This comment reference Section B at th 9 County of San Diego Department of Parks and Recreation Packet !¦¤£ – C ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ Letter An update has been made to The discrepancies have been noted and updated in all figures The southern This comment recommends revising the reference document in nalysis from OVRP Concept Plan Guidelines to The reference has been updated to a) paragraph No other changes to the IS/MND are required as a result of This comment recommends the Recreation analysis be revised to be consistent between discussions (a) and (b) in regard to dirt ve as opportunity to participate in the environmental review process The No other changes to the closure/potential scenic trail and asks for further clarification. 138 Figure 5 is inconsistent with Figures 4, 8, and 9 in regard to the delineation of existing road/trail No other changes to the This comment expresses DPR’s appreciation for the interest in receiving future environmental documents The comment also provides City appreciates DPR’s interest in the project and will notify or the need for 0 ¦¤ have any questions. (a) indicating that dirt roads ser related to the proposed project. , ( R. IS/MND are required as a result of this comment.IS/MND are required as a result of this comment. Aesthetics DPR of any future environmental documents R th the IS/MND, HMMP, and B portion will remain a utility easement. I, contact information should the City OVRP Trail Guidelines in Section unofficial trails that are present. roads serving as unofficial trails. related to the proposed project. -4: -5: -6: -7: Response to Comment CResponse to Comment Cent CResponse to Comment C , states that ail Guidelines. Section XV, Recreation Response to Comm additional assistance the Aesthetics a This comment this comment. associated wi Tr OVRP its and 3. 10 Packet !¦¤£ ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ ; ct the This comment states the City of San Diego has received and The Water Department and the Parks and Recreation Department have provided comments, and continued coordination will be states the City of San Diego Storm Water Division is in the preliminary planning , project service area be expanded to maximize agreement to allow contributions toward obtaining restoration development of a formal mitigation bank for the future phases No changes to the requirement to use appropriate herbicides when close to water. No changes to the IS/MND are 139 comment also notes that both the Transportation & Storm potential mutual benefits or provide for the opportunity for an At this time the applicant and the City will be initiating of this restoration project. The approved service area is anticipated to be Otay River Watershed, Tijuana River proposed project ensures downstream pollution is prevented from herbicides used as proposed in removing invasive This comment does not raise an environmental issue phase for a small mitigation site in the Otay River watershed 0 ¦¤ that he IS/MND. Text has been added to the HMMP to refle and requests the IS/MND are required as a result of this comment. and Sweetwater River Watershed. appreciates the opportunity to comment on t is related to the HMMP and HMMP required as a result of this comment. ore, no response is required. -1: -2: -3: This comment relates to the 5.9.1 and 6.5. Response to Comment DResponse to Comment DResponse to Comment D and suggests the This comment s , See Section vegetation. Watershed essential. credits. theref 11 City of San Diego Packet !¦¤£ – Letter D ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ Guide for Encroachment SDG&E Transmission the ce area for the proposed project include other OVRP areas OVRP No changes to wide pathway seems very wide and in excess of the OVRP requirement is associated a minimum of 14 feet is required for access. A At this time, the No changes to the IS/MND are required including Border and Sweetwater minor edit was made to the HMMP in Sections 3.12 and 1.2. - 140 in the OVRP Concept Plan boundary to allow for the site’s Patrol and SDG&E vehicles. Per SDG&E guidelines as No changes to the IS/MND are required as a result of this This comment is related to the HMMP and notes that the estimated mitigation credits exceed the estimated mitigation the HMMP applicant and the City will be initiating development of a formal mitigation bank for the future phases of this restoration o be Otay and it is anticipated that credits will be foot 0 ¦¤ that - This comment is related to the HMMP and states the 14 the This comment is related to the HMMP and requests as a result of this comment. project. The approved service area is anticipated t potential use for mitigation needs associated with that 2. , address what happens with the excess credits. , - with the multiuse needs of most of the trailsRiver Watershed, Tijuana River Watershed ts See Response to Comment D The comment also reques th foot wid -4: -5: -6: as a result of this comment. Response to Comment DResponse to Comment DResponse to Comment D - The 14 the IS/MND are required available for purchase. , Trail Guidelines. River Watershed , Concept Plan. Rights of Way its obligations. detailed in comment. servi 12 Packet !¦¤£ ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ Sections 5.10.1 and 5.10.4 of the HMMP if plant/seed material is not time effort for treatment of invasive species in the Enhancement Section he HMMP has been revised to reflect that this treatment No This comment is related to the HMMP and suggests evaluating the need to expand the allowable area for sources of container available from within the allowable area, stock will be obtained No changes to the IS/MND are required as a result of this lans and of the plans that would incorporate all of the design edits and details that were not included in the HMMP now refers to the next plan set as the 60% plans and be both final and 30%. 141 changes to the IS/MND are required as a result of this from within the watershed or within 10 miles of the mitigation This comment is related to the HMMP and questions how specifications. The original intent of the term “final” was to ” the specifications. The update has been made throughout the HMMP where appropriate. No changes to the IS/MND are 0 ¦¤ native seed sources. - current 30% plans. Rather than using the term “final, and asks if the one Area is adequate to control the invasive seed source. was removed when referring to 30% p is related to the HMMP specifications can - o control non required as a result of this comment. have been revised to indicate that -7: -8: -9: s Response to Comment DResponse to Comment DResponse to Comment D indicate the future version measure is intended t and ed material. , ” drawings, plans final This comment “ comment.comment. The term 2.2 of t and se site. 13 Packet !¦¤£ ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ A comparison was done between Joint Exercise clarify that maintenance activities described in the Chapter are No changes 1 the as needed. No tection Mechanism perpetuity management for any financial mechanism would be established per the USACE and Sections 9.2 No The introductory term - - 142 lated to the HMMP and asks what the paragraph to Chapter 6 of the HMMP has been modified to 1 is not intended to be a comprehensive list of species for management, but rather an initial list based on known changes to the IS/MND are required as a result of this This comment is related to the HMMP and requests that the and that an adequate funding cess of typical open space wasting endowment or other approved changes to the IS/MND are required as a result of this 0 ¦¤ -HMMP, and all missing non have been added. It should be noted that Table 6 This comment is related to the HMMP and notes that Table 6 As stated in Section 6.3 of the HMMP, ed accordingly. - EPA compensatory mitigation rule to fund long to the IS/MND are required as a result of this comment. also applicable to the upstream enhancement area. management of the restoration area in perpetuity. proposed are compatible with the existing OVRP list maintenance plan is for the enhancement area. Restoration Ecologist will add species to this Long Term Management Plan and Site Pro and 9.5 of the HMMP have been revis the -10: -11: -12: ) ex - 1 and Appendix B of mechanism is provided for in JEPA does not match Appendix B. mitigation obligations in Response to Comment DResponse to Comment DResponse to Comment D of Powers Agreement ( - A non This comment is re pecies ment. occurrences. comment.comment. - smanage Table 6 native 14 Packet !¦¤£ ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ in Appendices C as such, the table titles have been updated to 8 has been updated to state that any It the response takes this into consideration. biologists were on site conducting a series of baseline evaluations in 2015 and 2016. As such, the last column in each table titled “Verified ecies previously preserve management activities, as well as species documented the No changes to the IS/MND are required as No changes to the IS/MND are the included rerouting construction access to avoid ponding features. 143 notes that table t is intending to reference Although the consultant did not conduct any formal sensitive On Site” is intended to reflect species observed by ICF observed by RECON biologists in association with their atabase. A footnote This comment is related to the IS/MND notes that the project description appears to adequately address planned and future to allow for any additional habitat impacts associated with 0 ¦¤ headings in Appendix B of the HMMP may not be accurate. In addition, this comment appears applicable to Appendix C. 8 of with Appendices C and D are intended to list only species - are nal (ICF) comment is related to Mitigation Measure BIO mitigation measures This comment is related to the HMMP and In addition, this column captures sp s describing this has been added to the table Internatio California Natural Diversity D required as a result of this comment. is believed that this commen -13: plant or wildlife surveys, ICF -14: -15: any trails through the project site. Response to Comment DResponse to Comment DResponse to Comment D IS/MND and questions if - a result of this comment. Mitigation Measure BIO , D of the HMMP. as such properly reflect this. ; potential to occur ; Appendix D biologists. in the and This 15 Packet !¦¤£ ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ No other changes to the should the City or consultant team have any questions or would The City appreciates the 144 reroutes will occur within the already proposed grading As such, no additional mitigation measures are This comment thanks the City for the opportunity to provide comments on the IS/MND and provide contact information City of San Diego’s interest in the project and will notify the City of San Diego of any future environmental documents 0 ¦¤ omment. IS/MND are required as a result of this c like to meet to discuss any comments. required to offset the habitat impacts. -16: . related to the proposed project Response to Comment D footprint. 16 Packet !¦¤£ ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ California mandate for SDG&E to maintain This comment does not This comment provides a summary of the proposed project and way on the parcel be excluded from any future conservation easements associated with associated with the No , requests that the project understands the need for SDG&E to maintain access to existing or he 145 erefore, no response is required. t acknowledges SDG&E’s appreciation for the isdictional habitat mitigation and/or upland habitat proposed project would exclude existing SDG&E utility changes to the IS/MND are required as a result of this Guide for or mitigation measures s existing access roads or existing cleared work areas such as proponent coordinate with SDG&E to ensure that project ’s ability to operate and site by placing The project proponent project proponent will coordinate with SDG&E regarding SDG&E Transmission Rights of Way 0 ¦¤ Any future conservation easements natural resources. T within the City parcel. - of ’ s- opportunity to comment on the IS/MND and the states that according to SDG&E’s SDG&E requests that the existing utility easements and right or other approved site protection mechanisms , maintain the existing infrastructure on other approved site protection mechanisms ll not be placed in, or interfere with on also its utility infrastructure and easements. , vegetation facilities while minimizing impacts design would not restrict SDG&E mitigation within these areas. way he comment -1: -2: -3: th Public Utilities Commission’s- ; of raise an environmental issue - - Response to Comment EResponse to Comment EResponse to Comment E supplemental planting, re rights mitigation on the parcel. T easements and the maintenance pads. This comment Encroachment, This commen . comment jur wi 17 San Diego Gas & Electric Company Packet !¦¤£ – Letter E ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ nd areas such as maintenance pads. The project includes access with SDG&E regarding the plant palette for any areas where No changes to the IS/MND are required 146 existing access roads or cleared work which will . The project proponent will coordinate , such as maintenance pads and under transmission lines. This which will also be provided to SDG&E for 0 ¦¤ information will be documented in the 60% plans a way , roads and spur roads to all SDG&E facilities - of - right within the as a result of this comment. revegetation may occur its review and comment. vegetated revegetation within , specifications - remain un 18 Packet !¦¤£ ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ site by a newly created (or restored or rehabilitated) jurisdictional proponent coordinate with SDG&E during project design and implementation to ensure the integrity of the existing gas main support the 30% design of the restoration project and does not and limited watershed hydrology (70% of ined behind Savage Dam). However, during preparation of the 60% design plans and implementation gas main is Draft plans and specifications will be provided to SDG&E for review and No other changes that SDG&E requires safe and reliable erosion due to the wide floodplain within this ensure that the 147 expresses SDG&E’s concern related to the The comment requests that the project is not compromised by increased surface or subsurface associated with the mitigation project. In addition, the comment notes that no analysis of potential conflicts with the pipeline easement was included in the A hydrology study was prepared to will be and underground l coordinate directly with SDG&E not compromised by changes to surface and subsurface comments prior to being finalized. Text has been added to access to all existing electric transmission poles and lattice and the gas pipeline t It also notes tha 0 ¦¤ atural gas transmission main on dditional hydrologic evaluation is planned and roject. inch completed as part of the 60% design and will - alignment and on the proposed mitigation site. phase to ensure the integrity of the existing 36 . s hydrology associated with the mitigation p paragraph road crossing , are required as a result of this comment. towers, the electric distribution poles , sixth -4: -5: planned improvements to The project proponent wil ection 3.12 of the HMMP proposed crossing of the n Response to Comment Eent E conta pipeline are protected. D or HMMP. s This comment state Response to Comm reach of the valley is a risk of hydrology inputs stream channel. This comment the watershed indicate IS/MN aS 19 Packet !¦¤£ ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ to eliminate existing access, and requests that if alternative access must be constructed that it be maintained at the current ties including primary access routes and spur roads. Figures in the IS/ MND No other changes to the IS/MND are required as a result of this The City appreciates SDG&E’s interest in 148 ar &E to existing facilities including existing electric transmission poles and lattice towers, electric and the gas pipeline. The project has been ty for considering SDG&E’s comments and provides contact information should the City the project and looks forward to future coordination with 0 ¦¤ some of the mitigation elements outlined in the HMMP appe and the HMMP have been updated to reflect these routes. G The project proponent understands the need for SD designed to provide access to all SDG&E facili . SDG&E regarding the proposed project site, if possible. This comment thanks the Ci -6: Response to Comment E its maintain access to have any questions. , elevation grades on distribution poles comment. 20 Packet !¦¤£ ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ ECF NVIRONMENTAL HECKLIST ORM 1. Name of Proponent: HomeFed Otay Land II, LLC 2. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Chula Vista Development Services Department 276 Fourth Avenue Chula Vista, CA 91910 3. Address and Phone Number of Proponent: 1903 Wright Place, Suite 220 Carlsbad, CA 92008 4. Name of Proposal: Otay River Restoration Project Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan 5. Date of Checklist: March 14, 2016 6. Case No.: IS-15-006 1 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 149 ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS QUESTIONS: Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Issues: Significant With Significant No Impact ImpactMitigation Impact Incorporated I. AESTHETICS. Would the project: a)Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? b) Substantially damage scenic resources, including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, and historic buildings within a state scenic highway? c)Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? d)Create a new source of substantial light or glare, which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? Comments: a)Less-than-Significant Impact. Implementation of the proposed project would not have an adverse effect on a scenic vista. The proposed project is located in the Otay River Valley, which is designated as a scenic resource and Open Space Preserve by the City of Chula Vista General Plan (City of Chula Vista 2015) and Open Space (Conservation) and Open Space (Recreation) by the San Diego County General Plan. The Otay River Valley along with several other open space areas including the Sweetwater River Valley, Upper and Lower Otay Lakes, Sweetwater Reservoir, San Miguel/Mother Miguel Mountains, and the San Diego Bay make up the majority of the City’s open space and park system and are also valued as scenic resources (City of Chula Vista 2015). Open space also bounds the western, eastern, and southern boundaries of the project site as well as large portions of the northern boundary. The visual setting includes the valley floor of the Otay River Valley. At the upstream end of the project site, the valley floor is narrow (approximately 100–200 feet) for several hundred feet before widening to approximately 1,000–1,500 feet. Most of the project site resides in this wide section of the valley floor. Elevations of the valley floor range from approximately 228 feet at the downstream end to 252 feet at the upstream end; typically the valley floor is 10–20 feet below the adjacent ground of the surrounding foothills. Given the rolling topography of the surrounding area and the location of the project site on the river valley floor, the only public views of the project site are from the Otay Lake County Park and recreational trails surrounding the area. The viewer groups include users of the park facilities and nearby trails. Implementation of the proposed project would restore and enhance the proper hydrology of the river and channels and native habitat within the boundaries of the restoration site, bringing the area back to its natural state. This would improve views of the project site by removing invasive species and improving hydrological conditions. In addition, trail improvements would include installation of wood split-rail fencing, signage, and educational kiosks as well as armoring two roadway crossings in the floodplain and closing four existing dirt roads. As described in the Project Description, the fencing, along with proposed signage indicating the general sensitivity of the restoration site and providing wayfinding, would help to minimize trespassing from trail users who would otherwise be 2 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 150 unaware of the sensitivity of the habitat restoration area. Reflective material will also be installed along the fencing at strategic locations to aid in Border Patrol agents navigating the site at night. The final locations of reflective material will be made in coordination with the Border Patrol. The educational kiosks would be installed at key viewing locations within the disturbed areas near the existing dirt roadways to help inform the readers of the importance of the restoration site. Armoring the road crossings would involve installation of native local rock to harden the crossing to allow for safe crossing, and three of the four road closures would be revegetated per the Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (HMMP). One of these road closures, located in the northern portion of the restoration site, would be revegetated except for a 4- to 6-foot swath that would remain for potential future trail creation under the Otay Valley Regional Park (OVRP) Concept Plan. All of these improvements would be performed in compliance with the City of Chula Vista Greenbelt Master Plan and the OVRP Concept Plan. The City of Chula Vista Greenbelt Master Plan includes guidelines for signs that state that visitors should be greeted by a consistent, unique logo that identifies the Greenbelt and guides users along the Greenbelt. All signs should be painted with graffiti-resistant paint and be in English and Spanish. Greenbelt kiosks should be located at active trailheads and staging areas and include the Greenbelt logo, a trail map, regulations for use of the trails, community events, and other information (City of Chula Vista 2003). The 2003 OVRP Concept PlanTrail Guidelines include guidance for kiosks to include regulatory, interpretive, and directional information, and state that kiosks should be placed at strategic access points along trails. Typical sign dimensions highlighted in the plans are 4- by 4- by 2-foot wood trail signs constructed on and attached to a 6-foot-tall post with 4-foot-tall trail markers. Kiosks could be up to 8 feet tall. Fencing should follow the natural grades along the trails and could be up to 4 feet tall (County of San Diego, City of Chula Vista, and City of San Diego 1997; County of San Diego, City of Chula Vista, City of San Diego, and Otay Valley Regional Park Citizen Advisory Committee 2003n.d.). Views of the site during the construction phase would not substantially affect a scenic vista because site disturbance activities would be temporary and phased and limited to invasive species removal, grading, watering, planting, and minor trail improvements. As a result, implementation of the proposed project would have a beneficial effect and would not result in a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. Impacts would be less than significant. b)Less-than-Significant Impact. Implementation of the proposed project would not substantially damage scenic resources along a scenic highway. There are no officially designated state scenic highways in the vicinity of the proposed project (Caltrans 2015). According to Figure 5-4 of the General Plan’s Land Use and Transportation Element, the nearest scenic roadway is Hunte Parkway located west of the project site (City of Chula Vista 2015). However, given the rolling topography of the surrounding area and the location of the project site on the river valley floor, the project site is not visible from this scenic roadway. In addition, there are no sensitive historic resources located on the project site. Further, the proposed project would improve habitat and hydrological conditions as well as add minor trail improvements to existing dirt roads and unofficial trails on site and would not adversely affect rock outcroppings within or adjacent to the project area. The proposed project would also not remove any sensitive trees. Therefore, the proposed project would not substantially damage scenic resources along a state scenic highway or local roadway. Impacts would be less than significant. c)Less-than-Significant Impact. Implementation of the proposed project would not significantly degrade the existing visual character of the site or its surroundings. The proposed project would enhance the existing visual quality of the site. The visual character of the site vicinity is best described as being in a natural but disturbed state, with mounds from mine tailings and dense stands of invasive nonnative plants in the river valley and existing dirt roads and unofficial trails used for a variety of purposes by the U.S. Border Patrol, San Diego Gas and Electric, City of San Diego, and Otay Water District, as well as by hikers, cyclists, and equestrians crossing the site. The proposed project would not change the character or degrade the visual quality of the site; on the contrary, the 3 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 151 proposed project would keep the current character and enhance it by restoring native habitat and hydrological functions and adding minor trail improvements to existing dirt roads and unofficial trails. As a result, the proposed project would not substantially degrade the character or quality of the site or its surroundings and impacts related to visual quality of the project site would be less than significant. d)No Impact. Implementation of the proposed project would not create a new source of substantial light or glare. The proposed project would not install any lighting, nor would the implementation, monitoring, and maintenance effort require any lighting because all such work would be conducted during daylight hours. Furthermore, no glare would be produced because there would not be any reflective surfaces proposed as part of the restoration effort. No impacts would occur. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. 4 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 152 Less Than Significant Potentially Less Than With Issues: No Impact Significant Significant Mitigation ImpactImpact Incorporated II. AGRICULTURE AND FOREST RESOURCES. Would the project: a)Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland), as shown on the maps prepared pursuant to the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program of the California Resources Agency, to non-agricultural use? b)Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use, or a Williamson Act contract? c)Conflict with existing zoning for, or cause rezoning of, forest land (as defined in Public Resources Code section 12220(g)), timberland (as defined by Public Resources Code section 4526), or timberland zoned Timberland Production (as defined by Government Code section 51104(g))? d)Result in the loss of forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use? e)Involve other changes in the existing environment, which, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? Comments: a)Less-than-Significant Impact. Implementation of the proposed project would not convert farmland to a non-agricultural use. The entire upstream enhancement area is designated as Grazing Land, as is approximately 11.3 acres within the restoration area in the Otay River mainstem by the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program and 97.8 acres in the overall 300-acre mitigation site. There is also approximately 0.8 acre of Farmland of Local Importance located at the western end of the Otay River mainstem and 32.7 acres in the overall mitigation site (California Department of Conservation 2015a). The project site and surrounding area are designated as Open Space Preserve by the City of Chula Vista General Plan and Open Space (Conservation) and Open Space (Recreation) by the San Diego County General Plan. In addition, the project site is zoned Residential by the City of Chula Vista’s Zoning Code and Agriculture and Special Purpose by the San Diego County Zoning Code. Although portions of the upstream enhancement area are zoned by the County of San Diego for agricultural uses, no agricultural activities currently occur in these areas, and project activities in this portion of the project site would be limited to specific areas totaling approximately 2.7 acres (see Attachment 1 for all figures; see Figure 4) and would involve nonnative species removal by hand tools only. In addition, although 0.8 acre of land in the western portion of the project site is 5 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 153 designated as Farmland of Local Importance, this area is zoned for residential use by the City of Chula Vista and no agricultural activities occur in the area. Upon completion of the proposed project, no further project activities would take place in this area and future agricultural uses would be precluded within the restoration site. In addition, open space conservation and recreation land uses are allowed under special circumstances with the County of San Diego’s agricultural zoning. Therefore, the proposed project would not convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance to a non-agricultural use, and impacts would be less than significant. b)Less-than-Significant Impact. Implementation of the proposed project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract. The project site and surrounding area are designated as Open Space Preserve by the City of Chula Vista General Plan and Open Space (Conservation) and Open Space (Recreation) by the San Diego County General Plan, and are within the planning boundaries of the Chula Vista Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) Subarea Plan (see Attachment 1 for all figures; see Figure 1). Thus, there are no Williamson Act contracts on the project site (County of San Diego 2006). Although portions of the upstream enhancement area are zoned by the County of San Diego for agricultural uses, no agricultural activities currently occur in these areas, and project activities in this portion of the project site would be limited to specific areas, totaling approximately 2.7 acres (see Attachment 1 for all figures, see Figure 4), and would involve nonnative species removal by hand tools only. Once Phase 1 activities have been completed in the upstream enhancement area, no further project activities would take place in this area and future agricultural uses would be precluded within the restoration site. In addition, open space conservation and recreation land uses are allowed under special circumstances with the County of San Diego’s agricultural zoning. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or a Williamson Act contract, and impacts would be less than significant. c)No Impact. The project site is zoned residential, agricultural, and special purpose and is designated as Open Space Preserve and Open Space Conservation and Recreation. Additionally, the project site is not located in an area zoned as forest land, timberland, or a Timberland Production Zone (University of California, Davis 2010). Therefore, no impacts on forest land or timberland would occur as a result of the proposed project. d)No Impact. As discussed above, the project site is not located in an area zoned as forest land, timberland, or a Timberland Production Zone (University of California, Davis 2010). Therefore, no impacts on forest land or conversion of forest land to non-forest use would occur as a result of the proposed project. e)Less-than-Significant Impact. Implementation of the proposed project would not involve other changes that would result in conversion of farmland to a non-agricultural use. See responses II.a and II.b. Although portions of the upstream enhancement area are zoned by the County of San Diego for agricultural uses, no agricultural activities currently occur in these areas, and project activities in this portion of the project site would be limited to specific areas, totaling approximately 2.7 acres (see Attachment 1 for all figures, see Figure 4), and would involve nonnative species removal using hand tools only. Once Phase 1 activities have been completed in the upstream enhancement area, no further project activities would take place in this area, and future agricultural uses would be precluded within the restoration site. In addition, open space conservation and recreation land uses are allowed under special circumstances with the County of San Diego’s agricultural zoning. Therefore, the proposed project would not involve other changes in the existing environment that, due to their location or nature, could result in conversion of farmland to non-agricultural use, and impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. 6 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 154 Less Than Significant Potentially Less Than With Issues: No Impact Significant Significant Mitigation ImpactImpact Incorporated III.AIR QUALITY. Would the project: Conflict with or obstruct implementation of the a) applicable air quality plan? b)Violate any air quality standard or contribute substantially to an existing or projected air quality violation? c)Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emissions, which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? d) Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations? e) Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? Comments: a)Less-than-Significant Impact. The project site is in the San Diego Air Basin (SDAB), the boundaries of which are contiguous with San Diego County. Within San Diego County, the San Diego Air Pollution Control District (SDAPCD) has primary responsibility for the development and implementation of rules and regulations designed to attain national ambient air quality standards (NAAQS) and California ambient air quality standards (CAAQS), as well as the permitting of new or modified sources and the development of air quality management plans. The San Diego Regional Air Quality Strategy (RAQS) is the region’s plan for improving regional air quality and attaining the CAAQS, while the State Implementation Plan (SIP) is the region’s plan for attaining the NAAQS. Both the RAQS and SIP include a set of emissions control measures to reduce emissions within the basin. These emission controls are adopted as local air quality rules and regulations by SDAPCD. Both the RAQS and SIP rely on information from the California Air Resources Board (ARB) and the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG), including projected growth in the County and emission inventory data. ARB mobile source emission projections and SANDAG growth projections are based on population, vehicle trends, and land use plans developed by the region’s cities, county, and special districts. The federal Clean Air Act (CAA) requires areas that are designated nonattainment to submit a SIP outlining the emission control regulations necessary to bring the area into attainment as expeditiously as practicable. Likewise, the California Clean Air Act (CCAA) requires areas that are designated nonattainment of State ambient air quality standards to prepare and implement plans (RAQS) to attain the standards by the earliest practicable date. San Diego County is currently designated as a nonattainment area for the federal and state ozone (O) standards, a partial maintenance area for 3 7 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 155 federal carbon monoxide (CO), and a nonattainment area for the state particulate matter less than 2.5 microns (PM2.5) and particulate matter less than 10 microns (PM10) standards (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 2015; California Air Resources Board 2014). Projects that propose development that is consistent with the growth anticipated by the relevant planning documents that were used in the formulation of the RAQS and SIP would be consistent with the RAQS and SIP. The project area has a land use designation of “Open Space Preserve” and is within the Chula Vista Multiple Species Conservation Program (MSCP) Subarea Plan for the permanent conservation of biological resources. The proposed project would restore over 100 acres of hydrologic and sediment transport processes and native habitats in the Otay River Valley on an approximately 300-acre parcel owned by the City of Chula Vista. Thus, because the proposed project would not result in a change in land use, the proposed project is consistent with the City’s General Plan land use designation. Once constructed, operations and maintenance would be minor, and the proposed project would not result in any population or employment growth and is therefore consistent with regional growth projections. Additionally, the proposed project would implement all applicable SDAPCD rules, including Rule 55 (fugitive dust control), and both short-term construction and long-term operations would result in minimal emissions far below thresholds, as described below under response III.b. The proposed project would not result in any land use or zoning changes that would conflict with the General Plan or zoning designations or result in growth beyond that prescribed in the City’s General Plan. As such, because the proposed project would be consistent with the City’s General Plan, which was used in the formulation of the RAQS and SIP, the proposed project is considered consistent with the RAQS and SIP. Impacts would be less than significant. b)Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. Construction of the proposed project would result in short-term emissions of reactive organic gases (ROG), nitrogen oxides (NO), CO, X sulfur oxides (SO), PM10, and PM2.5 through the use of off-road construction equipment, material X haul trucks, and employee vehicles. Ground disturbance and material movement would also generate fugitive PM10 and PM2.5. Emissions would vary from day to day, depending on the level of activity, the specific type of construction activity occurring, and, for fugitive dust, prevailing weather conditions. The proposed project’s construction emissions were estimated and compared to SDAPCD air quality impact analysis (AQIA) trigger levels, as shown in SDAPCD Rule 20.2. A significant impact on air quality would result if the emission levels from the proposed project were to exceed any of the AQIA trigger levels. Construction emissions were calculated using the California Emissions Estimator Model (CalEEMod), version 2013.2.2. Construction information, including phasing schedule, equipment numbers and types, equipment hours of use, and the number of vehicle trips were provided by the project applicant. CalEEMod defaults for vehicle trip lengths and equipment horsepower and load factors were assumed. Construction would occur in three phases. Invasive Species Removal (“Phase 1”) would require 4 weeks and partially overlap with Primary Grading (“Phase 2”), which would occur over a period of 6 weeks. Secondary Grading (“Phase 3”) would begin after Phase 2 and require 8 weeks. Note that equipment data for Phase 3 were not available at the time of this analysis. However, construction activities for Phases 2 and 3 were assumed to be identical, and thus daily emissions from Phase 3 are expected to be the same as Phase 2, or even lower if activity occurs in later calendar years due to newer fleet-average equipment and the anticipated reduction of vehicle emission factors in future years. It was also assumed that 20,000 cubic yards (cy) of material would be moved around and balanced on site during Phase 2; thus, no offsite hauling trips were assumed. Note that the modeling assumed 50,000 cy, which was the preliminary estimate. As shown in Table 1, project construction emissions would be below applicable SDAPCD trigger levels for all criteria pollutants. However, the proposed project has included Mitigation Measure AQ-1 requiring implementation of construction best management practices (BMPs) during 8 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 156 construction and grading activities to ensure the proposed project would meet SDAPCD Rules 50, 51, and 55 (SDAPCD 2010) for regulating dust emissions. Thus, construction of the proposed project would not result in an impact on air quality because emissions would not exceed applicable air quality standards or contribute to existing air quality violations. Table 1. Estimated Construction Criteria Pollutant Emissions Pounds per Day Construction Phase ROGNOCOSO PM10PM2.5 XX a Phase 1 + Phase 24.2 43.8 28.4 <0.1 11.2 5.6 Phase 33.740.525.1 <0.1 10.8 5.4 Maximum Daily Emissions 4.2 43.8 28.4 <0.1 11.2 5.6 AQIA Trigger Levels 75250550250 100 55 Exceed Trigger Levels? NoNo No NoNo No ROG = reactive organic gases. CO = carbon monoxide. PM10 = particulate matter equal to or less than 10 microns. = particulate matter less than 2.5 microns. PM2.5 NO= oxides of nitrogen. X SO = sulfur oxides. X a Phases 1 and 2 would occur concurrently for a portion of construction. Emissions were therefore modeled assuming all construction equipment for Phases 1 and 2 would occur on the same day. This ensures a worst-case estimate of maximum daily emissions. Source: ICF International 2015a. Project maintenance and monitoring activity is expected to be minimal and would include hand tools and some minor equipment (e.g., chainsaws, hedge trimmers). In addition, two truck trips per year are anticipated in order to periodically off-haul debris. Maintenance and monitoring activities would be far less than construction activities, and consequently emissions are expected to be minimal and far below SDAPCD trigger levels. Therefore, operation of the proposed project would not result in an impact on air quality because emissions would not exceed applicable air quality standards or contribute to existing air quality violations. c)Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. See response III.b above and response III.d below. As discussed above, San Diego County is currently designated as a nonattainment or maintenance area for multiple criteria pollutants. These designations are a result of emissions generated by past and present projects, and will continue to be influenced by reasonably foreseeable future projects. Cumulative impacts could result if the proposed project exceeds established thresholds for pollutants in which the region is nonattainment. In addition, cumulative impacts could result if the proposed project would be constructed at the same time as other development projects in the area, thereby exposing sensitive receptors to cumulative emission concentrations. As discussed in response III.b, the proposed project would implement Mitigation Measure AQ-1 to ensure the proposed project would not result in construction emissions that exceed SDAPCD trigger levels and therefore would not negatively impact regional air quality (see Table 1). Maintenance and monitoring activities would also be minor and would not contribute to any significant cumulative impacts related to the nonattainment status for ozone, PM10, or PM2.5. Given the rural nature of the project area, it is not anticipated that extensive construction or operation of cumulative projects would occur while the proposed project is being constructed. Possible cumulative impacts on air quality as a result of construction activities in the area would be addressed by compliance with SDAPCD rules and regulations, which apply to all construction projects. Therefore, project 9 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 157 construction and maintenance and monitoring would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase in emissions. This impact would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. d)Less-than-Significant Impact. Diesel Particulate Matter (DPM), which is classified as a carcinogenic toxic air contaminant by ARB, is the primary pollutant of concern with regard to health risks to sensitive receptors. Diesel-powered construction equipment and heavy duty on-road vehicles operating on- and off site during construction will emit diesel exhaust, which can be inhaled by nearby sensitive receptors. Other localized pollutants of concern to human health are fugitive dust (PM) and CO. Dust can be an irritant and cause watering eyes or irritation to the lungs, nose, and throat. Breathing CO can cause headaches, dizziness, vomiting, and nausea, and long-term exposure has been linked to increased risk of heart disease. According to the SDAPCD, sensitive receptors include facilities that generally house people (e.g., schools, hospitals, jails, clinics, elderly housing, and residences) that may experience adverse effects from unhealthful concentrations of air pollutants. Sensitive receptors near the project area include the George F Bailey Detention Facility about 0.5 mile to the south and east and the Richard J Donovan Correctional Facility over 0.5 mile to the south. Residences and school areas are sparse in the project vicinity, with the nearest residences and schools located over 1 mile from the project site. Inmates at the George F Bailey Detention Facility Complex and the Richard J Donovan Correctional Facility may be exposed to DPM, localized PM, and CO during daytime hours of construction and operations. Construction of Phases 1 and 2 would occur over an approximate 10-week period, and would be followed by construction of Phase 3 occurring over an 8-week period. This is much shorter than the assumed 30-year exposure period used to estimate lifetime cancer risks. Construction activities would be sporadic, transitory, short-term in nature, and occur over a large area. Once construction activities have ceased, so too will the source emissions. Diesel activity occurring on site would be short-term and at distances that would not expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. Long-term maintenance and monitoring would be limited to periodic vehicle trips and minimal onsite fuel combustion. Onsite truck idling would be limited to a maximum of 5 minutes per truck, consistent with ARB’s Heavy Duty Idling Reduction Program. Additionally, adherence to SDAPCD Rules, particularly Rule 55 (Fugitive Dust Control), would limit emissions that could impact nearby receptors. Therefore, the potential human health impact from exposure to DPM and localized fugitive dust is considered to be minimal. In addition, the proposed project would not create congestion at nearby roadways or intersections, so the exposure to elevated CO concentrations is considered minimal. This impact would be less than significant. e)Less-than-Significant Impact. Project-related odor emissions would be limited primarily to the construction period, during which emissions from diesel-powered construction equipment could be temporarily evident in the immediately surrounding area. Potential sources of odors during construction activities include diesel exhaust from construction equipment and diesel vehicles. These odors would not affect a substantial number of people, as the scale of construction would be small and the frequency of vehicle trips would be low. Odor emissions would also dissipate as a function of distance and would be lower at the nearest sensitive receptor. Therefore, the proposed project’s odor impact would be less than significant. Mitigation: AQ-1: Implement Construction BMPs. The following best management practices shall be shown on all applicable grading and building plans as details, notes, or as otherwise appropriate:: Minimize simultaneous operation of multiple construction equipment units. Use low pollutant-emitting construction equipment. Use electrical construction equipment as practical. 10 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 158 Use catalytic reduction for gasoline-powered equipment. Use injection-timing retard for diesel-powered equipment. Water the construction area at least three times daily to minimize fugitive dust. Stabilize graded areas as quickly as possible to minimize fugitive dust. Pave permanent roads as quickly as possible to minimize dust. Use electricity from power poles instead of temporary generators during building, if available. Apply stabilizer or pave the last 100 feet of internal travel path within a construction site prior to public road entry. Install wheel washers adjacent to a paved apron prior to vehicle entry on public roads. Remove any visible track-out into traveled public streets within 30 minutes of occurrence. Wet wash the construction access point at the end of each workday if any vehicle travel on unpaved surfaces has occurred. Provide sufficient perimeter erosion control to prevent washout of silty material onto public roads. Cover haul trucks or maintain at least 12 inches of freeboard to reduce blow-off during hauling. Suspend all soil disturbance and travel on unpaved surfaces if winds exceed 25 miles per hour. 11 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 159 Less Than Significant Potentially Less Than With Issues: No Impact Significant Significant Mitigation ImpactImpact Incorporated IV.GREENHOUSE GAS.Would the project: a)Generate greenhouse gas emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment? b)Conflict with an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse gases? Comments: a)Less-than-Significant Impact. Although there is currently no federal law specifically related to climate change or the reduction of greenhouse gases (GHGs), the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) is developing proposed regulations under the Clean Air Act (CAA). California has adopted statewide legislation addressing various aspects of climate change and GHG emissions mitigation. Much of this establishes a broad framework for the state’s long-term GHG reduction and climate change adaptation program. Of particular importance is Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32), which establishes a statewide goal to reduce GHG emissions back to 1990 levels by 2020 and directs the ARB to develop and periodically update its AB 32 Scoping Plan, which describes the state’s approach to achieve GHG reduction targets. The governor has also issued several executive orders related to the state’s evolving climate change policy, including post-2020 reduction targets. The State CEQA Guidelines do not prescribe specific thresholds or indicate what amount of GHG emissions would constitute a significant impact on the environment. Instead, they leave the determination of the significance of GHG emissions up to the lead agency provided this decision is supported by substantial evidence (State CEQA Guidelines Sections 15064.4(a) and 15064.7(c)). A number of expert lead agencies throughout the state, including multiple air districts, have drafted and/or adopted varying threshold approaches and guidelines for analyzing GHG emissions and climate change in CEQA documents, and each of these approaches are tied to AB 32 reduction targets. At the local level, the City of Chula Vista has been implementing a Climate Action Plan (CAP) titled, CO Reduction Plan, since 2000. The CAP was updated in 2008 to include GHG 2 mitigation strategies and again in 2011 to include climate adaptation strategies. The CAP contains 20 GHG reduction measures aimed at reducing emissions, improving air quality, and encouraging energy conservation. However, the City’s CAP does not yet qualify for “tiering” per Section 15183.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines, as the CAP has not undergone CEQA review, and reduction targets are not tied to AB 32. Additionally, the City has not drafted or adopted GHG significance thresholds for use in CEQA documents. Therefore, this analysis utilizes San Diego County’s (2015) interim GHG threshold of 900 metric tons carbon dioxide equivalent (MTCOe). This interim 2 threshold is based on the California Air Pollution Control Officers Association’s (CAPCOA) CEQA & Climate Change. Projects that emit less than 900 MTCOe would be considered to have a less- 2 than-significant cumulative impact on climate change. Additionally, given the proposed project is designed to enhance, rehabilitate, and re-establish hydrological processes, vegetation communities, and wildlife habitats, this assessment discusses the project’s consistency with local and statewide efforts to increase carbon sequestration and habitat. 12 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 160 Project construction would result in GHG emissions from off-road equipment, employee vehicles, and material delivery haul trucks. The primary emissions occur as carbon dioxide (CO) from 2 gasoline and diesel combustion, with more limited vehicle tailpipe emissions of methane (CH) and 4 nitrous oxide (NO). Project maintenance and monitoring would result in minor GHG emissions 2 from landscaping equipment (e.g., chainsaws, hedge trimmers) and debris off-haul. These emissions would be minimal and would be far below San Diego County’s interim GHG threshold. Accordingly, they are not discussed further. Construction-related GHG emissions were estimated using CalEEMod and equipment data provided by the project applicant. The estimate of the project GHG emissions during construction is provided in Table 2. Consistent with County guidance, construction emissions are summed and amortized over a 30-year project life. Phase 1 and Phase 2 were assumed to take place in 2016, while Phase 3 is assumed to occur in 2017. Note that equipment data for Phase 3 were not available at the time of this analysis. However, construction activities required for Phases 2 and 3 were assumed to be identical; thus, daily emissions from Phase 3 are expected to be the same as Phase 2. However, as Phase 3 would occur over a period of 8 weeks, total emissions would be greater than Phase 2, which requires 6 weeks of construction activity. Total Phase 3 emissions were therefore calculated by scaling Phase 2 emissions by 1.33 (8 weeks/6 weeks). As shown in Table 2, the proposed project’s emissions are low and are expected to be far below the County’s currently recommended 900 metric ton COe threshold. Additionally, the project’s goal of 2 enhancing, re-habilitating, and re-establishing vegetation communities and wildlife habitats would inevitably increase carbon sinks, as the project would replace many of nonnative shrub communities with trees, which have a much higher rate of carbon uptake and sequestration than disturbed shrubs and habitat. The AB 32 Scoping Plan includes measures to increase carbon sequestration (Sustainable Forests), and the proposed project would be consistent with this goal by increasing sequestration in the project area. Consequently, the impact of emissions from the proposed project is considered less than significant and not adverse. Therefore, the proposed project would not generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that could have a significant impact on the environment. Table 2. Estimated Annual Greenhouse Gas Emissions from Project Construction (metric tons per year) a Year COCH NO COe 2422 <1 201685<186 201761<1<161 Total Emissions 146 <1<1147 b Amortized Emissions 5 <1<15 San Diego County Threshold -- ----900 a Refers to carbon dioxide equivalent, which includes the relative warming capacity (i.e., Global Warming Potential) of each GHG. b Total emissions have been amortized over a 30-year project life. Source: ICF International 2015a b)Less-than-Significant Impact. At the local level, the City has a GHG reduction plan, originally drafted in 2000 and amended in 2008 and 2011, which outlines the City’s plan to achieve GHG reductions over time. At the state level, the most applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions is AB 32, which codified the state’s GHG emissions reduction targets for the future. ARB adopted the AB 32 Scoping Plan as a framework for achieving AB 32. The Scoping Plan outlines a series of technologically feasible and cost-effective measures to reduce statewide GHG emissions. These strategies are geared towards sectors and activities that generate significant amounts of GHGs. For example, the majority of measures address building, energy, waste and wastewater generation, goods movement, water usage, and high global warming potential gases. Activities associated with the proposed project are not considered by the AB 32 13 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 161 Scoping Plan as having a high potential to emit GHGs. The proposed project consists of short-term construction and minimal long-term maintenance and monitoring and would result in a low level of emissions (147 metric tons COe over the course of a 2-year construction period) far below 2 thresholds. Moreover, the project would rehabilitate and enhance the aquatic and terrestrial habitat in the Otay River Valley, which would increase carbon uptake and sequestration in perpetuity. Therefore, the proposed project would not hinder implementation of AB 32 and the City’s CAP and would not conflict with an applicable plan, policy, or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing GHG emissions. This impact is considered less than significant. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. 14 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 162 Less Than Significant Potentially Less Than With Issues: No Impact Significant Significant Mitigation ImpactImpact Incorporated V. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES.Would the project: a)Have 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, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? b)Have a substantial adverse effect on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? c)Have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected waters as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (including, but no limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) through direct removal, filling, hydrological interruption, or other means. d)Interfere substantially with the movement of any native resident or migratory fish or wildlife species or with established native resident or migratory wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites? e)Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as a tree preservation policy or ordinance? f) Conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan? Comments: a)Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. Biological resources on the project site were evaluated in a Biological Resources Report prepared by ICF International (ICF International 2016b). Although no formal plant or wildlife surveys were conducted for this project, Recon Environmental has conducted a variety of surveys within portions of the project site on the Otay Ranch Preserve and the Salt Creek Preserve, and those survey reports were used to compile 15 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 163 species data. The project site supports a large number of native and nonnative animal and plant species, including 15 special-status wildlife species and 22 special-status plant species. A special- status species is one designated as endangered, threatened, or otherwise imperiled by local or regional plans, policies, or regulations, or by the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). The following summarizes the existing resources present within the project area. Wildlife: Special-Status Species Fifteen special-status wildlife species have been documented on site: San Diego fairy shrimp, western spadefoot toad, Belding’s orange-throated whiptail, Blainville’s horned lizard, least Bell’s vireo, coastal California gnatcatcher, western yellow-billed cuckoo, northern harrier, white-tailed kite, San Diego cactus wren, grasshopper sparrow, yellow warbler, yellow-breasted chat, San Diego black-tailed jackrabbit, and San Diego woodrat. The project site provides suitable habitat for other special-status wildlife species. Project grading activities would temporarily impact special-status wildlife species via the temporary loss of vegetation and the potential loss of individuals and direct impacts on avian species protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act. However, as described in the project description and Biological Resources Report (ICF International 2016b), to the extent practicable (and consistent with Mitigation Measure BIO-6), all construction activities would occur between September and February of each year and therefore would take place outside the breeding season and would avoid impacts to nesting birds. Furthermore, Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-8, would be implemented and would require approval of all applicable resource agency permits, biological awareness training for all construction personnel, temporary fencing to clearly distinguish the limits of the project site, biological monitoring to ensure grading activities occur within designated areas, implementing BMPs as outlined in the Biological Resources Report (ICF International 2016b), and ensuring nesting birds, burrowing owl, and vernal-pool-dependent species are avoided. These mitigation measures would avoid and minimize impacts that could occur on sensitive natural communities and special-status wildlife species as a result of the temporary loss of habitat, direct impacts on individuals, or the loss of active nests for birds protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA). Restoration of native vegetation communities would, however, ultimately increase the acreage and quality of suitable breeding habitat for those special-status wildlife species over the long term. Moreover, as a project feature, wood split-rail fencing would be installed to designate trail corridors in compliance with the OVRP Concept Plan and City of Chula Vista Greenbelt Master Plan, as well as signage (educational kiosks, general trail signage) and safety reflectors to limit trespassing into the restoration project and adjacent habitats. Therefore, after implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-8 impacts related to special-status wildlife species would be less than significant. Wildlife: Critical Habitat The project site is within USFWS-designated critical habitat for both the coastal California gnatcatcher and the Quino checkerspot butterfly. Grading and restoration activities would temporarily impact designated critical habitat for both species. Coastal California gnatcatcher critical habitat is designated over the entire City of Chula Vista parcel, while Quino checkerspot butterfly critical habitat is located to the east of the City of Chula Vista parcel. Grading activities would occur in areas not typically used by coastal California gnatcatcher for nesting; enhancement activities would take place in Diegan coastal sage scrub, which is appropriate breeding habitat for coastal California gnatcatcher. Ultimately, restoration actions would improve the acreage and quality of habitat for coastal California gnatcatcher. The restoration grading is located outside of designated Quino critical habitat on previously gravel-mined riverwash alluvium which does not support the Quino checkerspot butterfly. However, as described above, the proposed project would implement Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-6 to avoid and minimize impacts that could occur to sensitive natural communities and special-status wildlife species as a result of the temporary loss of habitat, direct impacts on individuals, or the loss of active nests for birds protected under the MBTA. 16 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 164 Therefore, after implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-6, impacts related to special-status species critical habitat would be less than significant. Flora: Special-Status Species Twenty-two special-status plant species were identified on site: singlewhorl burrobrush, Otay manzanita, south coast salt scale, San Diego sunflower, San Diego goldenstar, Otay Mountain ceanothus, snake cholla, Otay tarplant, variegated dudleya, San Diego barrel cactus, Palmer’s grapplinghook, Tecate cypress, graceful tarplant, decumbent goldenbush, San Diego marsh elder, Southwestern spiny rush, small flowered microseris, spreading navarretia, Munz’s sage, ashy spike- moss, blue streamwort, and San Diego County needlegrass. Grading activities would result in the temporal loss of vegetation that could result in impacts on special-status plant species, including the loss of individuals. However, implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-5 and BIO-9 would require biological awareness training for all construction personnel, temporary fencing to clearly distinguish the limits of the project site, biological monitoring to ensure grading activities occur within designated areas, implementing BMPs, and developing and implementing a salvage plan for special-status plants that would be directly impacted by grading activities. These mitigation measures would avoid and minimize impacts that could occur on sensitive natural communities and special-status plant species as a result of the temporary loss of habitat. The restoration of native vegetation communities would, however, ultimately increase the acreage and quality of suitable habitat for these special-status floral species over the long term. As a project feature, wood split-rail fencing would be installed to designate trail corridors in compliance with the OVRP Concept Plan and City of Chula Vista Greenbelt Master Plan, as well as signage (educational kiosks, general trail signage) and safety reflectors to limit trespassing into the restoration project and special-status plant populations. Therefore, after implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-5 and BIO-9, impacts related to special-status floral species would be less than significant. Flora: Critical Habitat A portion of the project site is within USFWS-designated critical habitat for Otay tarplant, and enhancement and grading activities would temporarily impact a portion of the habitat; however, Otay tarplant does not have reasonable potential to occur in the grading area due to the lack of appropriate soils and the disturbed nature of the former gravel mine. However, as mentioned above, Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-5 and BIO-9 would be implemented to minimize potential impacts on critical habitat. As mentioned above, the proposed project is a restoration project that would ultimately increase and enhance suitable habitat for special-status plant species; therefore, after implementation of Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-5 and BIO-9, impacts on USFWS- designated critical habitat for Otay tarplant would be less than significant. b)Less-than-Significant Impact. Twenty-two vegetation communities and land cover types were mapped within the project site and include a variety of sensitive riparian and upland habitats as well as disturbed natural communities and developed lands. Sensitive vegetation communities on the project site include southern mixed chaparral, chamise chaparral, Diegan coastal sage scrub, mule fat scrub, riparian forest and scrub, freshwater marsh, arundo-dominated riparian, southern riparian scrub, southern willow scrub, southern cottonwood–willow riparian forest, southern interior cypress forest, oak woodland, valley and foothill grassland, and nonnative grassland. Non-sensitive vegetation communities or land cover types include open water, eucalyptus woodland, nonnative vegetation, tamarisk scrub, disturbed habitat, and urban/developed land. These various communities serve as important breeding and foraging habitats for a variety of birds, reptiles, and mammals, including special-status species. The proposed project would avoid most significant stands of riparian habitat in the project site and enhancement of these areas would be carefully conducted by hand. The goal of the proposed project is to restore natural vegetation communities and hydrological function to the portion of the Otay River Valley within the project area; any project-related impacts would be minimal and temporary, and the proposed project would result in improved habitats. 17 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 165 Therefore, there would not be substantial adverse effects on any riparian habitat or other sensitive natural community, and impacts would be less than significant. c)Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The existing Otay River channel was substantially altered by gravel and sand mining activities that began in the 1920s and lasted until approximately the late 1980s; consequently, the floodplain has undergone the removal of a significant amount of streambed material and now contains a multitude of tailing rows and mounds, several pits, and other artifacts of such operations. As a result, floodplain drainage patterns have been significantly changed. The proposed project would restore a portion of the Otay River and re- create appropriate channel morphology and a floodplain composed of low and high terraces that would be activated at various flood events. Restoration efforts would be conducted in compliance with applicable state and federal water quality laws. The temporary impacts on small areas of jurisdictional waters of the U.S. and State and native upland habitats, and the project as a whole, have been evaluated by USACE in accordance with Section 404 of CWA, the RWQCB in accordance with Section 401 of the CWA and the State Porter Cologne Act, USFWS in accordance with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, the CDFW in accordance with Section 1600 of the State Fish and Game Code. The resource agencies have reviewed the project in detail, visited the site on numerous occasions, and provided feedback on design and phasing. Implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1, Obtain Approval of all Necessary Resource Agency Permits, would be required prior to the issuance of grading permits and the start of restoration activities to ensure all necessary agency permits have been approved and impacts to protected waters are minimized per the conditions set for in the permits. Therefore, after implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1, the proposed project would not have a substantial adverse effect on federally protected waters as defined by Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, and impacts would be less than significant. d)Less-than-Significant Impact. Restoration of the project site would ultimately improve habitat connectivity in the region and would not prevent wildlife access to foraging habitat, breeding habitat, water sources, or other areas necessary for their reproduction. Short-term construction activity is expected to take place primarily within existing disturbed areas during daylight hours, with minimal impacts on local wildlife movement during construction. Therefore, the proposed project would not interfere with the movement of any native resident species or with established wildlife corridors, or impede the use of native wildlife nursery sites. Impacts would be less than significant. e)No Impact. The County of San Diego General Plan contains an Open Space Element and a Conservation Element that provides guiding principles for the conservation of biological resources. The Open Space Element outlines the goals and policies pertaining to each type of open space, not all of which are for the preservation of biological resources. The Conservation Element addresses County policies relating to water, vegetation, and wildlife habitat. The City of Chula Vista Municipal Code contains the City's Tree Ordinance, which controls and protects plantings within the public rights-of-way and includes provisions for the planting of street trees and other landscaping materials. It also contains the Habitat Loss and Incidental Take (HLIT) Ordinance, which identifies specific impact and mitigation requirements for impacts on native and some nonnative communities. In addition, the proposed project is located within the jurisdiction of a number of regional conservation plans. The proposed project includes enhancement of water, vegetation, and wildlife habitat in open space and does not conflict with goals and principles of the above-mentioned local ordinances or elements of general plans, and no impact would occur. f)Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The project site is within the boundaries of the Otay Ranch General Development and Resource Management Plan, the Otay River Watershed Management Plan, the Otay River Watershed Special Area Management Plan (SAMP), the City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan, the City of San Diego MSCP Subarea Plan, and the County of San Diego (South County) MSCP Subarea Plan. The Otay Ranch General Development and Resource Management Plan is a comprehensive planning document that addresses the 18 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 166 preservation, enhancement, and management of sensitive natural and cultural resources and is designed to be the functional equivalent of the County of San Diego Resource Protection Ordinance for Otay Ranch. The Otay River Watershed Management Plan (ORWMP) is a framework management plan that provides 17 strategies intended to protect, enhance, restore, and/or manage watershed resources and uses that is consistent with the local General Plans and conservation plans. The Otay River Watershed SAMP provides a comprehensive plan for aquatic resources protection while allowing for reasonable development. The City of Chula Vista, City of San Diego, and County of San Diego MSCP Subarea Plans are components of the San Diego Multiple Species Conservation Program, which is designed for the preservation of numerous sensitive plant and animal species in the region, and the Chula Vista General Plan Open Space Preserve designation is intended for areas designated within the City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan for the permanent conservation of biological resources. The project site currently exists in a degraded state and contains numerous noxious nonnative plant species; the proposed project would restore native plant associations and wildlife connections and provide funding for the long-term maintenance and management of the project site in perpetuity through a non-wasting endowment required by USACE. The proposed project is consistent with the goals of all applicable conservation plans. Moreover, trails and public access are discussed in Section 7.5.3 of the City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea. The measures outlined in Section 7.5.3 would be implemented as Mitigation Measure BIO-10 to avoid impacts to sensitive resources by installing fencing and signage. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. Impacts would be less than significant after mitigation is incorporated. Mitigation: BIO-1: Obtain Approval of All Necessary Resource Agency Permits. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall obtain all necessary resource agency permits and provide copies to the City. All conditions identified within each of the resource agency permits shall be implemented in accordance with the permit. The applicable resource agency permits for the proposed project include a Clean Water Act Section 404 Permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, a Section 7 Informal Consultation Letter from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, a Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification from the Regional Water Quality Control Board, a Clean Water Act Section 402 National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Construction General Permit (Order No. 2012-0006-DWQ) from the Regional Water Quality Control Board, and a Section 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. In addition to the agency permits, a conservation easement or other approved site protection mechanism and endowment would be established per the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Environmental Protection Agency Compensatory Mitigation Rule. BIO-2: Biological Awareness Training. Prior to initiation of grading activities, biological resource awareness training will be provided by a qualified biologist to all construction personnel. The training will include information regarding sensitive species with the potential to occur at the site as well as minimization and avoidance measures to reduce potential indirect effects on the habitat. A log of personnel who have completed the training and a copy of the training report/outline (including special-status species photos, targeted invasive plant species, and descriptions of the measures discussed in the training session) will be maintained at the construction office. BIO-3: Temporary Fencing. Prior to the initiation of grading activities, the limits of grading will be clearly marked by well-installed temporary fencing that is prominently colored. The fence will be installed by the construction contractor and will remain in place during all grading activities. BIO-4: Biological Monitor. A qualified biological monitor will be on site during vegetation clearing activities to ensure that grading activities occur within designated areas. The monitor will also ensure that any special-status species that becomes entrapped within the grading limits is moved 19 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 167 away from construction equipment. The biological monitor will also periodically inspect the limits of disturbance fence to ensure that it is in good condition. Any parts of the fence that need repair will be brought to the contractor’s attention to be fixed immediately. In the event that a special-status species is located within the grading limits, the biological monitor would temporarily stop construction. Removal of sensitive species should be done by a biologist qualified to handle that specific species. If needed, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife will be informally consulted if there is a question on the best manner to safely address a situation with a sensitive wildlife species. BIO-5: Best Management Practices. Best management practices (BMPs) will be implemented per the conditions outlined in the Biological Resources Report (ICF International 2016b) by the construction contractor during all grading activities to reduce potential indirect effects on special- status species and habitat. BMPs will include but will not be limited to the following. All trash will be properly stored and removed from the site daily to prevent attracting wildlife to the construction area. Vehicles and equipment will be stored only on pre-designated staging areas in disturbed or developed areas. Fueling should be conducted in a manner that prevents spillage of fuel into the Otay River or into riparian or wetland habitats. All maintenance of vehicles and equipment will be conducted in a manner so that oils and other hazardous materials will not discharge into the Otay River, or into riparian habitat areas (including Freshwater and Freshwater Marsh). Dust control measures will be implemented to minimize the settling of dust on vegetation. Appropriate firefighting equipment (e.g., extinguishers, shovels, water tankers) will be available on the site during all phases of project construction, and appropriate fire prevention measures will be taken to help minimize the chance of human-caused wildfires. All construction will be performed between dawn and dusk to the degree feasible to minimize potential indirect effects (e.g., increased depredation) on the species beyond the limits of disturbance. BIO-6: Nesting Bird Avoidance. To avoid any direct impacts on nesting coastal California gnatcatchers (Polioptila californica californica), least Bell’s vireo (Vireo bellii pusillus), western yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus occidentalis), raptors, or other birds protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, removal of habitat, including the removal of any riparian woodland, upland vegetation, and eucalyptus trees that may support active nests on the proposed area of disturbance will occur outside of the breeding season when feasible. The breeding season is defined as February 15–September 15. If work, including any trail improvement work, must be conducted during the breeding season, nesting bird surveys would need to be completed in order to clear the area or locate active nests for avoidance. Adequate avoidance buffers would be established around any active nests and coordinated with the wildlife agencies. BIO-7: Preconstruction Burrowing Owl Survey. To avoid any direct impacts on burrowing owls (Athene cunicularia), an approved biologist shall conduct focused pre-construction surveys for burrowing owls. The surveys shall be performed no earlier than 10 days prior to the commencement of any clearing, grubbing, or grading activities. If occupied burrows are detected, the biologist shall prepare a passive relocation mitigation plan, subject to review and approval by the Wildlife Agencies and the City, including any subsequent burrowing owl relocation plans to avoid impacts from construction-related activities. BIO-8: Vernal Pool–Dependent Species Avoidance. The San Diego Mesa vernal pool complex located in the northeastern corner of the property is outside of the restoration boundary and will be completely avoided. To avoid all other potential fairy shrimp habitat areas and potential impacts on 20 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 168 San Diego fairy shrimp (Branchinecta sandiegonensis), other ponding features such as road ruts and road ponds will be identified by an aquatic resource and fairy shrimp specialist and fenced by the construction contractor ensuring they are not impacted by restoration activities including truck traffic and storage. Construction access routes will be rerouted within the proposed grading footprint to avoid these ponding features. These new routes will replace existing roads/trails to avoid future impacts associated with vehicular and recreational use. The uplands surrounding the ponds will be restored with native species. Wood split-rail fencing, boulders, and signage will be installed outside of these sensitive areas and used to inform the public of the sensitivity of the area and deter them from trespassing into the ponded areas and river restoration project. BIO-9: Special-Status and Succulent Plant Salvage Plan. During grading and enhancement activities, special-status and succulent plant species should be avoided where feasible. Salvage and relocation of target species to adjacent areas will be implemented for unavoidable impacts. Target species include the special-status plant species detected within the restoration project boundary: singlewhorl burrobush (Ambrosia monogyra), San Diego sunflower (Bahiopsis laciniata), San Diego barrel cactus (Ferocactus viridescens), Palmer’s grapplinghook (Harpagonella palmeri), Tecate cypress (Hesperocyparis forbesii), decumbent goldenbush (Isocoma menziesii var. decumbens), San Diego marsh-elder (Iva hayesiana), southwestern spiny rush (Juncus acutus ssp. leopoldii), small- flowered microseris (Microseris douglasii ssp. platycarpha), blue streamwort (Stemodia durantifolia), and San Diego needlegrass (Stipa diegoensis), as well as Otay tarplant if detected within the restoration project boundary. A special-status plant and succulent salvage plan will be prepared for the areas of grading and habitat enhancement. The plan will be prepared and implemented prior to grading and enhancement activities. The plan will include a special-status and succulent plant target species list, seed collection, succulent plant salvage, and transplanting methods. BIO-10: Public Access, Trails, and Recreation. To deter trespassing into the restoration site, wood split-rail fencing will be installed to designate road/trail corridors along existing roads and existing unofficial trails that border the restoration site. Other barriers (boulders, brush piles, logs. and plantings) will be placed at strategic locations when protection of sensitive resources is required where fencing is not present. For safety purposes, reflective material will be placed on the wood fencing at specific locations to aid Border Patrol and other night-time users from unintentionally breaking through fencing into sensitive habitat. Additionally, signage and informational kiosks will be installed for educational purposes and to inform the public of the sensitivity of the restoration site and adjacent habitats. All installation activities (signage, fencing, kiosks) and reflective materials will occur outside of the breeding season defined as February 15–September 15 or be in accordance with Mitigation Measure BIO-6 and require preconstruction surveys. 21 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 169 Less Than Significant Potentially Less Than With Issues: No Impact Significant Significant Mitigation ImpactImpact Incorporated VI.CULTURAL RESOURCES.Would the project: a)Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in State CEQA Guidelines § 15064.5? b)Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines § 15064.5? c)Directly or indirectly destroy a unique paleontological resource or site or unique geologic feature? d)Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? Comments: a)No Impact. A records review and cultural resources survey identified no existing structures or buildings within the 300-acre mitigation site boundary (ICF International 2015b). Therefore, the proposed project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5. b)Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. A records review revealed that two isolated artifacts and one archaeological site were previously documented within the restoration site: site CA-SDI-10875 and isolates 37-015385 and 37-015386. The artifacts associated with the isolates were collected during their initial documentation (Kyle et al. 1993a, 1993b). A subsequent cultural resources survey performed in support of the proposed project between June 2 and 3, 2015, did not locate any additional artifacts in the vicinity of either isolated find. This same survey identified only two surface-exposed lithic artifacts within the previously defined boundary for CA-SDI-10875. Historic documentation review and a pedestrian survey revealed that the central portion of the project area has been subject to deep and widespread ground disturbance associated with a sand and gravel mining operation that occurred in the project area during the late twentieth century. This area is considered to have limited potential to contain archaeological resources and intersects with the southern edge of the previously defined boundary for CA-SDI-10875 (ICF International 2015b). CA-SDI-10875 has not been determined eligible for, or listed, in the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) or National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Considering that only two non- diagnostic lithic artifacts were documented within a 17-acre portion of the site that occurs within the project area, that previous recent studies could not relocate any artifacts within the site boundary (AECOM 2013), and that no features or chronologically diagnostic artifacts have been documented within the site, the portion of the site that occurs within the project area does not appear to be eligible under Criterion 4 of the CRHR (Public Resources Code SS5024.1, Title 14, Section 4852). This site is not directly associated with any recognized historic or prehistoric event or person (Criteria 1 and 2), does not appear to embody a characteristic or method of construction that would warrant special recognition, and is not located in a cohesive neighborhood or grouping (Criterion 3).Therefore, impacts 22 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 170 related to the proposed project causing a substantial adverse change in the significance of an archaeological resource pursuant to State CEQA Guidelines Section 15064.5 would be less than significant. One archaeological site, CA-SDI-14218, is located within the 300-acre mitigation parcel where project- related ground disturbing activities (i.e., fence and sign installation) are proposed. The resource has not been evaluated for its eligibility for listing in the CRHR or NRHP. In accordance with guidance from the California Office of Historic Preservation, the site must be treated as though it were a significant resource until the necessary studies have been performed to determine its eligibility for the CRHR or NRHP. In order to minimize impacts to the resource, the proposed project would incorporate Mitigation Measure CUL-1, which would redesign the portion of the project that would result in ground disturbance within CA-SDI-14281 to avoid the site by relocating it to an area that does not occur within CA-SDI-14218 or any other previously documented archaeological sites. Implementation of Mitigation Measure CUL-1 would reduce impacts to archaeological sites to less than significant. If CA-SDI-14218 cannot be avoided, the proposed project would incorporate Mitigation Measure CUL- 2. This mitigation measure would require cultural resources investigations designed to evaluate the CRHR and NRHP eligibility of CA-SDI-14218 and consider whether proposed project activities would result in significant impacts to this resource. If CA-SDI-14218 is determined not eligible for listing in the CRHR or NRHP, or that the project would not result in significant impacts to the character- defining elements of the resource, then impacts to archaeological sites would be less than significant. If CA-SDI-14218 is determined eligible for listing in the CRHR or NRHP, then an archaeological treatment plan will need to be developed and implemented to reduce impacts to less than significant. Despite the paucity of archaeological deposits identified within the 300-acre mitigation site during previous surveys, the proposed project would incorporate Mitigation Measure CUL-3, which would require the development and implementation of an unanticipated discovery plan, and Mitigation Measure CUL-4, which would require archaeological monitoring for any ground-disturbing activities within the 300-acre mitigation parcel. These mitigation measures would be used to account for the potential for encountering redeposited artifacts in the sediment stockpiles on site and the potential for encountering as-yet undocumented archaeological deposits in areas with poor ground surface visibility. Therefore, after implementation of Mitigation Measures CUL-3 and CUL-4, impacts related to archaeological resources would be less than significant. c)Less-than-Significant Impact. The proposed project would not directly destroy a unique paleontological resource, site, or unique geologic feature. Figure 10 (see Attachment 1 for all figures) shows the location of Holocene- and Pleistocene-aged landforms on the project site. Project activities such as grading, vegetation removal, floodplain recontouring, plantings, installation of at- grade channel crossings, and decommissioning of existing roads would primarily occur in an area that was previously disturbed to great depths by gravel mining operations (ICF International 2015) or on Holocene-aged alluvial landforms (Tan and Kennedy 2002). In these locations, paleontological sensitivity is considered to be low. In instances where the proposed project would occur on Pleistocene-aged landforms composed of sedimentary rock, which tend to be paleontologically sensitive, project activities would be limited to plantings, decommissioning of existing roads, and minor trail improvements. Both of these activities would result in disturbance limited to the topsoil and would not be sufficient to encounter as-yet undocumented paleontological resources. Therefore, impacts related to paleontological resources would be less than significant. d)Less-than-Significant Impact. A records review and cultural resources survey performed in support of the proposed project did not identify any evidence of significant prehistoric activities in the project area. Based on the widespread extent and great depth of previous ground disturbance across much of the project area, and very sparse distribution and limited variety of artifacts within the only archaeological site documented in the project area (CA-SDI-10875 ), it is considered unlikely that human remains would be encountered during construction of the proposed project. In the unlikely event that human remains are discovered, the project construction manager would be required to comply with Health and Safety Code Section 7050.5 and Public Resources Code Section 5097. 23 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 171 These regulations outline the procedures to follow in the event that human remains are uncovered, and the penalty for disobeying these procedures. Therefore, given the low likelihood of discovering human remains, as well as the existing laws in place that govern the handling of human remains, impacts related to the disturbance of human remains would be less than significant. Mitigation: CUL-1: Avoidance of CA-SDI-14218. The portion of the proposed project that would require ground disturbance within CA-SDI-14218 will be redesigned to avoid the resource, either by rerouting or eliminating the activity that would require ground disturbance within the site boundary. If rerouting is selected, the new route would avoid any other previously documented unevaluated, CRHR-eligible, or NRHP-eligible resources. CUL-2: Testing of CA-SDI-14218. If ground disturbance within CA-SDI-14218 cannot be avoided, a cultural resources study designed to evaluate the CRHR and NRHP eligibility of the resource will be performed prior to ground disturbing activities. If the archaeological site is determined to be eligible for the CRHR and NRHP, the study will also determine whether the proposed ground disturbance would result in significant impacts to CA-SDI-14218. If the study determines that CA- SDI-14218 is not eligible for listing in the CRHR or NRHP, or that the project would not result in significant impacts to the character-defining elements of the resource, then impacts to archaeological resources would be less than significant. If CA-SDI-14218 is determined eligible for listing in the CRHR or NRHP, then an archaeological treatment plan will need to be developed and implemented for CA-SDI14218 to reduce impacts to archaeological resources to less than significant. CUL-3: Unanticipated Discovery Plan. Prior to any ground disturbing activities associated with project construction, an unanticipated discovery plan will be developed and will be implemented and enforced during all project-related ground disturbance activities. The plan will establish the procedures to follow in the event of an unanticipated discovery of archaeological deposits or human remains, describe the anticipated range of archaeological resource types, list the character-defining elements that would render archaeological resources eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and/or California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) and identify documentation procedures to follow in the event that an archaeological discovery does not retain the necessary character-defining elements to be considered eligible for listing in the NRHP or CRHR. In the event that an unanticipated discovery is determined to be eligible for listing in the NRHP and/or CRHR, the procedures to follow regarding the treatment of the resource will be developed in consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer and the affected tribes. The plan will contain resource avoidance procedures to follow while treatment is being developed. CUL-4: Archaeological Monitoring. All ground disturbing activities within the 300-acre mitigation parcel will be monitored by a professional archaeologist. In the event of an unanticipated archaeological discovery, the archaeological monitor will assess the discovery in accordance with the project’s Unanticipated Discovery Plan described in Mitigation Measure CUL-3. 24 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 172 Less Than Significant Potentially Less Than With Issues: No Impact Significant Significant Mitigation ImpactImpact Incorporated VII.GEOLOGY AND SOILS.Would the project: a)Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury or death involving: i. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning Map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? ii.Strong seismic ground shaking? Seismic-related ground failure, including iii. liquefaction? Landslides? iv. b)Result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? c)Be located on a geologic unit or soil that is unstable, or that would become unstable as a result of the project, and potentially result in on- or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? d)Be located on expansive soil, creating substantial risks to life or property? e)Have soils incapable of adequately supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater? Comments: a)i. No Impact. The nearest active fault to the project site is the La Nacion Fault, located approximately 5 miles to the west. The La Nacion Fault extends south from the Collwood Boulevard-Montezuma Road area along 54th Street, crosses State Highway 94 in the vicinity of Federal Boulevard, and then angles to the southeast through Paradise Hills. It reenters the City of San Diego at Otay Valley just easterly of Interstate 805, and roughly parallels the latter into the San 25 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 173 Ysidro area (City of San Diego 2008). Because no active faults traverse the project footprint, fault rupture is unlikely to occur during implementation of the proposed project. Additionally, the project area is not located within a State of California Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Hazard Zone, and project features do not include the addition of new structures meant for human occupancy within 50 feet of the nearest fault (California Department of Conservation 2015). As such, people or structures would not be exposed to substantial adverse effects from a rupture of a known earthquake fault. No impact would occur. ii. Less-than-Significant Impact. As with most southern California regions, the project site would be subject to strong ground shaking in the event of a major earthquake. Three major faults zones and some subordinate fault zones are found in the Peninsular Ranges Geomorphic Province (where the proposed project is located). The Elsinore Fault zone and the San Jacinto Fault zones trend northwest-southeast, and are found near the middle of the province. The San Andreas Fault zone borders the northeasterly margin of the province. Additionally, the Otay Ranch area is located in Seismic Zone 4, which is a designation previously used in the Uniform Building Code to denote the areas of the highest risk to earthquake ground motion (California Seismic Safety Commission 2005). As a result, the proposed project could be subject to future seismic shaking and strong ground motion resulting from seismic activity, and damage could occur. Due to the nature of the proposed project, it is not expected to draw a substantial amount of people, either during project implementation activities or permanently and thus, would remain similar to existing conditions. Moreover, no structures intended for human occupation (or otherwise) would be built, thus potential risk to people as a result of strong seismic ground shaking would be extremely limited while potential impacts on property would not exist. As a result, impacts would be less than significant. iii. Less-than-Significant Impact. Implementation of the proposed project would not expose people or structures to substantial adverse effects from seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction. Liquefaction occurs when saturated, low-density, loose materials (e.g., sand or silty sand) are weakened and transformed from a solid to a near-liquid state as a result of increased pore water pressure. The increase in pressure is caused by strong ground motion from an earthquake. Liquefaction more often occurs in areas underlain by silts and fine sands and where shallow groundwater exists. According to the City of Chula Vista’s General Plan, the Otay River Valley lies within a liquefaction hazard area (City of Chula Vista 2015). However, the proposed project is not expected to draw a substantial amount of people, either during project implementation activities or permanently and thus, would remain similar to existing conditions. Moreover, no structures intended for human occupation (or otherwise) would be built and the potential risk to people as a result of ground failure or liquefaction would be extremely limited while potential impacts on property would not exist. As a result, impacts would be less than significant. iv. No Impact. The project site lies within the existing Otay River Valley. As noted in the Otay River Restoration Project Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (HMMP), the valley floor itself is mostly flat, but does feature several (minor) topographic features. There are several ponds located north of the proposed channel alignment (average depth of approximately 5–8 feet relative to adjacent ground) and mine tailing mounds (approximately 8–10 feet tall) on both the north and south (of the channel alignment). As such, topography of the site and the features mentioned above are not expected to impact the proposed project as it relates to the exposure of people or structures to landslides. Furthermore, according to the City of Chula Vista’s General Plan, the project area is not located within a landslide hazard area. No impact would occur. b)Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil. Erosion is a condition that could adversely affect development on any site. Construction activities would include the removal of all invasive nonnative tree, shrub, and herbaceous species followed by grading of the channel and floodplain areas to remove spoil piles, berms, and pits to restore the area to the desired functions. 26 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 174 Other improvements would include installation of wood split-rail fencing, signage, and educational kiosks as well as armoring two roadway crossings in the floodplain and closing four existing dirt roads. The proposed project would not add any new impervious surfaces. Construction activities could exacerbate erosion conditions by exposing soils and adding water to the soil from irrigation. As discussed in more detail below in Section IX, Hydrology and Water Quality, the General Construction Permit, which was adopted by the State Water Resources Control Board as Water Quality Order 2012-0006-DWQ on July 17, 2012, is required for soil disturbance activities that would be greater than 1 acre. Compliance with the General Construction Permit requires the development and implementation of a site-specific Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) by a Qualified SWPPP Developer and would include BMPs to be employed during construction to control soil erosion. Selection of erosion control BMPs is based on minimizing disturbed areas, stabilizing disturbed areas, and protecting water quality. Preliminary erosion control measures for the proposed project would include, but would not be limited to, the use of hydraulic mulch, soil binders, geotextiles and mats hydro seeding, straw mulch, earth dikes, and velocity dissipation devices. Furthermore, as discussed above in Section V, Biological Resources, the proposed project would implement Mitigation Measure BIO-1 to ensure all necessary agency permits, including a Clean Water Act Section 402 NPDES Construction General Permit (Order No. 2012-0006-DWQ) from the Regional Water Quality Control Board, have been approved before initiating grading activities and impacts to geology and soils would be minimized per the conditions set forth in the permits. As a result, after implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1, the proposed project would result in less-than-significant impacts related to soil erosion during construction activities. Operation of the proposed project would restore the portion of the Otay River within the boundaries of the restoration site by creating complex channel morphology including primary and secondary channels. A floodplain would be recreated with low and high terraces that would be activated at various flood events. This would be an improvement to drainage patterns over existing conditions, and would not increase erosion because the restoration site would be restored to the desired functions with native habitat that would prevent substantial erosion or siltation on- or off site. Furthermore, a restoration ecologist would be retained by the project applicant and would work in coordination with the installation and maintenance contractors and oversee the protection of existing native vegetation, nonnative plant removal, contour grading, site preparation, planting and seeding, maintenance and monitoring, and reporting. If deemed necessary by the restoration ecologist, maintenance activities would include remedial measures for erosion control. In addition, operation and maintenance of the minor trail improvements would be performed and managed by the City of Chula Vista per the guidelines in the City of Chula Vista Greenbelt Master Plan and OVRP Concept Plan and Trail Guidelines. As these improvements would occur in the disturbed areas of existing dirt roads and unofficial trails, long-term soil erosion is not expected to be an issue for these project components. Thus, long-term operational impacts related to soil erosion or loss of topsoil would be less than significant. c)Less-than-Significant Impact. As mentioned in the HMMP, soils in the Otay East sub-basin are predominantly clay with some loam pockets in O’Neal Canyon. The riparian areas and previously active floodplains of the Otay River lack distinct layers and are generally well drained and poorly developed. Soils in the floodplain area are characterized as having a high infiltration rate when thoroughly wetted, comprising primarily deep well-drained sand and gravel. The project site is - composed of five soil types; Olivenhain-cobbly loam, Huerhuero loam, Visalia gravely sandy loam, Riverwash, San MiguelExchequer rocky silt loams, and Terrace escarpments (ICF International 2016a). Due to the prevalence of clays, sand and gravel and the availability of water in the project area, the potential for soil instability during a seismic event exists. However, the proposed project would not draw a substantial amount of people, either during project implementation activities or permanently and thus, would remain similar to existing undeveloped conditions. Moreover, no structures intended for human occupation (or otherwise) would be built, thus potential risk to people as a result of 27 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 175 unstable soil would be extremely limited while potential impacts on property would not exist. As a result, impacts would be less than significant. d)Less-than-Significant Impact. Implementation of the proposed project would not create substantial risks to life or property as a result of expansive soils. Expansive soils are fine-grained soils (generally high-plasticity clays) that can undergo a significant increase in volume with an increase in water content as well as a significant decrease in volume with a decrease in water content. Changes in the water content of highly expansive soils can result in severe distress for structures constructed on or against the soils. As discussed under threshold c., clays exist throughout the project area and thus soil expansion potential exists. However, due to the nature of the proposed project, it is not expected to draw a substantial amount of people, either during project implementation activities or permanently and thus, would remain similar to the existing undeveloped conditions. Moreover, no structures intended for human occupation (or otherwise) would be built, thus potential risk to people would be extremely limited while potential impacts on property would not exist. As a result, impacts would be less than significant. e)No Impact. No septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems are proposed; therefore, no impact would occur. Mitigation: Implement Mitigation Measure BIO-1. 28 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 176 Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Issues: Significant With Significant No Impact ImpactMitigation Impact Incorporated VIII. HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS. Would the project: a) Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials? b)Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment? c)Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? d)Be located on a site which is included on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 65962.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? e)For a project within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? g)Impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan? h)Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving wildland fires, including where wildlands are adjacent to urbanized areas or where residences are intermixed with wildlands? 29 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 177 Comments: a)Less-than-Significant Impact. Implementation of the proposed project would not create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use, or disposal of hazardous materials. Construction of the proposed project would involve the transport, use, and disposal of hazardous materials such as fuel, solvents, chemicals, and oils associated with operating construction equipment. Such transport, use, and disposal must be compliant with applicable regulations such as the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), which regulates the generation, transport, treatment, storage, and disposal of hazardous waste; Department of Transportation Hazardous Materials Regulations, which cover all aspects of hazardous materials packaging, handling, and transportation; and the local Certified Unified Program Agency (CUPA) regulations, which consolidate, coordinate, and make consistent the administrative requirements, permits, inspections, and enforcement activities of local environmental and emergency response programs. Although small amounts of fuel, solvents, chemicals, and oils would be transported, used, and disposed of during the construction phase, these materials are typically used in construction projects and would not represent the transport, use, and disposal of acutely hazardous materials. Once completed, the proposed project would maintain approximately 100 acres of hydrologic and sediment transport processes and native habitats. The long-term operation and maintenance of the Chula Vista Greenbelt trail would be performed and managed by the City of Chula Vista per the guidelines in the City of Chula Vista Greenbelt Master Plan. The long-term operation and maintenance of the OVRP trails would be shared by the three responsible jurisdictions (County of San Diego, City of Chula Vista, and City of San Diego) per the guidelines in the OVRP Concept Plan and Trail Guidelines. As such, no hazardous materials would be transported, used, disposed of, or stored on site during project operations. Impacts would be less than significant. b)Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. Implementation of the proposed project is not expected to create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through reasonably foreseeable upset and accident conditions involving the release of hazardous materials into the environment. As mentioned under response VIII.a. above, construction-related hazardous materials would be used during construction of the proposed project, including fuel, solvents, chemicals, and oils, for the operation of construction equipment. It is possible that any of these substances could be released in small amounts during construction activities. However, compliance with federal, state, and local regulations noted in response VIII.a., in combination with construction BMPs implemented from a SWPPP as required under the State Water Resources Control Board’s Construction General Permit and listed in Section IX, Hydrology and Water Quality, would ensure that all hazardous materials are transported, used, stored, and disposed properly, which would minimize potential impacts related to a hazardous materials release during the construction phase of the project. Furthermore, Mitigation Measure BIO-1 would ensure all necessary agency permits, including a Clean Water Act Section 402 NPDES Construction General Permit (Order No. 2012- 0006-DWQ) from the Regional Water Quality Control Board, have been approved before initiating grading activities. As discussed above, no hazardous materials are expected to be transported, used, disposed of, or stored on site during the operational phase, which would be similar to the existing operations at the project site. A records search was conducted to determine if there are any known hazards or hazardous materials located on or close to the project site that could result in a significant hazard to the public or the environment. The following summarizes the findings of this records search. GeoTracker and EnviroStor Existing Leaking Underground Storage Tanks Research conducted on GeoTracker and EnviroStor during an online records review provided no current or historical hazardous material information regarding the proposed project site. However, two Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) sites were identified within a 1-mile radius of the 30 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 178 proposed project site; the Lower Lake Filtration Plant located northeast of the proposed project at 2200 Wueste Road and the East Mesa Detention Center located southeast of the proposed project at 446 Alta Road (State Water Resources Control Board 2015). Contamination found in the Lower Lake Filtration Plant site included gasoline-impacted soil only, while the East Mesa Detention Center was a diesel-impacted soil only site. Remediation was conducted and both sites were granted closure in September of 2006 and December of 2007, respectively. Thus, the likelihood of contamination migrating to the proposed project area and adversely affecting construction workers or the environment from the two surrounding sites is very low. Brown Field Bombing Range Formerly Used Defense Site The western portion of the project site is located within the Brown Field Bombing Range Formerly Used Defense Site (FUDS). Figure 9 (see Attachment 1 for all figures) shows where the project site, restoration site, trails, and the FUDS property boundaries overlap. The Brown Field Bombing Range was identified in the EnviroStor database as being part of the Department of Toxic Substances Control’s (DTSC’s) Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List – Site Cleanup (Cortese List). The Cortese List is a planning document used by the state, local agencies and developers to comply with CEQA requirements in providing information about the location of hazardous materials release sites (DTSC 2015). The Brown Field Bombing Range (also known as the Otay Mesa Bombing Range, the Otay Bombing Target, or Otay Mesa Bombing Target #32) was used by the Navy between 1942 and 1960 as a dive-bombing practice range, and later as an aerial rocket range. In 1961, the bombing range was assigned for disposal. Construction of the proposed project could create a significant hazard to construction workers or the environment by exposing or encountering any remaining unearthed unexploded ordnances (UXO), munitions and explosives of concern (MEC), and Munitions Debris (MD). UXOs are defined as military munitions that have been prepared for action, remain unexploded and have been fired, dropped, launched, projected, or placed in such a manner as to constitute an explosive hazard. MECs specify categories of military munitions that may pose unique explosive safety risks, of which UXOs are one. Other MECs include discarded military munitions, which are munitions that have been abandoned without proper disposal or removed from storage in a military magazine or other storage area for proper disposal, and munitions constituents which are any materials originating from unexploded ordnances, discarded military munitions, or other military munitions (Office of the Under Secretary 2003). MDs are remnants of munitions (i.e., penetrators, projectiles, shell casings, links, fins) remaining after munitions use, demilitarization, or disposal (Parsons 2007). Parsons Site Inspection Report A site inspection (SI) evaluation consisting of a qualitative reconnaissance and surface soil sampling was conducted by Parsons in 2007 to evaluate the presence of MECs, MDs, and munitions constituents (MCs) within the Former Brown Field Bombing Range. The qualitative reconnaissance encompassed 15.9 miles of the former bombing range and a total of 10 soil samples (as depicted in Figure 9 (see Attachment 1 for all figures)). Results of the laboratory analysis were as follows. Explosives were not detected in any of the soil samples collected. MC contamination was detected in surface soil samples; in particular aluminum, copper, iron, lead, potassium, manganese, and zinc. Due to the laboratory results, a MC Screening Level Risk Assessment (SLRA) and a Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment (SLERA) were conducted for aluminum, copper, lead, manganese, and zinc (iron and potassium were determined to not pose an unacceptable risk). Based on the results of the SLRA and SLERA, the Former Brown Field Bombing Range was determined not to pose an unacceptable risk to human health or ecological receptors resulting from potential exposure to MC in surface soil. As surface water and sediment samples were not collected at the time of the evaluation, the SI recommended the need for further investigation to determine the 31 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 179 presence of MEC hazards in these types of media. Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 would reduce potential impacts associated with unacceptable risks to human health or ecological receptors resulting from exposure to MC in surface water and sediment by requiring sampling and completion of the associated SLRA and SLERA studies, along with either avoidance or remediation of any affected areas before any construction activities may proceed. Implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ-2 would further reduce potential impacts related to historic Brown Field FUDS site activities by performing a surface clearance sweep prior to initiating any construction activities and removing and disposing of any remaining unearthing UXO, MEC and MD. In addition, Mitigation Measure HAZ-2 would require two UXO qualified technicians to support the project’s restoration and grading activities to detect the presence of MEC in disturbed soil. Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. c)No Impact. Implementation of the proposed project would not create any impacts associated with hazardous emissions or handling of acutely hazardous materials, substances, or waste within 0.25 mile of an existing or proposed school. There are no existing or proposed schools within 0.25 mile of the proposed project area. The closest school, High Tech High School, is approximately 1 mile northwest of the project site. No impact would occur. d)Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. As discussed under response VIII.b, the western portion of the project site overlaps with the former Brown Field Bombing Range FUDS site which was identified as being part of the Cortese List. Results of an SLRA and SLERA conducted in the former Brown Field Bombing Range determined that potential exposure to MC in surface soil would not pose an unacceptable risk to human health or ecological receptors. However, mitigation is proposed in the event that UXO, MEC, or MD are encountered during construction to protect construction workers and the environment. The SI identified the need for further investigation to determine the presence of MEC hazards in surface water and sediment. Implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ-1 would reduce potential impacts associated with unacceptable risks to human health or ecological receptors resulting from exposure to MC in surface water and sediment by testing for presence and remediating as needed. In addition, implementation of Mitigation Measure HAZ-2 would reduce potential impacts related to historic Brown Field FUDS site activities by performing a surface clearance sweep prior to initiating any construction activities and providing removal and disposal support of any remaining UXO, MEC, and MD during construction. Impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. e)Less-than-Significant Impact. The project site is approximately 1.75 miles northeast of the Brown Field Municipal Airport. Although the project site is within 2 miles of an airport, and overlaps with the San Diego County Airport Land Use Commission’s Compatibility Policy Safety Zones associated with the airport (San Diego County Airport Land Use Commission 2010), the proposed project would not include elevated features that could interfere with navigable airspace. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area. Impacts would be less than significant. f)No Impact. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area because the project site is not within the vicinity of a private airstrip. The closest private airstrip is John Nichol’s Field, approximately 3.10 miles to the northeast, which is considered too far to be a hazard concern at the project site. No impact would occur. g)Less-than-Significant Impact. Implementation of the proposed project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. The proposed project would not result in any substantial traffic queuing along Wiley Road and would not allow any construction vehicles or equipment to park or remain stationary within the roadway. Moreover, the proposed project does not include any characteristics (e.g., permanent public road closures, long-term blocking of public road access) that would physically impair or otherwise interfere with emergency response or evacuation in the project vicinity. All large 32 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 180 construction vehicles entering and existing the site would be guided by the use of personnel using signs and flags to direct traffic. During construction activities, the proposed project would be required to comply with applicable requirements set forth by the County of San Diego Office of Emergency Services’ Emergency Operations Plan, Chula Vista Police Department, and City of Chula Vista Fire Department, such as requirements related to evacuation during wildfires. The Office of Emergency Services provides coordination of emergency response at the local level in the event of a disaster, including wildland fires. This emergency response coordination is facilitated by the Operational Area Emergency Operations Center (OAEOC) and responding agencies to the proposed project; the Chula Vista Police Department, and City of Chula Vista Fire Station No. 3. Furthermore, development of trails and access roads on the project site has been conducted in coordination with the U.S. Border Patrol to ensure the proposed project provides adequate access. Project features such as not allowing construction vehicles and equipment to park or stop along Wiley Road, the use of flag personnel to ensure the continued flow of traffic, and compliance with the aforementioned programs, rules, and regulations for emergency response would ensure that the proposed project would not interfere with an emergency response plan or evacuation plan, and impacts would be to less than significant. h)Less-than-Significant Impact. According to information obtained from CalFire, the eastern portion of the project site exists within a CalFire Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (CalFire 2007). Fire Hazard Severity Zones are identified as moderate, high, and very high hazard severity zones using a science-based and field-tested computer model that assigns a hazard score based on the factors that influence fire likelihood and fire behavior. Factors considered include fire history, existing and potential fuel (natural vegetation), flame length, blowing embers, terrain, and typical weather for the area. Although a fire can be a significant threat in in the project area, people or structures would not be exposed to significant risk of loss, injury, or death. Due to the nature of the proposed project, it is not expected to draw a substantial amount of people, either during project implementation activities or permanently and, thus, would remain similar to existing conditions. Also, the proposed project does not include any habitable structures that could expose people and buildings to potential wildfires. Furthermore, the proposed project is expected to follow fire management policies, rules, and regulations established by the County of San Diego Office of Emergency Services, the City of Chula Vista Fire Department, and the California Department of Forestry and Fire Protection such as policies and regulations addressing wildfire evacuation and fire prevention. Compliance with these established procedures, rules, and regulations would reduce the impacts related to exposure of people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death from wildfires to less than significant. Mitigation: Implement Mitigation Measure BIO-1. HAZ-1: Sampling and SLRA/SLERA Studies for On-site Surface Water and Sediment and Water/Sediment Remediation if Necessary. Prior to construction activities associated with the project, surface water and sediment sampling will be conducted by an environmental consultant with experience in proper sample handling procedures. Samples will be collected from the western portion of the site where the project site boundaries overlap with the Brown Field Bombing Range Formerly Used Defense Site boundary, the number and location of which will be determined by a qualified environmental professional with experience in screening level risk assessments. Using the laboratory results, a Munitions Constituents Screening Level Risk Assessment and a Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment will be conducted to assess potential risk associated with munitions constituents exposure to human and ecological receptors. A report will be prepared with the results of the study and submitted to the City for review and approval. Should results indicate the presence of contamination levels that would pose a risk to human health, the project proponent (in 33 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 181 consultation with the City) will coordinate with the San Diego County Department of Environmental Health, the Department of Toxic Substances Control, and the Regional Water Quality Control Board regarding avoidance or remediation of affected water and soils in compliance with applicable federal, state, and local laws prior to any project-specific construction activities occurring. If the condition at the site requires it, the project proponent will not proceed with construction activities until a letter of closure is provided by the lead hazardous materials agency. Should the results indicate that no serious risk is present, project-related construction activities may proceed, pending compliance with any other applicable mitigation. HAZ-2: Surface Clearance Prior to Construction. Prior to initiating invasive species removal, restoration site grading activities, or trail improvements, a surface clearance will be conducted where the restoration site and trail improvements intersect the Brown Field Bombing Range Formerly Used Defense Site (FUDS) boundary and along any access roads and staging areas to identify all munitions and explosives of concern (MEC) and munitions debris (MD). A qualified survey company with experience in unearthed unexploded ordnances (UXO) will be retained to sweep the area for metallic items including those that may be obscured by vegetation or surface debris, and MD will be evaluated to determine if any explosive residue remains. If it is determined that there is the potential for an explosive hazard, the City of Chula Vista and County of San Diego will be contacted to respond to the item and dispose of it appropriately. Upon identifying an explosive hazard, the survey company will establish an exclusion zone around the material. The exclusion zone radius will depend on the type of material identified and will be expanded, if needed, while material is being worked on or if setting a charge to explode the material in place. If setting a charge, all personnel will be required to evacuate the area. All personnel will be required to remain out of the exclusion zone until the responders provide clearance. All MD determined to no longer contain explosive residue will be inspected by qualified personnel and containerized in lockable 55-gallon drums for later disposal by an approved recycler. During construction, the qualified survey company will supply two UXO–qualified technicians to support the project’s restoration and grading activities. The technicians will use magnetometers to detect the presence of MEC in disturbed soil. If no MEC items are identified, excavations will be advanced to desired depth. If MEC are detected during excavation/grading, these activities will stop immediately and the survey company technician(s) will contact the City of Chula Vista and County of San Diego for disposal of the material. The technicians will remain on site during disposal response actions to provide site safety and security and for technical consultation with emergency responders. 34 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 182 Less Than Significant Potentially Less Than With Issues: No Impact Significant Significant Mitigation ImpactImpact Incorporated IX. HYDROLOGY AND WATER QUALITY. Would the project: a) Result in an increase in pollutant discharges to receiving waters (including impaired water bodies pursuant to the Clean Water Act Section 303(d) list), result in significant alteration of receiving water quality during or following construction, or violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? b) Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (e.g., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? Result in a potentially significant adverse impact on groundwater quality? c) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, in a manner, which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site? d) Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of a stream or river, substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off- site, or place structures within a 100-year flood hazard area which would impede or redirect flood flows? e) Expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam? f)Create or contribute runoff water, which would exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted runoff? 35 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 183 Comments: a)Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The proposed project would not result in an increase in pollutant discharges to receiving waters, result in significant alteration of receiving water quality during or following construction, or violate any water quality standards or waste discharge requirements. The project area is situated within the Otay River Watershed and contains a floodplain and the Otay River main channel. Three creeks flow into the project area: two are un-named drainages that meet the Otay River from the south; the third is O’Neal Canyon Creek, which meets the Otay River toward the downstream end of the project area and originates in the Otay Mountain Wilderness near Otay Mountain. The restoration site is in a post-disturbance state; the floodplain was mined for sand/gravel in the 1980s, and a portion near the Savage Dam was burned in 2003. As a result, floodplain drainage patterns have been significantly altered, creating a poorly defined channel and a number of large and small avulsions and abandoned channels. The Otay River is not listed as 303d impaired water body (State Water Resources Control Board 2010). Construction activities would include the removal of all invasive nonnative tree, shrub, and herbaceous species followed by grading of the channel and floodplain areas to remove spoil piles, berms, and pits to restore the area to the desired functions. In addition, the project would include installation of fencing around the borders of the restoration site and signs and educational kiosks on existing dirt roads and unofficial trails. The potential impacts of these construction activities on water quality are primarily related to sediment and sediment bound pollutants that may be mobilized during construction. Ground-disturbing construction activities such as grading, excavation, and stockpiling of spoil materials, and runoff from construction areas could cause soil erosion and sedimentation, and reduce water quality in the Otay River. Additionally, hazardous materials (e.g., gasoline, oils, grease, lubricants) from construction equipment could be accidently released during construction. Accidental discharge of these materials to surface waters could adversely impact water quality, endanger aquatic life, and/or result in a violation of water quality standards. Because the proposed project would disturb over 1 acre of land, the proposed project is subject to the California State Water Resources Control Board’s National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with Constructions and Land Disturbance Activities (General Construction Permit). The General Construction Permit was adopted by the State Water Resources Control Board as Water Quality Order 2012-0006-DWQ and became effective on July 17, 2012. Compliance with the General Construction Permit requires the development and implementation of a SWPPP by a Qualified SWPPP Developer, the elimination or reduction of non- stormwater discharge off site into storm drainage systems or other water bodies, and the implementation of BMPs throughout the construction period. The SWPPP requires a description of the restoration site, identification of sources of sediment and other pollutants that may affect the quality of stormwater discharges, a list of BMPs to provide sediment and erosion control, waste handling measures, and non-stormwater management. The preliminary list of BMPs to be employed at the restoration site is shown in Table 3. Various BMPs may be needed at different times during construction because activities are constantly changing site conditions. Selection of erosion control BMPs is based on minimizing disturbed areas, stabilizing disturbed areas, and protecting water quality. Selection of sediment control BMPs is based on retaining sediment on site and controlling the site perimeter. The SWPPP would contain the final BMP list and would meet or exceed measures required by the Construction General Permit. In addition, the SWPPP is required to be implemented by a Qualified SWPPP Practitioner to ensure all BMPs are implemented correctly to protect water quality. Furthermore, as discussed above in Section V, Biological Resources, the proposed project would implement Mitigation Measure BIO-1 to ensure all necessary agency permits, including a Clean Water Act Section 402 NPDES Construction General Permit (Order No. 2012-0006-DWQ) from the Regional Water Quality Control Board, have been approved before initiating grading activities and impacts to hydrology and water quality would be minimized per the conditions set forth in the permits. As a result, after implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1, the proposed 36 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 184 project would result in less-than-significant impacts related to water quality standards during construction activities. Table 3. Preliminary List of Construction Site BMPs for the Restoration Site BMP Implementation Duration EC-1, Scheduling Prior to ConstructionEntirety of Project EC-2, Preservation of Existing Vegetation Start of Construction Entirety of Project Erosion and Sediment As Needed During Completion EC-3, Hydraulic mulch After Site Grading of Construction Phases After Noxious Weed Removal As Needed During Completion Controls EC-4, Hydroseeding and Site Grading of Construction Phases EC-5, Soil Binders After Site Grading Entirety of Project EC-6, Straw Mulch During Construction Entirety of Project EC-7, Geotextiles and Mats After Site Grading Entirety of Project EC-9, Earth Dikes During Channel Grading Entirety of Project EC-10, Velocity Dissipation Devices After Channel ExcavationEntirety of Project EC-12, Stream Bank and Soil Stabilization After Channel Excavation Entirety of Project Sediment Control SE-3, Sediment Trap During Channel Grading Entirety of Project Prior to Construction, within SE-5, Fiber Rolls Entirety of Project Staging Area SE-4, Check Dam After Channel Grading Entiretyof Project Tracking Control TC-1, Stabilized Construction Entrance/Exit Prior to Construction Entirety of Project TC-2, Stabilized Construction Roadway Prior to Construction Entirety of Project Wind Erosion WE-1, Wind Erosion Control During Construction Entirety of Project Material Management WM-1, Material Delivery and Storage Start of Construction Entirety of Project WM-2, Material Use Start of ConstructionEntirety of Project WM-3, Stockpile Management During construction Entirety of Project WM-4, Spill Preservation and Control Start of ConstructionEntirety of Project WM-5, Solid Waste Management Start of ConstructionEntirety of Project WM-6, Hazardous Waste Management Start of Construction Entirety of Project WM-10, Liquid Waste Management Start of ConstructionEntirety of Project Stormwater Control NS-1, Water Conservation Practices Start of ConstructionEntirety of Project - Non NS-9, Vehicle and Equipment Fueling Start of Construction Entirety of Project NS-14, Material and Equipment Use Over Water Start of Construction Entirety of Project Source: California Stormwater Quality Association 2009. The proposed project would restore a portion of the Otay River and re-create appropriate channel morphology and a floodplain composed of low and high terraces that would be activated at various flood events. As a result, the proposed project is designed to enhance, rehabilitate, and re-establish hydrological processes and vegetation communities with the Lower Otay River Watershed that would be self-sustaining and can adjust to dynamic natural processes. Long-term operation of the proposed project would result in stabilized banks and channels that would result in a reduction in sediment load from the restoration site compared to existing conditions. This would result in a small improvement of the quality of water discharging from the restoration site. Because the proposed project would re-establish primary and secondary flow channels, low and high flood terraces, and native transitional habitat as well as remove nonnative invasive species and restore native vegetation, this would serve to improve hydrological conditions. On-going maintenance of the proposed project would include nonnative weed control. The following methods would be used to control populations of invasive weeds: (1) hand removal, (2) cutting or mowing, (3) chemical herbicide application, and (4) light exclusion. Herbicides used during maintenance could be accidently released during application. Accidental discharge of these materials could adversely impact water quality, endanger 37 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 185 aquatic life, and/or result in a violation of water quality standards. However, any herbicide treatment would be applied by a licensed or certified Pest Control Applicator and would be applied to manufacturer’s specifications. As a result, operation and maintenance-related impacts on water quality and water quality standards are expected to be less than significant, and no mitigation is required. b)Less-than-Significant Impact. The proposed project is located within the Otay Valley Groundwater Basin (California Groundwater Basin Number 9-18). Primary water-bearing formations within the basin include alluvium, the San Diego Formation, and the Otay Formation. The alluvium yields shallow groundwater freely to wells; however, the alluvium is considered too thin to be a viable aquifer because the thickness is not more than 50 feet (DWR, 2003). SANDAG characterizes the Otay Groundwater basin to be in hydrologic equilibrium, such that recharge and discharge are approximately equal (SANDAG 1985). Groundwater elevations are believed to be shallow (e.g., within 10 feet of the ground surface), as evidenced by the series of seasonal ponds in the northern section of the site. Groundwater flow within the watershed generally mimics surface topography. Most of the groundwater in the watershed occurs west and downstream of the project area. Although the project site is degraded and the wetlands within the site are limited as a result of past activities, there are still various functions provided by the existing wetlands and the adjacent upland areas, including groundwater recharge due to the extensive alluvium soils on site. The proposed project would intercept shallow groundwater from the alluvium layer, which would subject shallow groundwater to small losses from evaporation and transpiration. Interception of shallow groundwater would not be expected to cause a measureable drawdown in groundwater levels as the existing presence of dense stands of invasive nonnative trees and other invasive species already intercept shallow groundwater from the alluvium layer. These invasive species would be removed and replaced with native vegetation. In addition, grading and contouring would improve conditions for water and sediment flow during rain events and improve elevations, which would allow for potential expansion of the riparian habitat. These improvements would potentially increase the recharge characteristics of the project area over existing conditions. Therefore, the proposed project would not substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level, and impacts would be less than significant. c)Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The existing channel has been disturbed through gravel and sand mining during the twentieth century. Dozens of mine tailing mounds exist within the historic channel, and drainage patterns have been severely altered as a result. In addition, regular vehicular and foot traffic have created disruptions in the floodplain hydrology, and artificial ruts or ponds have developed in existing roads and unofficial trails where they cross the river. Moreover, the artificial ruts or ponds are causing artificial deepening and the subsequent creation of berms, which are impounding water upstream and forcing the limited surface hydrology subsurface. Construction activities would include the removal of all invasive nonnative tree, shrub, and herbaceous species followed by grading of the channel and floodplain areas to remove spoil piles, berms, and pits to restore the area to the desired functions. The proposed project would armor two at-grade road crossings through the active floodplain and would require the roads be over- excavated, underlain by native large rock, and reformed to match the stream profile as much as possible for safe crossing. The armoring would be provided to prevent erosion of the crossings during flood events and eliminate the current berming resulting from regular vehicle and foot traffic. The SWPPP, required as part of compliance with the Construction General Permit identified in response IX.a above, would address impacts from erosion or siltation on- or off site during construction to less-than-significant levels. Furthermore, implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1 would ensure all necessary agency permits, including a Clean Water Act Section 402 NPDES Construction General Permit (Order No. 2012-0006-DWQ) from the Regional Water Quality Control Board, have been approved before initiating grading activities and impacts to hydrology and water quality would be minimized per the conditions set forth in the permits. Operation of the proposed 38 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 186 project would restore the portion of the Otay River within the boundaries of the restoration site by creating complex channel morphology including primary and secondary channels. A floodplain would be recreated with low and high terraces that would be activated at various flood events. This would be an improvement to drainage patterns over existing conditions, and would not increase erosion or siltation off site because the restoration site would be restored to the desired functions with native habitat that would prevent substantial erosion or siltation on- or off site. Moreover, any project improvements to OVRP-designated trails would be required to comply with OVRP Trail Guidelines, which identify erosion control requirements for trail design, especially for soft-surface, multi-use trails, including regarding installation of the proposed fence, signs, and educational kiosks. Per City requirements, the OVRP Trail Guidelines shall be implemented in order to reduce soil erosion and any ensuing trail damage. A restoration ecologist would be retained by the project applicant and would work in coordination with the installation and maintenance contractors and oversee the protection of existing native vegetation, nonnative plant removal, contour grading, site preparation, planting and seeding, maintenance and monitoring, and well as reporting. Therefore, after implementation of Mitigation Measure BIO-1, the proposed project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the restoration site or area in a manner which would result in substantial erosion or siltation on- or off-site, and impacts would be less than significant. d)Less-than-Significant Impact. As discussed in response IX.c above, the proposed project would alter an existing stream, but would represent an improvement in drainage patterns over existing conditions. The proposed project would slightly decrease 100-year flood elevations in the vicinity of the project site because the restoration site would be restored to the desired hydrologic functions with native habitat. No increase in runoff would occur as a result of the proposed project. This would be an incremental improvement to drainage patterns over existing conditions, and would not affect flooding off site. Therefore, the proposed project would not substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of the restoration site or area, substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on- or off-site, or place structures within a 100-year flood hazard area which would impede or redirect flood flows. Impacts would be less than significant. e)No Impact. The City of Chula Vista General Plan shows the project site is within the Savage Dam potential zone of dam inundation due to failure (City of Chula Vista 2015). Savage Dam is a 149- foot dam operated by the City of San Diego to store water from the San Diego Aqueduct. The original dam failed in 1916 and was subsequently reconstructed in 1919. Since its reconstruction, Savage Dam has experienced 27 spill events in 11 of the water years from 1919 to 2015. Dams typically fail due to overtopping by reservoir water during heavy rainfall episodes, structural damage, and earthquake-related hazards (City of Chula Vista 2015). No habitable structures are proposed as part of the proposed project. The proposed project would improve hydrological conditions because the proposed project would re-establish primary and secondary flow channels, low and high flood terraces, and native transitional habitat. As such, the proposed project would result in a reduction of potential flood damages via the channel improvements. Therefore, the proposed project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk of loss, injury, or death involving flooding, including flooding as a result of the failure of a levee or dam. No impacts would occur. f)No Impact. The proposed project would not create or contribute additional runoff nor would it provide additional sources of polluted runoff. The proposed project would remove spoil piles, berms, and pits to restore the area to the desired hydrologic functions, including restoring native vegetation; as such, the proposed project would decrease the potential discharge of polluted runoff downstream. In addition, the proposed project would slightly decrease 100-year flood elevations in the vicinity of the restoration site, which would not contribute additional runoff downstream. No impacts would occur. Mitigation: Implement Mitigation Measure BIO-1. 39 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 187 Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Issues: With No Impact Significant Significant ImpactMitigation Impact Incorporated X. LAND USE AND PLANNING. Would the project: a) Physically divide an established community? b) Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? c) Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation plan or natural community conservation plan? Comments: a)No Impact. Implementation of the proposed project would not physically divide an established community. The proposed project would restore and enhance hydrologic and sediment transport processes and native habitats in the Otay River Valley. No structures that could divide an established community are proposed, Therefore, the proposed project would not physically divide an established community, and no impacts would occur. b)Less-than-Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The proposed project would restore and enhance natural hydrologic and sediment transport processes and native habitats in the Otay River Valley. Other proposed improvements would include installation of wood split-rail fencing, signage, and educational kiosks as well as armoring two roadway crossings in the floodplain and closing four existing dirt roads. Implementation of the proposed project would not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the proposed project. The project site is designated as Open Space Preserve by the City of Chula Vista General Plan and Open Space (Conservation) and Open Space (Recreation) by the San Diego County General Plan. The project site is zoned Residential by the City of Chula Vista’s Zoning Code and Agriculture and Special Purpose by the San Diego County Zoning Code. Other applicable planning documents include the Otay Ranch Phase 1 and 2 Resource Management Plan (RMP), the County of San Diego Multiple Species Conservation Program and City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan, Otay River Watershed Management Plan (ORWMP), and the Draft Otay River Watershed Special Area Management Plan (SAMP), City of Chula Vista Greenbelt Master Plan, and the OVRP Concept Plan and Trails Guidelines. The following describes the proposed project’s consistency with these plans. Chula Vista General Plan, County MSCP, and City of Chula Vista Subarea Plan The General Plan Open Space Preserve designation is intended for areas designated within the City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan for the permanent conservation of biological resources. Implementation of the proposed project would restore and enhance the Otay River Valley and would be consistent with the General Plan Open Space Preserve designation for the site. 40 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 188 The Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan is a comprehensive program for the preservation of numerous sensitive plant and animal species in the region. The proposed project is located within the Otay Valley Parcel, which is in the Otay Ranch planning area. Stream, floodplain, and upland restoration proposed as part of the project would be consistent with the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan management goals. These include direct implementation of goals through restoration of native plant associations and wildlife connections, and indirectly through funding a non-wasting endowment for the long-term maintenance and management of the restored portion of the City Parcel in perpetuity (approximately 100 acres). Specifically, Section 7.1 of the MSCP Subarea Plan states that the overall management goal is to ensure that the biological values of natural resources are maintained over time. The MSCP Subarea Plan further states Land located in the Preserve will be managed and maintained in accordance with specific management objectives as follows: To ensure the long-term viability and sustainability of native ecosystem function and natural processes throughout the Preserve. To protect existing and restored biological resources from intense or disturbing activities within the Preserve while accommodating compatible uses. To enhance and restore, where feasible, appropriate native plant associations and wildlife connections to adjoining habitat in order to provide viable wildlife and sensitive species habitat. To facilitate monitoring of selected target species, habitats, and linkages in order to ensure long-term persistence of viable populations of priority plant and animal species and to ensure functional habitats and linkages for those species. The restoration project will also add direct benefits to adjacent uplands within the same City of Chula Vista parcel and adjacent parcels, and City of San Diego and County lands within the preserve system, which include various restoration efforts already initiated by the Preserve Owner/Manager (POM). For example, the stream restoration will complement adjacent Quino checkerspot butterfly and cactus wren habitat restoration efforts, both of which are happening to the north of the project boundary. The stream restoration project proposes enhancing upstream riparian habitat areas through treatment (killing) of highly invasive species such as tamarisk and arundo, which will increase the function and services of this habitat to support sensitive species covered by the MSCP. In short, the restoration project will directly and indirectly establish, restore, and/or enhance habitat for MSCP protected species including, but not limited to, the least Bell's vireo, California gnatcatcher, Quino checkerspot butterfly, and cactus wren. Otay River Watershed Management Plan The project site is a key location identified within the restoration recommendations described in the ORWMP, which was completed in partnership with the County of San Diego, City of Chula Vista, City of San Diego, the USACE, Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) and community stakeholders. The ORWMP provides recommendations for BMPs and restoration opportunities based on five key goals identified by stakeholders. The ORWMP provides 17 strategies that are focused on achieving one or more of the stakeholder-identified goals. Specifically, the proposed project addresses one of the key strategies identified in the ORWMP, “Restore the Lower Otay River Floodplain to Enhance the Quality of Water Entering San Diego Bay.” The strategy is ranked as a HIGH priority along with 8 other strategies based on their expected large benefits to the watershed and capacity to build upon other efforts being planned or underway (Aspen 2006). Implementation of the proposed project would restore and enhance the Otay River Valley within the limits of the project boundaries and would be not only consistent with the ORWMP, but would facilitate the largest restoration recommendation in the ORWMP. In addition, this restoration project is necessary for restoring the rest of the Otay River Valley from the site to the USFWS Refuge in San Diego Bay. 41 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 189 Otay Ranch Phase 1 and 2 Resource Management Plan The Otay Ranch Phase 1 and Phase 2 RMP is a comprehensive planning document that addresses the preservation, enhancement, and management of sensitive natural and cultural resources and is designed to be the functional equivalent of the County of San Diego Resource Protection Ordinance for Otay Ranch. Phase 1 of the RMP provides overall objectives and policies that guide implementation and designated the 11,375 acre preserve to protect and enhance the multiple resources present within Otay Ranch. Phase 2 of the RMP encompasses a series of tasks that must be performed over time to implement the program. The goal of the RMP is “to establish a permanent preserve within Otay Ranch to protect and enhance biological, paleontological, cultural and scenic resources, maintain biological diversity, and promote the survival and recovery of native species and habitats.” Phase 2 includes additional studies that have or will be performed, including a Vernal Pool Study, Wildlife Corridor Study, Raptor Study, and Resource Identification and Mapping. Additional tasks are identified in the document to acknowledge their importance, including development of an Otay Valley Riparian Habitat Restoration Plan, Demonstration Agricultural Plan, and The Otay Valley Regional Park Active Use Plan. The proposed project would not only be in compliance with RMP Phase 1, but would help to implement policies and tasks identified in RMP Phase 2. The proposed project accomplishes this in part by developing the project’s Otay River HMMP and all associated technical studies, gaining approvals from the USFWS, USACE, CDFW, and RWQCB, as well as the City of Chula Vista (CEQA compliance) and implementation. These documents and approvals can be used to achieve the identified “Otay Valley Riparian Habitat Restoration Plan.” Other policies that are implemented within the project area include, but are not limited to, Policy 5.2 and tasks that include maintenance of existing high quality resources, implementation and monitoring of restoration activities, and implementation of maintenance activities such as removal of exotic plant species (weeds). In summary, the project is in compliance with these plans by designing and funding the largest opportunity of river restoration in the watershed, facilitating restoration opportunities downstream, and funding long-term maintenance and monitoring for 100 acres within the preserve in perpetuity. Draft Otay River Watershed Special Area Management Plan The Draft Otay River Watershed SAMP was intended to provide a comprehensive plan for aquatic resources protection while allowing for reasonable development. Unfortunately, USACE lost funding for the program, and it was not finalized. However, many quality technical studies and stakeholder goals and objectives were achieved. Similar to the other plans listed above, the proposed project would be in compliance with the goals and objectives of this draft plan by designing and funding the largest opportunity of river restoration in the watershed and facilitating restoration opportunities downstream and supporting the overall protection of aquatic resources. City of Chula Vista Greenbelt Master Plan The Greenbelt Master Plan provides guidance and continuity for planning open space and constructing and maintaining trails that encircle the City of Chula Vista. The plan’s primary purpose is to provide goals and policies, trail design standards, and implementation tools that guide the creation of the Greenbelt system. The Greenbelt system is composed of a series of open space segments connected by a multi-use trail extending through each segment; from the channelized Sweetwater River, along golf courses and banks of the Otay Lakes, following the Otay River valley to the Chula Vista Bayfront. The proposed project would implement minor improvements to a portion of the existing dirt road/trail identified within the Otay Valley Regional Park East/Otay Ranch Village Greenway Segments. Improvements would include installation of wood split-rail fencing that would help to minimize trespassing from trail users who would otherwise be unaware of the sensitivity of the habitat restoration area as well as signage that would indicate the general sensitivity of the restoration site and would also provide wayfinding. In addition, educational kiosks would be 42 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 190 installed at key viewing locations within the disturbed areas near the existing dirt roadway to help inform the readers of the importance of the restoration site. The proposed project would be consistent with goals and policies designed to provide connected open space areas around the City of Chula Vista, to enhance and protect native biological and sensitive habitats, as well as establish a greenbelt system. The greenbelt system ensures public access utilizing existing fire roads, access roads, and/or utility easements for the trail system when possible and limits the use of multi-use trails to non- motorized uses except for motorized wheelchairs, and utility, maintenance, and emergency vehicles. The proposed project would also comply with greenbelt design standards for trail signage, educational kiosks, and wood split-rail fencing; also to ensure the proposed improvements are consistent with the City of Chula Vista Greenbelt Master Plan trail guidelines, Mitigation Measure LU-1 is required. The intent of this component of the proposed project is to ensure the Greenbelt trail is accommodated by identifying a realistic corridor; installing trail signage, split-rail fencing, and educational kiosks; and avoiding any sensitive resources. The Greenbelt Master Plan trail may be moved or modified as needed to avoid road ponds, to protect the San Diego fairy shrimp, and protect the restoration area. The proposed project would not preclude the future implementation of new or upgraded trail facilities identified in the City of Chula Vista Greenbelt Master Plan in the project area. Otay Valley Regional Park Concept Plan and Trails Guidelines The OVRP is located in the southern portion of San Diego County, 4 miles north of the United States/Mexico International Border. It is a 13-mile linear park, covering more than 8,000 acres and crossing three jurisdictions: City of San Diego, City of Chula Vista and the County of San Diego. It encompasses the core of the Otay River Valley from South San Diego Bay to the Otay Lake Reservoirs and is under private, semi-private, and public land ownership. The OVRP Concept Plan provides for the protection of environmentally sensitive areas and important cultural resources in the open space core of the OVRP; identifies areas adjacent to the open space for active and passive recreational development opportunities; includes a trail system with staging areas, viewpoints, and overlooks and connections to adjacent public lands and trails; and envisions two interpretive centers for environmental and educational programs. The OVRP Trails Guidelines focuses on the development of the trail system within the park and provides guidelines for development, management, and maintenance of this trail system. The proposed project has identified trail corridors in compliance with the OVRP Concept Plan and would implement trail improvements to a portion of the existing dirt roads and existing unofficial trails identified in the Heritage Road to Otay Lakes Vicinity and Otay Lakes Vicinity segments. Improvements would include installation of wood split-rail fencing that would help to minimize trespassing from trail users who would otherwise be unaware of the sensitivity of the habitat restoration area as well as signage that would indicate the general sensitivity of the restoration site and would also provide wayfinding. In addition, educational kiosks would be installed at key viewing locations within the disturbed areas near the existing dirt roadway to help inform the readers of the importance of the restoration site. The existing roads and trails may be moved slightly to accommodate the installation of the fencing and signage while also avoiding road ponds that support San Diego fairy shrimp. Only disturbed areas would be used to designate the narrow trail corridor or pathway. The proposed project would also armor two at-grade road crossings through the active floodplain and close and revegetate four existing roadways per the HMMP. The proposed project would be consistent with goals and policies to site and develop park features and facilities, consistent with the requirements and guidelines of the MSCP and all federal, state, and local policies; encourage recreational uses as buffers between the Open Space/Core Preserve Area and new private development; and encourage development standards for new roads across the Otay River to minimize impacts on habitat and wildlife movement as well as trail connectivity. The proposed project would also comply with the OVRP Trail Guidelines for education, design and layout, erosion control, signage, fencing, and kiosks; also, to ensure the proposed improvements are consistent with the OVRP Trail Guidelines, Mitigation Measure LU-1 is required. As with the considerations taken 43 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 191 into account regarding the City of Chula Vista Greenbelt Master Plan, the intent of this component of the proposed project is to ensure the OVRP Concept Plan is accommodated as part of the project, and it does not preclude the future implementation of the OVRP Concept Plan in the project area. The proposed project would restore and enhance hydrologic and sediment transport processes and native habitats in the Otay River Valley as well as provide City of Chula Vista Greenbelt Master Plan and OVRP Concept Plant trail improvements; and has been designed to be in compliance and align with the goals and policies of the documents mentioned above. Therefore, with mitigation, the proposed project would not conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, or regulation, and impacts would be less than significant. c)No Impact. As discussed in response V.e, the project site is within the boundary of the Otay Ranch General Development and Resource Management Plan, County of San Diego Multiple Species Conservation Program Subarea Plan, Otay River Watershed Management Plan, Otay River Watershed Special Area Management Plan, and Chula Vista MSCP and as indicated in response V.e., is consistent with these plans. Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with the provisions of an adopted Habitat Conservation Plan, Natural Community Conservation Plan, or other approved local, regional, or state habitat conservation plan. No impact would occur. Mitigation: LU-1: Trail Improvements Consistent with Applicable City of Chula Vista Greenbelt Master Plan and Otay Valley Regional Park Trail Guidelines. All applicable trail guidelines from the City of Chula Vista’s Greenbelt Master Plan and Otay Regional Park Trail Guidelines shall be shown on all applicable grading plans as details, notes, or as otherwise appropriate. All proposed designs for signage and fencing will be submitted to the City to verify consistency with the above mentioned guidelines. Finally, installation of all trail-related improvements will be subject to inspection by the City to confirm the improvements were constructed in accordance with the approved designs. 44 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 192 Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Issues: With No Impact Significant Significant ImpactMitigation Impact Incorporated XI. MINERAL RESOURCES. Would the project: a) Result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state? b) Result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan or other land use plan? Comments: a)Less-than-Significant Impact. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource. Valuable mineral resources to the region and state that are also present in the City of Chula Vista include sand, gravel, and crushed rock resources. These are collectively known as construction aggregate. According to General Plan Figure 9-4, most of the project site is located in a portion of the Otay River Valley that has been identified as a Mineral Resource Zone (MRZ)-2 area (City of Chula Vista 2015). This is an area where adequate information indicates that significant mineral deposits are present or where it is judged that a high likelihood for their presence exists (City of Chula Vista 2015). The Otay River Valley is known to contain significant deposits of construction quality sand reserves, and sand mining activities took place on the project site from 1982 to 1985. However, Nelson and Sloane Materials ceased their operations in 1985 because they were unable to complete new permitting processes required for in- stream mining. Since that time, the project site has been relatively unaltered and left in a highly disturbed state. It has also been designated as Open Space Preserve and delineated within the jurisdiction of the Chula Vista MSCP Preserve where the long-term vision for the entire Preserve area, including the project site, is to cease mining, extraction, and processing activities altogether (City of Chula Vista 2015). Therefore, because mining activities at the project site ceased three decades ago and the future plans for the Chula Vista MSCP Preserve is to cease mining-related activities altogether, the proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of a known mineral resource that would be of value to the region and the residents of the state. Impacts would be less than significant. b)Less-than-Significant Impact. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource. As discussed above under response XI.a, although the project site is within a portion of the Otay River Valley that has been identified as an MRZ-2 area for construction aggregate resources and mining activities have occurred on the project site in the past, no such activities have occurred on site in the last three decades and there are no plans to commence such activities in the future. Furthermore, the project site is designated as Open Space Preserve per the General Plan and is within the planning boundaries for the Chula Vista MSCP Preserve, which has long-term goals to cease mining-related activities altogether within the entire Preserve. Moreover, since the proposed project does not include the construction of physical structures, it would not preclude access to such resources in the future. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in the loss of availability of a locally important mineral resource 45 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 193 recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan, and impacts would be less than significant. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. 46 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 194 Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Issues: With No Impact Significant Significant ImpactMitigation Impact Incorporated XII. NOISE. Would the project result in: Exposure of persons to or generation of noise levels in a) excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? b)Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? c)A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? d)A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? e)For a project located within an airport land use plan or, where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? f) For a project within the vicinity of a private airstrip, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? Comments: a)Less-than-Significant Impact. Temporary traffic volume increases due to construction worker commutes and truck trips would not increase noise levels on local roadways by a significant amount. 1 Noise levels associated with construction activities are predicted to be well below the 75 dBA threshold set by the San Diego County Code. Furthermore, as discussed further below construction noise would only occur during the permitted hours of 7 a.m. to 7 p.m., Monday through Friday, and would be exempt from the City of Chula Vista’s City’s exterior noise standards. In addition, ongoing routine maintenance and monitoring activities would generate very low noise levels. As discussed above in Section V, Biological Resources, there would be no significant impacts on sensitive bird species because all construction activity would be scheduled between September 15 and February 15 in order to avoid the breeding season. 1 dBA = A-weighted sound level, the sound pressure level in decibels as measured using the A weighting filter network, which de-emphasizes the very low- and very high-frequency components of the sound in a manner similar to the frequency response of the human ear. 47 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 195 Existing Conditions The closest noise-sensitive receptors to the proposed project are the Otay Lakes County Park, George Bailey Detention Facility, and High Tech High Chula Vista (a public charter school serving approximately students in grades 9 through 12). The Otay Lake County Park also contains one residence used by the park ranger and staff. All of these noise-sensitive locations are shielded from the Otay River Valley floor to various degrees by the intervening topography. In order to document the existing noise levels, three short-term (ST) measurements were obtained near the project site (see Attachment 1 for all figures; see Figure 11) on October 23, 2015. These locations were selected to document the ambient noise levels at the nearest noise-sensitive receptors, as well as at the project site itself. Ambient noise levels were not directly measured at High Tech High Chula Vista because it is farther from the project site than the other measurement locations. However, it can reasonably be assumed that ambient noise levels at the school would be at least as high as those measured at Otay Lakes County Park; this is considered to be a conservative assumption because the school is located in a more developed area than the park and would be exposed to higher ambient noise levels. Each short-term measurement was conducted over a period of approximately 20 minutes. Noise measurements indicate that the average noise levels at these 2 locations range from approximately 39 to 48 dBA L (1-hour average noise level). Additional eq details and a summary of the measurement results are provided in Table 4. Table 4. Existing Ambient Noise Levels in Study Area Location Number, Measured Noise Levels, dBA Location Description (date, time) LL L L L L L L eqmin9050258.331.67max ST-1: Otay Lakes County 40.9 32.7 34.4 37.2 40.5 45.7 48.7 54.9 Park (10/23/2015, 11:39 a.m. – 12:05 p.m.) ST-2: South of the Otay 39.3 26.5 27.9 31.9 38.8 44.5 47.9 58.5 Water Treatment Plant, adjacent to the project site (10/23/2015, 12:54 p.m. – 1:20 p.m.) ST-3: George Bailey 47.5 38.2 40.5 44.1 47.2 51.1 56.6 63.7 Detention Facility (10/23/2015, 10:02 a.m. – 10:56 a.m.) ST= short-term; dBA = A-weighted sound level, the sound pressure level in decibels as measured using the A weighting filter network, which de-emphasizes the very low- and very high-frequency components of the sound in a manner similar to the frequency response of the human ear; L = equivalent sound level, the average of the sound eq energy occurring over the measurement period; L= maximum sound level; L= minimum sound level; L = maxminxx percentile-exceeded sound level, the sound level exceeded for a given percentage of a specified period (e.g., L is the 25 sound level exceeded 25% of the time, and Lis the sound level exceeded 50% of the time) 50 The majority of the project site and High Tech High are located within the City of Chula Vista. The upstream enhancement area of the project site, Otay Lakes County Park, and the George Bailey Detention Facility are located in unincorporated San Diego County. Because the study area spans both municipalities, the noise standards for both are considered in the discussion and analyses, below. 2 L = equivalent sound level, the average of the sound energy occurring over the measurement period. eq 48 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 196 Construction Two types of short-term noise impacts could occur during construction of the proposed project. First, construction workers who would commute to the site and trucks that would transport equipment and materials would incrementally increase noise levels on access roadways. The project-specific Traffic Analysis Report (Chen Ryan Associates 2015) indicates that the restoration is anticipated to generate a total of 22 daily vehicle trips. This includes 10 vehicle trips during the AM peak hour and 10 vehicle trips during the PM peak hour associated with worker commutes, and 1 truck trip departing and arriving at the project site during hours of construction activity. Workers would access the site using Interstate (I-) 805, Main Street, and Wiley Road. Trucks, primarily hauling materials to the Otay Landfill (located at the northern terminus of Maxwell Road), would access the site using Maxwell Road, Main Street, and Wiley Road. Noise impacts associated with construction worker commutes and truck trips would be less than significant for the following reasons: According to the Traffic Analysis Report, average daily traffic (ADT) volumes on Main Street are in excess of 39,000 vehicles per day. The 22 daily vehicles generated by the proposed project would represent a very minor increase (much less than 1%), resulting in a negligible increase in average traffic noise levels. There are no noise-sensitive receptors within 1,000 feet of Wiley Road. This large distance, combined with the low number of project-generated vehicle trips, would result in extremely low average traffic noise levels at the closest noise-sensitive receptors to Wiley Road. Up to two daily truck trips (one arriving at the Otay Landfill, and one departing) would be generated on Maxwell Road. Although there could be a relatively high single-event noise level associated with each truck trip (e.g., passing trucks at 50 feet could generate up to 76 dBA), the truck pass-by at any single location would be very brief and the contribution of project-generated truck traffic to average noise levels (such as the daily Community Noise Equivalent Level \[CNEL\]) would be low due to the extremely low truck traffic volume. The second type of short-term noise impact is related to noise generated from construction equipment. Project construction will last approximately 18 weeks. Chapter 19.68 of the City of Chula Vista municipal code provides the noise control ordinance, but construction/demolition activities are exempted from the City’s exterior noise standards. However, Chapter 17.24 of the City of Chula Vista municipal code prohibits the operation of construction equipment in residential zones on weekdays between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m., and on weekends between 10 p.m. and 8 a.m. Chapter 4, Sections 36.408 and 36.409, of the San Diego County Code set limits on the level and duration of noise that may be produced by construction equipment. Section 36.408 prohibits the operation of construction equipment on any day between 7 p.m. and 7 a.m., or at any time on a Sunday or a holiday. Section 36.409 provides thresholds for noise levels produced by construction equipment when operated during the permitted hours; it states the following. Except for emergency work, it shall be unlawful for any person to operate construction equipment or cause construction equipment to be operated, that exceeds an average sound level of 75 decibels for an eight-hour period, between 7 a.m. and 7 p.m., when measured at the boundary line of the property where the noise source is located or on any occupied property where the noise is being received. The project HMMP indicates that all construction activity would occur on week days between the hours of 7 a.m. and 5 p.m. As such, the proposed project’s construction noise would be exempt from the City of Chula Vista’s exterior noise standards. For this reason, and to provide a consistent analysis at each of the closest noise-sensitive receptors, all construction noise levels are calculated and assessed based on the County’s 8-hour L standard of 75 dBA. eq Construction-related noise was analyzed based on the Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA’s) ) at Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM 2008), which predicts average noise levels (L eq 49 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 197 nearby receptors by analyzing the type of equipment, usage factor, number of hours in a workday, the distance from source to receptor, ground type, and the presence, or absence, of intervening shielding between source and receptor. The anticipated equipment needed for each phase of construction is shown in Table 5. The distances used in the modeling were the acoustical average distances from the project site to nearby noise- sensitive receptors. The acoustical average distance is calculated by multiplying the shortest distance by the farthest distance and then taking the square root of the product. The topography of the project area provides shielding for nearby noise-sensitive receptors. However, shielding effects due to topography were not considered in this analysis in order to provide a conservative estimate of noise levels at receptor locations. It is also noted that the construction equipment used on any given day could be mobile across the entire project site. Therefore, actual noise levels during construction would vary depending on the relative distance from a given receptor to the current construction activities. The results of the analysis at the closest noise-sensitive receptors are summarized in Table 5. Figure 11 (see Attachment 1 for all figures) shows the locations of the noise-sensitive receptors in relation to the project site. Table 5. Predicted Construction Noise Levels at Noise-Sensitive Receptors Estimated 8-Hour L, dBA eq Receptor 2: High Receptor 3: Receptor 1: Otay Tech High Chula George Bailey Expected Expected Equipment Vista Detention Facility Lakes County Park Duration of Needed Phase Phase(Number needed) (2,100 feet*) (7,000 feet*) (5,300 feet*) Phase 1 4 weeks Backhoe (1) 34 21 24 Phase 2 6 weeks Dump Truck (1) 45 32 35 Excavator (1) Scraper (1) Loader (1) Water Truck (1) Bulldozer (1) Phase 3 8 weeks Dump Truck (10) 52 38 41 Excavator (1) Scraper (6) Loader (2) Water Truck (2) Bulldozer (4) Grader (1) Generator (1) * Acoustical average distance to the construction site. Source:ICF International 2015c At all three receptor locations, the predicted noise level associated with construction activities would be well below the 75 dBA threshold set by the San Diego County Code. Because the noise would occur during the permitted hours of 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. the impact would be less than significant. Nonnative species removal in the upstream enhancement area (see Attachment 1 for all figures; see Figure 11) would occur during Phase 1 of construction activities, but would only involve the use of handheld equipment. Therefore, construction activities occurring in the upstream enhancement area are not anticipated to produce significant noise and a quantitative analysis of noise levels was not conducted. 50 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 198 There would be no significant noise impacts on sensitive bird species because all construction activity would be scheduled between September 15 and February 15 in order to avoid the breeding season. Mitigation Measure BIO-6 is provided in under Section V, Biological Resources, to reiterate these scheduling restrictions for avoiding nesting birds. Project Operation Following completion of the three construction phases, ongoing routine maintenance and monitoring, which would include trash, debris, and weed removal, would continue for approximately 7 years. It is anticipated that each year approximately two dumpsters of material would be hauled off site. Due to the low levels of activity, the large distances to the closest noise-sensitive receptors, and the low volume of traffic associated with commuting workers and dumpster hauling during routine maintenance and monitoring noise impacts would be less than significant. b)Less-than-Significant Impact. Groundborne vibration generated by construction activities would be well below the applicable criteria for perceptibility, and operation of the proposed project would not include any new activities or equipment that would generate perceptible groundborne vibration levels. Heavy construction equipment has the potential to produce groundborne vibration levels that would be perceptible to people in the surrounding area. Section 19.68 of the Chula Vista Municipal Code defines the vibration perception threshold to be a motion velocity of 0.01 inches per second (in/sec). The County of San Diego does not provide any quantitative vibration standards or thresholds. Therefore, all construction vibration levels are calculated and assessed based on the City’s threshold of 0.01 in/sec. Based on the anticipated construction equipment list for the proposed project, the worst-case vibration levels would be associated with the operation of heavy earthmoving equipment such as excavators and bulldozers. Based on data published by the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans 2013), similar heavy equipment items (large bulldozers) produce peak particle velocity (PPV) vibration levels of 0.089 in/sec at a distance of 25 feet. Vibration levels from construction equipment attenuate as they radiate from the source. The equation to determine vibration levels at a specific distance states that 1.1 (Equation 1) PPV= PPV × (25/D) equipref where PPVref is the PPV at a reference distance of 25 feet, and D is the distance from the equipment to the sensitive receptor (Caltrans 2013). The value of 1.1 is determined based on the soil conditions at the project site, and was chosen to represent hard soil in order to provide a conservative estimate of vibration levels. Using this equation, Table 6 summarizes the estimated vibration levels at the closest sensitive receptors to the project site and compares them to the City’s vibration perception threshold. Table 6. Construction Vibration Levels at Sensitive Receptors Distance to Vibration Closest Predicted Perception Vibration level, Exceeds Vibration Earthmoving Threshold Equipment (feet) PPV (in/sec)(in/sec) Perception Threshold? Receptor 1: Otay Lakes County 800 0.002 0.01 No Park Receptor 2: High Tech High Chula 5500 0.0002 0.01 No Vista Receptor 3: George Bailey 3700 0.0004 0.01 No Detention Facility 51 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 199 Vibration levels at nearby sensitive receptors are predicted to be well below the City’s vibration perception threshold, and the impact would be less than significant. There would be no significant vibration impacts on sensitive bird species because, as noted previously, all construction activity would be scheduled between September 15 and February 15 in order to avoid the breeding season. Mitigation Measure BIO-6 is provided in under Section V, Biological Resources, to reiterate these scheduling restrictions for avoiding nesting birds. c)Less-than-Significant Impact. Construction noise would be temporary and, as such, would not cause any permanent increases in ambient noise levels. Referring to Project Operation under response XII.a, above, after completion of the restoration process, the proposed project is not anticipated to generate any operational noise or significant vehicular traffic. Therefore, all permanent noise impacts would be less than significant. d)Less-than-Significant Impact. Implementation of the proposed project would result in a short-term, temporary increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity associated with construction equipment. Referring to Project Construction under response XII.a, above, Table 5 shows that construction noise levels are predicted to range from approximately 21 to 52 dBA (L) at the closest eq noise-sensitive receptors. Average (L) ambient noise levels at the George Bailey Detention Facility eq and Otay Lakes County Park are provided in Table 6. As discussed under Existing Conditions in response XII.a, above, ambient noise levels at High Tech High Chula Vista can conservatively be assumed to be the same as those measured at Otay Lakes County Park. Predicted construction noise levels at the George Bailey Detention Facility and High Tech High Chula Vista are below the existing ambient noise levels at those locations, and the impact would be less than significant. Predicted construction noise levels at the Otay Lakes County Park would range from 7 dB below (Phase 1) to 11 dBA above (Phase 3) the measured ambient noise level at that location. Although construction noise would be audible at the park, the overall impacts would be less than significant because construction noise would only occur during the permitted hours of 7 a.m. to 7 p.m. and the noise levels would be well below the County’s standard of 75 dBA (8-hour L). Therefore, impacts eq would be less than significant. e)Less-than-Significant Impact. The closest public airport to the project site is the Brown Field Municipal Airport, approximately 2 miles southwest of the project site. The airport accommodates both general aviation aircraft and military aircraft. The project site is outside of the 60 CNEL contour as illustrated in Exhibit III-1 in the Brown Field Municipal Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan (San Diego County Airport Land Use Commission 2010). Therefore, the impact is considered less than significant. f)No Impact. The closest private airstrip to the project site is John Nichol’s Field Airport, over 3 miles northeast of the project site. Given the distance between the airport and the project site, there would be no impact. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. 52 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 200 Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Issues: With No Impact Significant Significant ImpactMitigation Impact Incorporated XIII.POPULATION AND HOUSING. Would the project: Induce substantial population growth in an area, either a) directly (for example, by proposing new homes and businesses) or indirectly (for example, through extension of road or other infrastructure)? Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, b) necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? c)Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? Comments: a)No Impact. The proposed project would not construct any homes or businesses, extend roads, or involve the addition of any growth-inducing infrastructure. As such, impacts would not be considered substantially growth-inducing either directly or indirectly, and no impacts would occur. b)No Impact. The proposed project is located in the Otay River Valley where no housing or residential uses occur; therefore, the proposed project would not displace any housing. No impacts would occur. c)No Impact. The proposed project is located in the Otay River Valley where no housing or residential uses occur. Therefore, the proposed project would not displace any people and would not require the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. No impacts would occur. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. 53 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 201 Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Issues: With No Impact Significant Significant ImpactMitigation Impact Incorporated XIV.PUBLIC SERVICES. Would the project: Result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service ratios, response times or other performance objectives for any public services: a) Fire protection? b) Police protection? c) Schools? d) Parks? e) Other public facilities? Comments: a)No Impact. The proposed project would enhance and restore hydrologic and sediment transport processes and native habitats on the restoration site, thus improving the site’s hydrological and habitat value. Other improvements would include installation of wood split-rail fencing, signage, and educational kiosks as well as armoring two roadway crossings in the floodplain and closing four existing dirt roads. No buildings or habitable structures that may require fire protection services are proposed. Moreover, once operational, the proposed project would be similar to the existing condition in terms of the need for fire protection services. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in an increased demand requiring the need for new or physically altered fire protection facilities, and no impacts would occur. b)No Impact. The proposed project would enhance and restore hydrologic and sediment transport processes and native habitats on the restoration site, thus improving the site’s hydrological and habitat value. Other improvements would include installation of wood split-rail fencing, signage, and educational kiosks as well as armoring two roadway crossings in the floodplain and closing four existing dirt roads. No buildings or habitable structures that may require police protection services are proposed. Moreover, no people would reside on the project site. Once operational, the proposed project would be similar to the existing condition in terms of the need for police protection services. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in an increased demand requiring the need for new or physically altered police protection facilities, and no impacts would occur. c)No Impact. The proposed project would not result in adverse impacts on schools. Physical impacts on school facilities and services are usually associated with population in-migration and growth, 54 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 202 which increase the demand for schools. The proposed project would have no effect on population growth and school demand. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in an increased demand requiring the need for new or physically altered school facilities, and no impacts would occur. d)Less-than-Significant Impact. The proposed project would not result in adverse impacts on parks. Physical impacts on parks are usually associated with population in-migration and growth, which increase the demand for and use of parks. The proposed project would have no effect on population growth, although it is possible that use of onsite trails could increase slightly due to the proposed trail improvements and improved habitat available to view from the trail. This slight increase in trail use would not substantially degrade the existing trails. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in an increased demand requiring the need for new or physically altered park facilities, and any related impact would be less than significant. e)No Impact. The proposed project would not result in adverse impacts on other public facilities. As discussed above, physical impacts on public services are usually associated with population in- migration and growth, which increase the demand for public services and facilities. The proposed project would not increase the local population. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in an increased demand requiring the need for new or physically altered public facilities, and no impacts would occur. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. 55 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 203 Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than With No Impact Significant Significant Issues: ImpactMitigation Impact Incorporated XV. RECREATION. Would the project: a)Increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated? b)Does the project include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities, which have an adverse physical effect on the environment? Comments: a)Less-than-Significant Impact. The proposed project would not increase the use of existing neighborhood and regional parks. An increase in the use of existing parks and recreational facilities typically results from an increase in housing or population in an area. The proposed project would not result in an increase in housing or residents in the project vicinity; however, it is possible that the proposed trail improvements and enhanced and restored habitat may bring additional trail users to the project site and the Otay Lake County Park to view the project site. Any potential increase would be minimal, however, because the trails dirt roads and unofficial trails are already exist present and are already in use. The project’s minor improvements, aimed at preventing disturbance to the restoration area, would not increase the use of existing recreation facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of recreation facilities would occur. Thus, impacts on recreation would be less than significant. b)Less-than-Significant Impact. The proposed project does not include recreational facilities or require the construction or expansion of such facilities. The proposed project would enhance and restore vegetation and perform minor trail improvements to onsite trails including installing wood split-rail fencing, signage, and educational kiosks as well as armoring two roadway crossings in the floodplain and closing four existing dirt roads. Although it is possible that use of the trails would increase slightly due to the proposed trail improvements and improved habitat, the slight increase in trail use would not result in a substantial impact on recreational facilities because the dirt roads and unofficial trails are already present and able to accommodate pedestrian, biking, and equestrian traffic. Therefore, the proposed project would not require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities such that a significant and adverse physical effect on the environment would occur. As a result, impacts on recreation would be less than significant. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. 56 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 204 Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Issues: With Significant Significant No Impact ImpactMitigation Impact Incorporated XVI.TRANSPORTATION / TRAFFIC.Would the project: Cause an increase in traffic, which is substantial in a) relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e., result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ratio on roads, or congestion at intersections)? Conflict with an applicable congestion management b) program, including but not limited to level of service standards and travel demand measures, or other standards established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? c)Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? d)Substantially increase hazards due to a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment)? e)Result in inadequate emergency access? f) Conflict with adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise decrease the performance of safety of such facilities? Comments: a)Less-than-Significant Impact. The following is summarized from the Traffic Analysis Report prepared by Chen Ryan Associates dated December 2015 (Chen Ryan Associates 2015). The focus of the impacts analysis below is on construction impacts, and no evaluation of long-term impacts was performed as implementation of the proposed project would not result in new development or in any operational change. The construction-related activities associated with the proposed project are anticipated to be contained on site, with the exception of materials needed to be hauled to the Otay Landfill (one truck load per day), located at the northern terminus of Maxwell Road. It is anticipated that these trips would exit the project site via Wiley Road, head west on Main Street, and then north on Maxwell 57 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 205 Road to access the landfill. Trucks would then return to the project site via the same route. During the 5-year river restoration process, a maximum of 10 workers driving individually would be on site at any given time, arriving during the AM peak hour and departing during the PM peak hour. As a worse-case scenario, the restoration is anticipated to generate a total of 26 total daily vehicle trips with 10 trips arriving during the AM peak hour and 10 trips departing from the restoration site during the PM peak hour, as stated in Table 1: Otay River Restoration – Construction Trip Generation of the Traffic Analysis Report (Chen Ryan Associates 2015). It is assumed that all construction worker traffic would access the proposed project from I-805, head east on Main Street and access the project site via Wiley Road. Therefore, only the roadway segments and intersections along Main Street between I-805 and Wiley Road were analyzed under Construction Year Base (Year 2020) conditions in the traffic analysis (Chen Ryan Associates 2015). Intersection Level of Service (LOS) calculations were conducted using the methodologies outlined the in Highway Capacity Manual 2010, and calculated using SYNCHRO 8.0 (Build 806) Traffic Analysis software. The City of Chula Vista’s traffic impact criteria was used in the determination of short-term impacts, specifically a direct impact for intersections would occur if the LOS is E or F and if project trips comprise 5% or more of entering volume. A cumulative impact would occur if the LOS is E or F. If the average daily trips (ADT) on roadway segments indicate an LOS of D, E or F, the City of Chula Vista’s Growth Management Oversight Committee methodology would be used to determine if a direct impact would result if all of the following conditions are met: LOS D for more than 2 hours or LOS E or F for 1 hour, project trips comprise 5% or more of segment volume, and the proposed project adds greater than 800 ADT to the segment (a cumulative impact would occur if LOS D occurs for more than 2 hours). No evaluation of long-term impacts was performed as implementation of the proposed project would not result in new development or in any operational change. Based on the analysis provided in Table 2: Peak Hour Intersection LOS Results – Construction Base (Year 2020) Conditions of the Traffic Analysis Report (Chen Ryan Associates 2015), all intersections within the project study area are anticipated to operate at LOS D or better under 2020 Construction Base Year conditions. As provided in Table 4: Peak Hour Intersection LOS Results – During Project Construction of the Traffic Analysis Report (Chen Ryan Associates 2015), all intersections within the project study area are anticipated to operate at acceptable LOS D or better under Construction Base Year (Year 2020) conditions. Because all study area intersections are projected to operate at LOS D or better during project construction, no direct or cumulative impacts would result along any of the study area intersections. Based on the analysis provided in Table 3: Daily Roadway LOS Results – Construction Base Year (Year 2020) Conditions of the Traffic Analysis Report (Chen Ryan Associates 2015), the following two roadway segments within the project study are anticipated to operate at unacceptable LOS (LOS D) under Construction Base Year (Year 2020) conditions. a.Main Street between I-805 Northbound Ramps and Oleander Avenue (LOS D) b.Main Street between Oleander Avenue and Brandywine Avenue (LOS D) As provided in Table 5: Daily Roadway LOS Results – During Project Construction of the Traffic Analysis Report (Chen Ryan Associates 2015), two of the study area roadway segments previously mentioned would continue to operate at unacceptable LOS under Construction Base Year (Year 2020) plus construction traffic conditions. As the traffic associated with project construction would not comprise more than 5% of the total segment volume, would not add more than 800 ADT to the segment, and all segments along Main Street within the project study area are projected to operate at LOS D or better, project construction traffic is not anticipated to have a direct or cumulative impact along any of the roadway segments identified above. The installation contractor is expected to perform maintenance of vegetation monthly during Year 1; every 2 months during Year 2; and quarterly during Years 3, 4, and 5. The proposed project would 58 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 206 result in only a small increase in traffic as stated previously (no more than 26 total daily vehicle trips as a worst case scenario), and this increase is not substantial in relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (LOS is considered acceptable). Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. After the completion of the restoration and maintenance process, the proposed project is not anticipated to generate any additional vehicular traffic. Therefore, no long-term traffic analysis is required and no impact related to operational traffic would result with implementation of the proposed project. b)Less-than-Significant Impact. See response XVI.a. As stated previously, the traffic associated with project construction would not comprise more than 5% of the total segment volume or add greater than 800 ADT to the segment, and all intersections and roadway segments within the project study area are projected to operate at LOS D or better. Therefore, project construction traffic is not anticipated to have a direct or cumulative impact along any of the study intersections or roadway segments evaluated. As the proposed project would generate minimal traffic—less than 1% (26 ADT), a Congestion Management Program (CMP) analysis would not be required (and the City of Chula Vista is exempt from the State CMP process). Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. After the completion of the restoration and maintenance process, the proposed project is not anticipated to generate any additional vehicular traffic. Therefore, no long-term traffic analysis is required and no impact related to operational traffic would result with implementation of the proposed project. c)Less-than-Significant Impact. The project site is approximately 1.75 miles northeast of the Brown Field Municipal Airport and outside any of the San Diego County Airport Land Use Commission’s Compatibility Policy Safety Zones associated with the airport (San Diego County Airport Land Use Commission, 2010). The proposed project is not located within the vicinity of a private airstrip. The proposed project would involve restoration and enhancement of the hydrology of the river and channels and native habitat within the boundaries of the restoration site and, thus, would not include elevated features that could interfere with navigable airspace. Site preparation, planting, and maintenance and monitoring activities would have no effect on air traffic patterns. Therefore, the proposed project would not result in a change in air traffic patterns, and impacts would be less than significant. d)No Impact. As described in the HMMP, the proposed project would include project features such as not allowing construction vehicles and equipment to park or stop along Wiley Road or the use of flag personnel to ensure the continued flow of traffic, which would ensure that the proposed project would not result in increased hazards or incompatible uses. No change to the local circulation network, including a design feature (e.g., sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g., farm equipment), is proposed (ICF International 2016a). Therefore, no impact would occur. e)Less-than-Significant Impact. As stated in Section VIII.g, the proposed project would not impair implementation of or physically interfere with an adopted emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan. The proposed project would not result in any substantial traffic queuing along Main Street or any other roadway taking access to and from the site and would not allow any construction vehicles or equipment to park or remain stationary within the roadway. Moreover, the proposed project does not include any characteristics (e.g., permanent road closures, long-term blocking of road access) that would physically impair or otherwise interfere with emergency access in the project vicinity. All large construction vehicles entering and existing the site would be guided by the use of personnel using signs and flags to direct traffic. All access points, storage, and staging areas would be located in a manner that has the least impact on vehicular and pedestrian traffic. The development of access roads, including which roads to 59 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 207 upgrade, secure, maintain or close, would be conducted in coordination with the Border Patrol, utility entities, the County and City of San Diego, and others. Implementation of the proposed project would not result in inadequate access for the Border Patrol or any other entity. Because no habitable structures or buildings are proposed and the proposed project would only improve the existing onsite natural habitat, emergency access would be adequate. Project features such as not allowing construction vehicles and equipment to park or stop along Wiley Road, the use of flag personnel to ensure the continued flow of traffic, and compliance with programs, rules, and regulations for emergency response would ensure that the proposed project would not result in inadequate emergency access. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. f)No Impact. See response XVI.a. The proposed project is a habitat restoration plan and would not conflict with any adopted policies, plans, or programs related to transportation. Therefore, no impact would occur. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. 60 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 208 Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Issues: No Impact Significant With Significant ImpactMitigation Impact Incorporated XVII. UTILITIES AND SERVICE SYSTEMS. Would the project: Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the a) applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? b)Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? c) Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? d)Have sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources, or are new or expanded entitlements needed? e)Result in a determination by the wastewater treatment provider, which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project’s projected demand in addition to the provider’s existing commitments? f)Be served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project’s solid waste disposal needs? g)Comply with federal, state, and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Comments: a)No Impact. The proposed project would not generate any wastewater. During site preparation activities, a portable toilet may be provided. The toilet would be hauled away and the waste disposed of at an approved facility in accordance with solid waste laws. As such, no project impacts would occur related to wastewater treatment requirements. b)No Impact. The proposed project would not result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities. Temporary watering would occur during the planting and establishment phase of the proposed project. However, no new permanent water or wastewater facilities, or the expansion of existing facilities, are proposed. No impact would occur. 61 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 209 c)No Impact. The existing conditions do not drain to the municipal storm drain system and would not contribute to the City’s stormwater drainage network. The project site is situated approximately in the middle of the Otay River Watershed and contains a floodplain and the Otay River main channel up to the Savage Dam and Lower Otay Reservoir. The 25-mile-long Otay River originates at San Miguel Mountain, flows through the Upper and Lower Otay Reservoirs, continues west, and empties into San Diego Bay (Aspen 2006). Implementation of the proposed project would involve restoration and enhancement of the hydrology of the river and channels and native habitat within the boundaries of the restoration site as well as minor improvements to existing trails within the project site. Therefore the proposed project would not require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects and no impacts would occur. d)Less-than-Significant. The most active portion of the project site and the area requiring irrigation is within the City’s parcel boundaries and within the service area of the Otay Water District (District).The District is a member agency of the San Diego County Water Authority, which is responsible for the supply of imported water into San Diego County through its membership with Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. The District’s service area covers approximately 137 square miles and includes both urban and rural development within the communities of El Cajon, La Mesa, Rancho San Diego, Jamul, Spring Valley, Bonita, eastern City of Chula Vista, East Lake, Otay Ranch, and Otay Mesa areas (Atkins 2011). The District meets all of its potable water demands with imported water from the San Diego County Water Authority from Pipeline Number 4 of the Second San Diego County Aqueduct that is owned and operated by the San Diego County Water Authority. One of the planning objectives for the District is to have sufficient capacity through Pipeline Number 4 to meet demands; however, during periods when supply from Pipeline Number 4 is unavailable, the District has entered into arrangements with neighboring water agencies including the Helix Water District and the City of San Diego to provide potable water. The District also has two sources of recycled water supply: the District’s Ralph W. Chapman Water Recycling Facility and the City of San Diego’s South Bay Water Reclamation Plant (Atkins 2011). According to the District’s 2010 Urban Water Management Plan, both the San Diego County Water Authority and Metropolitan Water District of Southern California have determined in their respective Urban Water Management Plans that they will be able to meet projected demands through 2035, which include potable water demands for the District. Therefore, in turn, the District predicts that it is capable of meeting potable water demands through 2035 (Atkins 2011). Approximately 90% of the District’s customers are single-family residences, and much of the anticipated development in the District’s service area is expected to be single-family residential. The District’s water demands for 2010 are shown in Table 7, and Table 8 shows the District’s projected customer growth and potable water deliveries through 2035. 62 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 210 Table 7. 2010 Water Deliveries – Actual Volume Potable Water Use Sectors # of Accounts (acre-feet) Single-family residential 40,994 17,165 Multi-family residential 3,4203,605 Commercial/Industrial 1,1962,243 Institutional2371,867 a Dedicated Irrigation1,2003,732 b Other 114584 Fire Lines 667 23 Potable Water Delivery Subtotal48,845 29,270 c Recycled Water Dedication Irrigation684 4,074 Water Delivery Total 49,529 33,344 Source: Atkins 2011 a Potable irrigation demand with a dedicated landscape meter. b All temporary meters e.g. construction, etc. c Non-potable irrigation demand with a dedicated landscape meter. 63 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 211 212 0 ¦¤ Volume (AF) 40,63517,425 77,171 5,9223,1714,3304,6431,046 2035 Accounts 61,751 55,778 1,0061,4492,1511,068 2035 299 0 Volume (AF) 7,21115,957 70,669 5,4232,9043,9654,252 2030 958 3 Accounts 52,749 58,398 1,3702,0341,010 2030 9512820 2035 Volume (AF) 14,408 63,811 33,600 4,8972,6223,5803,839 2025 865 Projected 2015, 2020, 2025, 2030, and Accounts 55,910 50,502 1,3121,948 2025 911270967 0 64 Volume (AF) 28,31212,141 53,768 4,1262,2093,0173,235 2020 729 Accounts 52,487 47,410 1,2321,828 2020 – 855254908 0 and Potable Water Deliveries Volume (AF) 23,63310,134 44,883 3,4441,8442,5182,700 2015 608 Accounts 47,500 42,905 1,1151,655 2015 774230822 0 . Customer Growth family residential family residential Commercial/Industrial ource: Atkins 2011 Water Use Sectors Unaccounted for feet Institutional - Packet AF = acre n Irrigatio - !¦¤£ 8 Single Other Table -Total Multi S ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ As described in the HMMP, a temporary irrigation system may be required to enhance the survivorship of newly installed native plants and seed when plants have been grown in nursery conditions, when they are planted under initially dry or drought conditions, or when planting does not occur within an ideal seasonal planting time frame. If deemed necessary, a temporary irrigation system may be installed to supply supplemental water for newly installed plants and applied seed. Although supplemental irrigation may be required to establish habitat, an automated temporary irrigation system is not proposed. Although an irrigation system is not considered to be critical for meeting the success criteria of the proposed project, the following are options that may be considered by the installation contractor and restoration ecologist. It is likely that a combination of these would be used based on site conditions, seasonal constraints, efficacy, and cost. A large plastic tank could be set up above the restoration site and gravity fed to a drip irrigation system. The tank could be refilled with a water truck as needed. Truck watering is another possibility, but the use of hoses can impact plants farther from the truck’s location. Dri-water (semi-solid polymer-like product) may be used for select plantings such as larger trees and shrubs. This product can be used to temporarily provide water to the root mass of larger plantings. It is also possible to replace the polymer as a means of more long-term water supply. Any system installed would be designed for temporary use for at least 3 years and discontinued once plant establishment is meeting plan goals. Ideally, the irrigation system would be shut-off by the end of the third year of the 5-year maintenance and monitoring period. Irrigation system components would be removed from the restoration site entirely at the end of the maintenance and monitoring period after approval is granted by the resource agencies. Regardless of long-term irrigation solutions, prior to planting and seeding, the soil on site would be moist from watering by the contractor or rainfall. All attempts would be made to coordinate seeding with rain events. 3 It is estimated the proposed project would require approximately 2.7 million gallons, or 8.29 acre- 4 feet, of water during construction for dust control and 13.8 million gallons, or 42.35 acre-feet, of water during maintenance and monitoring. Given that the proposed project’s water demand would be temporary and would make up less than 0.1% of the District’s total projected water demand through 2035, it is anticipated the District would have sufficient water supplies to serve the proposed project, and new or expanded entitlements and resources would not be required. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. e)No Impact. The proposed project would not result in a determination that the wastewater treatment provider does not have adequate capacity to serve the proposed project. See responses XVII.a and XVII.b. The proposed project would not generate wastewater, and no impacts would occur. f)Less-than-Significant Impact. The proposed project would not significantly affect a landfill by accommodating the proposed project’s solid waste disposal needs. During site preparation and removal of invasive species, greenwaste would be generated and completely removed from the project site and disposed of at the closest acceptable landfill or composting facility. In San Diego County there are six landfills, two of which have composting facilities on site, and five additional composting facilities with capacity to handle greenwaste from the proposed project. Except for routine maintenance associated with ensuring the health of the vegetation, the proposed project would not generate waste of any kind once operational. Therefore, the proposed project would have a less-than-significant impact related to solid waste. 3 Estimated 18 weeks (90 working days) with one 2,000 gallon water truck utilizing 15 loads per day. 4 Estimated 5 gallons per plant planted in Phases 2 and 3 (10,000 plants for Phase 2 and 30,000 plants for Phase 3) per week from April through November for 2 years. 65 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 213 g)No Impact. The proposed project would comply with federal, state, and local statues and regulations related to solid waste. See response XVII.f. Greenwaste would be disposed of in accordance with applicable statutes and regulations. Only small amounts of greenwaste would be generated once operational and would only be related to ensuring the health of the vegetation. Therefore, no impact would occur. Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. 66 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 214 Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Issues: No Impact Significant With Significant ImpactMitigation Impact Incorporated XVIII. CITY THRESHOLDS: Will the proposal adversely impact the City's Threshold Standards? A)Library The City shall construct 60,000 gross square feet (GSF) of additional library space, over the June 30, 2000, GSF total, in the area east of Interstate 805 by buildout. The construction of said facilities shall be phased such that the City will not fall below the citywide ratio of 500 GSF per 1,000 population. Library facilities are to be adequately equipped and staffed. B) Police a)Emergency Response: Properly equipped and staffed police units shall respond to 81 percent of “Priority One” emergency calls within seven (7) minutes and maintain an average response time to all “Priority One” emergency calls of 5.5 minutes or less. d)Respond to 57 percent of “Priority Two” urgent calls within seven (7) minutes and maintain an average response time to all “Priority Two” calls of 7.5 minutes or less. C)Fire and Emergency Medical Emergency response: Properly equipped and staffed fire and medical units shall respond to calls throughout the City within 7 minutes in 80% of the cases (measured annually). D) Traffic The Threshold Standards require that all intersections must operate at a Level of Service (LOS) "C" or better, with the exception that Level of Service (LOS) "D" may occur during the peak two hours of the day at signalized intersections. Signalized intersections west of I-805 are not to operate at a LOS below their 1991 LOS. No intersection may reach LOS "E" or "F" during the average weekday peak hour. Intersections of arterials with freeway ramps are exempted from this Standard. 67 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 215 Less Than Potentially Less Than Significant Issues: Significant With Significant No Impact ImpactMitigation Impact Incorporated E)Parks and Recreation Areas The Threshold Standard for Parks and Recreation is 3 acres of neighborhood and community parkland with appropriate facilities/1,000 population east of I-805. F)Drainage The Threshold Standards require that storm water flows and volumes not exceed City Engineering Standards. Individual projects will provide necessary improvements consistent with the Drainage Master Plan(s) and City Engineering Standards. G)Sewer The Threshold Standards require that sewage flows and volumes not exceed City Engineering Standards. Individual projects will provide necessary improvements consistent with Sewer Master Plan(s) and City Engineering Standards. H)Water The Threshold Standards require that adequate storage, treatment, and transmission facilities are constructed concurrently with planned growth and that water quality standards are not jeopardized during growth and construction. Applicants may also be required to participate in whatever water conservation or fee off-set program the City of Chula Vista has in effect at the time of building permit issuance. Comments: A)No Impact. The proposed project would not adversely affect the City’s threshold standards for libraries. As discussed in Sections XIII, Population and Housing, and XIV, Public Services, the proposed project would not induce substantial population growth or increase the demand for public facilities including library services. Therefore, no impacts on library facilities would occur. B)No Impact. The proposed project would not adversely affect the City’s threshold standards for police. As discussed in response XIV.b, the proposed project would not result in an increased demand requiring the need for new or physically altered police protection facilities. No buildings or habitable structures that may require police protection services are proposed. Moreover, no people would reside on the project site. Once operational, the proposed project would be similar to the existing condition in terms of the need for police protection services. Therefore, the proposed project would not adversely affect emergency response times for police, and no impacts would occur. 68 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 216 C)No Impact. The proposed project would not adversely affect the City’s threshold standards for fire and medical. As discussed in response XIV.a, the proposed project would not result in an increased demand requiring the need for new or physically altered fire protection facilities. No buildings or habitable structures that may require fire protection services are proposed. Moreover, once operational, the proposed project would be similar to the existing condition in terms of the need for fire protection services. Therefore, the proposed project would not adversely affect emergency response times for fire and medical units, and no impacts would occur. D)Less-than-Significant Impact. The City of Chula Vista identified five individual projects within Otay Ranch to be considered for cumulative impacts because of their proximity to the project site. These projects are discussed in more detail in Section XIX, Mandatory Findings of Significance, below and have the potential for future development involving residential, commercial, industrial, educational, and community uses among other uses as well as infrastructure improvements. Construction of Village 3 could occur ahead of other development projects with construction expected to overlap with Phases 1 and 2 of the proposed project. To provide a worst-case scenario, all 10 construction workers, driving in separate vehicles to and from the project site, were assumed to arrive during the AM peak hour and depart during the PM peak hour. The only operational traffic that would result with implementation of the proposed project would be an occasional maintenance truck, which would have no noticeable effect on traffic operations. As stated in Section XVI, Transportation/Traffic, above and in the Traffic Analysis Report (Chen Ryan Associates 2015), only the intersection of Oleander Avenue and Main Street operates at LOS C or better. The intersections of Main Street and the I-805 southbound and northbound ramps (east of I-805) operate at LOS D during the PM peak hour; however, as mentioned in the threshold description above, intersections of arterials with freeway ramps are exempted from this standard. The intersection of Brandywine Avenue and Main Street operate at LOS D during the peak hour with and without project construction, and the proposed project would not degrade this intersection or worsen the LOS. LOS E or F would not occur during the average weekday peak hour. The traffic associated with project construction would not comprise more than 5% of the total intersection volume or add greater than 800 ADT, and all intersections within the project study area are projected to operate at LOS D or better. Therefore, the minimal amount of project construction traffic is not anticipated to significantly impact any of the study intersections evaluated and no operational impacts would result. E)No Impact. The proposed project would not adversely affect the City’s threshold standards for parks and recreation areas. As discussed above, the proposed project would not result in an increase in housing or residents in the project vicinity that would result in increased demand for parks and recreation areas. No impact would occur. F)No Impact. The project site does not drain to the municipal storm drain system and would not contribute to the City’s stormwater drainage network. The project site is within the Otay River Valley, and implementation of the proposed project would involve restoration and enhancement of the hydrology of the river and channels and native habitat within the project boundaries. The proposed project would not generate additional stormwater flows or volumes. In fact, the proposed project would serve to improve existing hydrological conditions and would slightly decrease 100- year flood elevations in the project vicinity. Therefore, the proposed project would not exceed City Engineering Standards, and no impacts would occur. G)No Impact. The proposed project would not adversely affect the City’s threshold standards for sewer flows. As discussed in Section XVII, Utilities and Service Systems, the proposed project would not generate any sewer wastewater, and no impacts would occur. H)Less-than-Significant Impact. As discussed above in Sections IX, Hydrology and Water Quality, and XIV, Public Services, the proposed project is not growth-inducing and would not violate any water quality standards. The proposed project would affect water storage, treatment, or transmission facilities, and impacts would be less than significant. 69 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 217 Mitigation: No mitigation measures are required. 70 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 218 Less Than Potentially Significant Less Than Issues: With No Impact Significant Significant ImpactMitigation Impact Incorporated XIX.MANDATORY FINDINGS OF SIGNIFICANCE a)Does the project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? b)Does the project have impacts that are individually limited, but cumulatively considerable? (“Cumulatively considerable” means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the effects of other current project, and the effects of probable future projects.) c)Does the project have environmental effects, which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Comments: a)Less-than-Significant Impact. As discussed in section V Biological Resources, the goal of the proposed project is to restore natural vegetation communities and hydrological function to the portion of the Otay River Valley within the project area; any project-related impacts would be temporary, and the proposed project would result in improved habitats. Therefore, the proposed the quality of the environment or reduce wildlife specifies populations. project would not degrade As described in Section VI, Cultural Resources, no existing structures or buildings occur within the project boundary and therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource. Furthermore, despite the paucity of archaeological deposits identified within the project area during previous surveys, the City of Chula Vista has incorporated the development and implementation of an unanticipated discovery plan as a project feature. The plan would be used during project implementation to account for the potential for encountering redeposited artifacts in the sediment stockpiles on site and the potential for encountering as-yet undocumented archaeological deposits in areas with poor ground surface visibility. Therefore, impacts on California history and prehistory would be less than significant. 71 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 219 b)Less-than-Significant Impact. A cumulative impact could occur if the proposed project would result in an incrementally considerable contribution to a significant cumulative impact in consideration of past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects for each resource area. The City of Chula Vista identified five individual projects within the City to be considered for cumulative impacts because of the proximity to the project site. The projects are described below and shown on Figure 12 (see Attachment 1 for all figures). University Village Three, located in Otay Ranch west of the quarry and north of Heritage Road. The project involves 1,002 single-family dwelling units, 515 multi-family dwelling units, 80 dwelling units with 20,000 square feet of mixed use, 28.6 acres of industrial, 5.2 acres of office, 25.7 acres of parks, 8.3 acres of school uses, 4.2 acres of community facilities, 2.4 acres of private open space, 35.4 acres of open space, 158.1 acres of preserve, and 33.9 acres of circulation uses. The status of this project is approved and construction is expected to overlap with Phases 1 and 2 of the proposed project while occupancy of this village is expected to overlap with future phases and maintenance and monitoring of the proposed project. University Village Eight West, located within Otay Ranch south of Santa Luna Street. This development proposes 621 single-family dwelling units, 1,429 multi-family dwelling units, 300,000 square feet of commercial land use, 5.8 acres of community purpose facilities, 31.6 acres dedicated to school property, and 27.9 acres of park land. The status of the project is approved, and construction is expected to overlap with future phases of the proposed project. University Village Nine, located within Otay Ranch east of Village Eight West and Highway 125. This development proposes 266 single-family dwelling units, 3,734 multi-family dwelling units, 1,500,000 square feet of commercial, 5.0 acres of community purpose facilities, 19.8 acres dedicated to school property, 27.5 acres of park land, 85.0 acres of industrial/research technology park, and 50.0 acres for the future University site. The status of the project is approved, and although construction is not expected to commence until after Villages Three and Eight West have been developed, for the purposes of this analysis, construction is assumed to overlap with maintenance and monitoring of the proposed project. University Village Two, located within Otay Ranch north of Wueste Road and south of Olympic Parkway. A Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was previously circulated in 2007 and approved for development of (1) 240 acres total, 1,839 dwelling units, 8.5 acres of mixed-use commercial land use, 12.5 acres dedicated to commercial land use, and 60.7 acres dedicated to industrial, park, and community purpose facilities; and (2) 160 acres total, with 1,144 dwelling units. In 2014, a Draft EIR was circulated to add additional project features including 1,552 residential units, an elementary school, parkland, and community-purpose facilities. The project may also include additional park and community-purpose facilities that partially or wholly satisfy the requirements generated by proposed residential and hotel development on the Otay Ranch Planning Area (PA-) 12 site. The status of this project is approved, and construction activities could overlap with maintenance and monitoring activities associated with the proposed project. Otay Ranch Planning Area 12 (PA-12), located in Otay Ranch south of Olympic Parkway and straddling Town Center Drive between Highway 125 and East Lake Parkway. The project involves a zone change on approximately 17.6 acres of land from the current freeway commercial zone to 15.9 acres of residential (High – 18 to 30 dwelling units per acre) and 1.0 acre of public park. Residential units would include a mix of one, two, and three bedroom units for a total of 448 units. Commercial space would decrease from the originally proposed PA-12 project from 347,000 square feet to approximately 279,000 square feet. Approximately 554 onsite parking spaces and 136 onsite garage spaces would be provided. The EIR for this project has been certified. The project is still awaiting approval of the Sectional Planning Area Plan and Tentative Maps, and construction activities could overlap with maintenance and monitoring activities associated with the proposed project. 72 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 220 As discussed in Sections I though XVII, the proposed project would not result in any significant impacts. Resource areas where the proposed project could potentially contribute to cumulative impacts are discussed for the resources below; however, the proposed project would not result in a cumulatively considerable impact for the following reasons. Aesthetics As described in the University Village Project Final EIR for Village Three North and a portion of Village Four, Village Eight East, and Village Ten, the impacts on aesthetics and landform alteration as a result of these projects would contribute to a significant and unavoidable cumulative impact. Development of the cumulative projects would result in the permanent alteration of the cumulative projects’ area from open undeveloped rolling hills to high-density urbanized uses (City of Chula Vista 2014). As described in Section I, Aesthetics, the proposed project would involve a temporary disturbance to a scenic vista during construction; however, once complete, the proposed project would bring the Otay River Valley within the limits of the restoration site boundaries back to its natural state by restoring and enhancing the proper hydrology of the river and channels and native habitat. This would be a beneficial effect and would improve views of the project site by removing invasive species and improving hydrological conditions. In addition, the minor trail improvements proposed as part of the project would be implemented in compliance with the City of Chula Vista Greenbelt Master Plan and the OVRP Concept Plan. Furthermore, the proposed project would not substantially damage any scenic resources along a scenic highway, and once completed would enhance the visual quality of the site. Therefore, although implementation of the cumulative projects listed above would contribute to a significant and unavoidable cumulative impact, the proposed project would result in beneficial aesthetic impacts and thus would not contribute to the existing cumulatively significant impact. Agricultural Resources None of the cumulative project sites are designated for agricultural uses by either the City of Chula Vista General Plan or Zoning Code. Therefore, development of these projects would not contribute to or create a cumulatively significant impact related to agricultural resources. Furthermore, as described in Section II, Agricultural Resources, although a small portion (approximately 0.8 acre) on the west side of the project site is designated as Farmland of Local Importance, this area is zoned for residential by the City of Chula Vista and no agricultural activities occur in the area. Therefore, the proposed project would not contribute to or create a cumulatively significant impact. Air Quality The cumulative study area for air quality includes the entire San Diego Air Basin as described in response III.c. San Diego County is currently designated as a nonattainment or maintenance area for multiple criteria pollutants. These designations are a result of emissions generated by past and present projects, and will continue to be influenced by reasonably foreseeable future projects. Cumulative impacts could result if the proposed project exceeds established thresholds for pollutants in which the region is designated as nonattainment. In addition, cumulative impacts could result if the proposed project would be constructed at the same time as other development projects in the area, thereby exposing sensitive receptors to cumulative emission concentrations. As discussed in response III.b, the proposed project would implement Mitigation Measure AQ-1 to ensure the proposed project would not result in construction emissions that exceed SDAPCD trigger levels, and therefore, would not negatively impact regional air quality (see Table 1). Maintenance and monitoring activities would also be minor and would not contribute to any significant cumulative impacts related to the nonattainment status for ozone, PM10, or PM2.5. Given the rural nature of the project area and the short duration of construction, it is not anticipated that extensive construction or operation of cumulative projects would occur while the proposed project is being constructed. Possible cumulative impacts on air quality as a result of construction activities in the 73 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 221 area would be addressed by compliance with SDAPCD rules and regulations, which apply to all construction projects. Therefore, proposed project construction and maintenance and monitoring would not result in a cumulatively considerable net increase in emissions. Greenhouse Gas GHG emissions are a cumulative global issue and accumulate in the Earth’s atmosphere for many years. Therefore, the cumulative study area is the entire globe. The project would have no impact related to operational GHG emissions and would not conflict with the City’s Climate Action Plan, AB 32, or Executive Order S-03-05. As a result, the project would not contribute to any potentially significant cumulative impacts related to these issue areas. The project would have a less-than- significant impact related to GHG emissions during the construction phase. Therefore, the cumulative analysis below considers the cumulative impacts of past, present, and probable future projects as they relate to GHG emissions. All of the cumulative projects (#1 through #5) would contribute varying amounts of GHG emissions, which, when combined, would be considered cumulatively significant. As discussed under Section IV.a, the proposed project would be far below San Diego County’s (2015) interim GHG threshold of 900 metric tons and would increase carbon sequestration in the project area. Moreover, none of the proposed project’s emission sources are identified in the AB 32 Scoping Plan as significant emissions sources, and as such, none of the measures outlined in the plans are directly applicable to the project. Therefore, the proposed project would not generate GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that could have a significant impact on the environment. The project’s contribution to . cumulative GHG emissions would be less than cumulatively considerable Biological Resources Development of the cumulative projects would include both direct (i.e., physical) and indirect (i.e., noise and visual) significant and unavoidable permanent and temporary cumulative impacts on biological resources. The 1993 Otay Ranch General Development Plan (GDP) determined that cumulative impacts on biological resources would be significant and unavoidable even with required mitigation measures (City of Chula Vista 1993). The Otay Ranch GDP EIR analyzed the existing conditions, potential impacts, and mitigation measures related to biological resources for the entire Otay Ranch area and identified significant unavoidable impacts on biological resources in Otay Ranch due to loss of raptor foraging habitat. Subsequent to the certification of the EIR and adoption of the GDP, the City adopted the Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan. 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 GDP EIR was certified. Because of the level of conservation provided for habitats that support raptor foraging on a regional basis, new feasible mitigation for unidentified impacts on raptor foraging habitat is now available to mitigate project- level impacts. In 2005, the City prepared the Chula Vista General Plan Update/Otay Ranch General Development Plan Amendment and Program EIR, which followed the adoption of the MSCP Subarea Plan and was therefore compliant with the regulations set forth in the plan. Because compliance with the MSCP Subarea Plan reduces significant impacts on biological resources, the effect of the GPU was found to be less than cumulatively considerable. The University Village Project Final EIR for Village Three North and a portion of Village Four, Village Eight East, and Village Ten identified significant unavoidable impacts on biological resources in Otay Ranch due to loss of sensitive plant species, sensitive vegetation communities, and raptor foraging habitat. These losses will be mitigated through conveyance of Preserve lands to the City of Chula Vista for every acre impacted, along with habitat restoration, as required by the Otay Ranch Resource Management Plan. Wetlands mitigation is also expected as conditions of wetlands permits, and temporary construction areas would be revegetated with native species. The conveyance program, coupled with habitat restoration, is intended to conserve a greater or equal amount of sensitive vegetation types within Otay Ranch. 74 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 222 As discussed in Section V, Biological Resources, the goal of the proposed project is to restore natural vegetation communities and hydrological function to a severely degraded portion of the Otay River Valley within the project area. Project-related impacts would be temporary, and the proposed project would result in a significant beneficial increase in the acreage of native habitats and substantial improvements to the hydrological functions of the aquatic system. Furthermore, the proposed project would implement Mitigation Measures BIO-1 through BIO-10 to avoid and minimize impacts that could occur on sensitive natural communities and special-status plant species as a result of the temporary loss of habitat, direct impacts on individuals, or the loss of active nests for birds protected under the MBTA. The proposed project would restore native plant associations and wildlife connections, is consistent with the goals of all applicable conservation plans, and would provide funding for the long-term maintenance and management of the restoration site in perpetuity through a non-wasting endowment required by USACE. Therefore, although implementation of the projects listed above would contribute to significant and unavoidable cumulative impacts on biological resources, the proposed project would result in positive beneficial biological enhancements and would not contribute to significant cumulative direct or indirect impacts on biological resources. Cultural The geographic scope of the cumulative cultural resources analysis includes the five projects described above. As discussed above and in the Cultural Resources Technical Report (ICF International 2015b), impacts on historical and tribal resources may include both direct (i.e., physical) and indirect (i.e., noise and visual) impacts. No documented historical or tribal resources are known to exist within the project boundary. Therefore, no direct impacts on these resource types are anticipated. It is unknown whether any historical or tribal resources exist outside of the project boundary, both within and outside the sites of the five projects listed above. The purpose of the proposed project is to restore and enhance the Otay River floodplain to its pre-late-twentieth century conditions. This is anticipated to result in no long-term change to existing noise conditions and minimal change to existing visual conditions. Construction-related visual and noise would be minimal and temporary. Therefore, the proposed project would not contribute to a significant cumulative indirect impact on historical and tribal resources. Impacts on archaeological resources tend to be limited to those that would directly compromise an archaeological resource’s physical integrity—a key element of the significance of these resources. Therefore, a project would be unlikely to contribute to a significant cumulative impact on an archaeological resource if it were located entirely outside of the project’s construction footprint. The proposed restoration site fully encompasses two isolated artifacts (37-015385 and 37-015386) and contains a portion of one archaeological site (CA-SDI-10875). As mentioned previously in Section VI, Cultural Resources, neither the portion of CA-SDI-10875 within the project boundary nor the two isolated artifacts appear to be eligible for the California Register of Historical Resources (Public Resources Code SS5024.1, Title 14, Section 4852) under any of the required criteria. The portion of CA-SDI-10875 that falls outside of the project boundary is not within the boundaries of any of the other projects described above. One archaeological site, CA-SDI-14218, is located within the mitigation parcel where project-related ground disturbing activities are proposed. The resource has not been evaluated for its eligibility for listing in the CRHR or NRHP. In accordance with guidance from the California Office of Historic Preservation, the site must be treated as though it were a significant resource until the necessary studies have been performed to determine its eligibility for the CRHR or NRHP. In order to minimize impacts to CA-SDI-14218, the proposed project would incorporate Mitigation Measure CUL-1 or Mitigation Measure CUL-2. In addition, the proposed project would implement Mitigation Measures CUL-3 and CUL-4 to account for the potential for encountering redeposited artifacts in the sediment stockpiles on site and the potential for encountering as-yet undocumented archaeological deposits in areas with poor ground surface visibility. Therefore, the proposed project would not contribute to a significant cumulative impact on any known archaeological resources. 75 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 223 As with archaeological resources, impacts on cemeteries and paleontological resources tend to be limited to those that would directly compromise their physical integrity. As no previously documented cemeteries or paleontological resources are located within the project footprint, the project would not contribute to a significant cumulative impact on any known resources. Based on the information presented above, the proposed project is not anticipated to contribute to a significant cumulative impact on cultural resources. Therefore, no additional mitigation measures for cultural resources are proposed. Geology and Soils Development in a seismically active region can put people and structures at risk from a wide range of earthquake-related effects. The existing level of seismic risk exposure represents a significant cumulative impact. However, the proposed project is not expected to draw a substantial amount of people, either during project activities or permanently; thus, the project site would remain similar to existing conditions. Furthermore, no structures intended for human occupation (or otherwise) would be built; therefore, potential risk to people would be extremely limited and there would be no potential for impacts on property. As such, the proposed project would not contribute considerably to the existing cumulative impact related to seismic hazards. Hazards and Hazardous Materials The hazardous materials geographic study area considered for cumulative impacts consists of the area that could be affected by the proposed project and the areas affected by other projects whose activities could directly or indirectly affect the proposed activities on the project site or nearby. In general, only projects occurring adjacent or very close to the project site are considered due to the limited potential impact area associated with the release of hazardous materials into the environment. There are several residential, commercial, and industrial development projects planned to be constructed west of the project site. These include the University Village developments Three, Eight West, Nine, Two, and Otay Ranch Planning Area 12. Although construction of these cumulative projects would involve the handling of hazardous materials such as fuel, solvents, chemicals, and oils, it is expected that such handling would be compliant with applicable regulations. Furthermore, these materials are typically used in construction projects and would not represent the transport, use, and disposal of acutely hazardous materials. Any releases would be localized and cleaned up after they occur. Additionally, the proposed project would not cumulatively contribute to hazardous materials or hazardous impacts in the region because it would comply with all federal, state, and local regulations, the details of which are discussed in Section VIII, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, concerning the handling of hazardous materials and/or waste. As mentioned in Section VIII, the western portion of the project site is located within the Brown Field Bombing Range FUDS. The Brown Field Bombing Range was identified as being part of the Cortese List. Construction of the proposed project could create a significant hazard to construction workers or the environment by exposing or encountering any remaining unearthed UXO, MECs and MDs. However, implementation of Mitigation Measures HAZ-1 and HAZ-2 would reduce potential impacts to less than significant by determining if water or sediment contamination is present (note, topsoil contamination is not), remediating any contaminated soils if posing a risk to human health, and by clearing all UXO within the area; thus, the proposed project would not be contribute to cumulative hazardous materials or hazardous impacts. Hydrology and Water Quality Future projects that may have combined effects on hydrology and water quality with the proposed project include University Village Three, Otay Ranch Villages Two, Eight West, Nine, and the Otay Ranch Planning Area 12. For purposes of the cumulative effects analysis, the geographic context for the impacts relative to water quality and hydrology include portions of the Otay River receiving 76 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 224 runoff from these projects. This is defined as the Otay River between Heritage Road and Savage Dam. These projects have the potential to affect hydrology and degrade water quality through the introduction of stormwater pollutants. Construction activities could mobilize sediment via stormwater runoff that would impact the Otay River. Sediment and sediment-bound pollutants have the potential to degrade water quality in the Otay River. Hazardous materials from construction equipment could be accidently released during construction of these projects, and discharge of these materials to surface water could adversely impact water quality, endanger aquatic life, and/or result in a violation of water quality standards. All projects would be required to adhere to the Construction General Permit, which requires the elimination or reduction of non-stormwater discharge off site. Each project would be required to develop a site-specific SWPPP and implement stormwater BMPs to control stormwater pollution from construction activities. Through adherence to the Construction General Permit, these projects would have a less-than-significant cumulative impact on hydrology and water quality. Other impacts related to the creation of new impervious surfaces from cumulative projects could have an effect on hydrology and water quality; however, the proposed project does not create new impervious surfaces and would not contribute to cumulative effects on runoff. In fact, the proposed project is designed to enhance, rehabilitate, and re-establish hydrological processes and vegetation communities within the Lower Otay River Watershed that would be self-sustaining and could adjust to dynamic natural processes. As described in Section IX, Hydrology and Water Quality, the proposed project’s drainage and water quality impacts would be limited primarily to the site preparation and planting phase when ground disturbance would occur. Construction activities that have the potential to affect water quality would be required to adhere to the General Construction Permit, which requires the development and implementation of a SWPPP by a Qualified SWPPP Developer, the elimination or reduction of non- stormwater discharge off site into storm drainage systems or other water bodies, and the implementation of BMPs. Furthermore, the proposed project would implement Mitigation Measure BIO-1 which would ensure all necessary agency permits have been approved before initiating grading activities and impacts to hydrology and water quality would be minimized per the conditions set for in the permits. This would result in a less-than-significant impact on water quality. Thus, because water quality would not be adversely affected by the proposed project, the proposed project’s contribution to cumulative hydrology and water quality impacts would not be cumulatively considerable. Land Use and Planning The geographic scope for cumulative impacts related to land use and planning is the City as a whole, surrounding land uses, and the boundaries of the applicable habitat conservation plans. The projects listed above could result in a cumulative impact when combined with the impacts of the proposed project; however, all of the cumulative projects were (or are being) developed in accordance with the underlying land use designations and would not divide established communities. Furthermore, the cumulative projects would not conflict with habitat conservation plans because adequate mitigation has been provided, including implementation of the proposed project mitigation site. Therefore, the impacts of the cumulative projects on land use and planning would not be cumulatively significant. As discussed in Section X, Land Use and Planning, the project site would not divide an established community, nor would it conflict with the Otay Ranch General Development and Resource Management Plan, County of San Diego Multiple Species Conservation Program Subarea Plan, Otay River Watershed Management Plan, Otay River Watershed Special Area Management Plan, or Chula Vista MSCP. The project site would also be consistent with the as Open Space Preserve designation by the City of Chula Vista General Plan and Open Space (Conservation) and Open Space (Recreation) by the San Diego County General Plan. The project site is zoned Residential by the City of Chula Vista’s Zoning Code and Agriculture and Special Purpose by the San Diego County Zoning 77 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 225 Code, and it is consistent with these zones because it would leave the project site in a generally undeveloped state. Other applicable planning documents include the Otay Ranch Phase 1 and 2 RMP, the County of San Diego Multiple Species Conservation Program and City of Chula Vista MSCP Subarea Plan, Otay River Watershed Management Plan (ORWMP), and the Draft Otay River Watershed Special Area Management Plan (SAMP), City of Chula Vista Greenbelt Master Plan, and the Otay Valley Regional Park (OVRP) Concept Plan and Trails Guidelines. The proposed project is consistent with each of these plans as explained in detail under Section X. Specifically, to ensure all trail improvements would be designed consistent with the City’s Greenbelt Master Plan and the OVRP Concept Plan and Trail Guidelines, Mitigation Measure LU-1 is required. Therefore, because the project would not result in a significant land use and planning impact after mitigation and, further, because a significant cumulative land use impact is not present from past, present, and reasonably foreseeable future projects, the proposed project’s cumulative contribution would not be cumulatively significant. Mineral Resources The geographic scope for cumulative impacts related to mineral resources is the area of the City designated MRZ-2. The projects listed above could result in a cumulative impact when combined with the impacts of the proposed project; however, all of those projects would occur outside any designated mineral resource zone. Therefore, the impacts of the cumulative projects would not be cumulatively significant. As discussed in Section XI, Mineral Resources, the project site is located in a portion of the Otay River Valley that has been identified as an MRZ-2 area and was previously the location of sand mining activities between 1982 to 1985. However, operations ceased in 1985 and the site has been left in a highly disturbed state since. The site has also been designated as Open Space Preserve and delineated within the jurisdiction of the Chula Vista MSCP Preserve where the long-term vision for the entire Preserve area, including the project site, is to cease mining, extraction, and processing activities altogether (City of Chula Vista 2015). Therefore, because mining activities at the project site ceased three decades ago and the future plans for the Chula Vista MSCP Preserve are to cease mining-related activities altogether, implementation of the proposed project would not result in the loss of valuable mineral resources and would not contribute to a cumulatively significant impact. Noise Proposed residences at the Village Three and Village Eight West cumulative project sites may be completed and occupied prior to the completion of construction activities of the proposed project. These homes would be new noise-sensitive receptors. However, the closest proposed residence would be a minimum of 7,900 feet to the west of the restoration site, which is farther than any of the closest existing noise-sensitive receptors. As such, noise and vibration levels would be lower than those predicted at the existing receptors, and the impact would be less than significant. Cumulative noise and vibration impacts have the potential to occur during construction of the proposed project. Construction of the restoration site may coincide with construction activities at the Village Three and Village Eight West cumulative projects. However, the closest of these cumulative projects is the Village Eight West project, approximately 7,900 feet west of the project site. Attenuation due to distance, as well as intervening topography, would substantially reduce construction noise and groundborne vibration propagating between the proposed and cumulative project vicinities. As described in Section XII, Noise, the predicted noise levels associated with construction and maintenance and monitoring activities would be less than significant because they would be well below the 75 dB threshold set by the San Diego County Code at noise-sensitive locations and would only occur within the daytime hours permitted by the San Diego County Code and the Chula Vista Municipal Code. The predicted vibration levels associated with construction and maintenance and monitoring activities would be less than significant because they would be well below the City of Chula Vista’s 78 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 226 vibration perception threshold of 0.01 in/sec. Thus, because the proposed project would not result in any significant construction noise or vibration impacts and cumulative projects would not add noticeably to the overall construction noise and vibration levels in the project vicinity, construction noise and vibration impacts would not be cumulatively considerable. Noise-sensitive locations have the potential to be impacted by temporary traffic volume increases on local roadways due to worker commutes and truck trips associated with construction of the restoration site. As described in Section XII, the proposed project is anticipated to generate a total of 22 daily vehicle trips and would not result in any significant noise impacts along affected roadways. Any contribution of the proposed project to cumulative traffic noise impacts would be negligible when compared to baseline traffic noise levels or traffic noise increases associated with cumulative projects. Therefore, the impact from traffic noise sources would not be cumulatively considerable. As described in Section XII, after completion of the restoration process, the proposed project is not anticipated to generate operational noise or vibration, or additional vehicular traffic. Therefore, the proposed project would not contribute to cumulative operational noise or vibration levels in the project vicinity, and the impact would not be cumulatively considerable Public Services The cumulative projects would increase population in the surrounding area, which would subsequently increase the use of existing parks and potentially create a demand for additional parkland. Similar to other development projects in the City, the cumulative projects would be required to comply with the parkland requirements in the Chula Vista Municipal Code and Public Facilities Finance Plan for the provision of parks and would ensure that cumulatively considerable impacts would not occur. As discussed in Section XIV, Public Services, the proposed project would not induce population growth that could increase the demand for and use of parks. However, it is possible that use of onsite trails could increase slightly due to the proposed trail improvements and improved habitat available to view from the trail. This slight increase in trail use would not substantially degrade the existing trails. Therefore, the proposed project would not contribute to a cumulatively significant impact or create a new cumulatively significant impact related to the provision of park facilities. Recreation Cumulative impacts related to recreational facilities would be the same as those described above for park facilities under Public Services. Transportation/Traffic Impacts of the proposed project in relation to intersection and roadway LOS in combination with cumulative project development were evaluated as part of Sections XVI, Transportation/Traffic, and XVIII, City Thresholds (part D), which concluded that direct or cumulative impacts would not exceed roadway or intersection LOS standards and a less-than-significant impact would result. The traffic analysis was focused on four nearby intersections and roadway segments along Main Street, east of I-805. Temporary construction-related trips would result in a minimal increase in trips on the surrounding roadway network. As discussed in Section XVI, traffic associated with project construction would not comprise more than 5% of the total intersection or segment volume or add greater than 800 ADT, and all intersections and roadway segments within the project study area are projected to operate at LOS D or better. Therefore, no cumulative impacts would result. The adjacent roadway network would be able to accommodate the anticipated additional construction trips, and project construction traffic, in combination with other cumulative projects, is not anticipated to have a cumulative impact along any of the study intersections evaluated. Therefore, the proposed project would not contribute to a cumulatively significant impact or create a new cumulatively significant impact related to construction traffic. 79 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 227 Once construction is complete, the road and access conditions would be unchanged, and long-term traffic associated with any maintenance would not differ from the current situation. There would be no operational cumulative impact. Utilities and Service Systems The proposed project’s contribution to an increased need for utilities and service systems is considered in the context of the five cumulative projects. If constructed, these projects would cumulatively contribute to impacts on water and solid waste. However, public agencies and utilities are given an opportunity to respond to inquiries for information regarding the potential increase in demand for services. Furthermore, development fees are assessed on a project-by-project basis to mitigate the increased demand on public services and utilities. Significant cumulative impacts would occur if the other projects would overburden utilities and service systems and the agencies would be unable to provide adequate services, thereby, resulting in significant combined impacts related to the need for the development of new facilities. However, as noted above, the proposed project’s water demand would be temporary and amount to less than 0.1% of the District’s total projected water demand through 2035 for water during construction and maintenance and monitoring. Therefore the proposed project’s incremental contribution to water demand is considered less than cumulatively considerable, and impacts on water supply would be less than cumulatively considerable. The proposed project would generate a minimal amount of waste and, therefore, is not expected to affect any of the six landfills in the County. As such, the proposed project’s contribution to this cumulative impact would be less than significant. The proposed project and the other cumulative projects would comply with State and local waste-reduction policies; therefore, the proposed project would not result in a cumulative impact on County landfills. c) Less-than-Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Based on the analysis above, the proposed project could have environmental effects related to Air Quality as well as Hazards and Hazardous Materials that could cause adverse effects on human beings. However, implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-1, HAZ-1, and HAZ-2, as provided in Section III, Air Quality, and Section VIII, Hazards and Hazardous Materials, would reduce project-related significant impacts to less-than- significant levels. Therefore, after implementation of Mitigation Measures AQ-1, HAZ-1, and HAZ-2, the proposed project would result in a less-than-significant environmental impact on human beings. Mitigation: Implement Mitigation Measures AQ-1, BIO-1 through BIO-10, CUL-1 through CUL-4, HAZ-1 and HAZ-2, and LU-1. 80 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 228 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 229 XXII. ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS POTENTIALLY AFFECTED: The environmental factors checked below would be potentially affected by this project, involving at least one impact that is a "Potentially Significant Impact" or "Potentially Significant Unless Mitigated," as indicated by the checklist on the previous pages. Land Use and Planning Transportation/Traffic Public Services Population and Housing Biological Resources Utilities and Service Systems Geology and Soils Energy and Mineral Aesthetics Resources Agricultural Resources Lighting Drainage/Water Quality Hazards and Hazardous Cultural Resources Materials Air Quality Noise Recreation Paleontological Mandatory Findings of Significance Resources 82 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 230 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 231 REFERENCES AECOM. 2013. Archaeological Site Survey Record Update, CA-SDI-10875. On file at the South Coastal Information Center. Aspen Environmental Group. 2006. Otay River Watershed Management Plan. Final draft. Prepared for Otay River Watershed Management Plan Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement Public Agencies. May. Available: http://www.projectcleanwater.org/pdf/wurmp/otay_river_wmp_final_2008.pdf. Accessed: December 30, 2015. Atkins. 2001. Otay Water District 2010 Urban Water Management Plan. Prepared for Otay Water District, Spring Valley, CA. Adopted: June 1, 2001. CAL FIRE. 2007. Fire Hazard Severity Zones in SRA San Diego County. Available: http://frap.fire.ca.gov/webdata/maps/san_diego/fhszs_map.37.pdf. Accessed: November 9, 2015. California Air Resources Board (ARB). 2014. Area Designations Maps/State and National. Last Revised: August 22, 2014. Available: hhttp://www.arb.ca.gov/desig/adm/adm.htm. Accessed: November 23, 2015. California Department of Conservation. 2015a. San Diego County Important Farmland. Available: http://www.conservation.ca.gov/dlrp/fmmp. Accessed: December 30, 2015. ———. 2015b. Regulatory Maps Portal. Available: http://maps.conservation.ca.gov/cgs/informationwarehouse/index.html?map=regulatorymaps. Accessed: November 9, 2015. California Department of Transportation (Caltrans). 2013. Transportation and Construction Vibration Guidance Manual. Final. CT-HWANP-RT-13-069.25.3. September 2013. Sacramento, CA ———. 2015. Officially Designated State Scenic Highways and Historic Parkways. Available: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/LandArch/16_livability/scenic_highways/index.htm. Accessed: November 2, 2015. California Department of Water Resources (DWR). 2003. California’s Groundwater Bulletin 118 Update 2003. Available: http://www.water.ca.gov/pubs/groundwater/bulletin_118/california's_groundwater__bulletin_118_- _update_2003_/bulletin118_entire.pdf. Accessed: November 10, 2015. California Seismic Safety Commission. 2005. Homeowner’s Guide to Earthquake Safety. Available: http://www.seismic.ca.gov/pub/CSSC_2005-01_HOG.pdf. Accessed: November 9, 2015. California Stormwater Quality Association. 2009. Stormwater Best Management Practice Handbook Portal: Constructio n. November 2009. Chen Ryan Associates. 2015. Otay River Restoration Project Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan – Traffic Analysis. San Diego, CA. December 2015. City of Chula Vista. 1993. Otay Ranch General Development Plan. ———. 2003. Greenbelt Master Plan. September 16, 2003. 84 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 232 ———. 2014. Otay Ranch University Villages Project. Final Environmental Impact Report. SCH No. 2013071077. November 2014. ———. 2015. Chula Vista Vision 2020. Chula Vista, CA. Adopted: December 13, 2005, Amended: March 2015. City of San Diego. 2008. Seismic Safety Element. Available:< http://www.sandiego.gov/planning/genplan/pdf/generalplan/seismicsafetyelement.pdf>. Accessed: January 14, 2016. City of San Diego. 2007. City of San Diego General Plan, Final Program Environmental Impact Report. September 2007. County of San Diego. 2006. Williamson Act Contract Lands Map. Available: http://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/dam/sdc/pds/docs/williamson.pdf. Accessed: December 28, 2015. County of San Diego Office of Emergency Services. 2014. Operational Area Emergency Operations Plan. Available: http://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/dam/sdc/oes/emergency_management/plans/op-area- plan/2014/2014-OA-EOP-Annex-A-Emergency-Management.pdf. Accessed: November 9, 2015. County of San Diego, City of Chula Vista, City of San Diego. 1997. Otay Valley Regional Park Concept Plan. County of San Diego, City of Chula Vista, City of San Diego, and Otay Valley Regional Park Citizen Advisory Committee. 2003No Date. Otay Valley Regional Park Trail Guidelines. Department of Toxic Substances Control. 2015. EnviroStor. Available: http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/public/. Accessed: November 9, 2015. ———. 2015. DTSC's Hazardous Waste and Substances Site List – Site Cleanup (Cortese List). Available: http://www.dtsc.ca.gov/SiteCleanup/Cortese_List.cfm. Accessed: December 9, 2015. Federal Highway Administration. 2008. FHWA Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM), Software Version 1.1. December 8, 2008. # «%%-®£ %¬¨²²¨® /´³¯´³ 3§¤¤³² ¥®± ³§¤ /³ ¸ 2¨µ¤± 2¤²³®± ³¨® Project. ICF International. 2015a. .®µ¤¬¡¤± ΑΏΐΔȁ ———. 2015b. CEQA Cultural Resources Technical Report, Otay River Restoration Project; City of Chula Vista Mitigation Parcel, San Diego County, California. Prepared for Otay Land Company, LLC. A subsidiary of HomeFed Corporation. ———. 2015c. Noise Field Sheets and Construction Noise Analysis for the Otay River Restoration Project. December 2015. ———. 2016a. Otay River Restoration Project Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan. Prepared for Otay Land Company, LLC. A subsidiary of HomeFed Corporation. ———. 2016b. Biological Resources Report, Otay River Restoration Project; City of Chula Vista Mitigation Parcel, San Diego County, California. Prepared for Otay Land Company, LLC. A subsidiary of HomeFed Corporation. March. 85 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 233 Kyle, C., R. Phillips, S. Briggs, and L. Tift. 1993a. Isolate Record, P-37-105385. On file at the South Coastal Information Center. ———. 1993b. Isolate Record, P-37-105386. On file at the South Coastal Information Center. Office of the Under Secretary. 2003. Memorandum for Assistant Secretary of the Army, Assistant Secretary of the Navy, Assistant Secretary of the Air Force, Definitions Related to Munitions Response Actions. December 18, 2003. Available: http://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/documents/mrp_definitions_12-18-03.pdf. Accessed: December 16, 2015. Otay River Watershed Joint Powers Authority (JPA). 2006. Otay River Watershed Management Plan. May 2006. Available: http://www.projectcleanwater.org/images/stories/Docs/Otay/otay_wmp_final_2008.pdf. Accessed: November 10, 2015. Parsons. 2007. Site Inspection Report Former Brown Field Bombing Range. Available: http://www.envirostor.dtsc.ca.gov/regulators/deliverable_documents/2060010612/bfbr_si_1.pdf. Accessed: December 7, 2015. San Diego Air Pollution Control District (SDAPCD). 2010. Rules and Regulations. Last Updated: July 2010. Available: http://www.sdapcd.org/rules/current_ rules.html. San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). 1985. Water in the San Diego Region. October. San Diego County. 2015. 2015 GHG Guidance – Recommended Approach to Addressing Climate Change in CEQA Documents. January 21. San Diego County Airport Land Use Commission. 2010. Compatibility Policy Map: Safety. Available: http://www.san.org/DesktopModules/Bring2mind/DMX/Download.aspx?Command=Core_Downloa d&EntryId=2976&language=en-US&PortalId=0&TabId=225. Accessed: November 9, 2015. State Water Resources Control Board. 2010. 2010 Integrated Report (Clean Water Act Section 303(d) List / 305(b) Report). Available: http://www.waterboards.ca.gov/water_issues/programs/tmdl/integrated2010.shtml. Accessed: December 4, 2015. ———. 2015. GeoTracker. Available: https://geotracker.waterboards.ca.gov/. Accessed: November 9, 2015. Tan, S. S., and M. P. Kennedy. 2002. Geologic Map of the Otay Mesa 7.5’ Quadrangle San Diego, California: A Digital Database. Department of Conservation, California Geological Survey. United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2015. The Greenbook Nonattainment Areas. Last Revised: October 2, 2015. Available: http://www3.epa.gov/airquality/greenbook/. Accessed: November 23, 2015. University of California, Davis. 2010. California Augmented Multisource Landcover Map. Available: https://atlas.resources.ca.gov/ArcGIS/rest/services/Environment/CAML/MapServer. Accessed: December 30, 2015. 86 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 234 TECHNICAL STUDIES The following technical studies were used to prepare this Initial Study: Chen Ryan Associates. 2015. Otay River Restoration Project Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan – Traffic Analysis. San Diego, CA. December 2015. # «%%-®£ %¬¨²²¨® /´³¯´³ 3§¤¤³² ¥®± ³§¤ /³ ¸ 2¨µ¤± 2¤²³®± ³¨® 0±®©¤¢³ ȁ ICF International. 2015a. .®µ¤¬¡¤± ΑΏΐΔȁ ———. 2015b. CEQA Cultural Resources Technical Report, Otay River Restoration Project; City of Chula Vista Mitigation Parcel, San Diego County, California. Prepared for Otay Land Company, LLC. A subsidiary of HomeFed Corporation. ———. 2015c. Noise Field Sheets and Construction Noise Analysis for the Otay River Restoration Project. December 2015. ———. 2016b. Biological Resources Report, Otay River Restoration Project; City of Chula Vista Mitigation Parcel, San Diego County, California. Prepared for Otay Land Company, LLC. A subsidiary of HomeFed Corporation. March. 87 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 235 This page intentionally left blank. 88 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 236 n Monitoring and Reporting Program 237 0 ¦¤ Comments Mitigatio Date Completed Initials icant/Development Services Department Responsible MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Party Appl Post Cost. X X During Const. Verification Timing of Table 1 X Pre Const. 1 - Page T.M Plan Check/Site Method ofVerification Otay River Restoration Project Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan Inspection each workday if any vehicle travel on unpaved surfaces imes daily to travel path within a construction site prior to public road grading and building plans as details, notes, or as otherwise Provide sufficient perimeter erosion control to prevent Install wheel washers adjacent to a paved apron prior Use electricity from power poles instead of temporary The following best Wet wash the construction access point at the end of Suspend all soil disturbance and travel on unpaved Apply stabilizer or pave the last 100 feet of internal management practices shall be shown on all applicable Cover haul trucks or maintain at least 12 inches of emitting construction equipment. Use electrical construction equipment as practical. traveled public Pave permanent roads as quickly as possible to Stabilize graded areas as quickly as possible to powered powered Minimize simultaneous operation of multiple off during hauling. surfaces if winds exceed 25 miles per hour. Water the construction area at least three t erial onto public roads. streets within 30 minutes of occurrence. generators during building, if available. - timing retard for diesel - . Mitigation Measure Use catalytic reduction for gasoline Implement Construction BMPs out into to vehicle entry on public roads. construction equipment units. - - Remove any visible track freeboard to reduce blow minimize fugitive dust.minimize fugitive dust. washout of silty mat - ow pollutant minimize dust. has occurred. - Use injection equipment.equipment. AIR QUALITY Packet appropriate: entry. Use l !¦¤£ 1: - AQ ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ Measure Mitigation No. 1 n Monitoring and Reporting Program 238 0 ¦¤ Comments Mitigatio Date Completed Initials Applicant/Development Applicant/Development Applicant/Development Services DepartmentServices DepartmentServices Department Responsible MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Party Post Cost. X During Const. Verification Timing of XX Table 1 Pre Const. XXX 2 - Page T.M /Site Plan Check/Site Plan Check/Site Method ofVerification Plan Check Otay River Restoration Project Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan InspectionInspectionInspection Board, and a Section 1602 Streambed Alteration Agreement grading activities, biological resource awareness training will applicable resource agency permits for the proposed project fence will be installed by the construction contractor and will Elimination System Construction General Permit (Order No. or - installed temporary fencing that is prominently colored. The Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, Consultation Letter from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, activities, the limits of grading will be clearly marked by well Army Corps of Engineers DWQ) from the Regional Water Quality Control opy of the training other approved site protection mechanism and endowment Prior to initiation of Prior to the initiation of grading identified within each of the resource agency permits shall Clean Water Act Section 401 Water Quality Certification potential indirect effects on the habitat. A log of personnel sensitive species with the potential to occur at the site as personnel. The training will include information regarding easement the applicant shall obtain all necessary resource agency well as minimization and avoidance measures to reduce from the Regional Water Quality Control Board, a Clean targeted invasive plant species, and descriptions of the Clean Water Act Section 404 Permit from the status species photos, Necessary Resource In Compensatory be provided by a qualified biologist to all construction permits and provide copies to the City. All conditions Section 7 Informal Water Act Section 402 National Pollutant Discharge be implemented in accordance with the permit. The from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife.measures discussed in the training session) will be addition to the agency permits, a conservation remain in place during all grading activities. . who have completed the training and a c Mitigation Measure Biological Awareness Training and Environmental Protection Agency maintained at the construction office. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, a All - report/outline (including special . would be established per the Obtain Approval of BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Temporary Fencing . Agency Permits . Mitigation Rule Packet - 0006 include a !¦¤£ 1:2:3: - --- U.S. 2012 BIOBIOBIO a ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ Measure Mitigation No. 2 3 4 n Monitoring and Reporting Program 239 0 ¦¤ Comments Mitigatio Date Completed Initials Applicant/Development Services Department Responsible MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Party Verification Timing of X Table 1 3 - Page Plan Check/Site Method ofVerification Otay River Restoration Project Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan Inspection the California Department of repair will be brought to the contractor’s attention to be fixed periodically inspect the limits of disturbance fence to ensure becomes entrapped within the grading limits is moved away will be on site during vegetation clearing activities to ensure status species that that it is in good condition. Any parts of the fence that need ical monitor will also would temporarily stop construction. Removal of sensitive question on the best manner to safely address a situation A qualified biological monitor that grading activities occur within designated areas. The species should be done by a biologist qualified to handle tatus species is will be informally consulted if there is a located within the grading limits, the biological monitor - -s monitor will also ensure that any special Mitigation Measure from construction equipment. The biolog In the event that a special that specific species. If needed, with a sensitive wildlife species. . Biological Monitor sh and Wildlife immediately. Packet !¦¤£ 4: - BIO Fi ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ Measure Mitigation No. 5 n Monitoring and Reporting Program 240 0 ¦¤ Comments Mitigatio Date Completed Initials evelopment Services Department Responsible MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Party Applicant/D Verification Timing of X Table 1 X 4 - Page Plan Check/Site Method ofVerification Otay River Restoration Project Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan Inspection status species and habitat. BMPs will include but will Dust control measures will be implemented to minimize ) by the construction contractor during all Appropriate firefighting equipment (e.g., extinguishers, and removed from the ueling should be conducted in a manner that All construction will be performed between dawn and appropriate fire prevention measures will be taken to ed wildfires. Best management hazardous materials will not discharge into the Otay designated staging areas in disturbed or developed practices (BMPs) will be implemented per the conditions indirect effects (e.g., increased depredation) on the shovels, water tankers) will be available on the site prevents spillage of fuel into the Otay River or into All maintenance of vehicles and equipment will be - grading activities to reduce potential indirect effects on Vehicles and equipment will be stored only on pre dusk to the degree feasible to minimize potential River, or into riparian habitat areas (including during all phases of project construction, and in a manner so that oils and other (ICF site daily to prevent attracting wildlife to the species beyond the limits of disturbance. caus Biological Resources Report - Freshwater and Freshwater Marsh). help minimize the chance of human Mitigation Measure . tion. ractices stored the settling of dust on vegeta riparian or wetland habitats. not be limited to the following. All trash will be properly Best Management P . construction area b International 2016 conducted outlined in the F Packet areas. !¦¤£ - special 5: - BIO ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ Measure Mitigation No. 6 n Monitoring and Reporting Program 241 0 ¦¤ Comments Mitigatio Date Completed Initials Applicant/Development Applicant/Development Services DepartmentServices Department Responsible MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Party Verification Timing of X Table 1 XX 5 - Page Plan Check/Site Plan Check/Site Method ofVerification Otay River Restoration Project Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan InspectionInspection nests on the proposed area of disturbance will occur outside of the breeding season when feasible. The breeding season shall prepare a passive relocation mitigation plan, subject to any subsequent burrowing owl relocation plans to September 15. If work, including ), construction surveys for burrowing owls. The surveys shall review and approval by the Wildlife Agencies and the City, any trail improvement work, must be conducted during the To avoid americanus occidentalis), raptors, or other birds protected completed in order to clear the area or locate active nests established around any active nests and coordinated with (Polioptila californica californica), least Bell’s vireo (Vireo vegetation, and eucalyptus trees that may support active activities. If occupied burrows are detected, the biologist breeding season, nesting bird surveys would need to be Athene cunicularia under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, removal of habitat, including the removal of any riparian woodland, upland zus To avoid any direct commencement of any clearing, grubbing, or grading for avoidance. Adequate avoidance buffers would be impacts on nesting coastal California gnatcatchers Preconstruction Burrowing Owl Survey. billed cuckoo (Coccy be performed no earlier than 10 days prior to the - related activities an approved biologist shall conduct focused pre Mitigation Measure any direct impacts on burrowing owls ( Nesting Bird Avoidance. - avoid impacts from construction - bellii pusillus), western yellow – is defined as February 15 the wildlife agencies. Packet including !¦¤£ 6: 7: -- BIOBIO ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ Measure Mitigation No. 7 8 n Monitoring and Reporting Program 242 0 ¦¤ Comments Mitigatio Date Completed Initials Applicant/Development Applicant/Development Services DepartmentServices Department Responsible MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Party X Verification Timing of X Table 1 XX 6 - Page Plan Check/Site and Continuous Site Inspection Method ofVerification Monitoring Otay River Restoration Project Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan Inspection adjacent areas will be implemented for unavoidable impacts. and road ponds will be identified by an aquatic resource and cted within the restoration project boundary: singlewhorl associated with vehicular and recreational use. The uplands installed outside of these sensitive areas and used to inform to avoid these ponding features. These new routes the public of the sensitivity of the area and deter them from ), as well as Otay surrounding the ponds will be restored with native species. ), other ponding features such as road ruts access routes will be rerouted within the proposed grading Branchinecta ), and The Status and Succulent Plant Salvage Plan. status tarplant if detected within the restoration project boundary. Ferocactus ctivities including truck traffic and storage. Construction contractor ensuring they are not impacted by restoration restoration boundary and will be completely avoided. To ), trespassing into the ponded areas and river restoration status plant species ), San Diego sunflower will replace existing roads/trails to avoid future impacts . avoid all other potential fairy shrimp habitat areas and ), and succulent plant species should be avoided where leopoldii fairy shrimp specialist and fenced by the construction Dependent Species Avoidance rail fencing, boulders, and signage will be feasible. Salvage and relocation of target species to San Diego Mesa vernal pool complex located in the ssp. northeastern corner of the property is outside of the -), dia durantifolia Iva hayesiana nt activities, special Harpagonella ris forbesii var. ), San Diego barrel cactus ( Microseris douglasii ssp. ry shrimp ( Isocoma menziesii Stipa diegoensis Mitigation Measure Juncus acutus Hesperocypa ), Palmer’s grapplinghook (elder ( Stemo - potential impacts on San Diego fai Target species include the special - Ambrosia monogyra During grading and enhanceme ), blue streamwort ( ), San Diego marsh flowered microseris ( ), Tecate cypress ( southwestern spiny rush ( decumbent goldenbush (San Diego needlegrass ( – Vernal Pool Bahiopsis laciniata - Special sandiegonensis Packet burrobush ( - decumbens platycarpha viridescens Wood split footprint !¦¤£ . palmeri project :: - 89 small -- dete BIOBIO a( ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ Measure Mitigation No. 9 10 n Monitoring and Reporting Program 243 0 ¦¤ Comments Mitigatio Date Completed Initials Applicant/Development Services Department Responsible MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Party Verification Timing of X Table 1 X 7 - Page ite Method ofVerification Plan Check/S Inspection Otay River Restoration Project Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan time users from unintentionally installation activities (signage, fencing, kiosks) and reflective prepared for the areas of grading and habitat enhancement. breaking through fencing into sensitive habitat. Additionally, The plan will be prepared and implemented prior to grading of the breeding season defined - restoration site. Other barriers (boulders, brush piles, logs. and enhancement activities. The plan will include a special rail fencing To deter is not present. For safety purposes, reflective material will sensitivity of the restoration site and adjacent habitats. All protection of sensitive resources is required where fencingbe placed on the wood fencing at specific locations to aid existing roads and existing unofficial trails that border the plant and succulent salvage plan will be September 15 or be in accordance with and plantings) will be placed at strategic locations when 6 and require preconstruction will be installed to designate road/trail corridors along collection, succulent plant salvage, and transplanting educational purposes and to inform the public of the nd informational kiosks will be installed for cies list, seed 10: Public Access, Trails, and Recreation. - trespassing into the restoration site, wood split Mitigation Measure status and succulent plant target spe - Border Patrol and other night materials will occur outside - Mitigation Measure BIO status – as February 15 Packet - A specialmethods. signage a surveys. !¦¤£ - BIO ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ Measure Mitigation No. 11 n Monitoring and Reporting Program 244 0 ¦¤ Comments Mitigatio Date Completed Initials evelopment elopment Services DepartmentServices Department Responsible MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Party Applicant/Dev Applicant/D Post Cost. During Const. Verification Timing of XX Table 1 e Const. Pr XX 8 - Page T.M Check/Continuous Method ofVerification Plan Check Monitoring Otay River Restoration Project Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan Plan would require ground disturbance within the site boundary. If archaeological treatment plan will need to be developed and 4732 cannot be avoided, a cultural resources defining elements of the 4732 is not eligible for listing in the determine whether the proposed ground disturbance would disturbing study designed to evaluate the CRHR and NRHP eligibility y that rerouting is selected, the new route would avoid any other resource, then impacts to archaeological resources would 4732. If the study If ground disturbance The portion of the proposed project that would require ground disturbance eligible, or activities. If the archaeological site is determined to be CRHR or NRHP, or that the project would not result in 32 is determined resource, either by rerouting or eliminating the activit eligible for the CRHR and NRHP, the study will also 4732 will be redesigned to avoid the SDI4732 to reduce impacts to eligible for listing in the CRHR or NRHP, then an . archaeological resources to less than significant of the resource will be performed prior to ground - previously documented unevaluated, CRHR Mitigation Measure - SDI 4732. 47 - significant impacts to the character 4732. - - SDI result in significant impacts to CA - SDI - be less than significant. If CA - CULTURAL RESOURCES SDI - eligible resources. 1: Avoidance of CA - SDI - 2: Testing of CA - - implemented for CA determines that CA -- SDISDI Packet -- within CAwithin CA !¦¤£ - NRHP -- CULCUL ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ Measure Mitigation No. 1213 n Monitoring and Reporting Program 245 0 ¦¤ Comments Mitigatio Date Completed Initials Applicant/Development Applicant/Development Services DepartmentDepartment Responsible MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Party Services Verification Timing of XX Table 1 X 9 - Page Method ofVerification Continuous Plan Check Monitoring Otay River Restoration Project Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan disturbance activities. The plan will establish the procedures the affected tribes. The plan will contain resource avoidance regarding the treatment of the resource will be developed in consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer and accordance with the project’s Unanticipated Discovery Plan related ground disturbing activities associated with project construction, an anticipated range of archaeological resource types, list the listing in the NRHP and/or CRHR, the procedures to follow Prior to any ground . All ground disturbing unanticipated discovery plan will be developed and will be archaeological resources eligible for listing in the National monitored by a professional archaeologist. In the event of defining elements to be considered eligible for archaeological deposits or human remains, describe the s being developed. nt that an archaeological discovery does not retain the necessary unanticipated discovery is determined to be eligible for Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) and identify to follow in the event of an unanticipated discovery of will be Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and/or California archaeological monitor will assess the discovery in listing in the NRHP or CRHR. In the event that an an unanticipated archaeological discovery, the defining elements that would render acre mitigation parcel documentation procedures to follow in the eve - ct implemented and enforced during all proje . Mitigation Measure . Unanticipated Discovery Plan 3 - procedures to follow while treatment i described in Mitigation Measure CUL 4: Archaeological Monitoring - within the 300 Packet -- characteractivities character !¦¤£ : 3 -- CULCUL ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ Measure Mitigation No. 1415 n Monitoring and Reporting Program 246 0 ¦¤ Comments Mitigatio Date Completed Initials Applicant/Development Department Responsible MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Party Services Post Cost. During Const. Verification Timing of Table 1 Pre Const. X 10 - Page T.M Check/Site Method ofVerification Otay River Restoration Project Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan Inspection Plan contamination levels that would pose a risk to human health, laboratory results, a Munitions Constituents Screening Level proponent will not proceed with construction activities until a ous materials related construction activities may proceed, Environmental Health, the Department of Toxic Substances results of the study and submitted to the City for review and sampling will be conducted by an environmental consultant prepared with the associated with munitions constituents exposure to human soils in compliance with applicable federal, state, and local Prior to construction activities site occurring. If the condition at the site requires it, the project experience in screening level risk assessments. Using the Brown Field Bombing Range Formerly Used Defense Site determined by a qualified environmental professional with regarding avoidance or remediation of affected water and agency. Should the results indicate that no serious risk is Samples will be collected from the western portion of the Risk Assessment and a Screening Level Ecological Risk pending compliance with any other applicable mitigation. sociated with the project, surface water and sediment with experience in proper sample handling procedures. the project proponent (in consultation with the City) will Control, and the Regional Water Quality Control Board specific construction activities - site where the project site boundaries overlap with the Assessment will be conducted to assess potential risk Surface Water and Sediment and Water/Sediment inate with the San Diego County Department of Sampling and SLRA/SLERA Studies for On boundary, the number and location of which will be approval. Should results indicate the presence of letter of closure is provided by the lead hazard HAZARDS AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS and ecological receptors. A report will be Mitigation Measure . Remediation if Necessary - laws prior to any project - present, project Packet !¦¤£ 1: - coord HAZ as ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ Measure Mitigation No. 16 n Monitoring and Reporting Program 247 0 ¦¤ Comments Mitigatio Date Completed Initials Applicant/Development Services Department Responsible MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Party Verification Timing of X Table 1 X 11 - Page Plan Check/Site Method ofVerification Otay River Restoration Project Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan Inspection the material in place. If setting a charge, all personnel will be hazard, the City of Chula Vista and County of San Diego will Defense Site (FUDS) boundary and along any access roads survey company will establish an exclusion zone around the material is being worked on or if setting a charge to explode required to evacuate the area. All personnel will be required and staging areas to identify all munitions and explosives of contact the City of Chula Vista and County of San Diego for material. The exclusion zone radius will depend on the type of material identified and will be expanded, if needed, while a surface clearance will be disposal of the material. The technicians will remain on site s during disposal response actions to provide site safety and grading survey company with experience in unearthed unexploded provide clearance. All MD determined to no longer contain nt Prior to disturbed soil. If no MEC items are identified, excavations explosive residue will be inspected by qualified personnel will use magnetometers to detect the presence of MEC in intersect the Brown Field Bombing Range Formerly Used vegetation or surface debris, and MD will be evaluated to project’s restoration and grading activities. The technician and trail improvemeappropriately. Upon identifying an explosive hazard, the to remain out of the exclusion zone until the responders ordnances (UXO) will be retained to sweep the area for will be advanced to desired depth. If MEC are detected metallic items including those that may be obscured by immediately and the survey company technician(s) will gallon drums for later concern (MEC) and munitions debris (MD). A qualified gency During construction, the qualified survey company will ed that there is the potential for an explosive be contacted to respond to the item and dispose of it qualified technicians to support the . during excavation/grading, these activities will stop Surface Clearance Prior to Construction determine if any explosive residue remains. If it is restoration site security and for technical consultation with emer Mitigation Measure site , disposal by an approved recycler. initiating invasive species removal - or trail improvements,containerized in lockable 55 restoration conducted where the – supply two UXO responders. Packet activities, determin !¦¤£ 2: - HAZ and ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ Measure Mitigation No. 17 n Monitoring and Reporting Program 248 0 ¦¤ Comments Mitigatio Date Completed Initials Applicant/Development Services Department Responsible MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM Party Post Cost. X During Const. Verification Timing of X Table 1 Pre Const. X 12 - Page T.M Plan Check/Site Method ofVerification Otay River Restoration Project Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan Inspection related improvements will be subject to as otherwise appropriate. All proposed designs for signage All applicable trail guidelines from the City of Chula Vista’s Greenbelt Master shown on all applicable grading plans as details, notes, or consistency with the above mentioned guidelines. Finally, 1: Trail Improvements Consistent with Applicable inspection by the City to confirm the improvements were City of Chula Vista Greenbelt Master Plan and Otay Plan and Otay Regional Park Trail Guidelines shall be constructed in accordance with the approved designs. and fencing will be submitted to the City to verify Valley Regional Park Trail Guidelines. Mitigation Measure LAND USE AND PLANNING - installation of all trail Packet !¦¤£ - LU ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ Measure Mitigation No. 18 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 249 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 250 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 251 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 252 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 253 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 254 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 255 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 256 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 257 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 258 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 259 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 260 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 261 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 262 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 263 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 264 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 265 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 266 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 267 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 268 U.S.ACEPFN: RMY ORPS OF NGINEERS ERMIT ILE UMBERS PPRMPV: ROPOSED ERMITTEE ESPONSIBLE ITIGATION FOR ENDING ILLAGES V3:SPL-2012-00181-MBS ILLAGE V8W:SPL-2013-00495-SAS ILLAGE PAPRMF: ROPOSED DVANCED ERMITTEE ESPONSIBLE ITIGATION OR V2,8E,910 ILLAGES AST AND ORVRP TAY IVER ALLEY EGIONAL ARK CCVUP ITY OF HULA ISTA NIVERSITY ROJECT A: PPLICANT Otay Land Company, LLC 1903 Wright Place, Suite 220 Carlsbad, CA 92008 Contact: Curt Smith CSmith@hfc-ca.com (760) 918-8200 P: REPARED BY ICF International 525 B Street, Suite 1700 San Diego, CA 92101 Contact: Michelle Mattson michelle.mattson@icfi.com (858) 444-3928 September 2015, Revised March 2016, Final April 2016 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 269 ICF International. 2016. Otay Land Company Village 3 and 8 West, Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (HMMP). Final. April (ICF 00296.14 and ICF 526.15) San Diego, CA. Prepared for Otay Land Company, LLC. Carlsbad, CA. ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 270 Contributors ICF Jones & Stokes (aka ICF International) Michelle Mattson and Lindsay Teunis 525 B Street, Suite 1700 San Diego, CA 92101 michelle.mattson@icfi.com and Lindsay.teunis@icfi.com (858) 444-3928 and (858) 444-3906 ICF International Steven Seville, PE 710 Second Avenue, Suite 550 Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 801-2842 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 271 Distribution List Otay Land Company 1903 Wright Place, Suite 220 Carlsbad, CA 92008 Contact: Curt Smith Email Address: CSmith@hfc-ca.com Phone: (760) 918-8200 City of Chula Vista Contact: Cheryl Goddard or Kim Vader Bie Email Address: GLaube@chulavistaca.gov Phone: (619) 476-2329 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Contact: Rose Galer Email Address: rose.a.galer@usace.army.mil Phone: (760) 602-4834 Regional Water Quality Control Board Contact: Lisa Homna Email Address: Lisa.Honma@waterboards.ca.gov Phone: (619) 521-3367 California Department of Fish and Wildlife Contact: Kelly Fisher Email Address: kfisher@dfg.ca.gov Phone: (858) 467-4207 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 272 Contents List of Tables ........................................................................................................................................... v List of Figures ........................................................................................................................................ vii List of Acronyms and Abbreviations .................................................................................................... viii Page Chapter 1 Project Description .......................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Guidelines ........................................................................................................................ 1-1 1.2 Project Summary.............................................................................................................. 1-4 1.3 Mitigation Obligation ....................................................................................................... 1-6 1.4 Compensatory Mitigation Credits Available .................................................................... 1-7 1.4.1 Village 3 Mitigation .......................................................................................................... 1-9 1.4.2 Village 8 West Mitigation ................................................................................................. 1-9 1.5 Responsible Parties, Roles, and Responsibilities ........................................................... 1-10 1.6 Regulatory Requirements and Compliance ................................................................... 1-12 1.7 Mitigation Site Location ................................................................................................. 1-12 1.8 Mitigation Area Ownership Status ................................................................................. 1-13 Chapter 2 Mitigation Goals and Objectives ...................................................................................... 2-1 2.1 Goals ................................................................................................................................ 2-1 2.2 Objectives ........................................................................................................................ 2-1 Chapter 3 Proposed Mitigation Site Baseline Information ................................................................. 3-1 3.1 Mitigation Site Location and Background Information ................................................... 3-1 3.2 Climate ............................................................................................................................. 3-1 3.3 Hydrologic Conditions ...................................................................................................... 3-2 3.3.1 Watershed ....................................................................................................................... 3-2 3.3.2 Historic Hydrological Conditions ...................................................................................... 3-2 3.3.3 Existing Hydrological Conditions ...................................................................................... 3-2 3.4 Water Quality ................................................................................................................... 3-4 3.5 Topography ...................................................................................................................... 3-4 3.6 Formerly Used Defense Site (FUDS) ................................................................................. 3-5 3.7 Soil Characteristics ........................................................................................................... 3-5 3.8 Vegetation Communities and Habitat Types ................................................................... 3-6 3.8.1 Arundo-Dominated Riparian ............................................................................................ 3-8 3.8.2 Chamise Chaparral ........................................................................................................... 3-8 3.8.3 Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub ............................................................................................... 3-8 Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 i Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.15 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 273 3.8.4 Disturbed Habitat ............................................................................................................. 3-9 3.8.5 Eucalyptus Woodland ...................................................................................................... 3-9 3.8.6 Fresh Water (Open Water) .............................................................................................. 3-9 3.8.7 Freshwater Marsh ............................................................................................................ 3-9 3.8.8 Mule Fat Scrub ................................................................................................................. 3-9 3.8.9 Nonnative Grassland (or Annual Grassland) .................................................................. 3-10 3.8.10 Nonnative Vegetation .................................................................................................... 3-10 3.8.11 San Diego Mesa Vernal Pool .......................................................................................... 3-10 3.8.12 Southern Cottonwood Willow Riparian Forest ........................................................... 3-11 3.8.13 Southern Interior Cypress Forest ................................................................................... 3-11 3.8.14 Southern Mixed Chaparral ............................................................................................. 3-11 3.8.15 Southern Riparian Scrub ................................................................................................ 3-11 3.8.16 Southern Willow Scrub .................................................................................................. 3-12 3.8.17 Tamarisk Scrub ............................................................................................................... 3-12 3.8.18 Urban/Developed .......................................................................................................... 3-12 3.8.19 Valleys and Foothill Grassland ....................................................................................... 3-12 3.9 Sensitive Species ............................................................................................................ 3-12 3.9.1 San Diego Fairy Shrimp (.ƩğƓĭŷźƓĻĭƷğ ƭğƓķźĻŭƚĻƓƭźƭ) Federally Listed as Endangered .................................................................................................................... 3-14 3.9.2 Riverside Fairy Shrimp ({ƷƩĻƦƷƚĭĻƦŷğƌǒƭ ǞƚƚƷƷƚƓź) Federally Listed as Endangered .................................................................................................................... 3-14 3.9.3 Quino Checkerspot Butterfly (9ǒƦŷǤķƩğǤğƭ ĻķźƷŷğ ƨǒźƓƚ) Federally Listed as Endangered................................................................................................................ 3-14 3.9.4 źƩĻƚ ĬĻƌƌźź Ʀǒƭźƌƌǒƭ) Federally Listed as Endangered; State-Listed as Endangered ........................................................................................... 3-15 3.9.5 Coastal California Gnatcatcher (tƚƌźƚƦƷźƌğ ĭğƌźŅƚƩƓźĭğ ĭğƌźŅƚƩƓźĭğ) Federally Listed as Threatened ...................................................................................................... 3-16 3.9.6 Western Yellow-billed Cuckoo (/ƚĭĭǤǩǒƭ ğƒĻƩźĭğƓǒƭ ƚĭĭźķĻƓƷğƌźƭ) Federally Listed as Threatened; State-Listed as Endangered ........................................ 3-16 3.10 Jurisdictional Delineation ............................................................................................... 3-16 3.11 Existing Functions and Values ........................................................................................ 3-18 3.12 Present and Proposed Uses of Mitigation Site and Adjacent Areas .............................. 3-21 3.13 Reference Site ................................................................................................................ 3-23 Chapter 4 Mitigation Design ............................................................................................................ 4-1 4.1 Site Selection Process ...................................................................................................... 4-1 4.2 Mitigation Design ............................................................................................................. 4-1 4.2.1 Re-establishment ............................................................................................................. 4-2 4.2.2 Establishment .................................................................................................................. 4-2 Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 ii Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.15 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 274 4.2.3 Rehabilitation ................................................................................................................... 4-2 4.2.4 Enhancement ................................................................................................................... 4-3 4.3 Rationale for Expecting Implementation Success............................................................ 4-3 4.3.1 Design Hydrology ............................................................................................................. 4-4 Chapter 5 Implementation Plan ....................................................................................................... 5-1 5.1 Schedule ........................................................................................................................... 5-1 5.2 Phased Installation ........................................................................................................... 5-1 5.3 FUDS Safety Measures ..................................................................................................... 5-3 5.4 Grading Site Preparation.................................................................................................. 5-3 5.5 Contractor Education ....................................................................................................... 5-4 5.6 Access and Staging ........................................................................................................... 5-4 5.7 Grading ............................................................................................................................. 5-5 5.8 Soils Analysis .................................................................................................................... 5-6 5.9 Nonnative Tree Removal ................................................................................................. 5-6 5.9.1 Upstream Enhancement Area.......................................................................................... 5-6 5.9.2 Restoration Site ............................................................................................................... 5-7 5.10 Planting and Seeding Plan ................................................................................................ 5-8 5.10.1 Container Plant Specifications ....................................................................................... 5-11 5.10.2 Container Plant Installation Steps.................................................................................. 5-12 5.10.3 Container Plant Guarantee ............................................................................................ 5-12 5.10.4 Seed Specifications ........................................................................................................ 5-12 5.10.5 Seed Application Steps .................................................................................................. 5-13 5.10.6 Planting and Seeding Timing .......................................................................................... 5-13 5.11 Irrigation Plan................................................................................................................. 5-13 5.12 Erosion Control .............................................................................................................. 5-14 5.13 Fencing and Signage ...................................................................................................... 5-14 5.14 Final Landscape/Mitigation Construction Plans ............................................................ 5-15 5.15 As-built Conditions ......................................................................................................... 5-16 Chapter 6 Site Maintenance ............................................................................................................ 6-1 6.1 Maintenance Duration ..................................................................................................... 6-1 6.2 Responsible Parties .......................................................................................................... 6-1 6.3 120-Day Plant Establishment Period ............................................................................... 6-1 6.4 Irrigation .......................................................................................................................... 6-2 6.5 Weed Control ................................................................................................................... 6-2 6.6 Supplemental Planting ..................................................................................................... 6-4 6.7 Clearing and Trash Removal ............................................................................................ 6-4 6.8 Fence Inspection and Repair ............................................................................................ 6-5 Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 iii Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.15 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 275 6.9 Schedule of Maintenance ................................................................................................ 6-5 Chapter 7 Site Monitoring ............................................................................................................... 7-1 7.1 Implementation Monitoring ............................................................................................ 7-1 7.2 Horticultural (Qualitative) Monitoring ............................................................................. 7-1 7.2.1 Reporting ......................................................................................................................... 7-2 7.3 Botanical (Quantitative) Monitoring ................................................................................ 7-3 7.3.1 Quantitative Monitoring .................................................................................................. 7-3 7.3.2 Sampling Design and Statistical Rigor .............................................................................. 7-7 7.4 Performance Standards ................................................................................................... 7-7 7.5 Annual Reports .............................................................................................................. 7-10 7.6 Adaptive Management Plan .......................................................................................... 7-10 Chapter 8 Mitigation Cost and Financial Assurances ......................................................................... 8-1 8.1 Total Estimated Mitigation Implementation Cost ........................................................... 8-1 8.2 Financial Assurances ........................................................................................................ 8-2 Chapter 9 Compensatory Mitigation and Preservation Credits .......................................................... 9-1 9.1 Compensatory Mitigation Credits Available .................................................................... 9-1 9.2 Long-Term Management Plan ......................................................................................... 9-2 9.3 Site Protection Mechanism .............................................................................................. 9-2 9.4 Management Plan Preparation Requirement ................................................................. 9-3 9.5 Funding Mechanisms/Schedule ....................................................................................... 9-3 Chapter 10 Completion of Compensatory Mitigation ...................................................................... 10-1 10.1 Notification of Completion ............................................................................................ 10-1 10.2 Agency Confirmation of Site Performance .................................................................... 10-1 Chapter 11 References .................................................................................................................. 11-1 Appendix A Interagency Regulatory Guide for Advance Permittee-Responsible Mitigation by the USACE Seattle District Appendix B Reconnaissance-Level List of Plant Species Observed at the Otay Land Company Wetland Mitigation Site Appendix C List of Potential Sensitive Plant Species within the Mitigation Site Appendix D List of Potential Sensitive Wildlife Species within the Mitigation Site Appendix E California Rapid Assessment Method (CRAM) Datasheets Appendix F Long-Term Management Plan Template Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 iv Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.15 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 276 Tables Table Page 1-1Summary of Estimated Mitigation Obligations for Each Project ...................................................... 1-7 1-2 Compensatory Mitigation Acreage Quantities by Restoration Type for Entire Plan ............... 1-8 1-3 Compensatory Mitigation Linear Feet Quantities for Entire Plan ................................................... 1-8 1-4 Summary of Village 3 Impacts and Proposed Mitigation for Village 3 .......................................... 1-9 1-5 Summary of Village 8 West Impacts and Proposed Mitigation for Village 8W ........................ 1-10 1-6Mitigation Area Ownership Parcels ........................................................................................................... 1-13 3-1Vegetation Communities in the Mitigation Parcel and Upstream Enhancement Area .............................................................................................................................................. 3-7 3-2Federally and/or State-Listed Species with CNDDB Records Within 1-Mile Radius of the Restoration Areas .................................................................................................................. 3-13 3-3Existing Mitigation Area Wetlands and Waters .................................................................................... 3-18 3-4CRAM Attributes and Metrics ....................................................................................................................... 3-19 3-5Expected Relationship among CRAM Attributes, Metrics, and Key Services ............................ 3-20 3-6Summary of CRAM Attribute Scores for Existing Wetland Features ............................................ 3-20 4-1HEC-HMS Estimated Peak Flows ................................................................................................................... 4-4 5-1Implementation Schedule ................................................................................................................................ 5-1 5-2Compensatory Mitigation Quantities .......................................................................................................... 5-2 5-3Proposed Container Plant Palette for Restored Aquatic Resources ............................................... 5-8 5-4Proposed Container Plant Palette for Upland Transitional Habitat ............................................... 5-9 5-5Proposed Container Seed Palette for Floodplain and Upland Transitional Habitat .................................................................................................................................................................... 5-10 6-1Nonnative Invasive Species Detected or Potentially Occurring in the Restoration Area .................................................................................................................................................. 6-3 7-1 Projected CRAM Scores for Year 3 and Year 5 Post Installation and the Maximum Score .......... 7-5 7-2Performance Standards ..................................................................................................................................... 7-8 8-1Preliminary Cost Estimate for Entire Plan ................................................................................................ 8-1 8-2Phased Financial Assurances .......................................................................................................................... 8-3 Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 v Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.15 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 277 9-1Compensatory Mitigation Acreage Quantities by Restoration Type for Entire Plan ............................................................................................................................................................................ 9-1 9-2Compensatory Mitigation Linear Feet Quantities for Entire Plan ................................................... 9-2 Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 vi Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.15 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 278 Figures Figure Follows Page 1-1 Regional Vicinity .................................................................................................................................................. 1-4 1-2 Mitigation Parcel Service Area ....................................................................................................................... 1-4 1-3 Restoration Plan Overview .............................................................................................................................. 1-6 1-4 USGS Otay Mesa Quad Map ............................................................................................................................ 1-12 1-5 Parcel Map ............................................................................................................................................................ 1-14 2-1 Potential Restoration Phases .......................................................................................................................... 2-2 3-1 FUDS & Mitigation Site Overlay ..................................................................................................................... 3-6 3-2 Mitigation Parcel Vegetation Map ................................................................................................................. 3-8 3-3 Upstream Enhancement Area ......................................................................................................................... 3-8 3-4 Jurisdictional Delineation ............................................................................................................................... 3-18 3-5 Existing Infrastructure, OVRP Concept Plan Trails, and Other Constraints .............................. 3-22 3-6 Mitigation Parcel Trails ................................................................................................................................... 3-22 4-1 Upper and Lower Otay River Watersheds ................................................................................................. 4-2 4-2 Potential Restoration Types ............................................................................................................................ 4-2 4-3 Restoration Area Watershed ........................................................................................................................... 4-4 5-1 Mitigation Parcel Concept Plan Map ............................................................................................................ 5-6 5-2 Floodplain Cross-Sections ................................................................................................................................ 5-6 7-1 Photo Documentation Stations ...................................................................................................................... 7-4 7-2 Quantitative Monitoring Locations .............................................................................................................. 7-4 Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 vii Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.15 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 279 Acronyms and Abbreviations AA Assessment Area BMPs best management practices Cal-IPC California Invasive Plant Council CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife CFR Code of Federal Regulations cfs cubic feet per second City City of Chula Vista CNDDB California Natural Diversity Database CNPS California Native Plant Society CRAM California Rapid Assessment Method GIS geographic information systems GPS Global Positioning System )³¤± ¦¤¢¸ 2¤¦´« ³®±¸ '´¨£¤ ¥®± !£µ ¢¤ 0¤±¬¨³³¤¤-2¤²¯®²¨¡«¤ -¨³¨¦ ³¨® Guide HEC-HMS Hydrologic Engineering Center-Hydrologic Modeling System HMMP Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF ICF International MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act MRZ Mineral Resource Zone NWP Nationwide Permit OHWM ordinary high water mark OLC Otay Land Company ORWMP Otay River Watershed Management Plan OVRP Otay Valley Regional Park OWD Otay Water District PAR Property Analysis Record PEP plant establishment period plan Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan PLS pure live seed POM Preserve Owner/Manager Quino Quino checkerspot butterfly RMP Otay Ranch Resource Management Plan RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board SAMP Special Area Management Plan SANDAG San Diego Association of Governments SDG&E San Diego Gas and Electric SPD South Pacific Division SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan University City of Chula Vista University project USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture USGS U.S. Geological Survey Village 8 Otay Ranch Village 8 West Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 viii Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.15 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 280 Village 9 Ranch Village 9 WMP Watershed Management Plan Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 ix Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.15 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 281 This page intentionally left blank. Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 x Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.15 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 282 Chapter 1 Project Description 1.1Guidelines The document has been prepared to be consistent with the following regulatory and local guidelines: -Mitigation Rule 1 (April 2008). The Mitigation Rule establishes regulations governing compensatory mitigation for activities authorized by permits issued by the Department of the Army. The rule improves the level of planning, implementation and management of compensatory mitigation sites and provides guidance on site identification (use of the watershed approach), ecological )#& § ² £¤²¨¦¤£ ³§¤ /³ ¸ 2¨µ¤± performance standards, monitoring and monitoring periods. 2¤²³®± ³¨® 0±®©¤¢³ ³® ¬¤¤³ £ ¤·¢¤¤£ ³§¤²¤ ²³ £ ±£² ¡¸ ¢§®®²¨¦ «®¢ ³¨® ² ¥ ± ´¯ ¨ ³§¤ «®¶¤± /³ ¸ ¶ ³¤±²§¤£ ² ¯®²²¨¡«¤ £ ¨¢«´£¨¦ ¥´±³§¤± ¯±®³¤¢³¨® ¡¸ ¢®£´¢³¨¦ ¨µ ²¨µ¤ ²¯¤¢¨¤² ¬ ¦¤¬¤³ ¨ ³§¤ ±¤ ¢§¤² ´¯²³±¤ ¬ £ ®¶¤£ ¡¸ ®³§¤± «®¢ « ©´±¨²£¨¢³¨®²ȁ ) ££¨³¨®Ǿ ³§¤ ²¨³¤ ¨² ¶¨³§¨ £¤£¨¢ ³¤£ ®¯¤ ²¯ ¢¤Ǿ ¡´³ § ² ¡¤¤ §¨²³®±¨¢ ««¸ £¨²³´±¡¤£ £ ¨² ²´¡²¤°´¤³«¸ « ¢ª¨¦ §¨¦§ °´ «¨³¸ ±¤²®´±¢¤²Ǿ ¨¢«´£¨¦ «¨¬¨³¤£ ©´±¨²£¨¢³¨® « ¶ ³¤±² £ ¶¤³« £²ȁ 4§¤ ²¨³¤ ¨² ¨£¤ « ¥®± ±¤ȃ¤²³ ¡«¨²§¬¤³ ®¥ °´ ³¨¢ £ ´¯« £ ±¤²®´±¢¤² £ ¨² ¤·¯¤¢³¤£ ³® °´¨¢ª«¸ ²´¯¯®±³ ²¤²¨³¨µ¤ ¥«®± £ ¥ ´ ³§ ³ ®¢¢´± ¨ ®³§¤± ±¤ ² ®¥ ³§¤ ¶ ³¤±²§¤£ ³§ ³ ±¤ ¬®±¤ ¨³ ¢³ȁ )³¤± ¦¤¢¸ 2¤¦´« ³®±¸ '´¨£¤ ¥®± !£µ ¢¤ 0¤±¬¨³³¤¤ȃ2¤²¯®²¨¡«¤ -¨³¨¦ ³¨® - by the USACE Seattle District 2 (Guide) (Appendix A; USACE 2012). The Guide is intended to provide assistance to applicants proposing to establish mitigation in advance of permitted impacts pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Otay Land Company is requesting that USACE utilize this guidance to authorize this Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (HMMP) to address compensatory mitigation for unavoidable impacts on jurisdictional waters and wetlands associated with the Otay Ranch University Villages (Villages 2, 3, 4, 8 East, 8 West, 9, and 10), the #´±±¤³«¸Ǿ Otay River Valley Regional Park, and the City of Chula Vista University Project. ²¯¤¢¨¥¨¢ ¯¤±¬¨³³¤¤ȃ±¤²¯®²¨¡«¤ ¢®¬¯¤² ³®±¸ ¬¨³¨¦ ³¨® ¥®± 6¨«« ¦¤² Ζ £ Λ 7¤²³ § ² ¡¤¤ ¨£¤³¨¥¨¤£ ¨ ³§¨² (--0 ² 0§ ²¤ Δ £ Ε ®¥ ³§¤ ®µ¤± «« ¬¨³¨¦ ³¨® ¯±®¦± ¬ȁ )³ ¨² ³¨¢¨¯ ³¤£ ³§ ³ ¥³¤± ³§¤ ±¤¬ ¨¨¦ µ¨«« ¦¤² § µ¤ £¤¬®²³± ³¤£ µ®¨£ ¢¤ £ ¬¨¨¬¨¹ ³¨® ®¥ ¶ ³¤±² £ ¶¤³« £²Ǿ ³§ ³ ³§¨² ²¨³¤ ¶®´«£ «²® ¯±®µ¨£¤ £µ ¢¤£ ¢®¬¯¤² ³®±¸ ¬¨³¨¦ ³¨® ¨ ²´¡²¤°´¤³ ¯§ ²¤² ¥®± ´ µ®¨£ ¡«¤ ¨¬¯ ¢³² ¶§¤ ´³§®±¨¹¤£ ¡¸ ¯±®©¤¢³ȃ²¯¤¢¨¥¨¢ ¯¤±¬¨³²ȁ 4§¤ #®¬¯¤² ³®±¸ -¨³¨¦ ³¨® ¥®± ,®²²¤² ®¥ !°´ ³¨¢ 2¤²®´±¢¤² 1 , Federal Register Department of Defense 33 CFR Parts 325 and 332 and Environmental Protection Agency 40 CFR Part 230, April 2008 )³¤± ¦¤¢¸ 2¤¦´« ³®±¸ '´¨£¤ !£µ ¢¤ 0¤±¬¨³³¤¤ȃ2¤²¯®²¨¡«¤ -¨³¨¦ ³¨® 2 , U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington State Department of Ecology, and Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife, December 2012, Ecology Publication No. 12-06-015. Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 1-1 Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.15 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 283 Otay Land Company Project Description -Regional Compensatory Mitigation and Monitoring Guidelines for South Pacific Division (SPD; 2015)3. These guidelines help to implement the Mitigation Rule for the region by reiterating the important sections, definitions, and requirements of the Mitigation Rule. Further, the guidelines describe local requirements and tools, provide a higher level of detail on design parameters such as hydrologic analysis and soils, and provides other recommendations for meeting the requirements in the Mitigation Rule through successful implementation, monitoring, and adaptive management planning. -12505-SPD Regulatory Program Uniform Performance Standards for Compensatory Mitigation Requirements (USACE 2014), which outlines the procedure for use of uniform performance standards associated with permittee-responsible compensatory mitigation requirements as required for processing of Department of the Army permits under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act, and Section 103 of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act. -Over the past decade, two key documents have been created for the Otay River Watershed: the /³ ¸ 2¨µ¤± 7 ³¤±²§¤£ - ¦¤¬¤³ 0« 3¯¤¢¨ « !±¤ - ¦¤¬¤³ 0« (WMP) and the (SAMP) (Jones and Stokes 2006), which ran out of funding before completion (Aspen 2007). The County of San Diego, with partial funding from a Proposition 13 grant, prepared the WMP in collaboration with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), City of Chula Vista, the City of Imperial Beach, and the Port of San Diego, and it was adopted in 2006. Together these two documents provide a framework program that is consistent with the local General Plans (County and City), the San Diego RWQCB National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit, and They also represent a the County of San Diego Multi-Species Conservation Plan (MSCP). proactive watershed planning and permitting approach that identified the areas within the that should be protected. The WMP includes implementation strategy to ensure the protection of existing beneficial uses and natural resources, including methods to monitor, maintain, and/or enhance existing water quality levels using non-structural and structural best management practices (BMPs). In addition, recommendations for appropriate aquatic resource enhancement and monitoring programs are provided. SAMPs are intended to strike a balance between aquatic resources and reasonable economic development and uses in the watershed or region in which they are developed. The County of San Diego, Department of Planning and Land Use, was working with USACE (federal sponsoring agency) and the CDFW to prepare the SAMP and provide a comprehensive planning instrument to serve as a basis for development of a programmatic permitting mechanism for unavoidable impacts within the watershed. USACE lost funding for this program in 2008, but was anticipated to restart in 2015. -In 1997 the Otay Valley Regional Park (OVRP) Concept Plan was released. The OVRP Concept Plan was the result of a multi-jurisdictional planning effort in the Otay River Valley by the County of San Diego and the cities of Chula Vista and San Diego. The Concept Plan proposed a boundary for the OVRP that includes this restoration plan boundary. The OVRP Concept Plan 3 Final 2015 Regional Compensatory Mitigation and Monitoring Guidelines for South Pacific Division (2015). http://www.spd.usace.army.mil/Missions/Regulatory/PublicNoticesandReferences/tabid/10390/Article/558934 /final-regional-compensatory-mitigation-and-monitoring-guidelines.aspx Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 1-2 Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.15 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 284 Otay Land Company Project Description also included recommendations for open space/core preserve areas, recreation areas, trail corridors, staging areas, viewpoint and overlook areas, and interpretive centers. Although this restoration project was not designed to specifically include components of the OVRP Concept Plan, it does not preclude any of these elements. The restoration project has identified trail corridors in compliance with the OVRP Concept Plan and would implement trail improvements to a portion of the existing dirt roads and existing unofficial trails within the City parcel both through and adjacent to the restoration project area. These improvements include installing wood split-rail fencing, trail signage, and educational kiosks, which all serve to designate the roads and trails and to protect the restoration site from existing uses. Two existing road crossings through the restoration project area running north-to-south have been identified as necessary for property access by U.S. Border Patrol, San Diego Gas and Electric (SDG&E), Otay Water District (OWD), and the City of Chula Vista. These crossings also overlap with OVRP trail corridors. These road and trail crossings have been designed as part of the restoration project to be at-grade and will be protected using native rock to minimize erosion and maintenance while allowing for unobstructed hydrology and sediment transport. Any other improvements to the roads and trails or other OVRP recreational facilities planned in the river valley would be evaluated under separate regulatory processes including subsequent environmental review and resource permitting if necessary. The proposed project would be consistent with OVRP goals and policies to site and develop park features and facilities consistent with the requirements and guidelines of the MSCP and all federal, state, and local policies; encourage recreational uses as buffers between the Open Space/Core Preserve Area and new private development; and encourage development standards for roads across the Otay River to minimize impacts on habitat and wildlife movement as well as trail connectivity. The proposed project would also comply with the OVRP Trail Guidelines for education, design and layout, erosion control, signage, fencing, and educational kiosks. The intent of the restoration project is to ensure the OVRP Concept Plan is accommodated, including additional recreational facilities outside of the restoration project area, but on the city of Chula Vista property. This restoration project is not intended to restrict trail development or use as long as its done to minimize (to the extent practicable) impacts on aquatic resources and other protected habitats. -The City of Chula Vista Greenbelt Master Plan provides guidance and continuity for planning open space and constructing and maintaining trails that encircle the City of Chula Vista. The pose is to provide goals and policies, trail design standards, and implementation tools that guide the creation of the Greenbelt system. The Greenbelt system is composed of a series of open space segments connected by a multi-use trail extending through each segment; from the channelized Sweetwater River, along golf courses and banks of the Otay Lakes, following the Otay River valley to the Chula Vista Bayfront. The restoration project would implement minor improvements to a portion of the existing dirt road/trail identified within the Otay Valley Regional Park East/Otay Ranch Village Greenway Segments. The proposed project would be consistent with goals and policies to provide connected open space areas around the City of Chula Vista to enhance and protect native biological and sensitive habitats as well as establish a greenbelt system that ensures public access utilizing existing fire roads, access roads, and/or utility easements for the trail system when possible and limit the use of multi-use trails to non-motorized uses except for motorized wheelchairs, and utility, maintenance, and emergency vehicles. The restoration project would also comply with greenbelt design standards for trail signage, educational kiosks, and wood split-rail fencing. The intent of the restoration Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 1-3 Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.15 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 285 Otay Land Company Project Description project is to ensure the Greenbelt trail is accommodated by identification of a realistic corridor, installation of trail signage, split-rail fencing, and educational kiosks while avoiding any sensitive resources. The existing roads and trails will be moved or modified as needed to avoid road ponds, protect the San Diego fairy shrimp, and the restoration area. The restoration project does not preclude the future implementation of new or upgraded trail facilities identified in the City of Chula Vista Greenbelt Master Plan on the property. Additional trail amenities, if needed, would be evaluated and approved through a subsequent environmental review, if necessary, and associated permitting process if needed. 1.2Project Summary This Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (HMMP or plan) provides direction for implementing a program to restore hydrologic and sediment transport processes and native habitats in the Otay River Valley on the City of Chula Vista parcel. This HMMP was prepared by ICF International (ICF) staff serving as consultants to the Otay Land Company (OLC), a subsidiary of HomeFed Corporation. The representative contacts at ICF are Michelle Mattson, Southern California Natural Resources Team Manager and Lindsay Teunis, Restoration Team Manager. The HMMP is intended for use as compensatory mitigation for unavoidable impacts on jurisdictional waters of the U.S., waters of the State, and associated habitats due to the implementation of the Otay Ranch University Villages. At this time, two projects for mixed-use private developments are under review by the regulatory agencies (Otay Ranch Village 3 and Otay Ranch Village 8 West). In addition, this HMMP has been designed to comprehensively cover the unavoidable impacts associated with Villages 2, 8 East, 9, and 10, as well as Otay River Valley Regional Park and the City of Chula Vista University Project pending future site-specific authorizations by the regulatory agencies. All proposed projects and the mitigation site proposed in this HMMP are in the City of Chula Vista (City) and within the Otay River Watershed (Figure 1-1). A geographic service area (Figure 1-2) of the lower Otay River sub-basin that incorporates the areas of future projects will be used to determine a project eligibility to mitigate at the proposed mitigation site The Otay Ranch Village 3 and 8 West project sites are on the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS series Otay Mesa Quadrangle and are within the southeast quadrant of the Otay Ranch neighborhood in the City of Chula Vista. The Village 8 West site occupies approximately 300.3 acres. Surrounding land uses include private residence developments and agricultural lands to the north, State Route 125 and agricultural lands to the west, and the Otay River Valley to the south. Village 3 site is approximately 436 acres and surrounding land uses include the Otay landfill to the north, Wolf Canyon to the east, existing industrial uses to the west, and Otay River Valley and Otay Valley Regional Park to the south. The Village 8 West development consists of the Village 8 West Sectional Planning Area plan and Tentative Map, and offsite sewer and storm drain conveyance alignment with a paved access road and trail facilities. The Village 3 land plan includes a mixed-use village core with commercial/retail uses surrounded by multi-family attached and detached neighborhoods, an elementary school, neighborhood park site, small recreation sites, and Community Purpose Facility. Both Village 3 and 8 West sites include small first- and second-order ephemeral drainages. Although both projects include some avoidance of these features as well as larger streams, there would be direct impacts Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 1-4 Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.15 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 286 ST 94 Kern ST San Bernardino 54 Los Angeles Riverside a Orange e e S Pacific Imperial San Diego Ocean e e Upper Otay m ST Lake 125 Rancho Rancho del Ray del Ray Lower Otay Lake r University a Village 8 West Village 9 Village 3 North _ ^ Village 4 Savage Dam _ ^ ^_ _ ^ ^_Upstream ^_ ^_ Enhancement Area ^_ O Mitigation Parcel t a y R i v e ^_ ^_ Village 8 East Village 10 Brown Field Brown Field Municipal Airport Municipal Airport River Valley Parcel ST (Possilble Otay River 905 Valley Regional Park) Parcel A (Possilble Otay River Valley S E T A T S D E T Regional Park) I N U O C I X E M ± 00.512 Miles SOURCE: ESRI Streetmap (2012) Map Prepared: 9/14/2015 Figure 1-1 Regional Vicinity Otay River Restoration Project ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 287 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 288 K:\\San Diego\\projects\\Otay_Land_Co_Village\\00296_14_8and9_Mitigation_Site\\mapdoc\\HMMP\\Fig01_2_ServiceArea.mxd Date: 9/14/2015 35528 Otay Land Company Project Description associated with the projects, thereby requiring compensatory mitigation to offset unavoidable loss of stream acreage and function. Compensatory mitigation is proposed within the nearby Otay River Valley, specifically within the Otay River mainstem approximately 1 mile below Savage Dam (Figure 1-3). This plan represents the uppermost reach of the Lower Otay River Watershed and provides an ideal opportunity for restoration. This plan includes the design for approximately 100-acres of channel, floodplain, and buffer reestablishment within the approximately 300-acre City of Chula Vista parcel ( Parcel Number 6440900400), as well as enhancement (removal of invasive species). This plan is in line with the restoration recommendations described in the Otay River Watershed Management Plan (ORWMP) (Aspen 2007), which was completed in partnership with the County of San Diego, City of Chula Vista, City of San Diego, USACE, RWQCB, CDFW and community stakeholders. The ORWMP provides an evaluation of the baseline conditions of the Upper and Lower Otay River Watershed and recommendations for BMPs and restoration opportunities based on five key goals identified by the ORWMP stakeholders. The ORWMP provides 17 strategies that are intended to protect, enhance, restore, and/or manage watershed resources in consideration of expected natural and anthropogenic stressors. Each strategy is focused on achieving one or more of the stakeholder-identified ORWMP goals. Specifically, this HMMP addresses one of the key strategies identified in the ORWMP: Lower Otay River Floodplain to Enhance the Quality of Water Entering San Diego Bay. is ranked as a HIGH priority along with 8 other strategies based on their expected large benefits to the watershed and their capacity to build upon other efforts being planned or underway (Aspen 2007). The mainstem and floodplain within the Mitigation parcel were highly disturbed by a record flood event in 1916, which resulted in the failure of the original Savage Dam (an earthen and steel structure) and left a substantial amount of sediment and debris in the broad floodplain. The dam was reconstructed in 1918 and has remained intact since. The deposited flood material was subsequently mined for sand and gravel over several decades, continuing until approximately the mid-1980s. The flood of 1916, deposition and intensive harvesting of alluvium material, as well as the presence of the dam itself have substantially altered the natural topography and hydrologic and sediment transport functions of the Otay River within the plan area. In particular, the mainstem was filled and manipulated to the point of being nonexistent, with surface flows dissipating and water flowing down-gradient from east to west as shallow groundwater through much of the plan area. Similarly the floodplain has been manipulated, with much of the area characterized by artificial mounding from the mine tailings. The disturbed hydrology and topography of the site are further exacerbated by the presence of dense stands of an invasive nonnative tree, tamarisk or salt cedar Tamarix!±´£® £® · ( spp.) and other invasive species such as arundo () and Peruvian Pepper tree 3¢§¨´² ¬®««¤ (). These species provide a significant nonnative seed source to downstream habitats. As mentioned above, the approximately 100-acre restoration site and the larger 300-acre mitigation parcel are owned by the City of Chula Vista. A portion of the parcel is within the City of Chula Vista Greenbelt Master Plan boundaries and entirely within the OVRP Concept Plan boundaries. Both of these plans identify future multi-use trails where the existing dirt roads and unofficial trails are currently located. These existing dirt roads are used for a variety of purposes by the U.S. Border Patrol, SDG&E, City of San Diego, and OWD, as well as by hikers, cyclists, and equestrians. To prevent the restoration site from being disturbed by existing and future users, wood split-rail fencing would be installed at key locations. The fencing, along with signage indicating the general sensitivity of the Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 1-5 Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.15 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 291 Otay Land Company Project Description restoration site and providing wayfinding, would help to minimize trespassing from trail users who would otherwise be unaware of the sensitivity of the habitat restoration area. The existing roads and trails may be moved slightly to accommodate the 14-foot-wide pathway (required width for SDG&E access) and installation of the fencing and signage while also avoiding road ponds that support the San Diego fairy shrimp. Only disturbed areas would be used to designate the narrow trail corridor or pathway. In addition, educational kiosks would be installed at key viewing locations within the disturbed areas to help inform the readers of the importance of the restoration site. Altogether, the proposed project would (1) improve approximately 12,800 linear feet of existing dirt roadways with fencing, signs, and kiosks; (2) improve approximately 1,600 linear feet of road crossings in the active floodplain; and (3) close approximately 4,500 linear feet of existing dirt roads. Additional improvements that are not part of the proposed project and that may occur at a future date under the OVRP Concept Plan and Greenbelt Master Plan could be developed with subsequent environmental review, if necessary, and would not be precluded as a result of implementation of the proposed restoration project. The restoration project is divided into two discrete work areas, the Mitigation Parcel (City of Chula Vista) and the Upstream Enhancement Area. The primary restoration project will be occurring in the Mitigation Parcel while a singular treatment season of invasive plant species will occur in the Upstream Enhancement Area. The project is also divided into three distinct components Phase 1, Phase 2, and future phases. Phase 1 includes the singular treatment of the Upstream Enhancement area as well as the initial treatment of the Phase 2 work area within the Mitigation Parcel. Phase 2 takes place solely in the Mitigation Parcel and focuses on the compensatory mitigation for Village 8 and Village 3. Future phases will address the needs of additional Otay Villages as well as other projects requiring compensatory mitigation. These components and the objectives of each are described further below. 1.3Mitigation Obligation As described above, this HMMP is intended to meet the compensatory mitigation needs for two projects under permit review now and several future projects including the City of Chula Vista University Project. Table 1-1 outlines the potential estimated mitigation obligations for each of the projects using a conservative ratio of 5:1 to ensure sufficient coverage. These numbers are subject to change because the permit application process is ongoing for Villages 3 and 8 West and has not begun for the other future projects. In addition, impact acreages for future projects are estimates based on preliminary project footprints and are subject to change as a result to project refinements. 4§±®´¦§ ¤ ¢§ ¯¤±¬¨³ ¯±®¢¤²²Ǿ ¤ ¢§ ¯±®©¤¢³ ¶¨«« £¤¬®²³± ³¤ ³§¤¸ § µ¤ ¬¤³ ³§¤ #«¤ 7 ³¤± !¢³ ±¤°´¨±¤¬¤³² ³® µ®¨£ £ ¬¨¨¬¨¹¤ ³® ³§¤ ¬ ·¨¬´¬ ¤·³¤³ ¯± ¢³¨¢ ¡«¤ ¨ «¨¦§³ ®¥ ¢®²³Ǿ «®¦¨²³¨¢²Ǿ £ ³¤¢§®«®¦¸ £ ¥¨ ««¸ ¬¨³¨¦ ³¤ ¥®± ´³§®±¨¹¤£ ´ µ®¨£ ¡«¤ ¨¬¯ ¢³²ȁ 4§¤±¤¥®±¤Ǿ ³§¨² (--0 £®¤² ®³ £¨¢³ ³¤ ¢³´ « ¬¨³¨¦ ³¨® ± ³¨®² £ ³§¤ ± ³¨®² ¯±®µ¨£¤£ ±¤ ¥®± ¯« ¨¦ ¯´±¯®²¤² ®«¸ȁ Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 1-6 Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.15 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 292 Upper Otay Lake Lower Otay Lake Savage Dam Restoration Plan Boundary Upstream Enhancement Area City Parcel Boundary ± S 00.51 E T A T S D E T I N U Miles O C I X E M Source: Bing Imagery (2010) Map Prepared: 9/14/2015 Figure 1-3 Restoration Plan Overview Otay River Restoration Project ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 293 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 294 Otay Land Company Project Description Table 1-1. Summary of Estimated Mitigation Obligations for Each Village Project 3³±¤ ¬² !µ¦ 3³ ¢ª¤£ 53!#%ȝ 53!#%ȝ ,¨¤ ± 53!#%ȝ ,¤¦³§ 3³±¤ ¬ Impact #$&7 271#" 271#" &¤¤³ Project 271#" Ȩ«¨¤ ± 7¨£³§ ,¨¤ ± (acres) -¨³¨¦ ³¨® -¨³¨¦ ³¨® -¨³¨¦ ³¨® 1 (acres) feet) (feet) Feet*Width Ratio Acreage Ratio 22 5:1 1:1 Village 2 4,500 3 13,500 0.31 0.31 1.55 5:1 1:1 Village 3 4,424 3 13,272 0.213 3 0.253 1.065 Village 3 - 5:1 1:1 685 5 3,425 0.07 0.09 0.35 Takashima 5:1 1:1 Village 8 West 7,169 3 21,507 1.3 5.26 6.5 5:1 1:1 Village 8 East 5,500 4 22,000 0.59 0.59 2.95 5:1 1:1 Village 9 6,244 3 18,732 0.37 0.78 1.85 5:1 1:1 Village 10 3,670 5 18,350 0.57 0.99 2.85 5:1 1:1 University 4 8,900 6 53,400 0.38 0.46 1.9 Otay River - - - 0.10 0.10 1.0 5:1 - VRP Total 41,092 164,186 3.90 8.81 - 20.01 - Total includes acres of USACE/RWQCB jurisdiction plus additional acres of exclusive CDFW jurisdiction (i.e., 1 extending outside of the ordinary high water mark \[OHWM\] and to the top of bank). For the purpose of planning and evaluating mitigation available this plan assumes a 1:1 mitigation ratio for linear 2 feet of streams and 5:1 for all aquatic acreage. Acreage includes 0.003 acre of disturbed vernal pools/seasonal depression. It is anticipated that mitigation can be 3 provided in the seasonal ponds of the Otay River Restoration Project if vernal pools cannot be avoided on site. 4 A formal jurisdiction delineation has not yet been completed for the University Project Site or the Otay River Valley Regional Park sites. The estimated values are based on aerial and topographic interpretation using an estimated average 5-foot-wide OHWM and 10-foot-wide CDFW bank to bank. In addition, these numbers do not account for potential avoidance. 1.4Compensatory Mitigation Credits Available The compensatory mitigation acreage and linear feet quantities available onsite are shown in Tables 1-2 and Table 1-3, respectively. These are further depicted in Chapter 4 (Mitigation Design). The design includes an upland buffer component in an effort to maximize the long term success of the site and the habitat function. The credit associated with the buffer acreage was based on the projected functional lift associated with quality buffer habitat, in which the CRAM scores would increase (compared to current buffer conditions) by at least 10%. As such, 10% of the total buffer acreage was estimated for credit. As shown in Table 1-3, the restoration site is anticipated to re-establish up to 9,555 linear feet of stream channel. As shown in Table 1-1 impacts on linear feet for all of the projects total approximately 41,000 feet. A use of straight linear feet to compare the impacted streams to the restored stream does not adequately illustrate the difference. It is more appropriate to used stacked linear feet, which accounts for the streambank width and the active low floodplain (10-years flood). While the average width of the impacted streams ranges between 3 and 6 feet, the restored primary drainage and active low floodplain averages 100 feet at its broadest and 25 feet at its narrowest, similarly the secondary channels average at least 8 feet wide. Table 1-3 presents both the straight linear feet and stacked linear feet of the mitigation site. The mitigation site will restore over 424,000 Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 1-7 Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.15 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 295 Otay Land Company Project Description stacked linear feet while the proposed projects are expected to impact approximately 164,000 stacked linear feet, as shown in Table 1-1. Table 1-2. Compensatory Mitigation Acreage Quantities by Restoration Type for Entire Plan #$&7 "´¥¥¤± 2¤²³®± ³¨® 4¸¯¤ Habitat Acreage 7®53 #±¤£¨³ Credit Credit 12 Primary Channel 5.27 5.27 5.27 - Secondary 2.22 2.22 2.22 - Channels Active Low Re-establishment Floodplain (10 24.2 24.2 24.2 - year flood) High Floodplain 21.8 - 21.8 2.18 (25 year flood) Seasonal Ponds Establishment 1.34 1.34 1.34 - (created) Primary Channel 0.75 0.75 0.75 - Seasonal Ponds 0.38 0.38 0.38 - (existing) Active Low Rehabilitation 3 Floodplain (10 0.16 0.16 0.16 year flood) Transitional 47.15 - - 4.72 Uplands Total WoUS Credit 34.32 Total CDFW Credit 56.12 Total Upland Credits 6.9 1 Acreage includes WoUS Credit and is not additive. Functional increase based on projected CRAM scores, %10 change. Buffer credit can be applied to WoUS 2 and CDFW credit as the total acreage available has been reduced from the full acres of high floodplain rehabilitation (21.8 to 2.18 acres) and transitional uplands (47.15 to 4.72 acres) based on the functional increase. 3 Use of Rehabilitation credits are not as valuable as re-establishment and establishment in the USACE mitigation ratio checklist, as such, the mitigation ratio will be higher when using this credit type. Table 1-3. Compensatory Mitigation Linear Feet Quantities for Entire Plan *´±¨²£¨¢³¨® « 3³ ¢ª¤£ 7¨£³§ #§ ¤« ,¤¦³§ ,¨¤ ± &¤¤³ Width (Linear &¤¤³ ȴ 7¨£³§ ) Straight Linear All Channels10,170-- Feet Secondary Channel 1,0001010,000 (North) Stacked Linear Secondary Channel 2.2202248,840 Feet (South) Primary Channel 5,17050258,500 Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 1-8 Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.15 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 296 Otay Land Company Project Description Tributaries1,7802340,940 4®³ « 3³ ¢ª¤£ ,¨¤ ± &¤¤³358,280 1.4.1Village 3 Mitigation Table 1-4 summarizes the jurisdictional impacts for Village 3 as well as the proposed mitigation for Village 3. As shown below, Village 3 is expected to directly impact 0.29 acres of jurisdictional features in the form of ephemeral streams and a depressional basin. Mitigation will occur in Phase 2 of the Otay River Restoration Project at a minimum 5:1 ratio including 1.91 acres of jurisdictional habitat and an additional 1.05 acres of high floodplain/transitional habitat. Table 1-4. Summary of Village 3 Impacts and Proposed Mitigation for Village 3 Development 53!#%ȝ 271#" 53!#%ȝ 271#" ( ¡¨³ ³ 4¸¯¤ 3³ ¢ª¤£ ,¨¤ ± 53!#%ȝ 271#" )¬¯ ¢³² -¨¨¬´¬ 2¤°´¨±¤£ Impacted Impact -¨³¨¦ ³¨® 2 ³¨® 1 (acres) -¨³¨¦ ³¨® !¢±¤ ¦¤ Ephemeral 5,109 0.28 5:1 1.4 Stream Depressional - 0.003 5:1 0.02 Basin Total 5,109 0.29 - 1.42 Proposed -¨³¨¦ ³¨® ¥®± 6¨«« ¦¤ Β ¡¸ -¨³¨¦ ³¨® 4¸¯¤ £ ( ¡¨³ ³ 4¸¯¤ -¨³¨¦ ³¨® 4¸¯¤ -¨³¨¦ ³¨® ( ¡¨³ ³ Acres -¨³¨¦ ³¨® 4¸¯¤-¨³¨¦ ³¨® ( ¡¨³ ³Acres Establishment Seasonal Ponds 0.31 Re-Establishment Primary Channel 0.14 Re-Establishment Active Low Floodplain (10-yr) 1.19 Re-Establishment 0.24 High Floodplain/Transitional (non- jurisdictional) Re-Habilitation Primary Channel 0.10 Re-Habilitation Active Low Floodplain (10-yr) 0.01 ΑȁΏΏ ȨΐȁΖΕȝΏȁΑΓȩ 4®³ « -¨³¨¦ ³¨® 0±®¯®²¤£ (Jurisdictional/Non-Jurisdictional) 1 Stacked linear feet are calculated by multiplying the total stream length by the stream width. The details are shown in Table 1-1 1.4.2Village 8 West Mitigation Table 1-5 summarizes the jurisdictional impacts for Village 8 West as well as the proposed mitigation for Village 8 West. As shown below, Village 8 West is expected to directly impact 1.30 acres of jurisdictional features in the form of ephemeral streams and wetlands. Mitigation will occur in Phase 2 of the Otay River Restoration Project at a minimum 5:1 ratio including 6.10 acres of jurisdictional habitat and an additional 8.87 acres of high floodplain and upland buffer habitat. Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 1-9 Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.15 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 297 Otay Land Company Project Description Table 1-5. Summary of Village 8 West Impacts and the Proposed Mitigation for Village 8W Development 53!#%ȝ 271#" 53!#%ȝ 271#" ( ¡¨³ ³ 4¸¯¤ 3³ ¢ª¤£ ,¨¤ ± 53!#%ȝ 271#" Impacts -¨¨¬´¬ 2¤°´¨±¤£ Impacted Impact -¨³¨¦ ³¨® 2 ³¨® 1 (acres) -¨³¨¦ ³¨® !¢±¤ ¦¤ Ephemeral 7,169 1.30 5:1 6.5 Stream/ Wetlands Total 7,169 1.30-6.5 0±®¯®²¤£ -¨³¨¦ ³¨® ¥®± 6¨«« ¦¤ Η 7¤²³ ¡¸ -¨³¨¦ ³¨® 4¸¯¤ £ ( ¡¨³ ³ 4¸¯¤ -¨³¨¦ ³¨® 4¸¯¤ -¨³¨¦ ³¨® ( ¡¨³ ³ Acres Re-Establishment Primary Channel 1.67 Re-Establishment Active Low Floodplain (10-yr) 4.04 2 Re-Establishment High Floodplain/Transitional (non-3.06 (0.31 credit) jurisdictional) Re-Habilitation Primary Channel 0.65 2 Re-Habilitation Upland (non-jurisdictional) 8.11 (0.81 credit) Re-Habilitation Active Low Floodplain (10-yr) 0.16 4®³ « -¨³¨¦ ³¨® 0±®¯®²¤£ (Jurisdictional/Non-Jurisdictional) ΐΖȁΖΏ ȨΕȁΔΑȝΐΐȁΐΗȩ 1 Stacked linear feet are calculated by multiplying the total stream length by the stream width. The details are shown in Table 1-1 2 Credit determined by functional increase based on projected CRAM scores, resulting in a %10 change to overall wetland condition with improved buffer. Buffer credit can be applied to WoUS and CDFW credit as the total credit available has been reduced to 10% of the restored acreage based on the functional increase. 1.5Responsible Parties, Roles, and Responsibilities Ultimately, the OLC and its contractors are responsible for installation, maintenance, and monitoring in accordance with this HMMP to successfully complete the mitigation program. Their roles and responsibilities, as well as those of other involved parties, are summarized below. Additional details for each role are discussed throughout the document, where applicable. /¶¤±ȝ2¤²¯®²¨¡«¤ 0 ±³¸Ȁ OLC will be the party financially responsible for (1) all negotiations and costs associated with the mitigation implementation, (2) the 5-year maintenance and monitoring of the mitigation area, and (3) the costs associated with the perpetual monitoring and management of the mitigation property as defined in this HMMP. At this time the individual representative for OLC is Curt Smith. The OLC will be responsible for contracting a qualified habitat restoration ecologist and a licensed landscape contractor(s) for installation, maintenance, and monitoring to carry out the provisions of this HMMP. The OLC may select separate contractors for the installation and maintenance phases. Both contractors will meet the minimum requirements described below. The OLC will establish contractual mechanisms to ensure the completion of installation, maintenance, and monitoring activities delineated in this HMMP. The OLC may, with sole discretion, replace any of these parties. Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 1-10 Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.15 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 298 Otay Land Company Project Description The OLC or the contracted consultant will obtain all required permits, which may include the following. City of Chula Vista Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) and Grading Permit CDFW 1600 Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement San Diego RWQCB 401 Certification USACE Nationwide Permit (NWP) 27 for Aquatic Habitat Restoration, Establishment, and Enhancement Activities 2¤²³®± ³¨® %¢®«®¦¨²³Ȁ The restoration ecologist will be an individual or team of individuals with a degree in botany, ecology, or related field, and a minimum of 10 years of experience in Southern California with successful wetland restoration (preferably riverine). The lead restoration ecologist must have knowledge of the riverine and upland vegetation associations proposed for the restoration effort as well as the nonnative species of concern. The restoration ecologist, in coordination with the contractor, will oversee protection of existing biological resources, nonnative plant removal, contour grading; site preparation, planting and seeding, maintenance and monitoring, as well as reporting. The restoration ecologist will be responsible for the following. Supervision of all phases of restoration installation, including contractor education, site protection, site preparation, planting installation, seeding, and final installation inspection and approvals as delineated in this HMMP. Halting work by the installation contractor at any point where the provisions of this HMMP are not being adhered to until such times as the inconsistency is resolved with the OLC. After installation, the restoration ecologist will be responsible for monitoring and making remedial recommendations (regarding weeding, irrigation frequency, erosion control, etc.) for ongoing maintenance activities performed by the maintenance contractor after HMMP installation, as specified herein. The restoration ecologist will be responsible for carrying out the biological monitoring and reporting program described in this HMMP. The program will include the following tasks: agency notification (as needed), qualitative and quantitative data collection as required to measure success progress, photo documentation, post-installation monitoring reports documenting progress, and a final assessment of success at the end of the 5-year maintenance and monitoring program. )²³ «« ³¨® #®³± ¢³®±Ȁ The installation and maintenance contractor will be a qualified firm (or more than one firm) with successful experience in Southern California and direct experience installing and maintaining native habitat mitigation projects. The installation contractor will be responsible for design of a temporary irrigation system (if needed) for the high marsh and upland transitional habitats in consultation with the restoration ecologist. Currently, this HMMP does not include an automated temporary irrigation system, and assumes that irrigation will primarily include supplemental hand watering and/or truck watering. Subsequently, the installation contractor will be responsible for site protection, grading, contouring, and installation of all vegetation in accordance with the provisions of this plan and as approved by the restoration ecologist. In addition, the installation contractor will prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and any other requirements of the permits to avoid impacts on adjacent resources Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 1-11 Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.15 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 299 Otay Land Company Project Description and water quality. The responsibilities of the installation contractor will end with the completion of the requirements for the 120-day plant establishment period. The installation contractor will verify in writing to the OLC prior to starting work the following minimal qualifications: a C- Pest Control Applicator, previous successful experience with at least three prior native habitat restoration project installations of similar size and scope, and knowledge of local flora and fauna. - ¨³¤ ¢¤ #®³± ¢³®± : After the 120-day plant establishment period, a separate maintenance contractor may be hired by OLC to maintain the restoration site for the remaining balance of the 5 years according to the provisions of this HMMP. The OLC may choose to use the same contractor for both installation and post-installation maintenance if the contractor meets both sets of qualifications. Prior to starting work, the maintenance contractor will demonstrate the same qualifications as the installation contractor, including demonstrating past maintenance experience with habitat restoration projects, previous successful experience maintaining at least three native restoration projects, and knowledge of local flora and fauna. 4± ¨«ȝ2® £ - ¨³¤ ¢¤ : During the 5 years of maintenance and monitoring for the restoration project, the Maintenance Contractor would conduct minor repairs on all fencing, signs, and educational kiosks installed as part of the project improvements. This includes reposting loose signs and fence posts, removing graffiti, and conducting road repair to avoid new ruts or ponds from being artificially created. The maintenance contractor will replace up to two signs per year and one educational kiosk over a 5 year period. If excessive vandalism occurs, Homefed would coordinate with the City of Chula Vista and the County of San Diego to support upkeep through the existing Preserve Owner/Manager (POM) funded by the existing Community Facilities District. After the project has completed the 5 years of maintenance and monitoring and the regulatory agencies have signed off on the mitigation site, San Diego County would maintain OVRP trails and trail improvements per the OVRP Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement (JEPA). 1.6Regulatory Requirements and Compliance &¨ « ΕΓΔΘ This HMMP has been prepared in accordance with the guidelines recommended in the 2¤¦¨® « #®¬¯¤² ³®±¸ -¨³¨¦ ³¨® £ -®¨³®±¨¦ '´¨£¤«¨¤² ¥®± 3®´³§ 0 ¢¨¥¨¢ $¨µ¨²¨® 5ȁ3ȁ !±¬¸ #®±¯² ®¥ %¦¨¤¤±² (USACE 2015) and addresses waters of the U.S. and wetland impacts regulated by the federal Clean Water Act, the California Fish and Wildlife Code, and Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act. This plan will support applications for issuance of a USACE 404 permit, a CDFW 1602 streambed alteration agreement, and an RWQCB 401 water quality certification. The plan will additionally outline the mitigation strategies designed to fulfill the regulatory requirements of the federal Clean Water Act and the California Fish and Game Code. USACE, RWQCB, and CDFW will be involved with the plan throughout the review and permitting phases and the installation and 5-year monitoring of each phase of the project, if phased. 1.7Mitigation Site Location The mitigation site is lo-4), in the Otay River Valley in southwestern San Diego County, California (Figure 1-2). The mitigation site Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 1-12 Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.15 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 300 301 0 ¦¤ Packet !¦¤£ ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ K:\\San Diego\\projects\\Otay_Land_Co_Village\\00296_14_8and9_Mitigation_Site\\mapdoc\\HMMP\\Fig01_4_USGS_Quad.mxd 9/14/2015 35528 302 0 ¦¤ Packet !¦¤£ ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ Otay Land Company Project Description occurs within the upper portion of the Lower Otay River Watershed, approximately 1 mile downstream of Savage Dam. As described above, the restoration project is divided into two discrete areas, the Mitigation Parcel (City of Chula Vista) and the Upstream Enhancement Area. The primary restoration project will be occurring in the Mitigation Parcel while a singular treatment season of invasive plant species will occur in the Upstream Enhancement Area. 1.8Mitigation Area Ownership Status The mitigation area consists of nine parcels owned by four entities; the City of Chula Vista owns one parcel that contains the floodplain area, while the Otay River channel below the dam is owned by the County of San Diego (two parcels), the United States of America Public Domain (one parcel), and the City of San Diego (four parcels) (Figure 1-5 and Table 1-6). Table 1-6. Mitigation Area Ownership Parcels 0 ±¢¤« .´¬¡¤± Owner 0±®©¤¢³ #®¬¯®¤³² 64409004 City of Chula Vista (Mitigation Parcel) Phase 1 (Habitat Enhancement), Phase 2 (River Restoration), Future Phases 64713003 City of Chula Vista Phase 1 Upstream Enhancement 644100019 County of San Diego Phase 1 Upstream Enhancement 64713001 City of San Diego Phase 1 Upstream Enhancement 64713002 City of San Diego Phase 1 Upstream Enhancement 64713010 City of San Diego Phase 1 Upstream Enhancement 64713012 Phase 1 Upstream Enhancement United States of America Public Domain 64713008 County of San Diego Phase 1 Upstream Enhancement 64713007 City of San Diego Phase 1 Upstream Enhancement Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 1-13 Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.15 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 303 Otay Land Company Project Description This page intentionally left blank. Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 1-14 Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.15 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 304 K:\\San Diego\\projects\\Otay_Land_Co_Village\\00296_14_8and9_Mitigation_Site\\mapdoc\\HMMP\\Fig01_5_Parcels.mxd Date: 9/14/2015 35528 Chapter 2 Mitigation Goals and Objectives 2.1Goals The overall goal of this plan is to fulfill the mitigation requirements for Village 8 West and Village 3 and to provide advance permittee responsible mitigation for the additional Otay Village Projects, the University Project, and the Otay Valley Regional Park. The primary goal for the restoration itself is to create an ecologically functional, self-sustaining wetland that is resilient to a range of natural disturbances (drought, flood, etc.). The following are the specific goals of the restoration project. Restore proper hydrology based on existing conditions and create complex channel morphology including primary and secondary channels. Tie the recreated channel into the existing channel upstream and downstream of the City of Chula Vista parcel. Upgrade the two identified north-to-south road/trail crossings through the Otay River to better provide quality access while limiting disruptions in hydrology due to artificial deepening and berming from vehicular traffic. Recreate a floodplain with low and high terraces capable of conveying various flood events. Create a series of seasonal ponds in the northern high floodplain capable of providing refugia into the dry season. Maximize buffer condition by restoring and enhancing the adjacent upland habitat. Maximize sustainability of the recreated site by removing the nonnative seed sources occurring in the 1 mile of channel upstream of the Mitigation parcel, below Savage Dam. Create and maximize habitat diversity and structural complexity. Maximize wildlife use opportunities including local listed species. 2.2Objectives Mitigation for the project impacts will occur within the Otay River mainstem and floodplain (Figures 1-1 and 1-3) immediately below and downstream from the Savage Dam. This area was targeted for enhancement and rehabilitation due to its location at the upstream origination point of the Otay River at Savage Dam. This mitigation location is the appropriate first step in the overall restoration of the lower Otay River sub-basins that exist below the Savage Dam. The removal of nonnative invasive trees and the establishment of native vegetation will be crucial to the success of future downstream restoration efforts due to the presence of a significant upstream nonnative seed source within the restoration project boundary. The re-creation of the river channel and adjacent floodplains within the Mitigation parcel will improve the biological functions of the existing resources and support native flora and fauna. Although the restoration can be installed in one phase it has been designed into at least two distinct self-sustaining phases to correspond to the potential timing of each permitted project requiring mitigation with Phase 1 and 2 mitigating for Village 8 Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 2-1 Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.15 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 307 Otay Land Company Mitigation Goals and Objectives West and Village 3. The consecutive phases are described below and shown in Figure 2-1. In habitat. 0§ ²¤ ΐ /¡©¤¢³¨µ¤² Ȩ)µ ²¨µ¤ 3¯¤¢¨¤² 2¤¬®µ «ȝ%§ ¢¤¬¤³ȩȀ #¨³¸ ®¥ 3 $¨¤¦® £ #®´³¸ ®¥ 3 $¨¤¦® 0 ±¢¤«² ȃ 5¯²³±¤ ¬ %§ ¢¤¬¤³ !±¤ Enhance 6,000 feet of existing channel upstream of the main mitigation parcel, by treating 2.74 approximately acres of riparian habitat in the upstream Otay River mainstem immediately below the Savage Dam (Figure 1-4 and 2-1). The proposed enhancement areas are disturbed riparian areas whose natural habitat functions and services have been compromised and degraded due to the abundance of invasive trees and plants and the presence of Savage Dam. The proposed enhancement areas generally contain areas heavily infested and/or disturbed by !±´£® £® ·SchinusEucalyptus tamarisk, giant reed (), pepper trees ( spp.), eucalyptus ( spp.) 0§®¤¨· ¢ ±¨¤²¨², and Canary Island date palms () as well as several other non-native species. Invasive species in the upstream area will be treated for up to 5 years following the initial treatment or until the initial right-of-entry permits expire (whichever comes first). No success standards or monitoring is associated with the Upstream Enhancement Area as this effort to protect the restoration project downstream from nonnative seed sources and does not correspond to any mitigation credit. #¨³¸ ®¥ #§´« 6¨²³ 0 ±¢¤« ȃ -¨³¨¦ ³¨® 0 ±¢¤« Complete initial removal of invasive species within the Phase 2 boundary (approximately 14 acres) and a 150-footbuffer within the mitigation parcel with a focus on dense stands of tamarisk. Complete treatment of all large woody trees within the mitigation parcel including eucalyptus, 3¢§¨´² ³¤±¤¡¨³§¨¥®«¨ Brazilian pepper trees (), as well as date and fan palms. Leave on site to degrade and be incorporated as organic material and structure in future grading. 0§ ²¤ Α /¡©¤¢³¨µ¤² Ȩ2¤²³®± ³¨®ȝ2¤ȃ%²³ ¡«¨²§¬¤³ ®¥ /³ ¸ 2¨µ¤± - ¨²³¤¬ &®± 6Β £ 6Η7ȩȀ #¨³¸ ®¥ #§´« 6¨²³ 0 ±¢¤« ȃ -¨³¨¦ ³¨® 0 ±¢¤« Re-establish approximately 2,300 linear feet of the intermittent Otay River mainstem at the upstream portion of the mitigation parcel that was not returned to natural conditions following the departure of sand-mining operations. The grading will remove flow obstructions including berms, rows of cobble piles, and sediment and spoil piles, and will recreate the contours of the Otay River mainstem and the east tributary connection, connect existing low-lying pooling areas, and create floodplains. These actions will improve flow conditions during rain events and hydrological conditions for native plants and will include an upland Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub buffer of approximately 100 feet. Re-habilitate and enhance 2.56 acres surrounding the re-established primary channel with a focus on removal of invasive species such as tamarisk and arundo. Re-establish approximately 5.7 acres of floodplain habitat including the mainstem by removing structures such as berms, rows of cobble piles and sediment and spoil piles that impede flow, and by removing and managing invasive species. This area within the plan boundary currently supports a large, nearly monotypic stand of tamarisk. The tamarisk and other non-native vegetation will be removed, the natural floodplain contours that were corrupted by mining Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 2-2 Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.15 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 308 K:\\San Diego\\projects\\Otay_Land_Co_Village\\00296_14_8and9_Mitigation_Site\\mapdoc\\HMMP\\Fig02_1_Potential_Resto_Phases.mxd Date: 4/27/2016 35528 Otay Land Company Mitigation Goals and Objectives activities will be recreated, and native plants will be installed following invasive plant removal and regrading. Re-establish a river and floodplain cross section at the 1 identified upstream crossings to allow for adequate vehicular and foot traffic for U.S. Border Patrol, SDG&E, OWD, and future trail users that minimizes artificial deepening and maintenance and avoids the creation of berms that impound water upstream. Establish the easternmost seasonal pond in the north high floodplain totaling approximately 0.3 acre. The remaining ponds will be created in future phases. These ponds will create a unique niche habitat and increase the overall complexity of the site and the ecological services available. Protect existing and proposed native riparian habitat by focusing users (i.e., Border Patrol) to key access roads and closing others permanently. One permanent at-grade channel crossing will be created using rock and other natural hard material at the upstream end of the project. Fencing, trail signage, and educational kiosks will be installed at key locations. Rehabilitate approximately 8.1 acres of upland transitional habitat in the northern portion of the site through recontouring, revegetation, and removal of non-native species. This habitat serves as a buffer to the restored riverine system and provides foraging and breeding habitat for many species and refugia for riparian species during high flood events. Establish OVRP Concept Plan and City of Chula Vista Greenbelt Master Plan trail corridors to minimize the potential impacts on the restoration area from existing and potential future uses. These trail corridors will be identified and approximate road/trail alignments established within the existing disturbed roads or other adjacent disturbed habitat to avoid impacts on all road ponds that support San Diego fairy shrimp. Split-rail fencing, trail signage, and educational kiosks will be installed to keep users on the trails and outside of the restoration area. &´³´±¤ 0§ ²¤Ȩ²ȩ /¡©¤¢³¨µ¤²Ȁ #¨³¸ ®¥ #§´« 6¨²³ 0 ±¢¤« ȃ -¨³¨¦ ³¨® 0 ±¢¤« Re-establish approximately 3,000 linear feet of the intermittent Otay River mainstem connecting the upstream portion of the mitigation parcel and the existing channel downstream. The grading will remove flow obstructions including berms, rows of cobble piles, and sediment and spoil piles, and will recreate the contours of the Otay River mainstem, connect existing low-lying pooling areas, and create floodplains. These actions will improve flow conditions during rain events and hydrological conditions for native plants and will include an upland Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub buffer of approximately 100 feet. Enhance and establish the remaining seasonal ponds in the north high floodplain totaling approximately 1.4 acres. Three existing ponds would be recontoured and up to five new ponds created to form a wetland resource that is available well into the dry season, as it is dependent on groundwater elevations. These ponds create a unique niche habitat and increase the overall complexity of the site and the ecological services available. Re-establish a small 1,500 linear feet (1.4 acres) of secondary ephemeral channel along the northern high floodplain. This will improve flow conditions during rain events and create hydrologic flow complexity, as well as habitat complexity. Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 2-3 Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.15 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 311 Otay Land Company Mitigation Goals and Objectives Re-establish approximately 2,900 linear feet (2.6 acres) of an ephemeral secondary channel within the southern portion of the floodplain. This will improve flow conditions during rain events and create hydrologic flow complexity, as well as habitat complexity. Re-establish approximately 800 linear feet of the west tributary to connect with the re- established floodplain and secondary channels. This tributary currently is cut off by access roads and filled. Re-establish approximately 970 linear feet of the east tributary with the re-established floodplain and secondary channels. This tributary currently is cut off by access roads and filled. Re-establish approximately 28 acres of outer floodplain in the northern and southern portion of the site that, under current hydrologic conditions, function as alluvial fan habitat. The plan will remove berms, spoil piles, and numerous non-native trees including pepper trees, eucalyptus, and tamarisk. The recontoured outer floodplain will improve hydrological flow and hydrological conditions. This rehabilitation will also include regrading the outer floodplain that was not returned to natural conditions following the departure of sand-mining operations. Rehabilitation of this area will include installation of native riparian plants following invasive plant removal and regrading. Rehabilitate approximately 31 acres of upland transitional habitat in the northern and southern portion of the site through recontouring, revegetation, and removal of non-native species. This habitat serves as a buffer to the restored riverine system and provides foraging and breeding habitat for many species and refugia for riparian species during high flood events. Upgrade one permanent at-grade channel crossing at the downstream end of the project using rock and other natural hard material and protect the existing SDG&E gas transmission line. Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 2-4 Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.15 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 312 Chapter 3 Proposed Mitigation Site Baseline Information 3.1Mitigation Site Location and Background Information The mitigation site is generally located south and west of the Lower Otay Reservoir, north of the George F. Bailey Detention Facility, and north of the Otay Water District Roll Reservoir. Parcels are located on land owned by the City of Chula Vista, the City of San Diego and the County of San Diego. It is located immediately south of the Savage Dam, which impounds the Otay River waters within the Lower Otay Reservoir, and includes the mainstem of the Otay River that initially runs southeast through a deep canyon and around a large hill and then runs generally westerly where it broadens into a large floodplain. The mitigation area is included within the City of Chula Vista General Plan, the Otay Ranch General Development and Resource Management Plan, the County of San Diego Multiple Species Conservation Program Subarea Plan, and the Otay River Watershed Special Area Management Plan. %´¯§¸£±¸ ² ¤£¨³§ It occurs within designated critical habitat for Quino checkerspot butterfly ( quino ; Quino) as well as within the recommended survey area for Quino (USFWS 2014). Surrounding lands to the east and west support undeveloped lands with mostly native habitat. Park, and the Otay Water District Roll Reservoir and associated pump stations. 3.2Climate Climate in the mitigation area is characterized as Mediterranean, with generally warm dry summers (June through September) and mild, wet winters (October through May) (Major 1977). The Mediterranean climate results in relatively long periods of low-flow dry conditions, with minimal runoff into the Otay River. These dry conditions are punctuated by brief, seasonal episodes of heavy rainfall and higher volume runoff. Monthly average extreme temperatures generally range between a mean low of 48°F in December through January and a mean high of 75°F in July through September (Western Regional Climate Center 2014). Mean annual rainfall in the mitigation area is 11.3 inches/year (National Weather Service Lower Otay Reservoir Weather Station 2013). The Otay River Watershed occurs within a naturally fire-prone landscape. Data from the U.S. Forest Service Database indicates that the mainstem region immediately below the Savage Dam of the mitigation area has burned four times since 1994, most recently during the 2007 Harris Fire, while the downstream river portion and floodplain has burned once during that period in the 1994 Otay Fire. Many species in the Southern California region produce seeds capable of germinating only as a result of exposure to fire or smoke from a fire; however, a too-frequent fire regime may burn areas before native vegetation has time to reach maturity and the ability to produce seed. The frequent fires in the upstream region may have had negative effects on the watershed by affecting the hydrological processes indirectly by altering the physical and chemical properties of soil and Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 3-1 Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.15 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 313 Otay Land Company Proposed Mitigation Site Baseline Information converting plant cover to soluble ash, thereby increasing soil runoff, erosion, and sedimentation in the channel. 3.3Hydrologic Conditions 3.3.1Watershed The mitigation area is part of the approximately 145-square-mile (92,920-acre) Otay River Watershed, which is situated between the Sweetwater River Watershed to the north and the Tijuana River Watershed to the south; the latter extends over the international border with Mexico. The 25-mile-long Otay River originates at San Miguel Mountain, flows through the Upper and Lower Otay Reservoirs, continues west, and empties into San Diego Bay (Aspen 2007). The mitigation area is situated approximately in the middle of the Otay River Watershed and contains a floodplain and the Otay River main channel up to the Savage Dam and Lower Otay Reservoir. The area exists in a post-disturbance state; the floodplain was mined for sand/gravel in the 1980s, and a portion near the Savage Dam was most recently burned in 2003. 3.3.2Historic Hydrological Conditions Historically, the mitigation area was part of a large watershed that drained into San Diego Bay at the River. The Upper Otay Dam was built in 1901; it forms the Upper Otay Reservoir, which serves as a municipal water supply. The Lower Otay Dam, which represents the northern border of the mitigation area, was originally built in 1897 as rock- and earth-fill based on massive masonry with a riveted steel plate diaphragm. It was erected by the Southern California Mountain Water Company to provide water storage. Information about the Otay River Watershed before the construction of the original dam is extremely limited (Aspen 2007). The original Lower Otay Dam failed catastrophically during a high rain event in 1916. The 1916 dam failure drained the Lower Otay Reservoir in 2.5 hours and sent a wall of water initially 100 feet high down through the canyon and river valley, destroying buildings, bridges, and farms, and killing 11 people. The canyon immediately downstream of the dam was completely scoured of vegetation and boulders (McGlashan and Ebert 1918). The Lower Otay Reservoir dam was replaced in 1919 after the flood of 1916 with a concrete gravity- arch structure known as the Savage Dam, which still stands today. The Savage Dam forms the approximately 49,510 acre-foot Lower Otay Reservoir and supplies drinking water to parts of Southern California. The Lower Otay Reservoir was designed primarily to provide a water supply for with its sediment supply and has limited flood control capacity (Aspen 2007). However, both the Upper and Lower Otay Reservoirs effectively handle increased flow from small rain events in the upper watershed and have mostly eliminated major flood events along the Otay River; dam spills are infrequent and minor. 3.3.3Existing Hydrological Conditions Existing conditions for the plan area are primarily defined by the construction of Savage Dam in 1919 as development in the immediate watershed has remained minimal. The dam has experienced Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 3-2 Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.15 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 314 Otay Land Company Proposed Mitigation Site Baseline Information spillovers resulting in water entry to the Otay River a total of 27 times since 1919. As such, the Otay River immediately downstream of the dam does not receive water from the upper watershed except during rain events and infrequent minor over-spills. The dam and reservoir have distorted the sediment equilibrium of the Otay River by retaining all of the upstream sediment, causing a sediment deficit and channel degradation for the portion of the mainstem below the Savage Dam. The 1916 dam failure had temporary effects on the shape of the river, and channel-forming events have not occurred since the flood of 1916; therefore, the planform of the Otay River below the Savage Dam has remained largely stable during the twentieth century. The Lower Otay River currently has a low degree of sinuosity and consists of braided streams with multiple bars and islands. However, sand and gravel extraction activities have affected the topography of the Otay River mainstem and make braiding patterns difficult to evaluate (Aspen 2007). Three creeks flow into the mitigation area: two are un-named drainages that meet the Otay River from the south (Features , which meets the Otay River toward the downstream end of the restoration project (Feature 5) on the southern edge of the mitigation area and originates in the Otay Mountain Wilderness near Otay Mountain (see Section 3.9 and Figure 3-3 for further information). None of the drainages are gaged, and no readily available Creek runs primarily through undeveloped land with the exception of the R.J. Donovan Correctional Facility. The creek flows through a culvert and through a significant embankment supporting the access road connecting the East and West Mesa portions of the facility. This culvert acts as a significant flood management facility as the slopes are very steep and the high road embankment is greater than undeveloped land that is inaccessible by automobile (Aspen 2007). The occurrence of plant material y River Valley is significant as this confluence facilitates the introduction into the floodplain of rare plant species originating from Otay Mountain. Salt Creek runs through the extreme northwest portion of the project site but does not drain into the floodplain. The impounding of river waters by the installation of the Savage Dam has changed the hydrological functions of the Otay River mainstem, and sand and gravel extraction activities and migration of foreign materials into the area have changed the original sediment distribution on the Otay River (Aspen 2007). In-stream mining typically degrades and destabilizes streambeds by causing a reduction of downstream sediment supply and also dilutes and removes soil organic matter, nutrients, and native seed banks. Disruption of the soil profile leads to leaching of nutrients and soil moisture loss (Aspen 2007). Similarly, because the mitigation site is situated immediately below the Savage Dam it no longer receives perennial water. It is therefore no longer fully functional as a river and river floodplain and primarily provides hydrologic, biogeochemical, and habitat functions associated with intermittent/ephemeral streambeds and dry alluvial fans, although several scattered areas persist that support riparian habitat. The river channel immediately south of the dam runs through a deep canyon and contains scattered areas of riparian habitat which support native trees such as willows; however, due to dry conditions it also supports Diegan coastal sage scrub species such as laurel Malosmalaurina sumac ( ). The river channel contains abundant nonnative species such as !±¤¢ ¢¤ ¤ eucalyptus, pepper tree, palm trees (spp.), and tamarisk. The downstream floodplain area that was mined for sand was not restored to natural conditions. The departure of Nelson and Sloan Materials from the river valley potentially preceded laws Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 3-3 Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.15 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 315 Otay Land Company Proposed Mitigation Site Baseline Information requiring reclamation after site abandonment, and site conditions indicate that the company removed its equipment and left the floodplain in a highly disturbed condition. Literature indicates that at least the top 15 feet of soil was removed from the site; conditions on site indicate that at least the top 20 feet of soil was removed from some areas, thereby reducing the elevation of possibly a majority of the floodplain area and removing topsoil along with associated native seedbank, microorganisms, and nutrients. Sediment and gravel piles appear in abundance throughout the floodplain, and several deep pits and large berms remain. In addition, dozens of smaller, roughly south direction, opposite to that of flow, and are easily seen in aerial photographs. Previous studies of the Otay River Watershed have concluded that it is not a major source of groundwater. Groundwater within the watershed occurs within unconsolidated alluvium, semi- consolidated sedimentary bedrock and bedrock surrounding the alluvium, and the flow generally mimics surface topography. Most of the groundwater in the watershed occurs west and downstream of the mitigation area. Significant changes to the hydrologic and sediment regimes of the Otay River mainstem have occurred as a result of the curtailment of channel discharge and sediment deposit due to the installation of the Savage Dam; because of these changes, it is expected that over time the Otay River will experience flattening of slopes and downcuts in the upper reaches and aggrade in the lower reaches. The San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG 1985) characterizes the Otay Groundwater basin to be in hydrologic equilibrium, such that recharge and discharge are approximately equal. The portion of mitigation site that is directly within the river floodplain provides minimal short- and long-term storage of surface water in scattered areas within the mainstem and within the floodplain (watershed management). 3.4Water Quality Water quality monitoring data are not available for the mitigation area. Groundwater quality downstream of the mitigation area is rated as marginal to inferior for domestic and irrigation purposes because of high total dissolved solids and high chloride concentrations, respectively (Aspen 2007). Groundwater upstream of the mitigation area generally meets safe drinking standards; however, some sampling locations have high iron, manganese, chloride, nitrate, and/or total dissolved solids concentrations (Aspen 2007). 3.5Topography The mitigation site is completely contained within the existing Otay River Valley. At the upstream end of the site the valley is narrow (approximately 100200 feet) for several hundred feet before widening noticeably to approximately 1,0001,500 feet. Most of the site resides in this wide section of the valley floor. The proposed channel alignment meanders through the wide valley before tying back into the existing channel near the downstream end of the site where the valley walls close back in to approximately 500 feet. The valley floor itself is mostly flat, but does feature several topographic features: on both the north and south sides of the proposed channel alignment there are dozens of mine tailing mounds (approximately 810 feet tall), which were left behind as a result of instream sand and gravel mining in the twentieth century. Several ponds are present north of the proposed channel alignment, with an average depth of approximately 58 feet relative to adjacent ground. Elevations of the valley floor itself range from approximately 228 feet at the downstream Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 3-4 Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.15 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 316 Otay Land Company Proposed Mitigation Site Baseline Information end to 252 feet at the upstream end; typically the valley floor is 1020 feet below the adjacent ground of the surrounding foothills. 3.6Formerly Used Defense Site (FUDS) The mitigation site is located within the Brown Field Formerly Used Defense Site (FUDS) (Figure 3- 1). The Brown Field Bombing Range (also known as the Otay Mesa Bombing Range, the Otay Bombing Target, or Otay Mesa Bombing Target #32) was used by the Navy as a dive-bombing practice range, and later as an aerial rocket range. The property was used by the Navy between 1942 and 1960. By mid-1961, the bombing range and the easement had been determined to be surplus and assigned to the General Services Administration for disposal. The Department of Defense (DoD) has established the Military Munitions Response Program (MMRP) to address DoD sites suspected of containing munitions and explosives of concern (MEC) or munitions constituents (MC). Under the MMRP, the USACE is conducting environmental response activities at FUDS for the Executive Agent for the FUDS program. A MMRP Site Inspection (SI) report was prepared for the Brown Field FUDS boundary (Parsons 2007). The primary objective of the MMRP SI is to determine whether a FUDS project warrants further response action under Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) or not. The SI collects the minimum amount of information necessary to make this determination. Additionally, it (i) determines the potential need for a removal action (ii) collects or develops additional data, as appropriate, for Hazard Ranking System (HRS) scoring by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA); and (iii) collects data, as appropriate, to characterize the release for effective and rapid initiation of the Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS), if warranted. An additional objective of the MMRP SI is to collect the additional data necessary to complete the Munitions Response Site Prioritization Protocol (MRSPP). The SI for the Brown Field Bombing Range evaluated potential MEC and MC presence within the Munitions Response Site (MRS) designated within the FUDS eligible property boundary. Although sand mining activities occurred for more than two decades after range activities ceased, there is still a potential to unearth unexploded ordinances (UXO). As such implementation of restoration activities will include safety measures as described in Chapter 5. 3.7Soil Characteristics It is important to note when describing soils within the Mitigation parcel that Nelson and Sloane Materials operated several sand pits in the Otay River Valley. In 1982 they had permits to mine in three locations within the river valley and two locations along terrace deposits adjacent to the river valley, and the floodplain area of the mitigation area was mined for sand by this company (Kohler and Miller 1982). Its operations ended in approximately 1985 because Nelson and Sloan was unable to complete new permitting processes required for in-stream mining (Miller 1996). Soils in the Otay East sub-basin are predominan The riparian areas and previously active floodplains of the Otay River lack distinct layers and are generally well drained and poorly developed (Aspen 2007). Soils in the floodplain area are characterized as having a high infiltration rate when thoroughly wetted, comprising primarily deep Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 3-5 Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.15 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 317 Otay Land Company Proposed Mitigation Site Baseline Information well-drained sand and gravel. The water transmission rate is high, while runoff potential is low. The California Division of Mines and Geology has classified lands according to the presence or absence of significant sand and gravel deposits and crushed rock source areas in the form of Mineral Resource Zones (MRZs). The Otay River Valley in the mitigation area is classified as MRZ-2, which are Quaternary river channel and floodplain deposits, Tertiary and Quaternary conglomerate and alluvial fans, Cretaceous granitic rocks, and Jurassic meta-volcanic rocks (California Department of Conservation 1982). The mitigation area ranges in elevation from 230 feet above mean sea level at its lowest point in the floodplain area of the Otay River to 370 feet above mean sea level at its highest point just below the Savage Dam. Otay River well logs indicate that the depth of sand and gravel is approximately 90 feet; however, mining did not occur much below 15 feet due to a clay layer that was reported by mining companies to occur at approximately that depth. Sand to gravel ratio was reported to be 50/50 (California Department of Conservation 1982). Five soil types, as defined by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), are mapped within the mitigation site (Bowman 1973; NRCS 2014). These include Olivenhain-cobbly loam, Huerhuero loam, Visalia gravely sandy loam, Riverwash, San ilt loams, and Terrace escarpments. /«¨µ¤§ ¨ ¢®¡¡«¸ «® ¬ soils are well-drained, moderately deep to deep, cobbly loams with a cobbly clay subsoil and form in old gravelly or cobbly alluvium. They occur on gentle to strong slopes on dissected marine terraces at elevations of 100 to 600 feet. They are generally well- drained with slow or medium runoff and very slow permeability. (´¤±§´¤±® «® ¬ ²®¨«² are moderately well-drained loams with a clay subsoil that have developed in sandy marine sediments at elevations of 10 to 400 feet and slopes of 2 to 30%. 6¨² «¨ ¦± µ¤«¸ ² £¸ «® ¬ soils consist of moderately well-drained, very deep sandy loams that occur on alluvial fans and floodplains and are derived from granitic alluvium. They occur on slopes of 0 to 15% at elevations of 100 to 2,000 feet. loam is about 50% San Miguel silt loam and 40% Exchequer silt loam. Soils in the San Miguel series consist of wellshallow to moderately deep silt loams that have a clay subsoil. Soils in the Exchequer series consist of shallow and very shallow, site. Riverwash typically occurs in intermittent stream channels. The material is typically sandy, gravelly, or cobbly and is well-drained and rapidly permeable. Shrubs and forbs occur in patches and many areas are bare. This soil type is often mined for sand and gravel. 4¤±± ¢¤ ¤²¢ ±¯¬¤³² landscapes. The terrace escarpments typically occur on the nearly even fronts of terraces or alluvial fans between narrow flood plains and adjoin uplands, often with 4 to 10 inches of loamy or gravelly soil over soft marine sandstone, shale, or gravelly sediments. They occur typically on the coastal plain and small areas in foothills. 3.8Vegetation Communities and Habitat Types The southern portion of the floodplain has self-vegetated primarily with plants consistent with Eriogonum Diegan coastal sage scrub and alluvial fan communities; these plants include buckwheat ( Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 3-6 Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.15 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 318 K:\\San Diego\\projects\\Otay_Land_Co_Village\\00296_14_8and9_Mitigation_Site\\mapdoc\\HMMP\\Fig03_1_FUDS.mxd 1/25/2016 35528 Otay Land Company Proposed Mitigation Site Baseline Information fasciculatumArtemisiacalifornicaHeteromeles ), laurel sumac, California sagebrush ( ), toyon ( arbutifoliaBaccharissarothroides ), and broom baccharis ( ), although the area also contains numerous nonnative invasive species such as pepper tree and tamarisk. The southwestern side of se of (¤²¯¤±®¢¸¯ ±¨² ¥®±¡¤²¨¨ Tecate cypress (). The northern portion of the floodplain is a near monotypic stand of tamarisk, which is a species that lowers the water table and salinizes the soil in areas that it has invaded (Busch and Smith 1995). The downstream floodplain also contains scattered areas of riparian habitat containing native trees such as willows, as well as several areas of freshwater marsh; however, these areas also contain abundant individuals of eucalyptus, pepper tree, palm tree, and tamarisk. In addition, a large eucalyptus woodland has established on the western portion of the floodplain, which also contains numerous individuals of pepper trees and tamarisk. In November 2013, ICF biologists conducted a vegetation mapping exercise of the entire project area including the Mitigation parcel and the upstream drainage up to Savage Dam. Vegetation communities were categorized using the standard classifications of Oberbauer et al. (2008). A list of all plant species opportunistically detected in the mitigation areas are provided in Appendix B. A total of 11 vegetation communities and land cover types were mapped within the mitigation area and upstream enhancement area and include Diegan coastal sage scrub, southern willow scrub, southern cottonwood-willow riparian forest, freshwater marsh, disturbed habitat, urban/developed, chamise chaparral, southern interior Cypress forest, nonnative grassland, eucalyptus woodland, and nonnative vegetation. (Table 3-1, Figures 3-2 and 3-3). Table 3-1. Vegetation Communities in the Mitigation Parcel and Upstream Enhancement Area 6¤¦¤³ ³¨® -¨³¨¦ ³¨® 5¯²³±¤ ¬ #« ²²¨¥¨¢ ³¨® 6¤¦¤³ ³¨® #®¬¬´¨³¸ £ , £ #®µ¤± 4¸¯¤² 0 ±¢¤« Enhancement Category (Acreage) Area (Acreage) 1 65100 Arundo-Dominated Riparian 0.016 - 37200 Chamise Chaparral 6.151 - 32500 Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub 73.967 23.503 Disturbed Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub 82.352 - 2 11300 Disturbed Habitat 20.216 0.014 79100 Eucalyptus Woodland 6.6.184 0.005 64140 Fresh Water (Open Water) 0.172 0.044 52400 Freshwater Marsh 0.255 0.008 63310 Mule Fat Scrub 0.0.506 - 42200 Non-Native Grassland 12.025 - 11000 Non-Native Vegetation 4.504 1.303 44320 San Diego Mesa Vernal Pool Complex 13.183 - 61330 Southern Cottonwood - Willow Riparian Forest 1.885 - Southern Cottonwood - Willow Riparian Forest - Disturbed 1.1.809 2 83200 Southern Interior Cypress Forest 2.82 - 37120 Southern Mixed Chaparral 1.498 4.225 63300 Southern Riparian Scrub - 0.790 63320 Southern Willow Scrub 0.010 - Southern Willow Scrub Disturbed 0.976 - Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 3-7 Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.15 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 321 Otay Land Company Proposed Mitigation Site Baseline Information 6¤¦¤³ ³¨® -¨³¨¦ ³¨® 5¯²³±¤ ¬ #« ²²¨¥¨¢ ³¨® 6¤¦¤³ ³¨® #®¬¬´¨³¸ £ , £ #®µ¤± 4¸¯¤² 0 ±¢¤« Enhancement Category (Acreage) Area (Acreage) 1 63810 Tamarisk Scrub 54.995 1.318 12000 Urban/Developed 0.014 0.396 42000 Valley and Foothill Grassland 2.078 0.370 '± £ 4®³ « 285.061 31.976 1 Based on Oberbauer et al. 2008. 2 the use of the term in Oberbauer et al. 3.8.1Arundo-Dominated Riparian These areas are densely vegetated riparian thickets dominated almost exclusively by giant reed. This designation should only be used where Arundo accounts for greater than 50% of the total vegetative cover within a mapping unit. This species is a problem throughout Southern California and is extensive along most of the major rivers. In San Diego County, this vegetation community is common in major river channels such as Otay River, Sweetwater River, San Diego River, San Dieguito River, and San Luis Rey River. 3.8.2Chamise Chaparral !£¤®²³®¬ ¥ ²¢¨¢´« ³´¬ This community is dominated by chamise () and exists in the southeastern portion of the mitigation site. This habitat is an important community for a variety of small native animals such as rodents, rabbits, and lizards as well as their predators such as the California species #±®³ «´² ±´¡¤± of special concern red diamond rattlesnake (). 3.8.3Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub Diegan coastal sage scrub is considered to be a sensitive habitat by USFWS, CDFW, and many local jurisdictions and is thought to be one of the most endangered vegetation types in California (Atwood 1993); it is characterized by low-growing, woody, drought-deciduous aromatic shrubs and typically occurs on hotter, south-facing slopes. Diegan coastal sage scrub was the dominant habitat type on the coastal plains of San Diego County; its occurrence has been greatly reduced by development. Because of prior significant disturbance within the mitigation area, Diegan coastal sage scrub exists in tracts of varying quality and species composition. This habitat exists in the mitigation area along roadsides and hillsides; this community is often dominated by California buckwheat, deerweed !¢¬¨²¯® ¦« ¡¤±3 «µ¨ ¯¨ (), and white sage () with scattered individuals of lemonade berry 2§´² ¨³¤¦±¨¥®«¨ () and California sagebrush that are suffering severely from current drought conditions. Other areas along roads and streambeds are heavily dominated by broom baccharis. The Diegan coastal sage scrub community within the floodplain is dominated by California buckwheat, laurel sumac, toyon, and lemonade berry while low-lying areas with more moisture contain )µ § ¸¤²¨ abundant San Diego marsh-elder (; California Rare Plant Rank 2.2). A few drought- &¤±®¢ ¢³´² µ¨±¨£¤²¢¤² affected individuals of San Diego barrel cactus () occur within the mitigation area. This community provides nesting habitat for a variety of avian species including those protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) federally listed species protected by the Endangered Species Act, including federally listed as Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 3-8 Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.15 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 322 K:\\San Diego\\projects\\Otay_Land_Co_Village\\00296_14_8and9_Mitigation_Site\\mapdoc\\HMMP\\Fig03_2_MitParcel_Veg.mxd Date: 1/25/2016 35528 Freshwater Eucalyptus Woodland Savage Dam Freshwater Non-Native Marsh Vegetation Non-Native Vegetation Disturbed Habitat Southern Riparian Scrub Eucalyptus Woodland Non-Native Vegetation Valley and Foothill Grassland Southern Mixed Chaparral 37120 Southern Mixed Chaparral Diegan Coastal Valley Sage Scrub and Foothill Grassland Tamarisk Scrub Non-Native Southern Vegetation Mixed Chaparral Tamarisk Scrub Non-Native Vegetation Legend Upstream Enhancement AreaEucalyptus WoodlandSouthern Riparian Scrub Vegetation FreshwaterTamarisk Scrub Freshwater MarshUrban/Developed Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub Non-Native VegetationValley and Foothill Grassland Disturbed Habitat Southern Mixed Chaparral ± Figure 3-3 0200400 Upstream Enhancement Area Feet Otay River Restoration Project ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 325 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 326 Otay Land Company Proposed Mitigation Site Baseline Information 0®«¨®¯³¨« threatened and California species of special concern coastal California gnatcatcher ( ¢ «¨¥®±¨¢ ¢ «¨¥®±¨¢ ) and the federally listed as endangered Quino. 3.8.4Disturbed Habitat Disturbed habitat consists of areas that have experienced persistent mechanical disturbance that has resulted in severely limited native plant growth; these areas may be depauperate or may support sparsely distributed nonnative and/or native vegetation. Disturbed areas exist within the floodplain area as dirt roads and as areas that experience heavy use by off-road vehicles. 3.8.5Eucalyptus Woodland This habitat often consists of monotypic stands of introduced eucalyptus trees. The understory is typically depauperate or sparse due to allelopathic properties of the eucalyptus leaf litter. While not described in Holland (1986) as a distinct vegetation community, it is assigned a category in the Draft Vegetation Communities of San Diego County (Oberbauer et al. 2008); it is widespread throughout San Diego County, often occupying large tracts of land and displacing native plant communities. Eucalyptus trees are found as individuals or in small populations throughout both the Otay River channel and the Otay River floodplain. A large eucalyptus woodland exists in the northwestern portion of the site that also contains tamarisk and pepper trees. Eucalyptus woodlands provide habitat and foraging value for many native animals, and are utilized by raptors for nesting and roosting sites and may therefore be considered a resource for those species. 3.8.6Fresh Water (Open Water) Fresh water areas are composed of year-round bodies of fresh water (extremely low salinity) in the form of lakes, streams, ponds, or rivers. This includes those portions of water bodies that are usually covered by water and contain less than 10% vegetative cover. Within the Mitigation parcel these areas are predominantly located in the seasonal ponds, which are deep enough to hit groundwater on the northern side of the floodplain as well as upstream of the eastern channel crossing where water ponds. In this dry intermittent/ephemeral setting, these year-round fresh water sources are a unique habitat. 3.8.7Freshwater Marsh This community occurs in areas where water tends to accumulate and supports emergent plant 4¸¯§ Scirpus species such as cattail (sp.) and bulrush ( sp.). Freshwater marsh occurs in scattered locations within the Otay River channel and the floodplain. This community provides nesting habitat !¦¤« ¨´² ¯§®¤¨¢¤´²#¨²³®³§®±´² ¯ «´²³±¨² for the red-winged blackbird () and marsh wren (), and provides foraging habitat for numerous avian species. 3.8.8Mule Fat Scrub " ¢¢§ ±¨² ² «¨¢¨¥®«¨ A depauperate, tall, herbaceous riparian scrub strongly dominated by mule fat() and commonly found in intermittent stream channels with fairly coarse substrate. This early seral community is maintained by frequent flooding. Absent the frequent disturbance, most stands would 0®¯´«´² ¥±¤¬®³¨¨0« ³ ´² ± ¢¤¬®² succeed to cottonwood () or sycamore () dominated riparian Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 3-9 Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.15 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 327 Otay Land Company Proposed Mitigation Site Baseline Information forests or woodlands. This habitat is heavily used for both nesting and foraging by birds including 6¨±¤® ¡¤««¨¨ ¯´²¨««´² coastal (). 3.8.9Nonnative Grassland (or Annual Grassland) Nonnative grassland is a dense to sparse cover of annual grasses with flowering culms less than 1 meter high. The vegetation community often occurs where native habitats such as native grassland and coastal sage scrub habitat have been disturbed or removed. It is often associated with numerous species of showy-flowered, native annual forbs (wildflowers), especially in years of favorable "± ²²¨¢ ¨¦± rainfall. In San Diego County the presence of black mustard (), slender wild oats !µ¤ ¡ ±¡ ³ BromusErodium cicutarium (), a variety of brome grasses ( sp.), and red-stem filaree ( ) are common indicators. In some areas, depending on past disturbance and annual rainfall, annual forbs may be the dominant species; however, it is presumed that grasses will soon dominate. Germination occurs with the onset of the late fall rains; growth, flowering, and seed-set occur from winter through spring. With a few exceptions, the plants are dead through the summerfall dry season, persisting as seeds. Remnant native species are variable. Nonnative grasslands are considered sensitive habitat by CDFW and some local jurisdictions because they may serve as habitat linkages and may support raptor foraging and sensitive plant species. Nonnative grassland occurs in scattered locations within the mitigation area including along roadsides and upon hillsides containing species such as black mustard, slender wild oats, a variety of - ±±´¡¨´¬ µ´«¦ ±¤, ¢³´¢ ²¤±±¨®« brome grasses, horehound (), prickly lettuce (), and tocalote #¤³ ´±¤ ¬¤«¨³¤²¨² (). Some isolated individual native shrub species persist in some of these areas. 4§®¬®¬¸² -gophers ( bottae#±®³ «´² ®±¤¦ ´² §¤««¤±¨ ) and native reptiles such as the Southern Pacific rattlesnake (), and is often of value to raptors as foraging areas. 3.8.10Nonnative Vegetation Nonnative vegetation communities are dominated by plant species that do not naturally and historically occur in this region. Some nonnative species may be characterized as invasive due to their ability to out-compete and displace native species. Nonnative vegetation within the mitigation #®±³ £¤±¨ ²¤««® area includes pepper tree, eucalyptus, pampas grass (), and tamarisk. Although this community may provide some support of native animal species in the form of shelter, foraging habitat, and roosting or nesting habitat, it is generally understood to degrade natural conditions, and may result in the exclusion of certain native animal species that are dependent upon natural plant species and habitats for their survival. 3.8.11San Diego Mesa Vernal Pool This habitat is characterized by small depressions in flat-topped marine terraces where Fe-Si cemented hardpan prevents downward drainage of rainwater. Soils often are stonier than Northern Hardpan Vernal Pools, and are always coarser and redder than San Diego Mesa Claypan Vernal Pools. San Diego Mesa Vernal Pool is very similar in aspect to Northern Hardpan Vernal Pools, but with different species composition. This is a low, amphibious, herbaceous community dominated by annual herbs and grasses. Germination and growth begin with winter rains, often continuing even when inundated. Rising spring temperatures evaporate the pools, leaving concentric banks of vegetation that colorfully encircle the drying pool. Surrounding high ground is often mantled with Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 3-10 Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.15 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 328 Otay Land Company Proposed Mitigation Site Baseline Information chamise chaparral. In addition to often supporting a suite of unique wildlife including fairy shrimp and various amphibians, these pools also host a variety of unique flora. This includes San Diego %±¸¦¨´¬ ±¨²³´« ³´¬ ¯ ±¨²§¨¨ -¸®²´±´² ¬¨¨¬´² button-celery (var.),tiny mousetail(),spreading . µ ±±¤³¨ ¥®²² «¨² 0®¦®¦¸¤ ´£¨´²¢´« navarretia(),and Otay Mesa mint(). 3.8.12Southern Cottonwood Willow Riparian Forest This habitat is composed primarily of tall tree species such as willows, cottonwood and sycamore that are adapted to wet conditions, and are found in streambeds and other wet areas. They support high avian diversity and abundance, and provide nesting habitat for species such as yellow warbler 3¤³®¯§ ¦ ¯¤³¤¢§¨ !¢¢¨¯¨³¤± ¢®®¯¤±¨¨%¬¯¨£® · ³± ¨««¨¨ (), and willow flycatcher (). 3.8.13Southern Interior Cypress Forest This community is considered a sensitive natural community by the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) and applicable local jurisdictions. It is typically a dense, fire-maintained, low forest of even-aged stands of Tecate cypress, often surrounded by chaparral. The mitigation area contains stands of Tecate cypress, a tree found only in four isolated groves in Orange County and San Diego County, and in Baja California, Mexico. In San Diego County, groves occur on Guatay Mountain, Otay Mountain, and Tecate Peak. The majority of the Otay Mountain population burned during the Otay Fire in 2003, and most of the Tecate Peak population burned during the Harris Fire CallophrysMitoura¦±¸¤´² ³§®±¤¨ \[\] ) is completely dependent upon this species for its survival; this butterfly lays eggs only upon this species of cypress. 3.8.14Southern Mixed Chaparral Southern mixed chaparral occurs in the coastal foothills of San Diego County and northern Baja California, usually below 3,000 feet (910 meters). It is composed of broad-leaved sclerophyll shrubs ranging in height from 1.5 to 3 meters tall. It is a dense habitat but occasionally occurs with patches of bare soil or with Venturan Coastal Sage Scrub (32300) or Riversidean Sage Scrub (32700) forming a mosaic. In San Diego County, it is dominated by blue-colored lilacs, especially Ramona lilac #¤ ®³§´² ³®¬¤³®²´²olivaceus#ȁ «¤´¢®£¤±¬¨²#ȁ ®«¨¦ ³§´²Ceanothus ( var. ) as well as and ; other spp. generally indicate other chaparral types. 3.8.15Southern Riparian Scrub This vegetation community occurs throughout San Diego County and is characterized by riparian zones dominated by small trees or shrubs, lacking taller riparian trees. At times it can be found encroaching into some Coastal Saltmarsh habitats. It is often associated with river systems where scour events occur, minimizing the opportunity for large trees to form. This habitat is characterized 3 «¨· « ²¨®«¤¯¨²Salix by arroyo willow () and other willow species ( spp.). As with other riparian habitats, vireo. Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 3-11 Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.15 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 329 Otay Land Company Proposed Mitigation Site Baseline Information 3.8.16Southern Willow Scrub Southern willow scrub communities are riparian thickets dominated by several willow species, mule fat, and occasionally western cottonwood. Many stands are too dense to allow much understory 3 «¨· development. Within the mitigation area this community included Gooddings black willow ( gooddingii7 ²§¨¦³®¨ ±®¡´²³ ), cattail, Mexican fan palm (), giant reed, Canary Island date palm, and Peruvian pepper tree. Southern willow scrub in the mitigation area supports the federally and state-listed as endangered l bird species protected by the federal MBTA. 3.8.17Tamarisk Scrub This community comprises a weedy, virtual monoculture of tamarisk species. These stands often occur as a result of major disturbance. Tamarisk outcompetes native species due to its extensive lateral root system that can draw down the water table, and it develops very deep roots. Its leaves secrete salt crystals that when introduced into the soil can prevent native plants from establishing. Tamarisk is also prolific seeder, and has replaced riparian habitat within the floodplain that was disturbed as a result of sand-mining activities. 3.8.18Urban/Developed Urban/developed land cover is characterized by areas that have been constructed upon or otherwise physically altered to an extent that native vegetation is no longer supported. Developed land is characterized by permanent or semi-permanent structures, pavement or hardscape, and landscaped areas that often require irrigation. Areas where no natural land is evident due to a large amount of debris or other materials being placed upon it may also be considered Urban/Developed (e.g., car recycling plant, quarry). Little to no vegetation occurs in these areas other than ruderal, disturbance-loving species and a variety of ornamental (usually nonnative) plants. 3.8.19Valleys and Foothill Grassland Valleys and Foothill Grassland are a low-growing (less than 2 feet) grassland habitat dominated by StipaNasellapulchra perennial, tussock-forming purple needlegrass ( \[previously \] ). Native and introduced annuals occur between the perennials, often actually exceeding the bunchgrasses in Sanicula cover. In San Diego County, native perennial herbs such as sanicles ( spp.), checkerbloom 3¨£ «¢¤ 3¨²¨±¸¢§¨´¬ ¡¤««´¬%²¢§²¢§®«¹¨ ¢ «¨¥®±¨¢ (spp.), blue-eyed grass (), California poppy (), or , ²³§¤¨ goldfields (spp.) are present. Nonnative grasses occurring include those described in the nonnative grassland vegetation community above. The percentage cover of native species at any one time may be quite low, but is considered native grassland if 20% aerial cover of native species is present. 3.9Sensitive Species No formal plant or wildlife surveys have been conducted within the restoration sites. At this time, wildlife species within the restoration sites are limited due to the lack of native habitat and the disturbed nature of the sites. Prior to conducting fieldwork, the CNDDB (CDFW 2015) was reviewed for the most recent distribution information for special-status plant and wildlife species within the Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 3-12 Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.15 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 330 Otay Land Company Proposed Mitigation Site Baseline Information Otay Lakes USGS quadrangles. Table 3-2 depicts the approximate locations of these observations within a 1-mile radius of the project area. Special-status species are those that meet any of the following criteria. Listed as endangered, threatened, or proposed for listing as endangered by USFWS. Listed as endangered, threatened, or rare by CDFW. Considered special vascular plants, bryopytes, or lichens by CDFW. Listed on the California Native ) Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California. W. A search of the CNDDB revealed 41 species of plants and wildlife that were recorded within 1 mile of the restoration site (Appendices C and D). An additional 19 wildlife species with no CNDDB records within 1 mile of the restoration site were also determined to have potential to occur in the plan area based on species range and habitat requirements. These species are also included in Appendix D. Federally and/or state-listed plant and wildlife species that are known to occur in the mitigation site are presented in Table 3-2. A brief discussion of these species follows. Table 3-2. Federally and/or State-Listed Species with CNDDB Records Within 1-Mile Radius of the Restoration Areas .¤ ±¤²³ 3¢¨¤³¨¥¨¢ . ¬¤ #®¬¬® . ¬¤ Status $¨²³ ¢¤ (feet) Plants $¤¨ £± ¢®©´¦¤² Found on site Otay tarplant FT, SE %±¸¦¨´¬ ±¨²³´« ³´¬ 180 var. parishii San Diego button-celery FE, SE . µ ±±¤³¨ ¥®²² «¨² Found on site spreading navarretia FT 0®¦®¦¸¤ ´£¨´²¢´« 1,982 Otay Mesa mint FE, SE Wildlife "± ¢§¨¤¢³ ² £¨¤¦®¤²¨² Found on site San Diego fairy shrimp FE 3³±¤¯³®¢¤¯§ «´² ¶®®³³®¨ 423 Riverside fairy shrimp FE %´¯§¸£±¸ ² ¤£¨³§ °´¨® 660 Quino checkerspot butterfly FE 6¨±¤® ¡¤««¨¨ ¯´²¨««´² Found on site least Bells vireo FE, SE 0®«¨®¯³¨« ¢ «¨¥®±¨¢ ¢ «¨¥®±¨¢ Found on site coastal California gnatcatcher FT #®¢¢¸¹´² ¬¤±¨¢ ´² ®¢¢¨£¤³ «¨² 4 western yellow-billed cuckoo FT, SE Federal FE = listed as endangered under the federal Endangered Species Act. FT = listed as threatened under the federal Endangered Species Act. State SE = listed as endangered under the California Endangered Species Act. Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 3-13 Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.15 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 331 Otay Land Company Proposed Mitigation Site Baseline Information 3.9.1San Diego Fairy Shrimp (.ƩğƓĭŷźƓĻĭƷğ ƭğƓķźĻŭƚĻƓƭźƭ) Federally Listed as Endangered San Diego fairy shrimp are small freshwater crustaceans that are found in shallow vernal pools and other ephemeral basin (USFWS 2002). San Diego fairy shrimp is found in southwestern coastal California and extreme northwestern Baja California, Mexico, with all known localities below 2,300 feet and within 40 miles of the Pacific Ocean, from Santa Barbara County south to northwestern Baja California (USFWS 1997, 1998a, 2002). These species can also occur in road ruts and ditches that provide suitable conditions for the species. Water temperature is an important factor for this fairy shrimp. The water must not get too hot (above 86°F) or too cold (below 41°F) for this species to occur (USFWS 2002). San Diego fairy shrimp were historically prevalent in vernal pool complexes across Otay Mesa (USFWS 2008). 3.9.2Riverside Fairy Shrimp ({ƷƩĻƦƷƚĭĻƦŷğƌǒƭ ǞƚƚƷƷƚƓź) Federally Listed as Endangered Riverside fairy shrimp are limited to a small number of vernal pools, all in Riverside, San Diego, or coastal Orange counties or Baja California. This small (less than an inch long) shrimp spends late spring and summer as an encysted embryo, lying in the soil left behind when the pools dry up. After the rains of winter arrive, filling the pools again, the larvae emerge and mature into adults, filter feeding on detritus and zooplankton. This process may require as much as 2 months to complete, 3ȁ ¶®®³³®¨ depending on water temperature. Because of this relatively long development period, tends to be found only in deeper, more dependable pools. Survival of this species is further challenged by its inability to tolerate muddy, salty, or alkaline conditions. Listed as endangered on August 2, 1993, major threats include habitat loss due to urban and agricultural development, off- road vehicles, trampling, and other human-initiated disturbance 3.9.3Quino Checkerspot Butterfly (9ǒƦŷǤķƩğǤğƭ ĻķźƷŷğ ƨǒźƓƚ) Federally Listed as Endangered %ȁ ¤£¨³§ Quino checkerspot butterfly ) and is a member of the Nymphalidae family, and the Melitaeinae subfamily, checkerspots and fritillaries. Primary host 0« ³ ¦® ¤±¤¢³ plants for the Quino are dot-seed plantain (), thread-k #®±£¸« ³§´² ±¨¦¨£´²!³¨±±§¨´¬ ¢®´«³¤±¨ ´¬ (), and white snapdragon (). Larval Quino may also # ²³¨««¤© ¤·¤±³ ) as primary or secondary host plants and will diapauses in or near the base of native shrubs, such as California buckwheat. Quino are generally found in open areas and ecotone situations that may occur in a number of plant communities, and optimal habitat appears to contain little or no invasive exotic vegetation, and densely vegetated areas are not known to support Quino (Mattoni et al. 1997). Habitat patch suitability is determined primarily by larval host plant density, topographic diversity, nectar resource availability, and climatic conditions (USFWS 2003). The life cycle of Quino begins with adult Quino during flight season between late February and May, when adult butterflies move about to search for nectar sources and mates. Eggs hatch in about 10 days, and larvae begin to feed immediately and migrate in search of additional plants to consume (USFWS 2003). When plants dry out, and the larvae are in their third or fourth instar of development, they enter an obligatory diapause. Diapause is a low-metabolic resting state that may Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 3-14 Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.15 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 332 Otay Land Company Proposed Mitigation Site Baseline Information last a year or more depending on conditions, and enables larvae to survive seasonal climatic extremes and times of extended adverse conditions, such as drought. The time between diapause termination and pupation can range from 2 weeks to 3 months. Sufficient rainfall is required to break diapause, which normally occurs during November or December. After diapause, larvae become active and feed until they enter their pupal stage. Within 2 to 6 weeks they transform into adults and emerge as butterflies. Adults live for approximately 10 to 14 days. 3.9.4źƩĻƚ ĬĻƌƌźź Ʀǒƭźƌƌǒƭ) Federally Listed as Endangered; State-Listed as Endangered The lvireo is a small, grayish songbird whose breeding distribution extends northwest to from San Diego County north to Santa Barbara County (rarely to Monterey County and formerly to the northern Sacramento Valley), northeast to Inyo County, south into northern Baja California, Mexico, and east into the edges of the deserts at a few points such as at the Mohave River (USFWS 1998). Nesting elevation ranges from below sea level to at least 4,100 feet. The subspecies winters in southern Baja California (Howell and Webb 1995). vireo numbers are currently increasing, with a 400 to 500% increase estimated between 1986 and 1996. However, they remain -®«®³§±´² ³¤± imperiled in the long term, primarily by brown-headed cowbird () nest parasitism and threats to the quantity and quality of remaining potential habitat (USFWS 1998b). vireos select dense vegetation low in riparian zones for nesting. As discussed in Franzreb (1989), among 126 locations of California nests recorded in the literature and in museum records, 71 (56%) were in willows and 14 (11%) were in wild rose (Rosa spp.). The remaining nests were distributed among 20 other species of vines, shrubs, herbs and trees. At least locally, least vireos will also fairly commonly use non-riparian habitats such as chaparral for foraging and even nest location when more typical habitat is adjacent (Kus and Miner 1989). about 26 feet (Salata 1983). Salata believed that a dense, shrubby layer near the ground was a critical component in the breeding habitat. Goldwasser (1981) found that the most critical structural component is a dense shrub layer from 2 to 10 feet from the ground, which agrees with findings of both Salata (1983) and Gray and Greaves (1984). Vegetation preferences are well-summarized in the study by Goldwasser: nest sites, although nearly all other common riparian shrub species are used. The frequency with which a given plant is chosen seems to be consistent with the relative abundance of shrubs growing in riparian woodlands. There is no obvious preference for any of the uncommon shrubs as nest sites and no apparent avoidance of As determined from field data for Southern California (RECON 1990) vireo nest sites are most frequently located in riparian stands between 5 and 10 years old. Even though mature trees are present at many of the sites, the average age of willow vegetation in the immediate vicinity of most nests was between 4 and 7 years. When mature riparian woodland is selected, vireos nest in areas with a substantial robust understory of willows as well as other plant species (Goldwasser 1981). Based on rigorous statistical analysis of vireo habitat structure and composition (RECON 1990), vireos appear to select sites with large amounts of both shrub and tree cover, a large degree of vertical stratification, and small amounts of aquatic and herbaceous cover. Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 3-15 Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.15 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 333 Otay Land Company Proposed Mitigation Site Baseline Information 3.9.5Coastal California Gnatcatcher (tƚƌźƚƦƷźƌğ ĭğƌźŅƚƩƓźĭğ ĭğƌźŅƚƩƓźĭğ) Federally Listed as Threatened The coastal California gnatcatcher is a small, gray, insect-gleaning bird. It is the only subspecies of the California gnatcatcher occurring in the United States. It is a year-round resident of sage scrub of several subtypes and is currently listed by USFWS as a threatened species (USFWS 1993, 1995). Within California it is found from the Mexican border north to extreme eastern and southern Los Angeles County with several small, disjunct populations known north to the Moorpark area of Ventura County. It extends east into western San Bernardino County and well across cismontane Riverside County. Habitat losses, degradation, and fragmentation due to land alteration and development are considered the major threats (Atwood 1990, 1993). 3.9.6Western Yellow-billed Cuckoo (/ƚĭĭǤǩǒƭ ğƒĻƩźĭğƓǒƭ ƚĭĭźķĻƓƷğƌźƭ) Federally Listed as Threatened; State-Listed as Endangered This neotropical migrant is a relative of the roadrunner and an inhabitant of extensive riparian forests. It formerly occurred from southwestern British Columbia south to the highlands of northern Mexico and the Yucatan Peninsula, wintering in South America. It has declined from a fairly common, local breeder in much of California 60 years ago, to virtual extirpation, with only a handful of tiny populations remaining in all of California today. Losses are tied to obvious loss of nearly all suitable habitat, but other factors may also be involved. Relatively broad, well-shaded riparian forests are utilized, although it tolerates some disturbance. A specialist to some degree on tent caterpillars, young develop remarkably quickly covering only 1821 days from incubation to fledging. 3.10Jurisdictional Delineation A jurisdictional delineation was performed by ICF biologists within the mitigation site on November 12 and 13, 2014. Prior to beginning the field delineation aerial photography, USGS topographic maps and National Wetland Inventory maps were analyzed to determine the locations of potential areas of USACE, RWQCB, and CDFW jurisdiction. Based on the pre-field analysis it was determined that both wetland and non-wetland features had the potential to occur within the plan area. Potential jurisdictional features were evaluated for the presence of a definable channel and/or wetland vegetation, soils, and hydrology. The plan area was analyzed for potential wetlands using #®±¯² ®¥ %¦¨¤¤±² 7¤³« £ $¤«¨¤ ³¨® - ´ « the methodology set forth in the 1987 2¤¦¨® « 3´¯¯«¤¬¤³ ³® ³§¤ #®±¯² ®¥ %¦¨¤¤±² (Environmental Laboratory 1987) and the 2008 7¤³« £ $¤«¨¤ ³¨® - ´ «Ȁ !±¨£ 7¤²³ 2¤¦¨® (USACE 2008a). Lateral limits of non-wetland waters were identified using field indicators (e.g., ordinary high water mark \[OHWM\]) (USACE 2008b). While in the field, potential jurisdictional features were recorded onto a 100-foot-scale color aerial photograph using visible landmarks and mapped using a Trimble hand-held Global Positioning 4§¤ *¤¯²® System (GPS) unit with sub-meter accuracy. Vascular plants were identified using - ´ «Ȁ 6 ²¢´« ± 0« ³² ®¥ # «¨¥®±¨ 4§¤ . ³¨® « 7¤³« £ 0« ³ ,¨²³ (Baldwin et al. 2012) and (Lichvar et al. 2014). Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 3-16 Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.15 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 334 Otay Land Company Proposed Mitigation Site Baseline Information A total of 13 features were delineated on site, including the Otay River, 9 ephemeral/intermittent tributaries, and 3 depressional wetlands/open water areas located farther in the floodplain. Table 3- 3 presents the acreage and linear feet for each feature delineated. Figure 3-4 shows the location and extent of USACE/RWQCB and CDFW jurisdiction. Below is a brief description of each feature delineated. &¤ ³´±¤ ΐ is the Otay River, which enters the site from the east (flowing west) and supports wetland habitat within its defined OHWM for approximately 1,306 feet until it sheetflows within a board floodplain across the remainder of the property. &¤ ³´±¤ Α is an ephemeral drainage, flowing in a northern direction for approximately 1,093 linear feet before entering the Otay River. &¤ ³´±¤ Β is an ephemeral drainage, flowing west along a hillside. Indicators of OHWM and a defined bed and bank end at an access road, and the feature appears to sheetflow toward the bottom of the valley. &¤ ³´±¤ Γ supports OHWM and wetland habitat and flows in a northern direction within the survey area. The upstream portion of Feature 4 supports wetland habitat, supporting both shallow groundwater and a dominance of San Diego marsh-elder, a facultative wetland species. However, the downstream portion of the feature does not support wetland habitat or shallow groundwater contributions and is more characteristic of an ephemeral drainage, dominated by upland coastal sage scrub species. Indicators of OHWM and a defined bed and bank end at an access road, and the feature appears to sheetflow toward the bottom of the valley. &¤ ³´±¤ Δ northwestern direction within the survey area. This feature supports OHWM and is characteristic of a desert wash; until it hits the valley floor a defined channel no longer exists and the channel sheetflows west along with the Otay River. &¤ ³´±¤ Ε is an ephemeral drainage that flows in a southwestern direction. OHWM was observed throughout the length of the feature. The feature flows outside of the mitigation site survey area, eventually flowing along the valley bottom. &¤ ³´±¤ Ζ is an ephemeral drainage, flowing in a southern direction before flowing directly within the Otay River. &¤ ³´±¤ Η is an ephemeral drainage that flows in a northwest direction for approximately 321 linear feet before dissipating. Indicators of OHWM and a defined bed and bank end once the feature reaches a flat and broad open space, and appears to only sheetflow toward the bottom of the valley. &¤ ³´±¤ Θ is an ephemeral drainage, flowing south along a hillside before turning west, paralleling an access road. The feature eventually peters out and sheetflows along the road no longer supporting a defined OHWM or bed and bank. &¤ ³´±¤ 10 is also known as Salt Creek. Only a short segment (307 linear feet) occurs within the mitigation site. This feature supports both OHWM and wetland habitat, dominated by mule fat and 4¸¯§ £®¬¨¦¤²¨² southern cattail (). &¤ ³´±¤² ΐΐ £ ΐΑ are human-made depressional wetlands that are primarily unvegetated open water habitat with a freshwater marsh fringe. These features support both a defined OHWM and wetland habitat. Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 3-17 Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.15 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 335 Otay Land Company Proposed Mitigation Site Baseline Information &¤ ³´±¤ ΐΒ is a human-made depressional wetland supporting freshwater marsh habitat. This feature supports both a defined OHWM and wetland habitat. Table 3-3. Existing Mitigation Area Wetlands and Waters USACE/RWQCB CDFW 3³±¤ ¬ Non- Length 7¤³« £ 7¤³« £ 3³±¤ ¬¡¤£ 2¨¯ ±¨ &¤ ³´±¤ Ͱ Ȩ«¨¤ ± ¥¤¤³ȩ (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) 1111 1 (Otay River) 1,306 0.98 1.94 2 1,093 0.17 0.30 3 678 0.05 0.07 4 704 0.08 0.32 0.15 0.32 2,096 0.91 1.51 6 891 0.07 0.13 7 206 0.01 0.02 8 321 0.02 0.04 9 588 0.03 0.06 10 (Salt Creek) 307 0.12 0.28 11 N/A 0.05 12 N/A 0.02 13 N/A 0.12 Total 8,191 1.34 1.62 2.28 2.54 1 Total acreage may not add up to the total shown; total is reflective of rounding geographic information system (GIS) raw data in each category. USACE = U.S. Army Corps of Engineers RWQCB = Regional Water Quality Control Board CDFW = California Department of Fish and Wildlife N/A = not applicable 3.11Existing Functions and Values Although the site is degraded and the wetlands within the Mitigation parcel are limited as a result of past activities, there are still various functions provided by the existing wetlands and the adjacent upland areas (Figure 3-3). These functions may include but are not limited to groundwater recharge due to the extensive alluvium soils on site, wildlife movement opportunities due to the connectivity to adjacent open space and preserve land, and nesting and foraging habitat associated with the existing vegetation. The area provides foraging and limited water sources for a variety of mammal, avian, reptile and amphibian species, including sensitive species. Coastal California gnatcatcher is present within coastal sage scrub communities on site, and the area has potential to support the federally listed as endangered Quino checkerspot butterfly. Southern willow scrub in the area supports the federally and state- habitat for a variety of bird species protected by the MBTA. The dry conditions in the floodplain have allowed for the establishment of several groves of the Tecate cypress. A major population of this species was severely affected by the Otay Fire of 2003; this floodplain population may be an important source for seed for restoration on Otay Mountain and other areas. Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 3-18 Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.15 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 336 K:\\San Diego\\projects\\Otay_Land_Co_Village\\00296_14_8and9_Mitigation_Site\\mapdoc\\HMMP\\Fig03_4_JD.mxd Date: 1/25/2016 35528 Otay Land Company Proposed Mitigation Site Baseline Information Current wetland conditions were assessed using the California Rapid Assessment Method (CRAM). CRAM was conducted on the upstream channel at the eastern side of the parcel and within one of the three onsite seasonal pools. This information will be used with the restoration design to project the es ambient conditions of a wetland and has been in development over the last 10 years in collaboration with resource agencies defensible, standardized, cost-effective assessments of the status and trends in the condition of ). The final CRAM score for each Assessment Area (AA) is composed of four main attribute scores (buffer and landscape context, hydrology, physical structure, and biotic structure), which are based on the metric and submetric scores (a measurable component of an attribute) (Table 3-4). The anticipated relationships between the CRAM attributes and metrics, and various ecological services expected from conceptual models of wetland form and function, are presented in Table 3-5. The CRAM practitioners assign a letter rating (AD) for each metric/submetric based on a defined set of D) has a fixed numerical value (A=12, B=9, C=6, D=3), which, when combined with the other metrics, results in a score for each attribute. Each metric/submetric condition level (letter rating) has a fixed numerical value, which, when combined with the other metrics, results in a raw score for each attribute. That number is then converted to a percentage of the maximum score achievable for each attribute and represents the final attribute score ranging from 25 to 100%. The final overall CRAM score is the sum of the four final attribute scores, ranging from 25 to 100%. Table 3-4. CRAM Attributes and Metrics Attributes -¤³±¨¢² £ 3´¡¬¤³±¨¢² Aquatic Area Abundance Buffer: Buffer and Landscape Context Percentage of Assessment Area with Buffer Average Buffer Width Buffer Condition Water Source Hydrology Hydroperiod Hydrologic Connectivity Structural Patch Richness Physical Topographic Complexity Plant Community Composition: Number of Plant Layers Structure Number of Codominant Species Biotic Percentage Invasion Horizontal Interspersion and Zonation Vertical Biotic Structure Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 3-19 Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.15 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 339 Otay Land Company Proposed Mitigation Site Baseline Information Table 3-5. Expected Relationship among CRAM Attributes, Metrics, and Key Services "´¥¥¤± £ , £²¢ ¯¤ Physical Biotic Attributes Context Hydrology Structure Structure "´¥¥¤± £ , £²¢ ¯¤ )µ ²¨® #®¤¢³¨µ¨³¸ -¤³±¨¢² #®£®¬¨ ³ 3¯¤¢¨¤² .´¬¡¤± ®¥ 0« ³ 3³±´¢³´± « 0 ³¢§ 6¤±³¨¢ « "¨®³¨¢ )³¤±²¯¤±²¨® 7 ³¤± 3®´±¢¤ 4®¯®¦± ¯§¨¢ Hydroperiod Connectivity -¤³±¨¢² ®± (¸£±®«®¦¨¢ (®±¨¹®³ « .´¬¡¤± ®¥ Complexity age 3³±´¢³´±¤ Submetrics Richness Percent , ¸¤±² Short- or long-term surface water storage Subsurface water storage Moderation of groundwater flow or discharge +¤¸ 3¤±µ¨¢¤² Dissipation of energy Cycling of nutrients Removal of elements and compounds Retention of particulates Export of organic carbon Maintenance of plant and animal communities A summary of the attribute scores for each of the CRAM assessment areas is provided in Table 3-6. For metric scores and worksheets, refer to Appendix E. The overall CRAM score for the upstream segment of the Otay River (Feature 1) was 74% and the depressional wetland (Feature 13) was 57%. A discussion of the scoring factors is provided below. Table 3-6. Summary of CRAM Attribute Scores for Existing Wetland Features "´¥¥¤± £ /µ¤± «« 0§¸²¨¢ « "¨®³¨¢ !²²¤²²¬¤³ !±¤ Ȩ!!ȩ !! 3¨¹¤ , £²¢ ¯¤ Hydrology #2!- Structure Structure #®³¤·³ 3¢®±¤ Score #1 (Riverine; Feature 1) 130 meters 93% 92% 37.5% 72% 74% 0.2 acre 48% 83% 38% 61% 57% #2 (Depressional; Feature 13) Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 3-20 Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.15 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 340 Otay Land Company Proposed Mitigation Site Baseline Information It is important to note that these CRAM scores are only applicable to the minimal wetlands documented on site. Because the remaining site is not currently classified as a wetland, the CRAM score for those areas is considered 0 at this point. !³³±¨¡´³¤ ΐǾ "´¥¥¤± £ , £²¢ ¯¤ #®³¤·³Ȁ Full 250-meter buffers were present throughout the AAs; however, they were primarily vegetated with nonnative grasses and/or disturbed coastal sage scrub and subject to minor soil disturbance. The Aquatic Area Abundance score (proximity to other aquatic resources) for the Depressional AA was low due to the minimum amount of adjacent aquatic features, which affected the overall attribute score. !³³±¨¡´³¤ ΑǾ (¸£±®«®¦¸Ȁ Due to the construction of the reservoir upstream, the watershed that drains to the AAs has diminished significantly. Since this has been the existing condition for the past century, the remaining existing watershed (i.e., excluding all areas upstream of the dam) was determined to be the appropriate watershed for this assessment. Water source throughout the site was primarily natural, with some runoff potentially occurring from the small amount of development surrounding the site. Some aggradation was observed within the Riverine AA, reducing its score to a B, while the Depressional AA received a reduced score in hydrologic connectivity due to its steep banks along approximately 60% of the AA. !³³±¨¡´³¤ ΒǾ 0§¸²¨¢ « 3³±´¢³´±¤Ȁ Topographic Complexity and Structural Patch Richness scored low for both AAs. The AAs did not support benches and were generally flat along the channel bottom. !³³±¨¡´³¤ ΓǾ "¨®³¨¢ 3³±´¢³´±¤Ȁ Both AAs supported 23 plant layers with low species richness (three codominant species); the overall attribute scored low. However, invasive species were low within these areas, only accounting for 33% or less of the biotic structure. 3.12Present and Proposed Uses of Mitigation Site and Adjacent Areas The mitigation area is currently undeveloped. Open space bounds the western, eastern and southern boundaries of the mitigation area as well as large portions of the northern boundary. Various dirt roads and unofficial trails traverse the parcel. These roads are used for a variety of purposes including for National Security by the U.S. Border Patrol and for utility maintenance by SDG&E, OWD, the City of San Diego, and the City of Chula Vista. The roads also act as unofficial trails and are heavily used by hikers, cyclists, and equestrians (Figure 3-5). SDG&E accesses the site on a monthly basis to monitor the conditions of their electric poles and buried gas line. OWD manages a critical pipeline at the upstream end of the project as well as supporting infrastructure throughout their right-of-way. Both the City of San Diego and U.S. Border Patrol use the site for general access as it applies to their mission on this and adjacent properties. Many of these roads are identified as future multi-use trails as part of the OVRP Concept Plan and the City Greenbelt Master Plan (Figures 3-5 and 3-6). Altogether there is approximately 6,500 linear feet of the future Greenbelt Master Plan trail and approximately 10,200 linear feet of OVRP trails that occur on the property. This area is a travel route for migrants entering the U.S. from Mexico; there is regular immigrant foot traffic through the river valley and a corresponding significant use of the area by Border Patrol agents using off-road vehicles. The persistent use by these large vehicles has resulted in large berms perpendicular to the flow of water at the upstream crossings, which Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 3-21 Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.15 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 341 Otay Land Company Proposed Mitigation Site Baseline Information impound surface water, creating ponds upstream and forcing the limited surface water supply to go subsurface. Large portions of the floodplain area are fenced along the south side at the road edge, and there are several signs denoting this area as a sensitive habitat. The upland roads experience regular use by bicyclists, and the floodplain area experiences heavy use by equestrians, despite the sensitive habitat signs posted along the fence. The equestrians additionally appear to be grazing their horses within the upland and floodplain habitats; several large areas of grazing by horses were noted as evident by hoof prints and horse droppings. Adjacent land uses include the OVRP and City of Chula Vista Water Treatment Plant north of the floodplain, and the Richard J. Donovan and George Bailey Correctional Facilities to the south. Nearby planned land uses include light industry in the agricultural areas of upper Johnson Canyon and low-density residentia Canyon. Although the Project has attempted to focus users (i.e., Border Patrol and recreationalists) to key access roads and trails while closing some permanently, it has not been designed to preclude future trail development and use. As road and trail uses are expected to persist and potentially increase with the future construction of the Otay Villages, it is critical to protect the restoration site while simultaneously educating the public and maintaining utility access. To prevent the restoration site from being disturbed by future users, wooden split-rail fencing would be installed at key locations along these existing road and trail corridors (Figures 3-5 and 3-6). The fencing, along with signage indicating the general sensitivity of the restoration site and providing wayfinding, would help to minimize trespassing from trail users who would otherwise be unaware of the sensitivity of the habitat restoration area. In addition, educational kiosks would be installed at key viewing locations within the disturbed areas near the existing dirt roadways to help inform the readers of the importance of the restoration site. Figures 3-5 and 3-6 identify the designated Greenbelt Master Plan (Master Plan) trail and the OVRP trails, and indicate where these corridors are located within the project site. The figures also indicate which trails (i.e., existing roads) would receive trail improvements such as split-rail fencing, signage, and educational kiosks and which trails would be closed. Improvements associated with the consistent with the guidelines of that plan and would be installed on existing roads or disturbed habitat that cross and meander in Per the Master Plan as well as SDG&E Right of Way Guidelines, the restoration project would identify a 14-foot-wide trail location for the Greenbelt Trail to accommodate multiple uses. Improvements associated with trails identified under the OVRP Concept Plan would be consistent with the guidelines of that plan and would be installed on existing roads that cut through the restoration site and also meander south and east across the property. The restoration project would allow for trail corridors consistent with Type A, B, and C that range between 4 and 8 feet in width. All road and trail improvements would avoid existing road ponds that support San Diego fairy shrimp by moving the alignment as needed, and the adjacent upland area would be restored with native species. The proposed restoration project would armor two at-grade road crossings through the active floodplain to provide access to the user community while protecting the restored hydrology on site. The western (downstream) crossing corresponds to the 40 foot wide SDG&E right-of-way corridor for a 36 inch gas transmission line. Any improvements to this crossing with be done in accordance with the SDG&E gas pipeline cover standards. The draft 60% plans will be provided to SDG&E Electric and Gas Transmission department for review and comments. Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 3-22 Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.15 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 342 K:\\San Diego\\projects\\Otay_Land_Co_Village\\00296_14_8and9_Mitigation_Site\\mapdoc\\HMMP\\Fig03_5_TrailsOverview.mxd Date: 4/25/2016 35528 K:\\San Diego\\projects\\Otay_Land_Co_Village\\00296_14_8and9_Mitigation_Site\\mapdoc\\HMMP\\Fig03_6_TrailsDetail.mxd Date: 3/2/2016 35528 Otay Land Company Proposed Mitigation Site Baseline Information Proposed general improvements to each crossing would include over-excavation, underlain by native large rock, and reformed to match the stream profile as much as possible for safe crossing and utility protection. The armoring would be provided to prevent the washing away of the crossings during flood events and eliminate the current berming resulting from consistent vehicle use during wet conditions. These artificial berms currently impound water upstream and force the limited surface hydrology subsurface. In addition, the restoration project proposes four road closures that would be revegetated per the HMMP as these are either redundant or relocated as discussed with U.S. Border Patrol, SDG&E, and OWD. ICF and the City of Chula Vista have been in communication with these entities on these road closures, and all are in agreement that they would not limit their ability to achieve their missions. Border Patrol has asked to install reflectors along trail fencing at road intersections, trail closures, and at the river crossings at specific locations. The exact location of these reflectors will be coordinated with the Border Patrol to ensure safe passage. 3.13Reference Site Due to the degraded nature of the mitigation site and the uniqueness (broad and sandy) relative to the surrounding areas, no reference site has been identified. Upstream of the mitigation site is narrow, drier, and dominated by upland scrub species while the downstream portion is degraded and dominated by nonnative tamarisk scrub. The restoration ecologist will use their best professional judgement and experience in similar systems to discuss the trajectory of the site and potential reference conditions. Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 3-23 Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.15 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 347 Otay Land Company Proposed Mitigation Site Baseline Information This page intentionally left blank. Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 3-24 Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.15 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 348 Chapter 4 Mitigation Design 4.1Site Selection Process This specific mitigation location was selected after reviewing compensatory mitigation opportunities near the development projects as well as the watershed planning documents including the Otay WMP and the draft SAMP. The Otay River Valley lies in proximity to the mitigation sites and is an important historic waterway that has existed in a highly disturbed state for decades. This area was targeted for enhancement and rehabilitation due to its location at the upstream terminal point of the Otay River at Savage Dam and represents the upper portion of the Lower Otay River Watershed (Figure 4-1). This location is the crucial first step in the overall restoration of the lower Otay River sub-basins that exist below the Savage Dam and will be crucial to the success of future downstream restoration efforts by removing significant upstream invasive seed sources as well as improving hydrology and wetland functions. 4.2Mitigation Design This HMMP is designed to enhance, rehabilitate, and re-establish hydrological processes, vegetation communities, and wildlife habitats associated with the Lower Otay River Watershed that will be self- sustaining and can adjust to dynamic natural processes. The plan will re-establish primary and secondary flow channels, low and high floodplains, and native transitional habitat as well as remove nonnative invasive species and restore native vegetation. This will serve to improve hydrological conditions, reduce the significant upstream invasive species seed source, preserve connectivity between adjacent areas of preserved land and natural habitats, and preserve wildlife movement corridors, and will result in a net gain in functions and services following restoration activities. The restoration design could be installed in a single effort, but has also been designed in multiple self-functioning phases permitting the different projects (Village 3 and Village 8 West) requires Objectives phasing of activities (see Section 2.2, ). The restoration in the Otay River Valley, will begin with the enhancement of the upstream areas of the Otay River by removing and managing nonnative invasive species. This will be followed by the re-establishment of the Otay River mainstem and the creation of a secondary channel by re-contouring the disturbed floodplain and connecting existing pools in the northern plan area. An additional secondary channel and floodplain terrace will be re- established in the southern plan area to maximize the hydrologic function of the overall floodplain. Finally the transitional areas and upland habitat buffering the site will be rehabilitated by re- contouring appropriate slopes, removing invasive species, and planting appropriate native species. As shown in Figure 4-2, the site will include a series of restoration types as defined by the 2008 USACE mitigation rule including re-establishment, establishment, rehabilitation, and enhancement (EPA and USACE 2008). The following sections describe each of these restoration types and the specifics for this mitigation plan. Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 4-1 Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.15 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 349 Otay Land Company Mitigation Design 4.2.1Re-establishment As defined in the 2008 Mitigation Rule, re-establishment means the manipulation of the physical, chemical, or biological characteristics of a site with the goal of returning natural/historic functions to a former aquatic resource.-establishment results in rebuilding a former aquatic resource and results in a gain in aquatic resource area and functions. Because the site historically comprised a braided river channel and associated floodplain, most of the planned active restoration falls under re-establishment. This will be accomplished in the northern portion of the floodplain by re-creating a sinuous Otay River mainstem and in the southern portion of the floodplain by creating a secondary channel. The created channels will connect to the up- and downstream existing mainstem and will include a low and high terrace along with sandy bar complexes and will be designed to accommodate flood events. In particular the active low floodplain is intended to accommodate a 10- year flood event, while the high floodplain will likely correspond to a 25-year event. At larger events the entire valley floor will be inundated, and the water will rise into the upland areas as needed. 4.2.2Establishment As defined in the 2008 Mitigation Rule, establishment (creation) means the manipulation of the physical, chemical, or biological characteristics present to develop an aquatic resource that did not previously exist at an upland site. Establishment results in a gain in aquatic resource area and at this site is permanently changed as a result of Savage Dam. As such, what was once an intermittentperhaps even perennialsystem, now functions as an ephemeral system or limited intermittent system. Currently three seasonal ponds exist on the northern plan boundary. These features provide emergent habitat and water in an otherwise dry system. The restoration project has been designed with an additional series of seasonal ponds, all in the northern high floodplain so that their proximity to the other ponds creates a complex for wildlife movement and plant propagules. Because these seasonal features are not known to have been on site historically, they are considered establishment. The new seasonal ponds will only be engaged at extreme high flood events but will persist throughout most of the year as a result of their depth and shallow groundwater. 4.2.3Rehabilitation As defined in the 2008 Mitigation Rule, rehabilitation means the manipulation of the physical, chemical, or biological characteristics of a site with the goal of repairing natural/historic functions to a degraded aquatic resource. does not result in a gain in aquatic resource area. Rehabilitation activities will include removing flow-impeding features left behind by the mining operation, including existing berms, cobble rows, and sediment piles, and recontouring the transitional upland area to mirror adjacent natural slopes and accommodate rising floodwaters. This area will also be aggressively treated for nonnative species and revegetated with native species such as sage scrub and cactus scrub. Similarly, the current channel in the upstream portion of the site will be rehabilitated and will include access road improvements for the Border Patrol crossing, which is currently prohibiting flow as well as recontouring the channel and adjacent floodplain. These improvements to the vegetative cover are expected to result in improved hydrology and flood capacity, bio-filtration, and sediment and toxicant trapping. Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 4-2 Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.15 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 350 351 0 ¦¤ Packet !¦¤£ ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ K:\\San Diego\\projects\\Otay_Land_Co_Village\\00296_14_8and9_Mitigation_Site\\mapdoc\\HMMP\\Fig04_1_USGS_Watershed.mxd 9/11/2015 35528 352 0 ¦¤ Packet !¦¤£ ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ 2 A A K:\\San Diego\\projects\\Otay_Land_Co_Village\\00296_14_8and9_Mitigation_Site\\mapdoc\\HMMP\\Fig04_2_Resto_Types.mxd Date: 4/25/2016 35528 Otay Land Company Mitigation Design 4.2.4Enhancement As defined in the 2008 Mitigation Rule, enhancement means the manipulation of the physical, chemical, or biological characteristics of an aquatic resource to heighten, intensify, or improve a specific aquatic resource function(s).nt results in the gain of selected aquatic resource function(s), but may also lead to a decline in other aquatic resource function(s). Enhancement does not result in a gain in aquatic resource area. Enhancement activities would include removing and managing nonnative invasive species in several locations throughout the upstream enhancement area. This includes removal of arundo, tamarisk, palms, and eucalyptus. Removal of nonnative invasive plant species will help lower the overall distribution of nonnative seed and propagules within the watershed area and protect the primary restoration site within the Mitigation parcel. In addition, a series of (Figure 4-2). At this time these areas are not included in the restoration plan because the mitigation needs of the two projects (Village 3 and Village 8 West,) will be fulfilled by the other activities on site. However, this upland enhancement presents an ideal opportunity to further improve buffer habitat for the restoration site should another mitigation need arise. 4.3Rationale for Expecting Implementation Success The Otay River mainstem and floodplain exist in a highly degraded state due to the upstream impounding of the Otay River, years of sediment removal by mining activities, and the invasion of nonnative noxious plant species. Hydrology is generally considered the most important variable driving wetland and aquatic resource development (Mitsch and Gosselink 2000). The site has historically supported an intermittent braided stream and floodplain; however, the conditions that formed this system originally are now changed and the watershed reduced. As such, understanding the current hydrologic and hydraulic conditions of the site with the presence of Savage Dam is key to success. With a proper understanding of the current conditions, in particular hydrology and soils, restoration ecologists and the design team have developed a plan with appropriate elevations. This, coupled with the correct selection of local drought-tolerant riparian, transitional, and upland species, results in the high probability of successful re-establishment of a functional channel and floodplain system. The mitigation is also expected to be successful because of the location of the site within an open space preserve under the management of the City of Chula Vista and its proximity to other open space areas. The adjacent open space and other potential future restoration and mitigation efforts (that may occur in this area as a result of separate projects) will contribute to improved native habitat connectivity and wildlife habitat within the lower Otay River. In addition, the sites likelihood of success will be furthered by a robust monitoring and maintenance program during the 5 years following installation combined with a comprehensive long-term management plan. The surface hydrology and groundwater conditions currently support riparian (mostly invasive) vegetation; therefore, appropriate conditions exist to support wetlands species once grading activities and invasive tree eradication is conducted. Grading and contouring will improve conditions for water and sediment flow during rain events and improve elevations, which will allow for potential expansion of the riparian habitat. Species compositions for the mitigation area plant palettes were determined using surrounding native habitat as a reference and species observed in the area. Invasive nonnative species that have displaced native species within the plan area, Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 4-3 Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.15 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 355 Otay Land Company Mitigation Design including the upstream channel up to Savage Dam, will be removed, and an upland buffer area will protect the site from further invasion. Groundwater wells will be established in appropriate areas prior to final construction grading plans and plan implementation to determine depth to groundwater. Although Savage Dam impounds the Otay River waters upstream, hydrological flow occurs in the channel as a result of seasonal rain events, and input via secondary flow channels and overland flows also occurs. Groundwater elevations are believed to be shallow, as evident by the series of seasonal ponds in the northern section of the site. This information will be utilized to establish final plant palettes and final elevations as necessary to allow for successful establishment of container plantings and seed. 4.3.1Design Hydrology Development of an appropriate mitigation design to meet the goals and objectives for stream corridor re-establishment and associated riparian and floodplain enhancement requires an understanding of expected hydrologic conditions in the plan area proposed downstream of Savage Dam. The dam itself can serve as a source of surface water flows, but has only spilled 27 times in 11 water years since its reconstruction in 1919. Although it cannot be a reliable source of surface water, the mitigation design should recognize the design size of the spillway and its capacity to pass the required probable maximum flood of 170,600 cubic feet per second (cfs). This design flow would result when 15.5 feet of water depth crests the spillway. Such a flow event will inundate any proposed design with several feet of flow depth in the plan area and has the potential to cause substantial channel migration, erosion, and floodplain disturbance. A more reliable and frequent source of surface water will come from the local topography, which directs tributary flow toward the plan area in the watershed located upstream of the proposed mitigation site and downstream of the dam. Approximately, 14.3 square miles of watershed drain to the downstream point of the proposed mitigation site (Figure 4-3). The land use varies from open space in the south to urban in the north. To determine the approximate magnitude of expected Hydrologic Engineering CenterHydrologic Modeling System (HEC-HMS) and the design guidance and 3 $¨¤¦® #®´³¸ (¸£±®«®¦¸ - ´ « modeling methodology presented in the (County of San Diego 2003), ICF estimated peak storm runoff values for the upstream and downstream ends of the proposed plan area (Table 4-1). Table 4-1. HEC-HMS Estimated Peak Flows Frequency 5¯²³±¤ ¬ %£ ®¥ 0« !±¤ (cfs) $®¶²³±¤ ¬ %£ ®¥ 0« !±¤ (cfs) 2-year 730 2,310 5-year 1,200 3,190 10-year 2,560 5,500 25-year 2,800 6,300 50-year 3,760 7,980 100-year 4,420 8,930 Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 4-4 Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.15 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 356 K:\\San Diego\\projects\\Otay_Land_Co_Village\\00296_14_8and9_Mitigation_Site\\mapdoc\\HMMP\\Fig04_3_Hydrobasins.mxd Date: 9/11/2015 35528 Otay Land Company Mitigation Design As Table 4-1 shows, the flow peaks at the downstream end of the plan site are typically 2 times greater than those at the upstream end. This is due to increased runoff expected from the urban development. While these flows will generally pass downstream of the proposed plan area, their contribution to the stream can create a backwater effect and increase depths and retention times of flows passing through the plan area. This is an expected benefit given the goals and objectives of the HMMP, especially where additional floodplain activation will further enhance the performance. Finally, the mitigation design will rely on available groundwater. During site visits, remnant excavations from mining operations offered evidence that shallow (e.g., within 10 feet of the ground surface) groundwater was present in the plan area. The proposed design will include channel alignments and excavation depths to intercept available sources and improve the restoration performance to the extent possible. Building on the assessment of the surface water hydrology modeling, ICF is in the process of developing a hydraulic model to determine the expected water surface elevations during a variety of potential storm flow events. Using USACE , the mitigation design cross-sections will be paired with the expected storm flows. The resultant channel flow characteristicsincluding depth and velocitywill allow for refinement to the proposed grading design and plant palette/distribution. This information will be included in the Final HMMP. Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 4-5 Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.15 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 359 Otay Land Company Mitigation Design This page intentionally left blank. Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 4-6 Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.15 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 360 Chapter 5 Implementation Plan 5.1Schedule The compensatory mitigation program, which provides mitigation for permanent and temporary impacts, is contingent upon the approval of this conceptual mitigation plan by the resource agencies and local jurisdictions and the acquisition of the related permits. Upon appropriate approvals, implementation of the mitigation program could begin in the summer/fall of 2016. Table 5-1. Implementation Schedule )¬¯«¤¬¤³ ³¨® 4 ²ª² Schedule Nine months prior to planting Contract growing agreement with native plant nursery UXO Surface Sweep Prior to site work Remove invasive species (Phase 1) Winter/spring of implementation year, following breeding season completion Grade site (Phase 2) Fall of implementation year Promptly following site preparation Install temporary irrigation system (as needed) Plant container stock Following irrigation system installation and weed abatement (where needed). Apply hydroseed Immediately following container planting Install fencing and signage Immediately following planting and seeding 5.2Phased Installation If the agencies agree to the advanced permittee responsible mitigation for the development projects, then the HMMP will be implemented at one time. A single installation is both more cost effective and ecologically preferred. However, the restoration plan has been designed with the option of being installed in multiple distinct self-functioning phases if this approach is needed as a result of permitting and timing for the different projects. The first two phases would provide compensatory mitigation for Village 8 West and Village 3 with subsequent phases defined as projects move Objectives forward into permitting (see Figure 2-1 and Section 2.2, ). Phase 1 will begin with the enhancement of the upstream areas of the Otay River by removing and managing nonnative invasive species from the Mitigation parcel up to Savage Dam. Phase 1 will also include initial treatment of tamarisk within the Phase 2 footprint and treatment of large perennial woody invasive species within the entire mitigation parcel include the large trees (eucalyptus, palms, and Brazilian peppertree). Phase 2 will initiate the re-establishment of the Otay River mainstem at the upstream portion of the Mitigation parcel and will include a portion of the adjacent floodplain, a seasonal pool, and upland buffer habitat. Subsequent phases will include completing connection between the new mainstem channel and the downstream channel, the creation of secondary channels, and the remaining seasonal pools. Subsequent phases will rehabilitate the transitional areas and upland Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 5-1 Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.15 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 361 Otay Land Company Implementation Plan habitat buffering the site to the south by re-contouring appropriate slopes, removing invasive species, and planting appropriate native species. Table 5-2 shows the habitats and corresponding acreages that will be installed with each phase. Table 5-2. Compensatory Mitigation Quantities Phase Habitat !¬®´³ (acres) Phase 1 Enhancement Upstream Enhancement 2.74 Onsite Enhancement (Phase 2 footprint and trees 14.00 throughout Mitigation parcel) 0§ ²¤ ΐ 4®³ « 16.74 Phase 2 6¨«« ¦¤ Β Establishment Seasonal Ponds 0.31 Re-Establishment Primary Channel 0.14 Re-Establishment Active Low Floodplain (10-yr) 1.19 Re-Establishment High Floodplain/Transitional (non-jurisdictional) 0.24 Re-Habilitation Primary Channel 0.10 Re-Habilitation Active Low Floodplain (10-yr) 0.01 6¨«« ¦¤ Η7 Re-Establishment Primary Channel 1.67 Re-Establishment Active Low Floodplain (10-yr) 4.04 1 Re-Establishment High Floodplain/Transitional (non-jurisdictional) 3.06 (0.31 credit) Re-Habilitation Primary Channel 0.65 1 Re-Habilitation Upland (non-jurisdictional) 8.11 (0.81 credit) Re-Habilitation Active Low Floodplain (10-yr) 0.16 0§ ²¤ Α 4®³ « 19.70 Future Phase(s) Establishment Seasonal Ponds 1.03 Re-Establishment Primary Channel 3.45 Re-Establishment Active Low Floodplain 18.97 Re-Establishment High Floodplain (non-jurisdictional) 18.46 (1.85 credit) Re-Establishment Secondary Channel 2.22 Re-Habilitation Seasonal Ponds 0.38 Re-Habilitation Upland (non-jurisdictional) 39.04 &´³´±¤ 0§ ²¤ 4®³ «83.56 Optional Upland Enhancement 63.89 Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 5-2 Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.15 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 362 Otay Land Company Implementation Plan 5.3FUDS Safety Measures Phase 1, Invasive Species Removal Prior to initiating invasive species removal or any onsite grading activities, a surface clearance will be conducted on the Mitigation parcel where the property intersects the FUDS boundary and along any access roads and staging areas to identify all munitions and explosives of concern (MEC) and Munitions Debris (MD). A qualified survey company would be contracted and a team of experienced UXO staff would include a Senior UXO Supervisor (SUXOS) and a dual-hatted UXO Safety Officer (UXOSO)/Quality Control Specialist (UXOQCS). The team would be comprised UXO technicians that will be overseen by a UXO Technician team leader and will be equipped with hand-held metal detectors and GPS units. The UXO technicians will form a line and walk in parallel lines spaced approximately 10 feet apart, depending on vegetation and terrain. As the team progresses the Team Leader will place flags at the outside edge of the sweep line. The sweep team will return to the starting point using the flags as their guide to ensure complete coverage of the sweep area. The metal detectors will help the UXO technicians identify metallic items that may be obscured by vegetation or surface debris. The GPS units will track the paths of the UXO technicians. The data will be downloaded to a computer and used to ensure that the entire site has been covered and to generate site maps for reporting purposes. All munitions debris will be evaluated to determine if any explosive residue remains. If it is determined that there is the potential for an explosive hazard the SUXOS will contact local law enforcement to respond to the item and dispose it appropriately. All MD determined to no longer contain explosive residue will be inspected by the SUXOS and UXOSO and containerized in lockable 55-gaJJon drums for later disposal by an approved recycler. The SUXOS will prepare a MEC Daily Operational Journal for submittal to the Project Manager. The MEC Daily Operational Journal will detail the daily MEC operations, areas swept, items recovered, and the depth, orientation, and a Global Positioning System (GPS) location (latitude/longitude) of each MEC item identified. Upon completion of MEC construction support services, a Summary Report to include overall details from the Daily Operational Journals. Phase 2 and Future Phase(s) During all ground disturbing activities, the construction contractor will be accompanies by 1-2 qualified UXO technicians. The technicians will work directly with all earth moving equipment and will evaluate the excavated material as work progresses. The construction support team will use handheld magnetometers to detect all ferrous and non-ferrous anomalies in the soil that is being excavated or removed. Each of these anomalies will be evaluated to ensure that they do not pose a MEC hazard to the work crew. If no MEC items are identified excavations may be advanced to the depth of detection (not to exceed two feet). 5.4Grading Site Preparation The project will comply with all avoidance and minimization measures identified in the Biological Technical Report (ICF 2016) and the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND). This includes all pre-construction measures and construction measures. Initial site preparation activities will include the following. Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 5-3 Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.15 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 363 Otay Land Company Implementation Plan Defining and staking the limits of the work area, including temporary access roads, staging areas, and stockpile areas. Installing staking or fencing around Environmentally Sensitive Areas. Adding temporary signage notifying the public of activities. The site preparation effort necessary to prepare the wetland mitigation areas for native planting will include the removal of all invasive nonnative tree, shrub, and herbaceous species followed by grading of the channel and floodplain areas to remove spoil piles, berms, and pits to restore the area to the desired functions. Areas that contain tamarisk will require additional measures beyond removal of existing trees because this species will have created a copious seed bank in the soil that will result in sprouts that will need to be repeatedly treated for adequate management. 5.5Contractor Education Before beginning any installation activities, the installation landscape contractor and the lead field foreman will meet at the site with the restoration ecologist to review all installation, scheduling, and resource protection measures specified in this HMMP. The restoration ecologist will review all aspects of this HMMP, including site protection, inspections, landscape installation procedures, and guarantees. It will be made clear at that time that the restoration ecologist will have final say over review and acceptance of field installation. Prior to initiating any installation activities (including construction equipment placement or other non-ground-breaking activities), the restoration ecologist will develop and implement environmental training for the contractor and all subcontractor personnel, explaining the sensitive resources within the work area and adjacent areas. The environmental training will include information on the following. Project regulatory and permit requirements. Environmental compliance procedures and protocols. Water quality requirements and proper construction BMPs. Environmentally Sensitive Areas and no-access areas. Sensitive species and nesting birds. Consequences of noncompliance. Emergency response protocols. The installation contractor will notify the restoration ecologist when new crew personnel will be on site, and an additional environmental training will be scheduled before they are allowed to work. 5.6Access and Staging Prior to commencement of installation activities, the area limits of the restoration site will be surveyed and marked in the field. These limits will be checked and confirmed by the restoration ecologist and OLC before the contractor begins the installation phase. All access points, storage, and staging areas will be located in a manner that has the least impact on vehicular and pedestrian Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 5-4 Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.15 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 364 Otay Land Company Implementation Plan traffic as well as natural resources. The access and staging areas are still being identified but will be provided in the Final HMMP. To protect against contaminant leakages during access and staging, the contractor will be responsible for taking measures to prevent chemicals, fuels, oils, and other hazardous materials from entering public water, air, and/or soils. Disposal of any materials, waste, effluent trash, garbage, oil, grease, and chemicals will be done in accordance with state and federal regulations. the RWQCB 401 permit. 5.7Grading This HMMP presents the current conceptual plan (Figure 5-1), which combined with the digital terrain model, hydrology model, and hydraulic model currently under development will be used to generate 60% grading plans and specs suitable for constructionwith the understanding that the ideal construction approach will be design/build. This construction/installation strategy allows for maximum flexibility in the final restoration contours and provides opportunities for the restoration ecologists to direct the installation contractor throughout the embracing the existing natural conditions and modifying the design at a fine-scale resolution that cannot be depicted in plans and specs. These fine-scale modifications may include, for example, such features as channel bars, tertiary channels, swales, cobble pools, and small islands in the floodplain. As part of the conceptual design, ICF utilized currently available and newly flown (2015) topographic data to create a digital terrain model of the plan area. The data was useful for the development of conceptual design cross-sections, plan views, and initial cost estimates based on the amount of material that will need to be moved/excavated. The ICF design team created a single --sections to convey the conceptual design intent (Figure 5-2). Channel layout considers the anticipated geomorphology of the mitigation area and the potential staging and construction phasing to allow an efficient earthwork operation to achieve the conceptual plan grading. ICF is developing cut-and-fill quantities required to achieve the conceptual design grading to 30% and 60%. All attempts will be made to balance the cut-and-fill on site. Based on a preliminary site visit, it is evident that spoils areas may be needed. The final 60% plans will identify upland rehabilitation areas within the plan boundaries for excess spoils placement. Depending on the desired vegetation establishment, topsoil may need to be imported to assist in achieving required health and vigor. At this time no soil import is anticipated. Following initial design of the restoration project, the grading limits have been further restricted to and other nesting birds. The project will avoid most significant stands of riparian habitat in the project site as shown in Figure 5-1. Prior to installation the grading plans will also be updated to reflect this avoidance area. Within these avoidance areas, project activities will be limited to enhancement (non-native treatment), which will be conducted through the use of hand tools to drill and poison nonnative trees that will be left in place. Following agency review of the draft HMMP and conceptual drawing, final grading plans will be prepared by the civil engineer in coordination with the plan biologist. Grading activities will focus on removing berms, spoil piles, and pits left behind by the sand extraction operation and Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 5-5 Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.15 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 365 Otay Land Company Implementation Plan achieving the appropriate contouring such that a natural hydrological regime may be restored. Site grading plans for the mitigation areas shall be incorporated into the final grading plans. 5.8Soils Analysis No soil nutrient testing or amendments are proposed because the long term success of species should be based on existing conditions. However, due to the historic sand mining operations finer sand and silts are expected to be limited on site, and, as such, import of smaller grain materials may be warranted. This decision will be made during grading by the restoration ecologist because the overall current composition of soil on site is highly disturbed. 5.9Nonnative Tree Removal All vegetation remnants from tamarisk and other invasive species (excluding arundo) will be treated and felled onsite to allow for additional organic material to be incorporated onsite. The restoration biologist will work closely with a local native maintenance contractor to determine the specific approach for each species and area. The following are general recommendations that may be modified as appropriate. For trees with large woody trunks, the restoration ecologist can elect to kill on site and leave standing if the tree is not highly visible to the public or does not represent a safety hazard as these trees provide nesting opportunity and structure for many species. If tree removal is necessary during the migratory bird nesting season (i.e., March 15August 31), a focused avian nesting survey will be performed by a qualified wildlife biologist 2 days prior to tree removal to comply with the MBTA. Results will be documented and forwarded to the permitting agencies. If nesting birds are detected, the nest location will be protected until fledging has occurred. The following sections summarize the removal techniques for the larger invasive trees on site. Methods may be modified by the installation contractor with approval from the restoration ecologist. 5.9.1Upstream Enhancement Area For trees that occur within the primary channel upstream of the restoration project (upstream enhancement area), the primary method will use the drill and kill technique, in which large holes are drilled into the base of the trees trunk(s) and filled with a high concentration herbicide. This will result in the tree dying on site. Although the area is relatively remote, there is the potential for trees to create both an eye sore and a hazard if in proximity to the public, each tree will be evaluated by the restoration ecologist and maintenance contractor to determine if it can be left in place. If a tree cannot die in place then trees in the upstream canyon will be felled and hauled out either manually or via helicopter following preparation by ground crews. A mesa-top staging area will be prepared to accommodate the helicopter trailer and associated support vehicles and to accommodate debris bins and haul trucks. If removal is proposed, preparation of trees by ground crews will include cutting the trees into pieces that are manageable by the helicopter and preparing them for lift by applying lift chains. Follow-up treatments of the remaining stumps will be required; as such, all Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 5-6 Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.15 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 366 K:\\San Diego\\projects\\Otay_Land_Co_Village\\00296_14_8and9_Mitigation_Site\\mapdoc\\HMMP\\Fig05_1_ConceptPlanMar2016.mxd Date: 4/25/2016 35528 K:\\San Diego\\projects\\Otay_Land_Co_Village\\00296_14_8and9_Mitigation_Site\\mapdoc\\HMMP\\Fig05_2_Cross_Sections.mxd Date: 9/10/2015 35528 Otay Land Company Implementation Plan trees will be marked using geographic information systems (GIS), and crews will revisit and retreat trees twice at least 6 weeks apart or as required for the specific species. ations, and agency regulations and must be applied by a licensed or certified Pest Control Applicator. Any herbicide application within close proximity to water will be approved for aquatic use by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as having been reviewed and considered compatible with the aquatic environment when used according to label directions. 5.9.2Restoration Site , ±¦¤ 7®®£¸ 4±¤¤²Ȁ Trees with large woody trunks (excluding tamarisk and arundo) within the primary restoration siteincluding pepper trees and eucalyptuscan be removed via truck or helicopter following preparation by ground crews. Because active restoration will be occurring throughout the property and proximity to future trails is likely, no large dead eucalyptus trees are to remain upright in the primary restoration site. Palm trees, including date and fan palm may be drilled and left upright. If close to access roads or trails, the foliage may be topped. 4 ¬ ±¨²ª ³±¤¤²Ȁ Tamarisk trees within the tamarisk scrub stand in the primary restoration site will be removed by one of the following methods. Prescribed burning followed by repeated herbicidal application to resprouts. This method will require permissions by several entities including but not limited to the City of Chula Vista, . USACE, and the Chula Vista Fire Department For dense stands cut stump may be used whereby the trunks are cut and herbicide is immediately applied to the fresh cut. For sparse stands foliar spray may be more appropriate and efficient. For both methods, follow-up foliar spray will be required. Mechanical removal using heavy equipment followed by repeated herbicidal application to resprouts. Entire trees can be easily removed using a track hoe with a thumb bucket. Alternatively, the trees can be removed with a root-plow pulled by a bulldozer; this method has become standard in tamarisk control and is described as providing good to excellent control. This method is most effective when the soil is relatively dry, and must be combined with a program of scheduled follow-up sprout treatments such as hand-pulling and/or herbicidal application. The trees can also be removed by using a skid steer or site preparation tractor equipped with a forestry mulching attachment such as a hydro-ax, which mows or chips living and dead tamarisk at a reported 1 acre per hour on level terrain. (DiTamoso et al. 2013) All methods will require a valley staging area to accommodate heavy equipment and associated support vehicles and to accommodate debris bins and haul trucks. Herbicidal application to resprouts may be accomplished by allowing the plants to grow to an appropriate size to allow for herbicide to be suitably assimilated by the plant. This procedure must be repeated to fully ensure the adequate control of weeds from the mitigation areas. '¨ ³ ±¤¤£Ȁ All giant reed will be physically marked by the biological monitor, mapped using GIS, and treated twice, once in fall before going dormant using Glycophosate and again in spring using Imazapyr. Any cut material will be removed from the site. Remaining canes will be treated with an herbicide to help control resprouts. Any giant reed clumps that are intertwined within existing native vegetation will be cut to grade and carefully treated with an appropriate systemic herbicide as specified by a Licensed Pest Control Advisor. The contractor will conduct follow-up treatments to Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 5-7 Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.15 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 371 Otay Land Company Implementation Plan check for resprouts on a monthly basis through grading and the 120-day plant establishment period and then bi-annually through the 5-year maintenance period. Resprouts will be treated with foliar spray. 5.10Planting and Seeding Plan A container plant palette and seed mix were developed for the restoration site. The specification for seeding and planting are described below. Three distinct plant palettes were developed for the aquatic restoration area including riparian, floodplain, and seasonal ponds as shown in Table 5-3. A separate plant palette was developed for the upland as shown in Table 5-4. Although it is anticipated that within each of these areas more distinct vegetation communities will develop, these broad plant palettes are appropriate for the broader area, allowing plants to fill-in where conditions suit them best. The seed mix prepared for the floodplain and upland transitional habitats is provided in Table 5-5. Because many of the species are expected to occur in both areas, one master list has been developed. A modified (shorter) list for the upland area will be included in the 30% and 60% plans and specifications currently being prepared. The species selections are based on native plant species observed or known to occur within the plan area and adjacent upland habitat, and in the vicinity of the site. The spacing on center is given for calculation purposes only and as an indication of the appropriate spacing between similar species. Species will not be evenly distributed throughout the site; rather, the restoration ecologist will lay out the species and will provide appropriate composition layouts within different ecological settings. Container plants will be installed in a manner that mimics natural plant distribution (e.g., random and/or aggregate distributions rather than uniform rows). Table 5-3. Proposed Container Plant Palette for Restored Aquatic Resources Spacing #®³ ¨¤± Species#®¬¬® . ¬¤ ® #¤³¤± # ¯¤± Acre 1,2,3 Size (feet) 4 Riparian Corridor and Active Low Floodplain !¤¬®¯²¨² ¢ «¨¥®±¨¢ yerba mansa 4-inch 3 75 " ¢¢§ ±¨² ² «¨¢¨¥®«¨ mule fat 1-gallon 6 75 # ±¤· ²¯¨²² San Diego sedge 1-gallon 6 50 %«¤®¢§ ±¨² ¬ ¢±®²³ ¢§¸ pale spike rush 1-gallon 3 75 )µ § ¸¤²¨ San Diego marsh elder 1-gallon 4 60 *´¢´² ¢´³´²leopoldii ssp. southwestern spiny rush 1-gallon 5 60 *´¢´² mexicanus Mexican wire rush 1-gallon 3 75 ,¤¸¬´² ³±¨³¨¢®¨£¤² beardless wild ryegrass 1-gallon 3 75 0« ³ ´² ± ¢¤¬®² western sycamore 5-gallon 30 15 0®¯´«´² ¥±¤¬®³¨¨ Fremont cottonwood 1-gallon 30 15 2®² ¢ «¨¥®±¨¢ California wild rose 1-gallon 6 75 2´¡´² ´±²¨´² California blackberry 1-gallon 5 75 3 «¨· ¤·¨¦´ sandbar willow 1-gal/cutting 8 100 3 «¨· ¦®®££¨¦¨¨ black willow 1-gal/cutting 15 50 3 «¨· « ¤µ¨¦ ³ red willow 1-gal/cutting 12 75 3 «¨· « ²¨®«¤¯¨² arroyo willow 1-gal/cutting 12 75 Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 5-8 Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.15 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 372 Otay Land Company Implementation Plan Spacing #®³ ¨¤± Species#®¬¬® . ¬¤ ® #¤³¤± # ¯¤± Acre 1,2,3 Size (feet) 4 High Floodplain !±³¤¬¨²¨ ¢ «¨¥®±¨¢ California sagebrush 1-gallon 6 60 " ¢¢§ ±¨² ² «¨¢¨¥®«¨ mule fat 1-gallon 10 40 %±¨®¦®´¬ ¥ ²¢¨¢´« ³´¬ California buckwheat 1-gallon 6 60 (¤«¨®³±®¯¤ ¢´±µ ²²¨¢´¬ salt heliotrope 1-gallon 10 50 )µ § ¸¤²¨ San Diego marsh elder 1-gallon 6 50 *´¢´² ¢´³´²leopoldii ssp. southwestern spiny rush 1-gallon 10 45 ,¤¸¬´² ¢®£¤² ³´² giant wild rye 1-gallon 6 45 -´§«¤¡¤±¦¨ ±¨¦¤² deergrass 1-gallon 10 50 3 ¬¡´¢´² ¬¤·¨¢ ´² Mexican elderberry 1-gallon 12 25 Seasonal Ponds/Main Channel Bank !¤¬®¯²¨² ¢ «¨¥®±¨¢ yerba mansa 4-inch 2 170 "®«¡®²¢§®¤´² ±®¡´²³´² prairie bulrush 1-gallon 2 170 #¸¯¤±´² ¤± ¦±®²³¨² tall flatsedge 1-gallon 4 100 %«¤®¢§ ±¨² ¬¨¢±®²³ ¢§¸² pale spike sedge 4-inch 2 150 *´¢´² mexicanus Mexican juncus 1-gallon 3 150 *´¢´² ·¨¯§¨®¨£¤² iris leaf juncus 1-gallon 4 75 ,¤¸¬´² ¢®£¤² ³´² giant wild rye 1-gallon 6 50 0«´¢§¤ ®£®± ³ salt marsh fleabane 1-gallon 3 150 0«´¢§¤ ²¤±¨¢¤ arrowweed 1-gallon 6 67 3¢§®¤®¯«¤¢³´² americanus 1-gallon 3 100 Any potential substitutions or changes to quantity must be approved by the restoration ecologist. 1 2 Plants should be propagated on site or from material from the watershed or within 10 miles of the mitigation site. Plants that cannot be provided from the immediate vicinity will be provided from the closest commercially available sources. 3 Plants will be certified as free of exotic pests (e.g., Argentine ants) prior to delivery on site. 4 The spacing on center is given for calculation purposes only and as an indication of the appropriate spacing between similar species. Species will not be evenly distributed throughout the site; rather, the restoration ecologist will lay out the species and will provide appropriate composition layouts within different ecological settings. Container plants will be installed in a manner that mimics natural plant distribution (e.g., random and/or aggregate distributions rather than uniform rows). Table 5-4. Proposed Container Plant Palette for Upland Transitional Habitat #®³ ¨¤± 3¯ ¢¨¦ ® Ͱ ¯¤± Species #®¬¬® . ¬¤ 1,2,3 Size Center (feet) Acre 4 !£¤®²³®¬ ¥ ²¢¨¢´« ³´¬ chamise 1-gallon 6 25 fasciculatum var. !±³¤¬¨²¨ ¢ «¨¥®±¨¢ coastal sage scrub 1-gallon 5 50 " ¢¢§ ±¨² ¯¨«´« ±¨² coyote bush 1-gallon 6 40 " ¢¢§ ±¨² ² ±®³§±®¨£¤² broom baccharis 1-gallon 6 15 #¸«¨£±®¯´³¨ ¯±®«¨¥¤± coast cholla 1-gallon 4 40 $´£«¤¸ ¤£´«¨² lady fingers 1-gallon 3 5 Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 5-9 Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.15 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 373 Otay Land Company Implementation Plan #®³ ¨¤± 3¯ ¢¨¦ ® Ͱ ¯¤± Species #®¬¬® . ¬¤ 1,2,3 Size Center (feet) Acre 4 $´£«¤¸ ¯´«µ¤±´«¤³ chalk dudleya 1-gallon 3 5 %±¨®¦®´¬ ¥ ²¢¨¢´« ³´¬ California buckwheat 1-gallon 5 40 &¤±®¢ ¢³´² µ¨±¨£¤²¢¤² San Diego barrel cactus 1-gallon 4 20 (¤³¤±®¬¤«¤² ±¡´³¨¥®«¨ toyon 1-gallon 8 15 )²®¢®¬ ¬¤¹¨¤²¨¨ coast goldenbush 1-gallon 5 50 ,¸¢¨´¬ ¢ «¨¥®±¨¢´¬ boxthorn 1-gallon 6 15 - «®²¬ « ´±¨ laurel sumac 1-gallon 8 15 /¯´³¨ «¨³³®± «¨² coast prickly-pear 1-gallon 4 20 0¤±¨³®¬ ±¡®±¤ bladderpod 1-gallon 6 15 2§´² ¨³¤¦±¨¥®«¨ lemonade berry 1-gallon 8 15 3 «¨µ ¯¨ white sage 1-gallon 6 25 3 «µ¨ ¬¤««¨¥¤± black sage 1-gallon 6 40 3 ¬¡´¢´² ¬¤·¨¢ ´² elderberry 1-gallon 12 15 9´¢¢ ¶§¨¯¯«¤¨ 1-gallon 12 12 Any potential substitutions or changes to quantity must be approved by the restoration ecologist. 1 2 Plants should be propagated on site or from material from the watershed or within 10 miles of the mitigation site. Plants that cannot be provided from the immediate vicinity will be provided from the closest commercially available sources. Plants will be certified as free of exotic pests (e.g., Argentine ants) prior to delivery on site. 3 The spacing on center is given for calculation purposes only and as an indication of the appropriate spacing between 4 similar species. Species will not be evenly distributed throughout the site; rather, the restoration ecologist will lay out the species and will provide appropriate composition layouts within different ecological settings. Container plants will be installed in a manner that mimics natural plant distribution (e.g., random and/or aggregate distributions rather than uniform rows). Table 5-5. Proposed Container Seed Palette for Floodplain and Upland Transitional Habitat 1,2,3 -¨¨¬´¬ 0®´£² ®¥ 0®´£² ®¥ Percentage 0´±¤ ,¨µ¤ Species #®¬¬® . ¬¤ "´«ª 3¤¤£ 0´±¨³¸ȝ Seed Ȩ0,3ȩ ¯¤± !¢±¤ Germination ¯¤± !¢±¤ 4,5 !¢¬¨²¯® ¦« ¡¤± ,®³´² ²¢®¯ ±¨´² (formerly)deerweed 4 95/80 3.0 !¬¡±®²¨ ¯²¨«®²³ ¢§¸ western ragweed 2 45/45 0.50 !¬²¨¢ª¨ ¬¤¹¨¤²¨¨ fiddleneck 0.5 35/65 0.15 Artemi²¨ £®´¦« ²¨ mugwort 2 15/40 0.10 Artemi²¨ £± ¢´¢´«´² tarragon 2 10/50 0.10 Artemi²¨ ¯ «¬¤±¨ San Diego sagewort 2 20/50 0.20 !²¢«¤¯¨ ² ¢ «¨¥®±¨¢ California milkweed data unavailable # ¬¨²²®¨ ¡¨²³®±³ California suncup 0.5 90/80 0.25 #±®³® ¢ «¨¥®±¨¢´² California croton 1 90/40 0.40 $¤¨ £± ¥ ²¢¨¢´« ³ fasciculated tarweed 3 25-65 0.50 %¢¤«¨ ¢ «¨¥®±¨¢ California bush sunflower 2 30/45 0.50 %±¨®¦®´¬ ¥ ²¢¨¢´« ³´¬ California buckwheat 4 55/20 0.50 %±¨®¯§¸««´¬ ¢®¥¤±³¨¥«®±´¬ golden yarrow 2 36/62 0.50 Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 5-10 Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.15 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 374 Otay Land Company Implementation Plan -¨¨¬´¬ 0®´£² ®¥ 0®´£² ®¥ Percentage 0´±¤ ,¨µ¤ Species #®¬¬® . ¬¤ "´«ª 3¤¤£ 0´±¨³¸ȝ Seed Ȩ0,3ȩ ¯¤± !¢±¤ Germination ¯¤± !¢±¤ 4,5 (¤«¨®³±®¯¨´¬ ¢´± ²² µ¨¢´¬ salt heliotrope 1 15/50 0.10 )²®¢®¬ ¬¤¹¨¤²¨¨ coastal goldenbush 3 18/40 0.25 )µ hayesiana San Diego marsh elder 0.5 30/30 0.05 , ²³§¤¨ ¦« ¡± ³ ssp. data unavailable coulteri -marsh daisy ,¤²²¨¦¨ ¥¨« ¦¨¨¥®«¨ common sandaster 0.5 8/30 0.05 ,¤¸¬´² ¢®£¤² ³´² giant wildrye 1 70/76 0.50 ,¤¸¬´² ³±¨³¨¢®¨£¤² creeping wild rye 2 90/80 1.50 ,´¯¨´² ¡¨¢®«®± pygmy-leaved lupine 2 98/85 1.50 ,´¯¨´² ²´¢¢´«¤³´² arroyo lupine 3 98/85 2.50 ,´¯¨´² ³±´¢ ³¤² collared annual lupine 2 98/85 1.50 -´§«¤¡¤±¦¨ ±¨¦¤² deergrass 0.5 70/45 0.15 0§ ¢¤«¨ ¢¨¢´³ ±¨ caterpillar phacelia 0.5 98-90 0.45 0«´¢§¤ ®£®± ³ marsh fleabane 0.5 30/40 0.20 3 «µ¨ ¢®«´¬¡ ±¨ ¤ chia 1 93/79 0.75 3³¨¯ ¯´«¢§± purple needlegrass 3 90/75 2.25 1 Seed will be applied by hydroseeding with standard amendments (i.e., cellulose fiber mulch and organic soil stabilizer). 2 Seeds will be collected within the watershed or within a 10-mile radius of the site to the extent feasible. Seeds that cannot be collected from the immediate vicinity will be provided from the closest available sources. 3 Any potential substitutions or quantity adjustments must be approved by the restoration ecologist. The pounds per acre of pure live seed (PLS) in this table have been rounded. The pounds per acre of seed will be 4 adjusted to achieve the specified pounds per acre of PLS when actual percentage purity and germination rates are calculated. Quantities in this table are presented on a per-acre basis. 5.10.1Container Plant Specifications When possible, cuttings will be harvested from adjacent riparian habitat or from within the restoration area footprints. Unique plants such as cactus should be salvaged prior to contour grading; the restoration ecologist will identify and mark all specimens to be salvaged prior to grading and will work with the contractor on appropriate collection methods. All other plantings will be obtained from nursery sources. Plants will be provided from source material from Otay Mesa, San Diego, or alternative sources (closest commercially available sources) approved by the restoration ecologist. If container plant material is not available from these areas, at minimum, stock will be obtained from within the watershed or within 10 miles of the mitigation site. Plants that cannot be provided from the immediate vicinity will be provided from the closest commercially available sources, subject to the approval of the restoration ecologist. Source locations should be as close to the restoration site as possible. Plants must be certified by the supplier (nursery) to be free of exotic pests (e.g., Argentine ants) prior to delivery on site. The restoration ecologist will confirm that plants are delivered to the site in a healthy and vigorous condition before they are installed. Plants will not be installed that are root-bound, stunted, pest- Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 5-11 Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.15 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 375 Otay Land Company Implementation Plan infested, diseased, or unacceptable for other reasons. The restoration ecologist and contractor will coordinate the layout for plant material in ecologically appropriate locations and natural groupings. The restoration ecologist will direct all planting, and may place flags, directly place containers, or direct the contractor on the placement of plants. In general, container plants will be installed in a manner that mimics natural plant distribution (e.g., random and/or aggregate distributions rather than uniform rows). No substitutions of specified plants will be allowed, and container sizes will not be changed unless approved in advance by the restoration ecologist. If the installation contractor is unable to obtain the specified size or species at the time of planting, commencement of the 120-day plant and hydrology establishment period will be delayed until all specified plants are installed or until a suitable substitution is determined by the restoration ecologist. The specific planting areas and corresponding plant palettes will be included in the 30% and subsequent 60% plans and specifications currently being developed. 5.10.2Container Plant Installation Steps Prior to planting, the contractor will ensure the site is wet from rainfall or adequately watered so that the first few inches of soil are saturated. The contractor will install container plants using standard horticultural practice, as follows. Thoroughly water all plants in their containers before planting. Dig a hole twice as deep and three times as wide as the container. Break up soil clods and roughen the side of the hole to avoid a smooth- water and allow water to drain completely into the soil; repeat twice. Partially backfill the hole with native soil to allow planting at the proper depth. The backfill mix will contain only native soil with no rocks larger than 3/4-inch diameter. Moisten and gently tamp the backfill into place. Remove the plant from its container and place on top of the moistened backfill so that the plant collar is approximately 1 inch above finish grade. Backfill the remaining hole with native soil. For plantings 1 gallon or larger, create a planting basin berm roughly 2 feet in diameter around the plant and apply 1 to 2 inches of coarse, organic, weed-free mulch inside the berm. No mulching or berms will be used around container plantings within the primary channel. Thoroughly water and allow the basin to drain. 5.10.3Container Plant Guarantee All plants determined by the restoration ecologist to be dead or diseased will be replaced by the installation contractor before the end of the 120-day plant and hydrology establishment period and as required by the maintenance program. Unless the restoration ecologist approves changes, the replacement plants will be of the same size and species as originally planted. 5.10.4Seed Specifications Seed will be applied throughout the restoration site. Seed will be from Otay Mesa, San Diego, or alternative sources (closest commercially available sources) approved by the restoration ecologist. If seed is not available from these areas, at minimum, seed will be obtained from within the Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 5-12 Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.15 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 376 Otay Land Company Implementation Plan watershed or within 10 miles of the mitigation site. Seed that cannot be provided from the immediate vicinity will be provided from the closest commercially available sources, subject to the approval of the restoration ecologist. Seed will be delivered to the site in sealed and labeled packaging, along with a California State Agricultural Code seed certification that includes the percentage rates. The seeds will be ordered and delivered in separate, original containers by species, and inspected by the restoration ecologist. Seed will be labeled with the species, purity, germination, percentage live seed, and quantity of seed in pounds. The seed mix will be applied by hydroseeding with a hydroseed slurry containing seed, natural fiber mulch, and organic tackifier. Although hydroseed mulch with seed can be carried and moved by flowing water, the mulch will help more of the seed stay in place and germinate compared to hand seeding. The specific seeding areas and corresponding seed mixes will be included in the 60% Submittal, Restoration Plans currently being developed. 5.10.5Seed Application Steps The contractor will install seed in the upland transitional areas using standard hydroseed practice, as follows. Seed application rates provided in Table 5-5 are to be followed. If the delivered seed differs from specified purity and germination rates, the total pounds-per-acre rates will be adjusted accordingly to achieve the specified pounds of pure live seed. Seed will be applied by hydroseed application. Application steps include the following. Create a slurry of seed (at specified rates per acre), 2,000 pounds per acre of organic fiber mulch, and 150 pounds per acre of organic tackifier. Evenly apply; spray hydroseed from at least two directions to help interlock mulch fibers. 5.10.6Planting and Seeding Timing There is an ideal window for planting native plants in Southern California, which occurs in winter generally between November and February. The contractor will need to coordinate installation efforts with any rain events to ensure that work is not being conducted on the site during periods of inundation. 5.11Irrigation Plan The ultimate goal of the wetlands mitigation program is to create a functioning riparian system capable of maintaining and supporting itself in perpetuity. Temporary irrigation may be required to enhance the survivorship of newly installed native plants and seed when they have been grown in nursery conditions, when they are planted under initially dry or drought conditions, or when planting does not occur within an ideal seasonal planting time frame. If deemed necessary a temporary irrigation system may be installed to supply supplemental water for newly installed plants and applied seed. Although supplemental irrigation may be required to establish habitat, an automated temporary irrigation system is not proposed due to cost, potential damage to an irrigation system from periodic flows and vandalism, and potential damage to native plants from removal of an irrigation system. Although an irrigation system is not considered to be critical for Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 5-13 Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.15 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 377 Otay Land Company Implementation Plan meeting the success criteria of this plan, the following are options that may be considered by the installation contractor and restoration ecologist. It is likely that a combination of the following will be used based on site conditions, seasonal constraints, efficacy, and cost. A well (new or existing) fitted with a pump powered by a diesel generator or municipal electricity (if available). The well and pump could feed a drip irrigation system or an overhead spray system, both of which would have on-grade hard pipe that will be easier to remove after the establishment period. Instead of a pump, a large plastic tank could be set up above the project site and gravity fed to a drip irrigation system. The tank could be refilled with a water truck as needed. Truck watering is another possibility, but the use of hoses can impact plants farther from the trucks location. Dri-water (semi-solid polymer-like product) may be used for select plantings such as larger trees and shrubs. This product can be used to temporarily provide water to the root mass of larger plantings. It is also possible to replace the polymer as a means of more long-term water supply. Any system installed will be designed for temporary use for at least 3 years and discontinued once plant establishment is meeting plan goals. Ideally, the irrigation system should be shut-off by the end of the third year of the 5-year maintenance and monitoring period. Irrigation system components will be removed from the site entirely at the end of the maintenance and monitoring period after approval is granted by the resource agencies. Regardless of long-term irrigation solutions, prior to planting and seeding, the soil on site should be moist from watering by the contractor or rainfall. All attempts will be made to coordinate seeding with rain events. 5.12Erosion Control Erosion control for the mitigation areas will be specified within the mitigation SWPPP and on the erosion control plans as prepared by the installation contractor. Implementation of such erosion control measures will prevent sediment from leaving the mitigation site. Consultation with local jurisdictions regarding local erosion control requirements should precede mitigation implementation. These requirements may include specific erosion control BMPs. 5.13Fencing and Signage As mentioned above, the mitigation parcel currently supports numerous trails and dirt roads that are used by a variety of groups including the U.S. Border Patrol, SDG&E, City of San Diego, and OWD, as well as by hikers, cyclists, and equestrians. In addition, the mitigation parcel is within a portion of the City of Chula Vista Greenbelt Master Plan boundary and is entirely within the OVRP Concept Plan boundaries. These uses present both an opportunity to educate the public and also a risk to the restored habitat. As such, the project will use both temporary and permanent fencing and signage, including educational kiosks, to educate the public about the sensitivity of the habitat on the property. The fencing will aid in excluding human activity that may result in plant and habitat trampling, the introduction of nonnative plant seed, harm to native animals by domestic pets, and harm to native plants by the grazing of horses. Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 5-14 Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.15 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 378 Otay Land Company Implementation Plan Figures 3-5 and 3-6 show the location of all existing and future trails as well as the various locations for project improvements. All improvements associated with the portion of the trail identified within the City of Chula Vista with the guidelines of that plan and would be installed on existing roads that that cross and meander in and out of and along the restoration site. The 60% construction drawings will include fencing specifications. Temporary fencing will be installed to protect the work site from vandalism and accidental damage to restoration plantings and irrigation systems. In addition to the split-rail fence proposed along the trails to the north and south of the restoration area, select permanent fencing/rocks/logs may be installed in sensitive areas to maintain the integrity of the area. Fencing determinations should be done by a biologist and take into consideration the sensitive resources on site (i.e., rare flora and fauna) and the extensive use of the roads and general area by Border Patrol agents as well as SDG&E and OWD. Signage will be installed throughout the site and is considered essential for this mitigation area due to the extensive use of this area by equestrians, bicyclists, and Border Patrol agents. Signage should indicate the site is a sensitive native restoration site and that unauthorized personnel should not enter. Reflective material will also be installed along the fencing at strategic locations to aid in Border Patrol agents navigating the site at night. The final locations of reflective material will be made in coordination with the Border Patrol. At least four interpretive signs (e.g., educational kiosks) will be placed throughout the restoration site at key user locations such as major entry points or look outs. The signs will be designed to promote a conservation ethic through the preservation of native habitats and the communities of plants and animals they support. Specifically, the information on a sign may focus on the historical aspects of rivers and wetlands in Southern California, the process of restoration, identification of native plants and wildlife that will use the restoration area, ecological benefits of wetlands and buffer habitat, current threats to natural areas, and ways to minimize human impacts on the remaining natural areas (planting native species, keeping dogs on a leash, not wasting water). 5.14Final Landscape/Mitigation Construction Plans A final set of mitigation area construction documents, including grading and site preparation plans, planting plans, irrigation plans, fencing plans, signage plans, installation details, and specifications (installation and maintenance) acceptable for bidding will be prepared in order to implement the conceptual guidelines for the mitigation program outlined in this document. The proposed final elevations of the wetland rehabilitation areas will be shown on construction grading plans. The final elevations of the wetland rehabilitation areas will be similar to existing wetlands and based upon the results of groundwater monitoring well data. The grading plans will include sections for each wetland rehabilitation area and show the proposed finished grades in relation to both the spring and winter season average groundwater table elevation. Construction drawings should take into consideration the extensive use of the dirt roads and general area by Border Patrol agents, and plan for use of the area by the agents to avoid damage to the mitigation effort. Grading plans and associated sections will be submitted to USACE for review and approval prior to initiating wetland impacts. Implementation of the mitigation program must be coordinated among the appropriate jurisdictions, the biologist/habitat restoration specialist, the landscape architect, the landscape contractor, and the plant material supplier(s). The contracting nursery and seed collectors should be Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 5-15 Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.15 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 379 Otay Land Company Implementation Plan given the maximum possible lead time (i.e., no less than 9 months prior to actual planting installation) to complete special collections and prepare plant material in order to assure availability at planting time and to minimize cost. Field coordination will be provided by the biological monitor/landscape architect during all phases of the mitigation area implementation. Species to be planted in the mitigation areas are listed in the plant palette (see Tables 5-3, 5-4, and 5-5). Plant materials will include container stock plantings and seed applications. The nursery contracted to provide plant materials should be contacted immediately following approval of the plan to provide them with sufficient time to grow material prior to installation. An experienced and licensed native plant nursery should be contracted to collect propagules and seed and to supply the necessary container-grown plant material. Local native plant nurseries include Tree of Life Nursery in San Juan Capistrano, Moosa Creek Nursery in Valley Center, Las Pilitas Nursery in Escondido, and RECON Native Plants, Inc., in Chula Vista. A seed supplier specializing in native species, such as S&S Seeds in Carpinteria, California, should supply the necessary native seed. All plants and seeds should be inspected prior to installation to verify species accuracy and to ensure the material is free of weeds, disease, and pests. The plant survival rates can be increased and the need for supplemental watering can be decreased by installing plant container stock and seed during the appropriate time of year. Optimal survival rates in Southern California may be achieved when planting activities take place between November and February. Planting activities that take place during the fall and early spring have the advantage of cooler weather, increased natural soil moisture, and reduced evapotranspiration. Because this area may be prone to seasonal flows, plant and seed installation should take place before the onset of the rainy season to ensure they have adequate time to establish before being subject to seasonal stream flows. Hydroseeding should be timed to take advantage of seasonal rainfall patterns and should be applied in early fall or mid spring, if possible. 5.15As-built Conditions The applicant will submit a letter report to USACE, RWQCB, and CDFW upon completion of site preparation, planting, and the initial 120-day plant establishment period describing the completion of the installation phase and the as-built status of the mitigation project. 2¤¦¨® « #®¬¯¤² ³®±¸ -¨³¨¦ ³¨® £ -®¨³®±¨¦ '´¨£¤«¨¤² ¥®± 3®´³§ 0 ¢¨¥¨¢ Per the Draft 2013 Division (SPD Mitigation Guidelines), the letter report will include the following. Date(s) that all compensatory mitigation construction activities were completed. A schedule of future mitigation monitoring, implementation, and reporting activities pursuant to final USACE-approved mitigation plan. A summary of compliance status with each special condition of the associated USACE permit or verification (including any noncompliance previously having occurred or currently occurring and corrective actions taken to achieve compliance). Photographs documenting the site conditions prior to mitigation activities and at the completion of the monitoring period, as well as the final site conditions. Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 5-16 Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.15 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 380 Otay Land Company Implementation Plan The report will include a reduced set of revegetation construction drawings in accordance with USACE SPD Map and Drawing Standards (USACE 2013) presenting the final as-built locations of the below itemized components. Extent of re-established, rehabilitated, and enhanced areas in plan view. Extent of both cut and fill. Spot elevations to accurately characterize the finished surfaces, including high and low points. As-built cross-sections. Location of any permanent markers (e.g., identification stakes, photo-documentation stations). Seeded and planted areas. Irrigation system point(s) of connection and components. Other pertinent features. Any changes from the original construction drawings will be indicated in indelible red ink. The as- built drawings will be submitted to the appropriate public resource agencies within 6 weeks of construction completion. Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 5-17 Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.15 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 381 Otay Land Company Implementation Plan This page was intentionally left blank. Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 5-18 Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.15 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 382 Chapter 6 Site Maintenance The goal of the mitigation plan is to create a natural, self-sustaining wetlands system requiring minimal follow-up maintenance. The maintenance program will begin when construction and installation have been completed and will be concentrated on the first few seasons of growth to control weeds and assist and promote native plant and seed establishment. The maintenance activities described in this Chapter are also applicable to the upstream enhancement area. The installation contractor will be responsible for maintenance during the 120-day plant establishment period (PEP), and the maintenance contractor will be responsible for the remainder of the scheduled 5-year maintenance and monitoring period, which will begin after the 120-day PEP is complete. As a guideline, the contractor is expected to perform maintenance approximately once a month during the first 4 months (i.e., 120-day PEP). The contractor is also expected to perform maintenance approximately monthly during Year 1; every 2 months during Year 2; and quarterly during Years 3, 4, and 5. Maintenance may be needed more frequently to perform remedial measures (e.g., replanting, erosion control). The contractor will coordinate with the restoration ecologist on a regular basis to determine priority maintenance activities during different periods of the plan. The primary maintenance obligations are reviewed below. 6.1Maintenance Duration Short-term maintenance will take place for 5 years following completion of construction activities and the 120-day plant establishment period. If success standards are not being met, the maintenance period may be extended. Following signoff by the agencies, the site will enter a long- term maintenance period. 6.2Responsible Parties Short-term maintenance (through the 5 years) will be the responsibility of OLC or its designee. Long-term maintenance will be the responsibility of the City of Chula Vista under their Otay Ranch Resource Management Plan (RMP) and the POM. 6.3120-Day Plant Establishment Period After installation work is completed, a 120-day (4-month) PEP will begin. At the completion of installation planting, the installation contractor will request a pre-maintenance inspection by the completion by the contractor. After punchlist items are corrected, the restoration ecologist will recommend to OLC that the landscape installation phase is complete and that the 120-day PEP has begun. During the PEP, the installation contractor will provide regular maintenance of the restoration area, including trash removal, supplemental irrigation, erosion control, and nonnative treatment. Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 6-1 Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.15 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 383 Otay Land Company Site Maintenance The installation contractor will perform maintenance visits and activities in accordance with the goals presented in this HMMP. The number of maintenance visits will vary depending on the amount of work necessary for the mitigation area to meet its success standards on schedule. As a guideline, the contractor is expected to perform maintenance approximately twice a month during the 120-day PEP. Weed control during the PEP will focus on the restoration area. Treatment will include all species listed in Table 6-1 and any additional problematic species identified by the restoration ecologist. Herbicide application will be in accordance with BMPs, and agency regulations. At the end of the 120-day PEP, the restoration ecologist will flag all dead and diseased plant materials requiring replacement and prepare a final maintenance punchlist of correction items. After the installation contractor has satisfactorily completed the punchlist, the restoration ecologist will recommend acceptance of the 120-day PEP to OLC. 6.4Irrigation Any irrigation system used for the mitigation areas will be temporary and will be used to ease the establishment of native seeds and nursery-grown container plantings. It is expected that supplemental irrigation will be used for only the first 2 years. Upon completion and approval of the plan, the irrigation system will be removed. The biological monitor will determine the timing for the termination of irrigation. 6.5Weed Control Nonnative weed control will consist of controlling populations of invasive weeds within the mitigation site by the following methods: (1) hand removal, (2) cutting or mowing, (3) chemical herbicide application, and (4) light exclusion. Hand removal of weeds is the most effective method of control and will be used around individual container plantings. Other herbaceous weeds should be removed by hand before setting seed. Weed control activities will take place monthly for the first 6 months and quarterly thereafter. Weed species should be controlled before they set seed and before they shade and out-compete native plantings. With prior consent of the biologist, string trimmers may be used in certain instances. Chemical control will be used for control of perennial weed species. The contractor will coordinate with the biologist to identify specific areas where chemical herbicides may be used. Any herbicide treatment must be applied by a licensed or certified Pest Control Applicator. Any herbicide application within close proximity to water will be approved for aquatic use by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as having been reviewed and considered compatible with the aquatic environment when used according to label directions. Light-exclusion measures may include organic mulch, which is useful around individual container plantings to reduce weed growth. Mulch should be 3 to 4 inches deep, and cover a 24-inch diameter around container plants. A 5% total cover of weed species will be tolerated at the end of the 5-year maintenance period. Thus, 95% of the revegetation site will be weed free. Table 6-1. Nonnative Invasive Species Detected or Potentially Occurring in the Restoration Area 1 Family 3¢¨¤³¨¥¨¢ . ¬¤ #®¬¬® . ¬¤ )µ ²¨µ¤ ,¤µ¤« 2 Angiosperms Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 6-2 Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.15 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 384 Otay Land Company Site Maintenance Family 3¢¨¤³¨¥¨¢ . ¬¤ #®¬¬® . ¬¤ )µ ²¨µ¤ ,¤µ¤« 2 Eudicots Aizoaceae # ±¯®¡±®³´² ¤£´«¨² Hottentot-fig High Amaranthaceae !³±¨¯«¤· «¨£«¤¸¨ N/A 3 «²®« ³± ¦´² tumbleweed Limited Anacardiaceae 3¢§¨´² ¬®««¤ Peruvian pepper tree Moderate 3¢§¨´² ³¤±¤¡¨³§¨¥®«¨´² Brazilian pepper tree Moderate Apiaceae !¯¨´¬ ¦± µ¤®«¤² celery N/A &®¤¨¢´«´¬ µ´«¦ ±¤ Fennel High Arecaceae 7 ²§¨¦³®¨ ±®¡´²³ Mexican fan palm High Asteraceae # ±£´´² ¯¸¢®¢¤¯§ «´² ²²¯ȁ Italian thistle Moderate pycnocephalus #¤³ ´±¤ ¬¤«¨³¤²¨² tocalote Moderate #¸ ± ¢ ±£´¢´«´² globe thistle Moderate '«¤¡¨®¨² ¢®±® ±¨´¬ crown daisy N/A , ¢³´¢ ²¤±±¨®« prickly lettuce N/A 3®¢§´² ²¯¤± prickly sow-thistle N/A 3®¢§´² ®«¤± ¢¤´² common sow-thistle N/A Brassicaceae "± ²²¨¢ ¨¦± black mustard Moderate (¨±²¢§¥¤«£¨ ¨¢ short-pod mustard Moderate 2 ¯§ ´² ² ³¨µ´² wild radish Limited Chenopodiaceae !³±¨¯«¤· ²¤¬¨¡ ¢¢ ³ Australian saltbush Moderate #§¤®¯®£¨´¬ «¡´¬ Limited 3 «²®« ³± ¦´² prickly Russian thislte High Euphorbiaceae %´¯§®±¡¨ ¯¤¯«´² petty spurge N/A 2¨¢¨´² ¢®¬¬´¨² castor-bean Limited Fabaceae -¤«¨«®³´² spp.sweet clover N/A Geraniaceae %±®£¨´¬ ¢¨¢´³ ±¨´¬ red-stem filaree Limited Malvaceae - «µ ¯ ±µ¨¥«®± cheeseweed N/A Oxalidaceae /· «¨² ¯¤²-caprae Bermuda buttercup Moderate Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 6-3 Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.15 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 385 Otay Land Company Site Maintenance Family 3¢¨¤³¨¥¨¢ . ¬¤ #®¬¬® . ¬¤ )µ ²¨µ¤ ,¤µ¤« 2 Poaceae !±´£® £® · giant reed High !µ¤ ¡ ±¡ ³ wild oats Moderate "±®¬´² §®±£¤ ¢¤´² soft brome Moderate "±®¬´² ¬ £±¨³¤²¨² ²²¯ȁ ±´¡¤² foxtail chess High "±®¬´² £¨ £±´² ripgut brome Moderate #®±³ £¤±¨ ©´¡ ³ pampas grass High #®±³ £¤±¨ ²¤««® pampas grass High #¸®£® £ ¢³¸«® Bermuda grass Moderate &¤²³´¢ ¬¸´±®² rattail fescue Low (®±£¤´¬ ¬´±¨´¬ ²²¯ȁ ¦« ´¢´¬ Smooth barley Moderate -¤«¨¨² ±¤¯¤² ²²¯ȁ ±¤¯¤² natal grass Low Solanaceae .¨¢®³¨ ¦« ´¢ tree tobacco Moderate Tamaricaceae 4 ¬ ±¨· ¯ ±µ¨¥«®± tamarisk High Urticaceae 5±³¨¢ ´±¤² dwarf nettle N/A 1 The installation and maintenance contractor(s) is responsible for eradication/removal of additional exotics that may be identified by the restoration ecologist in the restoration area. Any exotics recognized by the California Invasive Plant Council (Cal-IPC) and/or the University of California Statewide Integrated Pest Management Project that are identified on site must be removed wherever they occur in the restoration areas. Additionally, less problematic nonnative species that may be identified on site will be controlled when it is determined by the restoration ecologist that they are inhibiting the establishment and development of native plant species. Cal-IPC 2010 rating: Threat to California Wildlands: N/A = not listed 2 6.6Supplemental Planting If planted and seeded vegetation does not readily colonize the restoration areas, the contractor will provide supplemental planting and seeding for the first 2 years of maintenance. All dead container plant materials and cuttings above the allowable tolerance levels will be replaced with the same species and in the same size containers as originally specified. Vegetation will be monitored monthly for the first 6 months and quarterly thereafter for 5 years. 6.7Clearing and Trash Removal Leaf litter and deadwood of native trees and shrubs will not be removed from the mitigation areas. The decomposition of deadwood and leaf litter is essential for the replenishment of soil nutrients and minerals, and deadwood and snags provide valuable habitat for invertebrates, reptiles, small mammals, and birds. Human-made trash and debris will be removed from the mitigation areas by hand monthly for the first 6 months and quarterly thereafter for 5 years. Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 6-4 Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.15 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 386 Otay Land Company Site Maintenance 6.8Fence Inspection and Repair Fencing will be inspected by the maintenance contractor monthly for the first 6 months and quarterly thereafter for 5 years. 6.9Schedule of Maintenance Weed removal and irrigation inspection will be conducted by the maintenance contractor monthly for the first 6 months and quarterly thereafter. Thereafter, the biological monitor will conduct maintenance inspections on a quarterly basis during Years 1 through 5. Recommendations for maintenance efforts will be based upon the , which will occur monthly for the first 6 months and quarterly thereafter. Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 6-5 Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.15 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 387 Otay Land Company Site Maintenance This page was intentionally left blank. Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 6-6 Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.15 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 388 Chapter 7 Site Monitoring qualitative This chapter outlines the monitoring program from installation to completion including °´ ³¨³ ³¨µ¤ and monitoring. In addition, primary and secondary success standards are proposed. 7.1Implementation Monitoring The restoration ecologist will coordinate with the installation contractor and OLC to monitor the )¬¯«¤¬¤³ ³¨® 0« including initial grading, contouring, and native planting and seedingand the 120-day PEP, to ensure that installation is performed in accordance with this HMMP. During this period, the restoration ecologist will prepare a brief weekly memorandum that reviews implementation progress, which will be submitted to OLC. The installation contractor will be responsible for the 120-day PEP after the grading, erosion control, and native plant installation are complete to ensure that the site meets defined success criteria and is established in a desirable manner prior to the start of the 5-year maintenance and monitoring program. The installation contractor will receive approval from the restoration ecologist and OLC, indicating a successful implementation and 120-day PEP before the start of the 5-year maintenance and monitoring program. In addition, the installation process will require the restoration ecologist to inspect and approve progress at the following times. During and after environmental protection fencing installation. During demarcation of the restoration area boundaries. During contouring of the channel and the floodplain. At the end of grading and contouring. After completion of grubbing and soil ripping for decompaction before the start of planting. At the time of container plant delivery when container plant materials will be inspected by the restoration ecologist to confirm the receipt of the correct species and that the plants are healthy, disease free, and of proper size prior to planting. During final container plant layout to ensure correct ecological positioning. When the contractor requests inspection to determine if installation is complete. At completion of the 120-day plant and hydrology establishment period. 7.2Horticultural (Qualitative) Monitoring A restoration ecologist with the qualifications outlined previously will direct the horticultural (qualitative) monitoring program. The goal of this monitoring is to proactively assess site conditions to address issues before they become a problem. Horticultural monitoring will include design review of the contractor-designed irrigation system (if needed), performing pre-installation environmental education, and performing all required installation inspections described above. An important feature of the horticultural monitoring is effective coordination with the installation and Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 7-1 Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.15 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 389 Otay Land Company Site Monitoring maintenance contractor(s) to exchange information, provide feedback, and agree on priority maintenance items and potential remedial measures as needed. The restoration ecologist will perform qualitative horticultural monitoring throughout the installation period and the 5-year maintenance and monitoring program. Each horticultural visit will focus on soil conditions (e.g., moisture and fertility), container plant health and growth, seed germination rates, presence of native and nonnative plant species, any significant disease or pest problems, and any erosion problems. During installation, the restoration ecologist will inspect progress on a weekly basis and then at least once a month during the 120-day plant and hydrology establishment period. The restoration ecologist will monitor the restoration areas monthly during the first 2 years of the 5-year maintenance and monitoring program and then quarterly during Years 3, 4, and 5. During each horticultural site visit, the restoration ecologist will conduct a site overview of the restoration areas to evaluate the following. Overall site conditions. General condition of plants, including plant health/vigor and mortality. Seed germination rates. Native plant recruitment. Presence and type of terrestrial fauna using the mitigation site. Potential issues, including hydrology, irrigation problems (too much or too little), invasive nonnative species of concern (e.g., tamarisk, pampas grass, and Brazilian pepper tree), vandalism, and other problems that need to be addressed by the installation or maintenance contractor. It is unrealistic to require a formal plant count, as plant installation will include large quantities of 1-gallon and small rose pot (liner) plantings. As such, the restoration ecologist will be responsible for a visual estimate of plant survival and condition during horticultural visits. During each annual July/August site visit, the restoration ecologist will assess the need for potential remedial planting during the winter. Recommendations will be included in the October monthly/quarterly memoranda. Recommendations may include container planting and broadcast seeding. 7.2.1Reporting Following each horticultural site visit, the restoration ecologist will prepare a short memorandum. These memoranda will focus on issues such as replacements of dead or diseased plants, weeding, irrigation scheduling, trash removal, and pest control. In addition, the restoration ecologist will coordinate with the installation or maintenance contractor for the following. Schedule upcoming maintenance based on the maintenance needs and priorities at each of the restoration areas. Walk the restoration areas to identify any problem issues, including erosion issues, irrigation damage, occurrence of invasive nonnative species, and potential human impacts such as dirt bike usage and vandalism. Provide support to field maintenance crew in the identification of common native and nonnative species. Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 7-2 Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.15 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 390 Otay Land Company Site Monitoring Determine an irrigation schedule (for a given period of the plan) based on seasonal and annual variation in rainfall, native plant water requirements, and site-specific conditions (e.g., soil condition and slope). 7.3Botanical (Quantitative) Monitoring A restoration ecologist with the qualifications specified previously will supervise all botanical (quantitative) monitoring. This will allow for adaptive management (Section 7.6) decisions to be made, as well as allow site progress to be tracked. At a minimum, quantitative botanical monitoring will consist of point-intercept transects, diversity belt transects, a condition-based rapid assessment for each restoration area, as well as cross-sections for channel morphology and topography. 7.3.1Quantitative Monitoring Photo-Documentation Permanent stations for photo-documentation will be established during the implementation period using a GPS unit. At this time, 10 photo stations have been identified; however, others may be added post implementation to maximize capturing the changes on site (Figure 7-1). These locations and directions will be mapped in the annual monitoring report. The photos will be used to document the installation process in addition to the vegetation establishment. Permanent stations will ensure photographs will be taken from the same photo-point, at the same time of year, and in the same compass direction each year. Following the 120-day PEP, photos will be taken twice a year (June and December) at these 10 fixed locations and catalogued to be included in the annual reports. Photographs will reflect material discussed in the annual monitoring report, and will document the progress of the site. Vegetation The vegetation community will be quantitatively measured using semi-permanent 50-meter transects that will be established randomly throughout the restoration area (Figure 7-2). Transects will be run perpendicular to the primary channel, and a photo station will be established at the end farthest from the channel. These transects will be used to determine native and nonnative cover across each of the restoration areas during the 5-year maintenance and monitoring program. The use of permanent transects as a sampling design allows for the removal of spatial variability and increases the ability to detect annual changes in the site. This improves the ability to detect positive or negative trends in the restoration area and allows the project biologist and OLC to make prompt adaptive management decisions. Specifically, 25 semi-permanent transects will be established within the restored aquatic area including the channels and floodplains. In addition 10 semi- permanent transects will be established in the upland areas, 5 in the north area and 5 in the south area. This will result in 35 transects total. During Year 1, each transect will be marked with a 4-foot-tall metal rebar post. All posts will also be flagged with neon whiskers for visibility. The location of all transects will be marked using a GPS unit and displayed on a site map in the annual report. Data will be collected each year during late spring/early summer (May to July), and sampling times will be consistent from year to year to minimize variation in the data. Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 7-3 Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.15 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 391 Otay Land Company Site Monitoring For each transect the point-intercept method will be used to record the species. The sampling method is based on a 50-meter-long point-intercept transect centered on a 50 by 5 meter belt transect plot. At each 50-centimeter interval along the transect (beginning at the 50-centimeter mark and ending at the 50-meter mark), a point is projected vertically into the vegetation. Each species intercepted by a point is recorded, providing a tally of hits for each species in the herb, shrub, and tree canopies. The measuring tape will be stretched taught to maintain a consistent sampling area. Absolute cover for each species according to vegetation layer can be calculated from these data (CNPS 1999). To conduct the measurement, a 50meter-long tape is laid along the center of the pot and secured at both ends. The observer uses a 1-meter dowel to sight along a vertical line at every 0.5-meter interval. Each species intercepted by the vertical line is tallied by vegetation layer. A total of 100 points along the transect is thus sampled. Species were categorized as herbaceous layer (vegetation shorter than 60 centimeters), shrub layer (60 centimeters to 3 meters), or trees (woody material taller than 3 meters). To measure vegetation change, the native vegetation cover in each layer is calculated as follows. Cover = number of points covered by a species / total number of points x 100% The cover of all nonnative and invasive plants, as defined by Cal- Priority Species (Cal-IPC 2014), will be calculated for each transect. Values for each re-established or rehabilitated wetland unit will be compared to the reference site. In addition to cover, native species richness will be measured for each belt transect. For each belt transect (centered on the point- intercept transect) all species present will be recorded, and a count of all native species will be presented. Only plants rooted within the belt will be counted. The native species richness of each belt transect will be compared to the reference site. In addition, a complete list of additional species occurring within each restoration area will be recorded to measure total species richness. Separate lists will be generated for the aquatic and upland habitat because each has distinct success criteria. Wetland Condition A CRAM analysis will be used to provide an evaluation of the ambient conditions of the re- established, rehabilitated, and enhanced wetlands within the restoration area with a focus on the primary channel. The assessment will follow the protocols found in the latest version of the # «¨¥®±¨ 2 ¯¨£ !²²¤²²¬¤³ -¤³§®£ ¥®± 7¤³« £² 2¨µ¤±¨¤ 7¤³« £² &¨¤«£ "®®ª at the time of the Year #2!- $¤¯±¤²²¨® « &¨¤«£ "®®ª 1 assessment. In addition, the will be used to assess the seasonal ponds. The same version will be used for the 5-year maintenance and monitoring period. Representative AAs will be established within the primary channel and at least 3 of the seasonal ponds to measure the change in ecosystem functions and services over the course of the monitoring program. At this time five CRAM Riverine AAs have been identified within the restoration site and three Depressional AAs (Figure 7-2). Because the site is expected to be wadable at all times, two- sided AAs are planned for the riverine assessments. If the Episodic Streams CRAM module (currently under development) is available for use then both the Riverine and Episodic module will be used during Year 1, and the restoration ecologist will evaluate which module is most appropriate for the site. A sample size analysis of CRAM assessment areas will be conducted in Years 13 as described in the s manual with the intent of determining adequate sample size for the project. One of the five AAs will be randomly selected. If the overall CRAM score for that AA differs from the average score of the other four AAs by more than 15%, another AA would need to be added. If the randomly chosen AA does not differ by more than 15%, then no more AAs are needed. Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 7-4 Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.15 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 392 K:\\San Diego\\projects\\Otay_Land_Co_Village\\00296_14_8and9_Mitigation_Site\\mapdoc\\HMMP\\Fig07_1_Photo_Stations.mxd Date: 4/22/2016 35528 K:\\San Diego\\projects\\Otay_Land_Co_Village\\00296_14_8and9_Mitigation_Site\\mapdoc\\HMMP\\Fig07_2_Quantitative_Mon_Stations.mxd Date: 4/22/2016 35528 Otay Land Company Site Monitoring Because there are no viable wetlands onsite now, there will be an immediate increase in wetland condition following recontouring. However, once the mainstem channel and floodplain has been established, both the Landscape and Hydrology Attributes are expected to change very little if any over time. As such the primary wetland condition success standards are based on the Biotic and Physical Attribute scores. Table 7-1 shows the projected CRAM wetland condition scores for the riverine AAs post installation (Year 3 and Year 5) as well as the maximum score anticipated at site maturity, which may take 10 to 20 years to achieve and as such is not tied to the projects success. Scores are based on best professional judgement using experience in other intermittent/ephemeral systems. Please note that the scores shown would be the average for the site and as such may vary within each AA. Table 7-1. Projected CRAM Scores for Year 3 and Year 5 Post Installation and the Maximum Score #2!- !³³±¨¡´³¤² #2!- -¤³±¨¢ £ 3´¡¬¤³±¨¢² 9¤ ± Β 9¤ ± Δ Maximum !³³±¨¡´³¤ 3¢®±¤ 85%93%93% Stream Corridor Continuity 12 12 12 "´¥¥¤± £ "´¥¥¤± 3´¡¬¤³±¨¢² Ȩ¡¤«®¶ȩ 8.5 10.4 10.4 , £²¢ ¯¤ % of AA with Buffer 12 12 12 Connectivity Average Buffer Width 12 12 12 Buffer Condition 6 9 9 !³³±¨¡´³¤ 3¢®±¤ 83%83%92% Water Source 12 12 12 (¸£±®«®¦¸ Channel Stability 9 9 12 Hydrologic Connectivity 9 9 9 !³³±¨¡´³¤ 3¢®±¤ 50%75%75% 0§¸²¨¢ « 3³±´¢³´±¤ Structural Patch Richness 6 9 9 Topographic Complexity 6 9 9 !³³±¨¡´³¤ 3¢®±¤ 56%67%81% PC: No. of plant layers 6 9 12 PC: No. of codominants 9 6 9 "¨®³¨¢ 3³±´¢³´±¤ PC: Percent Invasion 9 12 12 0« ³ #®¬¬´¨³¸ 3´¡¬¤³±¨¢ 3¢®±¤ 8 9 11 Interspersion 6 6 9 Vertical Biotic Structure 6 9 9 /µ¤± «« !! 3¢®±¤ 69% 80% 85% Channel and Floodplain Morphology Permanent transects will be established throughout the site perpendicular to the primary channel. These transects will be monitored annually to document changes to the primary channel morphology as well as the overall floodplain. In the primary channel, a topographic cross-section will be collected at 10 permanent locations throughout the site, occurring approximately every 100 meters (Figure 7-2). Each transect will be surveyed using ground-based surveying equipment to capture and track channel morphology; elevations along the cross-section will be collected at intervals close enough to capture changes in elevation along the channel sides and bottom. In addition to the channel morphology transects, an additional 5 transects have been established throughout the floodplain to monitor overall topographic changes over time, including changes to Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 7-5 Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.15 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 397 Otay Land Company Site Monitoring the secondary channels and floodplain terraces. These five transects correspond to five of the channel morphology transects (Figure 7-2). The location of each cross-section will be permanently marked in the field using 4-foot-tall metal t-posts or other method. Transect endpoints will be documented using GPS units. Hydrology and Groundwater Monitoring Improvements to surface hydrology are anticipated throughout the site, including the primary and secondary channels as well as the floodplains. Evidence of improved surface hydrology will be evident by the appearance of an ordinary high water mark, surface flows, and overbank flows. Because the site will be freshly graded to create the new topographic landscape, it may take a few years and sufficient storm events to create surface hydrology indicators. With each annual monitoring event evidence of surface hydrology will be recorded and a summary of key indicators will be presented in the annual report. Groundwater monitoring wells will be installed throughout the northern floodplain of the mitigation site. Five permanent groundwatering stations will be established prior to installation and tracked up until grading, at which point they will be removed (Figure 7-2). They will be reinstalled following mitigation installation and monitored throughout the 5-year period. Shallow Groundwater Monitoring Site visit observations have identified approximate groundwater levels at discrete locations in the plan area during a single drought year fall season. Additional observations can improve the understanding of seasonal variations of shallow groundwater tables and inform and improve conceptual designs to propose adequate depth of excavation to recreate a feasible river channel. ICF will work with a subcontractor to install five dig/drill shallow holes, and ICF staff will install five PVC piezometers fitted with water-level data loggers. The data loggers will remain deployed and retrieved as necessary to collect a complete year of recorded water levels leading up to implementation such that the design/build operation can be adapted as needed to achieve the desired habitat mosaic. Updated Jurisdictional Delineation An updated jurisdictional delineation will be performed within the mitigation site in Year 3 and Year 5. The mitigation site will be evaluated for the presence of a definable channel and/or wetland vegetation, soils, and hydrology. The study area will be analyzed for potential wetlands using the #®±¯² ®¥ %¦¨¤¤±² 7¤³« £ $¤«¨¤ ³¨® - ´ « methodology set forth in the 1987 (Environmental 2¤¦¨® « 3´¯¯«¤¬¤³ ³® ³§¤ #®±¯² ®¥ %¦¨¤¤±² 7¤³« £ $¤«¨¤ ³¨® Laboratory 1987) and the 2008 - ´ «Ȁ !±¨£ 7¤²³ 2¤¦¨® (USACE 2008a) or more current guidance. Lateral limits of non-wetland waters will be identified using field indicators (e.g., OHWM) (USACE 2008b). While in the field, potential jurisdictional features will be recorded onto a 100-foot-scale color aerial photograph using visible landmarks and mapped using a GPS unit with sub-meter accuracy. Vascular plants will 4§¤ *¤¯²® - ´ «Ȁ 6 ²¢´« ± 0« ³² ®¥ # «¨¥®±¨ 4§¤ identified using (Baldwin et al. 2012) and . ³¨® « 7¤³« £ 0« ³ ,¨²³ (Lichvar et al. 2014) or current references. Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 7-6 Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.15 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 398 Otay Land Company Site Monitoring 7.3.2Sampling Design and Statistical Rigor The monitoring program has been designed to maximize ability to characterize the site and detect change while minimizing costs. A statistical power analysis will be conducted to determine the appropriate number of sampling units needed to achieve 90% confidence with 15% precision around absolute native cover (Elzinga et al. 1998). Power, by definition, is the ability to find a statistically significant difference when the null hypothesis is in fact false; in other words, power is your ability to find a difference when a real difference exists (i.e., native cover is higher in Year 2 than Year 1). The power of a study is determined by three factors: the sample size, the alpha level, and the effect size. After Year 2, a power analysis using paired (permanent) data will be conducted to ensure 90% power is being achieved, alpha of 0.1, and a minimum detectable change of 15% native cover. If 90% power is not being achieved, additional transects may be added. Additionally, 90% confidence intervals will be calculated each year around native and nonnative cover of the restoration areas. These confidence intervals will be compared to vegetation success standards calculated based on the reference site to determine if success is being achieved. For native cover, the entire confidence interval must be higher than the success standard for success to be achieved. For nonnative cover, the entire confidence interval must be less than the success standard for success to be achieved. Using permanent sampling units allows for higher power with fewer samples because variability in space is removed, as the sampling units are in the same place year after year. Repeating the power analysis after Year 1 will ensure high power is still achieved with the most efficient sampling design possible. A similar power analysis will be conducted for the CRAM assessment, as described above 7.4Performance Standards Success criteria have been established for the mitigation plan based on the qualitative and quantitative monitoring described above. These performance standards have been designed specifically for this HMMP as a means of monitoring the progress and performance of the physical, hydrological, and biological conditions of the mitigation activities. The success criteria include multiple measures of the performance and final success, and include general site requirements, native and nonnative cover goals, and functional assessment target scores as shown in Table 7-2. Plan performance will be evaluated annually during regularly scheduled monitoring visits unless otherwise specified. If the plan at any time does not appear to be on a trajectory to meet final success standards, the biological monitor will recommend remedial actions (adaptive management) to ensure conformance to the goals and schedule. Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 7-7 Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.15 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 399 400 0 ¦¤ Packet !¦¤£ ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ 401 0 ¦¤ Packet !¦¤£ ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ Otay Land Company Site Monitoring 7.5Annual Reports Annual monitoring reports will be submitted to the appropriate resource agencies as specified by monitoring activities. Per the SPD Mitigation Guidelines, the annual report will include a short narrative letter report that includes a vicinity map, compensatory mitigation map, mitigation treatments, photograph, transect locations, and other monitoring locations; and will be accompanied by the SPD mitigation monitoring forms. Supporting data will be summarized by within the upland and floodplain area using relative cover. Mean absolute cover values for each species by will be included in an appendix. 7.6Adaptive Management Plan Pursuant to Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Title 33, Section 332.7(c) of the 2008 Mitigation Rule (33 CFR 325 and 332, and 40 CFR 230), the plan must include an adaptive management strategy to account for unforeseen problems in the implementation, short-term development, and overall success of the mitigation program. Otay Land Company will ensure that an experienced restoration ecologist who is familiar with the mitigation design and goals is on site during each phase of the HMMP. The most critical time for adaptive management will be during implementation, which will include initial clearing and grubbing activities through grading and planting activities. Correcting problems at this early stage should reduce potential problems during site development. During implementation, the restoration ecologist will be responsible for early detection of problems with the proposed site elevations and contours and will adapt the plan as needed with engineers and construction crews. The restoration ecologist will be responsible for the specified native plants being installed in the proper location and densities and for adjusting those specifications as needed to accommodate site conditions or other issues such as a species being unavailable. The restoration ecologist will train the planting crews on the proper methodology to plant each container type correct problems as needed. Interim performance standards are crucial to ensuring mitigation performance follows a trajectory to attain final mitigation success. Although not anticipated, if these interim performance standards are not achieved during annual monitoring, the restoration ecologist will work with the mitigation team and regulatory agencies if these problems require substantial action. A substantial action needing agency coordination could involve channel instability, large-scale infestation by invasive, nonnative plants and animals, a need to replant more than 20% of the site to improve species cover or diversity, supplemental soil amendments, or installation of new or replacement fencing and signage at new locations or with a new design. The team will prepare a recommendation and gain agency approval prior to implementation. Minor problems, such as trash, vandalism, isolated instances of plant mortality, or small-scale weed or pest infestations, will be rectified as they are discovered during routine site monitoring and maintenance and included in annual reporting. In some cases when performance standards are not being met, a site may be viewed as performing correctly and performance standards may be determined to have been incorrectly estimated. In these cases, OLC may request performance standards to be modified in accordance with 33 CFR 332.7(c)(4). Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 7-10 Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.15 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 402 Otay Land Company Site Monitoring If the mitigation site has not met the performance criteria, and the criteria are considered accurate and reasonable, the maintenance and monitoring obligations will continue until performance criteria are achieved or alternative contingency measures will be negotiated with regulatory agencies. Otay Land Company understands that failure of any significant portion of the mitigation site may result in a requirement to replace that portion of the site and/or extend the monitoring and maintenance period until all success standards are met. Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 7-11 Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.15 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 403 Otay Land Company Site Monitoring This page intentionally left blank. Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 7-12 Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.15 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 404 Chapter 8 Mitigation Cost and Financial Assurances Pursuant to 33 CFR 332.3(n)(2) of the Mitigation Rule, OLC will provide financial assurances in the form of a performance bond, letter of credit, or escrow account providing USACE contingency funding in the event that the OLC Wetland Mitigation site cannot be obtained or the mitigation successfully implemented. OLC has proposed providing financial assurances in two phases (implementation and post-implementation) for each of the two projects (Village 3 and Village 8 West). Financial assurances for the future phase of restoration will be included in the development of the mitigation bank. The first financial assurance is the estimated amount of acquiring replacement lands within the watershed or region in the event that the mitigation site cannot be successfully purchased. The second would be equal to the costs of planning, implementation, short-term monitoring (5-year monitoring period), and contingency funds for implementation of Phase 1 and Phase 2. The amount of the combined financial assurances provides sufficient funds to ensure that an alternative site can be acquired and a replacement compensatory mitigation plan can be implemented. 8.1Total Estimated Mitigation Implementation Cost The total cost for the compensatory mitigation, including the required short-term maintenance and monitoring and a 10% contingency, is estimated to be approximately $4.97 million. Cost estimates will be refined prior to executing the financial assurances and prior to implementation of the authorized impacts associated with the Village 3 and Village 8 West. Table 8-1 provides an itemized budget for successfully completing the Restoration Plan ICF staff used their best professional judgment and past experience with constructing similar projects to develop the line items and unit costs for the estimate. For convenience, the tasks have been categorized into property acquisition and protection, restoration planning and permitting, and implementation. Table 8-1. Preliminary Cost Estimate for Entire Plan 2¤²³®± ³¨® 0§ ²¤ȝ)³¤¬ 4®³ « #®²³ Assumptions Site Acquisition and Protection Real Estate Costs $0 Mitigation occurring on city and county owned properties $25,000 Developing and Recording Develop conservation easement, Conservation Easement attorney and recording fees Long-Term Endowment $170,955 Annual costs of $5,983.45 Restoration Planning and Permitting Design $202,000 Includes concept design, detailed design, and hydraulic analysis Mitigation and Monitoring Plan $57,000 Includes baseline surveys, vegetation map, and jurisdictional delineation Permitting $68,000 Includes biological surveys, California Environmental Quality Act compliance, Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 8-1 Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.15 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 405 Otay Land Company Mitigation Cost and Financial Assurances 2¤²³®± ³¨® 0§ ²¤ȝ)³¤¬ 4®³ « #®²³ Assumptions NWP 27, 1602, 401 Certification, SWPPP Implementation (by Phase) 0§ ²¤ Δ Invasive Species Treatment $195,000 Initial treatment of Phase 2 footprint, treatment of all trees, treatment of upstream areas. Includes initial UXO sweep. 0§ ²¤ Ε Construction $720,000 Includes mobilization, demolition, grading, planting, and construction monitoring 0§ ²¤ Ε $395,000 Post-Construction 5 years of post-construction Performance Monitoring and performance monitoring and site Maintenance maintenance &´³´±¤ 0§ ²¤² Construction $1,870,500 Includes mobilization, demolition, grading, planting, and construction monitoring &´³´±¤ 0§ ²¤² $835,000 Post-Construction 5 years of post-construction Performance Monitoring and performance monitoring and site Maintenance Phase 2 maintenance Subtotal $4,538,000 10% Contingency $436,650 Total $4,974,650 8.2Financial Assurances The financial assurance will be provided in the format agreed to by OLC, USACE, other regulatory agencies, and the City of Chula Vista as necessary. Financial assurances will be provided to USACE in the amount estimated in Table 8-2 unless adjusted based on new site information and as approved by USACE. Financial assurances will be provided using USACE templates if available and posted using the present standards for financial guarantees to warrantee mitigation requirements pursuant to the Mitigation Rule. The first financial assurance would be released upon initiation of Phase 2 construction, while the second financial assurance would be released by USACE upon notice of completion of the minimum 5-year maintenance and monitoring program, final annual report documenting attainment of all ecological performance standards, and an agency compliance visit if - ¦¤¬¤³ 0« 0±¤¯ ± ³¨® 2¤°´¨±¤¬¤³ requested (Section 9.4, ). Financial assurances have been divided across two phases of the project. As illustrated in Table 8-2 there is a disproportionate cost associated with the planning and installation of this HMMP. This is not uncommon but does warrant a distinction between the two phases. As such, a phased release schedule has been proposed corresponding to (1) the as-built at installation completion and (2) the 5-year maintenance and monitoring period and success achievement of all permit success standards for Phase 1 and Phase 2 (Village 3 and Village 8 West). Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 8-2 Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.15 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 406 Otay Land Company Mitigation Cost and Financial Assurances Table 8-2. Phased Financial Assurances &¨ ¢¨ « !²²´± ¢¤ 4®³ « #®²³ 2¤«¤ ²¤ 3¢§¤£´«¤ Phase First Phase 1 $717,955 Upon initiation of Phase 2 construction Second Phase $1,115,000 2 Completion of 5 year maintenance and monitoring program Total Financial Assurance $1,832,955 1 Includes Site Acquisition and Protection, Restoration Planning and Permitting, and Phase 1 Invasive Species Treatment. Includes Installation of Phase 2, Post-Construction Performance Monitoring and Maintenance for Phase 2, and the 10% 2 Contingency for the Phase 2 cost. Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 8-3 Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.15 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 407 Otay Land Company Mitigation Cost and Financial Assurances This page intentionally left blank. Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 8-4 Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.15 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 408 Chapter 9 Compensatory Mitigation and Preservation Credits 9.1Compensatory Mitigation Credits Available The compensatory mitigation quantities (acreage and stacked linear feet) that will be restored at the mitigation site are shown in Tables 9-1 and 9-2. Table 9-1. Compensatory Mitigation Acreage Quantities by Restoration Type for Entire Plan #$&7 "´¥¥¤± 2¤²³®± ³¨® 4¸¯¤ Habitat Acreage 7®53 #±¤£¨³ Credit Credit 12 Primary Channel 5.27 5.27 5.27 - Secondary 2.22 2.22 2.22 - Channels Re-establishment Active Low Floodplain (10 24.2 24.2 24.2 - year flood) High Floodplain 21.8 - 21.8 2.18 (25 year flood) Seasonal Ponds Establishment 1.34 1.34 1.34 - (created) Primary Channel 0.75 0.75 0.75 - Seasonal Ponds 0.38 0.38 0.38 - (existing) Rehabilitation 3 Active Low Floodplain (10 0.16 0.16 0.16 year flood) Transitional 47.15 - - 4.72 Uplands Total WoUS Credit 34.32 Total CDFW Credit 56.12 Total Upland Credits 6.9 1 Acreage includes WoUS Credit and is not additive. 2 Functional increase based on projected CRAM scores, %10 change. Buffer credit can be applied to WoUS and CDFW credit as the total acreage available has been reduced from the full 67 acres of rehabilitation to 6.7 acres based on the functional increase. Use of Rehabilitation credits are not as valuable as re-establishment and establishment in the USACE mitigation ratio 3 checklist, as such, the mitigation ratio will be higher when using this credit type. Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 9-1 Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.15 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 409 Otay Land Company Compensatory Mitigation and Preservation Quantities Table 9-2. Compensatory Mitigation Linear Feet Quantities for Entire Plan 3³ ¢ª¤£ 7¨£³§ ,¨¤ ± *´±¨²£¨¢³¨® « #§ ¤« ,¤¦³§ -¨³¨¦ ³¨® Ȩ,¨¤ ± &¤¤³ ȴ Feet Width Width) Straight Linear Feet All Channels 10,170 - - Secondary Channel 1,000 10 10,000 (North) Secondary Channel 2.220 22 48,840 (South) Stacked Linear Feet Primary Channel 5,170 50 258,500 Tributaries 1,780 23 40,940 4®³ « 3³ ¢ª¤£ ,¨¤ ± &¤¤³358,280 9.2Long-Term Management Plan Pursuant to 33 CFR 332.7(a) of the Mitigation Rule, OLC will prepare a specific long-term management plan that will govern the management of the mitigation site in perpetuity after all performance standards have been met. Although one goal of the OLC mitigation program is to reestablish self-sustaining native riparian scrub habitat, some level of long-term management will be required to ensure that target functions and services are maintained. The purpose of the long- term management plan will be to maintain control over factors that could adversely affect the site, such as invasive species, trespassing, and urban encroachment. OLC will evaluate the potential factors that could adversely affect the mitigation site in light of the location, the condition of riparian/wetland areas surrounding the mitigation site, and the proposed mitigation program, including the ecological performance standards described previously. The long-term management lude a provision to be updated every 5 years so that changes in the physical or anthropogenic environments can be adequately addressed. The long-term management plan will be developed to be compatible with the OVRP JEPA and will distinguish between monitoring and maintenance requirements that are over and above those included in the JEPA for the OVRP. The long-term management plan will include identification of financing mechanism(s) for long-term management and identification of responsible party(ies), such as a third-party land manager. The draft long-term management plan will be submitted to the regulatory agencies for review and approval. A draft outline for the long-term management plan is provided in Appendix F and additional details are provided below. 9.3Site Protection Mechanism The mitigation site will be protected through recordation of a real estate instrument such as a conservation easement, deed restriction, or covenant that will run with the land and will obligate OLC or its successor or assigns to retain the site as natural open space in perpetuity. The site protection mechanism will be developed to be compatible with the OVRP JEPA. The protection mechanism will ensure that the site is protected for the primary purpose of maintaining natural aquatic resources functions and services as targeted through the ecological performance standards 3¨³¤ -®¨³®±¨¦ in Chapter 7, . The protection mechanism will establish an appropriate third party to Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 9-2 Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.16 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 410 Otay Land Company Compensatory Mitigation and Preservation Quantities hold the easement with the right to enforce site protections and provide the third party the financial resources necessary to monitor and enforce the site protections. OLC will draft the long-term protection available. The mechanism will identify a third-party easement holder and a third-party land manager. OLC is currently in discussions with various entities to be an easement holder and land manager. The conservation mechanism will preclude establishment of fuel modification zones, road crossings, paved public trails, maintained public trails, maintenance access roads, and future easements within USACE jurisdiction other than those identified in the existing restoration plans. These include the City of Chula Vista Greenbelt Master Plan and the OVRP trails as identified in the 1997 OVRP Concept Plan and currently under evaluation, with a projected OVRP Concept Plan Update in 2016. It is expected that within the restoration project boundary, that planned trails would follow existing roads and paths, be located outside of jurisdictional waters with the exception of existing river crossings, and be marked with fencing, signage, other necessary amenities and maintained to minimize indirect effects on habitat. The road crossings over the river have been identified to maximize overlap with utilities (including SDG&E and OWD) and Border Patrol crossings. Additional multi-uses can also be approved by USACE and other regulatory agencies as desired for these crossings. 9.4Management Plan Preparation Requirement OLC will prepare a specific long-term management plan utilizing the draft outline provided in Appendix F, which was based on the California templates for Mitigation Banks developed by San Francisco, Sacramento, and Los Angeles Districts of USACE and their respective Interagency Review Teams. The long-term management plan will govern the management of the mitigation site following successful implementation of the restoration program and achievement of the 5-year ecological performance standards. The long-term management plan will summarize the management goals and objectives, identify responsible parties, characterize the baseline conditions, and define management and monitoring tasks and schedules, reporting requirements, and contingencies for adaptive management. The long- 5-year intervals and revised as needed to accommodate new management and monitoring strategies if necessary. Following successful completion of the mitigation program (i.e., achievement of ecological performance standards) and written concurrence by USACE and other regulatory agencies as needed, management of the mitigation site will be transferred along with the long-term management plan to the third-party land manager. The land manager will be funded in perpetuity on an annual basis through the non-wasting endowment described below. 9.5Funding Mechanisms/Schedule OLC will fund the long-term management and monitoring of the mitigation site by establishing a financial instrument such as a non-wasting endowment or other mechanism approved by USACE for the purposes of fulfilling the long-term responsibilities described in the long-term management plan. The restoration project will be included in the City of Chula Vista POM as it is part of the reserve system. Under the POM minimal management activities are performed annually based on Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 9-3 Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.16 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 411 Otay Land Company Compensatory Mitigation and Preservation Quantities the priorities identified in the annual work plan, (currently RECON). As these management actions are limited and not expected to meet the criteria described in the long-term management plan, OLC will financially supplement the POM via the non- wasting endowment or other approved financial mechanism to fund long term management of the restoration area in perpetuity to meet the long-term requirements for the restoration project. Following completion of the 5-year monitoring and maintenance period in which reporting will be done by OLCPOM will include a small chapter specific to the restoration site. OLC will as well as USACE. The amount of the endowment will be based on a Property Analysis Record (PAR) or PAR-equivalent analysis accounting for all the required management responsibilities, including monitoring, reporting, and a contingency to account for unforeseen adaptive management needs. The PAR and PAR-like analysis relies upon assumptions regarding capitalization rate, market rate of labor, equipment, materials, monitoring, and maintenance requirements. OLC and its consultant will work collaboratively with USACE to ensure clear, consistent, and well-substantiated evaluation and accurate outputs of projected costs. The non-wasting endowment will be provided to an approved financial institution such as the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. A legal agreement between OLC, USACE, and the endowment manager will be developed if necessary to govern how the endowment is managed and when monies will be released to the long-term land manager. Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 9-4 Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.16 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 412 Chapter 10 Completion of Compensatory Mitigation 10.1Notification of Completion Upon achievement of the 5-year ecological performance standards and completion of the 5-year maintenance and monitoring period, OLC and its restoration ecologist will prepare a Final Monitoring Report and Notice of Completion. The final report will detail whether all the requirements of the mitigation program have been met and make any necessary recommendations for modifications to the long-term management plan or initial funding amount. An updated long- term management plan and PAR or PAR-equivalent analysis will be provided if required. The final report will be submitted to the regulatory agencies for verification of successful completion and final acceptance, and OLC will extend an invitation for a final agency site visit. !£ ¯³¨µ¤ - ¦¤¬¤³ 0« Pursuant to Section 7.6, , the restoration ecologist will consult with regulatory agencies annually if substantial remedial actions are needed to achieve performance standards. Should any of the restoration areas fail to meet the final performance standards at the end of the 5-year maintenance and monitoring period, OLC will consult with the resource agencies to determine if any additional actions are needed to attain the 5-year ecological performance standards or if alternative mitigation options need to be pursued. 10.2Agency Confirmation of Site Performance Upon receipt of the final report the regulatory agencies will be requested to either confirm that the required performance standards have been met or to accept an invitation for a site visit. If regulatory agency personnel reject terminating the 5-year monitoring and maintenance program, reasons for the objection should be clearly stated so that corrective measures may be immediately scheduled. OLC will schedule a meeting to resolve agency concerns, which may include implementing additional adaptive management measures, arranging to extend the monitoring period. Upon acceptance of the termination of the 5-year monitoring and maintenance program, OLC will request a letter verifying the successful completion of the mitigation plan and transfer responsibilities to the long-term manager. Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 10-1 Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.15 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 413 Pacifc Gas and Electric Company Completion of Compensatory Mitigation This page intentionally left blank. Mira Monte Marina Wetland Restoration Project October 2013 10-2 Conceptual Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00707.12 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 414 Chapter 11 References /³ ¸ 2¨µ¤± 7 ³¤±²§¤£ - ¦¤¬¤³ 0« Aspen Environmental Group. 2007. . Prepared for the County of San Diego and the City of Chula Vista. http://www.sandiegocounty.gov/dplu/docs/05-06FinalDraft_OtayRiverWMP.pdf. 3³ ³´² ±¤µ¨¤¶ ®¥ ³§¤ # «¨¥®±¨ ¦ ³¢ ³¢§¤± Ȩ0®«¨®¯³¨« ¢ «¨¥®±¨¢ ȩ Atwood, J. L. 1990. . Unpubl. tech. rep., Manomet Bird Observatory, Manomet, MA. 79 pp. . 1993. California gnatcatchers and coastal sage scrub: the biological basis for endangered species listing. Pages 149169 in J. E. Keeley, ed. Interface between ecology and land development in California. Southern Calif. Acad. Sci., Los Angeles. 4§¤ Baldwin, B. G., D. H. Goldman, D. J. Keil, R. Patterson, T. J. Rosatti, and D. H. Wilken (eds.). 2012. *¤¯²® - ´ «Ȁ 6 ²¢´« ± 0« ³² ®¥ # «¨¥®±¨ ȁ Second edition. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. 3®¨« 3´±µ¤¸Ǿ 3 $¨¤¦® !±¤ Ǿ # «¨¥®±¨ Ǿ 0 ±³ Δȁ Bowman, R. H. 1973. United States Department of Agriculture. Busch, D. E. and S. D. Smith. 1995. Mechanisms Associated with Decline of Woody Species in %¢®«®¦¨¢ « -®®¦± ¯§² Riparian Ecosystems of the Southwestern U.S. 65(3):347370. -¨¤± « , £ California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology. 1982. #« ²²¨¥¨¢ ³¨®Ȁ !¦¦±¤¦ ³¤ - ³¤±¨ «² ¨ ³§¤ 7¤²³¤± 3 $¨¤¦® #®´³¸ 0±®£´¢³¨®ȃ#®²´¬¯³¨® Region . Special Report 153. Available: https://ia601201.us.archive.org/26/items/minerallandclass153kohl/minerallandclass153kohl. pdf. California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2015. California Natural Diversity Database, RareFind 4. Available: https://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cnddb/. Accessed: May 2015. California Invasive Plant Council (Cal-IPC). 2014. California Invasive Plant Inventory Database. Available: http://www.cal-ipc.org/paf/. Accessed: October 18, 2014. California Native Plant Society. 1999. Field Sampling Protocol. Available: https://web.archive.org/web/19990128000628/http://www.calpoly.edu/~dchippin/protocol. html. California Wetlands Monitoring Workgroup (CWMW). 2013. California Rapid Assessment Method 3 $¨¤¦® #®´³¸ (¸£±®«®¦¸ - ´ « County of San Diego. 2003. . Available: http://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/sdc/dpw/flood/hydrologymanual.html. DiTomaso, J. M., G. B. Kyser, S. R. Oneto, R. G. Wilson, S. B. Orloff, L. W. Anderson, S. D. Wright, J. A. Roncoroni, T. L. Miller, T. S. Prather, C. Ransom, K. G. Beck, C. Duncan, K. A. Wilson, and J. J. Mann. 7¤¤£ #®³±®« ¨ . ³´± « !±¤ ² ¨ ³§¤ 7¤²³¤± 5¨³¤£ 3³ ³¤² 2013. . Weed Research and Information Center, University of California, Davis. Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 11-1 Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.15 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 415 Otay Land Company References -¤ ²´±¨¦ £ -®¨³®±¨¦ 0« ³ 0®¯´« ³¨®²ȁ Elzinga, C. L., D. W. Salzer, and J. W. Willoughby. 1998. Bureau of Land Management Technical Reference 17301. Denver, Colorado. #®±¯² ®¥ %¦¨¤¤±² 7¤³« £ $¤«¨¤ ³¨® - ´ «ȁ Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Technical Report Y-87-1. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experimental Station. Franzreb, K. E. 1989. . U.S. Fish Wildlife Service Biol. Rep. 89. ( ¡¨³ ³ ±¤°´¨±¤¬¤³² ®¥ ³§¤ «¤ ²³ "¤««͖² µ¨±¤® Goldwasser, S. 1981. . Calif. Dept. of Fish and Game Final Report., Job IV-38.1. Gray, M. V. and J. -611, )Ȁ R.E. Warner and K. M. Hendrix, (eds.), California riparian systems: Ecology, conservation, and productive management. Univ. California Press, Berkeley, California. Holland, R. 1986. Preliminary descriptions of the terrestrial natural communities of California. Unpublished document, California Department of Fish and Game, Natural Heritage Division. Sacramento, CA. ! '´¨£¤ ³® ³§¤ "¨±£² ®¥ -¤·¨¢® £ .®±³§¤± #¤³± « !¬¤±¨¢ Howell, Steve N. G., Sophie Webb. 1995. . Oxford University Press. pp. 654655. ISBN 0-19-854012-4. /³ ¸ 2¨µ¤± 7 ³¤±²§¤£ 3¯¤¢¨ « !±¤ - ¦¤¬¤³ 0« Jones and Stokes. 2006. . -¨¤± « , £ #« ²²¨¥¨¢ ³¨®Ȁ !¦¦±¤¦ ³¤ - ³¤±¨ «² ¨ ³§¤ 7¤²³¤± Kohler, S. L., and R. V. Miller. 1982. 3 $¨¤¦® #®´³¸ 0±®£´¢³¨®ȃ#®²´¬¯³¨® 2¤¦¨® . California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology. Special Report 153. In Kus, B. E. and K. L. Miner. 1989. Use of Non-: Abell, Dana L., Technical Coordinator. 1989. Lichvar, R. W., M. Butterwick, N. C. Melvin, and W. N. Kirchner. 2014. The National Wetland Plant Phytoneuron List: 2014 Update of Wetland Ratings. 2014(41):142. Major, J. 1977. California Climate in Relation to Vegetation. Pages 1174 in M. Barbor and J. Majors 4¤±±¤²³±¨ « 6¤¦¤³ ³¨® ®¥ # «¨¥®±¨ (eds.), . NY: John Wiley. Mattoni, R., T. Longcore, J. George, and C. Rich. 1997. Down memory lane: the Los Angeles coastal prairie and its vernal pools. Poster presentation at 2nd Interface Between Ecology and Land Development in California. Occidental College, April 1819. 3®´³§¤± # «¨¥®±¨ &«®®£² ®¥ * ´ ±¸Ǿ ΔΜΔΙ McGlashan, H. D., and F. C. Ebert. 1918. . Department of the Interior, United States Geological Survey. Government Printing Office. 5¯£ ³¤ ®¥ -¨¤± « , £ #« ²²¨¥¨¢ ³¨®Ȁ !¦¦±¤¦ ³¤ - ³¤±¨ «² ¨ ³§¤ 7¤²³¤± 3 Miller, R. V. 1996. $¨¤¦® #®´³¸ 0±®£´¢³¨®ȃ#®²´¬¯³¨® 2¤¦¨® . California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology. DMG Open-File Report 96-04. Mitsch, W. J. and J. G. Gosselink. 2000. Wetlands. Third edition. John Wiley & Sons. New York, New York, USA. National Weather Service Lower Otay Reservoir Weather Station. 2013. http://www.weather.gov/. Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 11-2 Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.15 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 416 Otay Land Company References Oberbauer, Thomas, Meghan Kelly, and Jeremy Buegge. 2008. Draft Vegetation Communities of San ommunities of Regional Environmental Consultants (RECON). 1989. Comprehensive species management plan for 6¨±¤® ¡¤««¨¨ ¯´²¨««´² ). Prepared for San Diego Association of Governments, San Diego. Salata, L. 1983. ¨ ΔΜΛΖ . Unpubl. Rept., U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Laguna Niguel, CA. 7 ³¤± ¨ ³§¤ 3 $¨¤¦® 2¤¦¨® San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). 1985. . October. 2¤¦¨® « 3´¯¯«¤¬¤³ ³® ³§¤ #®±¯² ®¥ %¦¨¤¤±² U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2008a. 7¤³« £ $¤«¨¤ ³¨® - ´ «Ȁ !±¨£ 7¤²³ 2¤¦¨® . Version 2.0. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center. Report dated September 2008. ! &¨¤«£ '´¨£¤ ³® ³§¤ )£¤³¨¥¨¢ ³¨® ®¥ ³§¤ /±£¨ ±¸ (¨¦§ 7 ³¤± - ±ª ¨ ³§¤ !±¨£ 7¤²³ . 2008b. 2¤¦¨® ®¥ ³§¤ 7¤²³¤± 5¨³¤£ 3³ ³¤²Ȁ ! $¤³¤±¬¨ ³¨® - ´ « . August. Available: http://www.crrel.usace.army.mil/library/technicalreports/ERDC-CRREL-TR-08-12.pdf. )³¤± ¦¤¢¸ 2¤¦´« ³®±¸ '´¨£¤ ¥®± !£µ ¢¤ 0¤±¬¨³³¤¤ȃ2¤²¯®²¨¡«¤ -¨³¨¦ ³¨®ȁ . 2012. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington State Department of Ecology, and Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife, Ecology Publication No. 12-06-015. December. $± ¥³ ΕΓΔΖ 2¤¦¨® « #®¬¯¤² ³®±¸ -¨³¨¦ ³¨® £ -®¨³®±¨¦ '´¨£¤«¨¤² ¥®± 3®´³§ . 2013. 0 ¢¨¥¨¢ $¨µ¨²¨® 53!#% . Available: http://www.spd.usace.army.mil/Portals/13/docs/regulatory/qmsref/RMMG/SPD%20MMG%2 020130820.pdf. . 2014. 12505-SPD Regulatory Program Uniform Performance Standards for Compensatory Mitigation Requirements. Available: http://www.spd.usace.army.mil/Portals/13/docs/regulatory/qmsref/ups/12505.pdf. . 2014. Web Soil Survey. Available at http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)/U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2008. Compensatory Mitigation for Losses of Aquatic Resources: Final Rule. Federal Register 73(70) 2008. Available: http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/guidance/wetlands/upload/2008_04_10_wetlands_wetlands_m itigation_final_rule_4_10_08.pdf. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1993. Threatened coastal California gnatcatcher; final rule and proposed special rule. Federal Register 58, number 59. . 1995. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; notice of determination to retain the threatened status for the coastal California gnatcatcher under the Endangered Species Act. March 27, 1995. Notice of determination. Federal Register 60: 1569315699. . 1997. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of Endangered Status for the San Diego Fairy Shrimp. Federal Register Vol. 62, No. 22. Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 11-3 Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.15 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 417 Otay Land Company References . 1998a. . Portland, Oregon. Available: http://www.fws.gov/carlsbad/SpeciesStatusList/RP/19980506_Draft%20RP_LBV.pdf. . 1998b. Recovery Plan for Vernal Pools of Southern California. Portland, Oregon. 113+ pp. Available: http://www.fws.gov/sacramento/es/Recovery-Planning/Vernal- Pool/es_recovery_vernal-pool-recovery.htm. ,¨¥¤ (¨²³®±¸ ®¥ ³§¤ 6¤± « 0®®« 4 £¯®«¤ 3§±¨¬¯ . 2002. . 14 Updated February 4, 2002. http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/life_histories/K048.html. 2¤¢®µ¤±¸ 0« ¥®± ³§¤ 1´¨® #§¤¢ª¤±²¯®³ "´³³¤±¥«¸%´¯§¸£±¸ ² ¤£¨³§ °´¨® . 2003. (). Portland, Oregon. Available: http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/recovery_plan/030917.pdf. 3 $¨¤¦® & ¨±¸ 3§±¨¬¯ &¨µ¤ȃ¸¤ ± 2¤µ¨¤¶ . 2008. . September 30. Available: http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/five_year_review/doc1999.pdf. 1´¨® #§¤¢ª¤±²¯®³ "´³³¤±¥«¸ 3´±µ¤¸ '´¨£¤«¨¤²ȁ . 2014. December 15. Available: http://www.fws.gov/carlsbad/TEspecies/Documents/QuinoDocs/Quino%20Survey%20Guidel ines_version%2015DEC2014.pdf. Western Regional Climate Center. 2014. Period of Record Monthly Climate Summary for Chula Vista, CA (041758). Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 11-4 Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.15 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 418 Appendix A Interagency Regulatory Guide for Advance Permittee- Responsible Mitigation by the USACE Seattle District ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 419 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 420 Interagency Regulatory Guide Advance Permittee-Responsible Mitigation U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Washington State Department of Ecology Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife USArmyCorps ofEngineers SeattleDistrict December 2012 Ecology Publication no. 12-06-015 Template ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 421 Publication and Contact Information This Interagency Regulatory Guide on Advance Permittee-Responsible Mitigation (Guide) was cooperatively developed by an interagency workgroup. The workgroup members include: Sandra Manning, Corps of Engineers Lauren Driscoll and Caroline Corcoran, Ecology Randi Thurston, WDFW and Mark Daily (formerly with WDFW) Doug Swanson, Gretchen Lux and Ken Risenhoover, WSDOT https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/SummaryPages/120615.html. That Works website at: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/mitigation. If you have questions on the Guide, please contact the following agency representatives: Corps of Engineers: Sandra Manning, Transportation Policy Lead at (360) 407-6912 Gail Terzi, Mitigation Manager at (206) 764-6903 Department of Ecology: Lauren Driscoll, Wetlands Section Manager at (360) 407-7045 Department of Fish and Wildlife: Randi Thurston, (360) 902-2602 Acknowledgements The workgroup would like to acknowledge the assistance provided by Gail Terzi, Corps of Engineers and Hans Ehlert, CH2MHill in developing and editing the document. Development of this document was partially funded through a Wetland Program Development Grant from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Making Mitigation Work, #CD-00J00701-0). If you need this document in a format for the visually impaired, call the Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program at 360-407-6600. Persons with hearing loss can call 711 for Washington Relay Service. Persons with a speech disability can call 877-833-6341. ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 422 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 423 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 424 US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS AND WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENTS OF ECOLOGY AND USArmyCorps ofEngineers FISH AND WILDLIFE SeattleDistrict INTERAGENCY REGULATORY GUIDE ON ADVANCE PERMITTEE-RESPONSIBLE MITIGATION DECEMBER 2012 Purpose The purpose of this Interagency Regulatory Guide on Advance Permittee-Responsible Mitigation (Guide) is to identify the circumstances under which the Seattle District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and the Washington State Departments of Ecology (Ecology) and Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) will consider advance permittee-responsible compensatory mitigation for unavoidable impacts to aquatic resources. Nothing in this Guide either diminishes or expands the regulatory authorities of these agencies. This Guide is meant to provide assistance to applicants proposing to establish an advance mitigation site and to explain how a site might be used as mitigation. This Guide supersedes the definitions for advance and excess mitigation found in 1 Guidance) March 2006, pages 33 and 34, Chapter 4, section 4.1. This Guide complements -M5002). Definition of Permittee-Responsible Advance Mitigation In the context of this Guide, advance mitigation is a form of permittee-responsible compensatory mitigation constructed in advance of a permitted impact. Permittee-responsible mitigation is defined by 33 CFR 332.2 as aquatic resource restoration, establishment, enhancement, and/or preservation, undertaken to provide compensatory mitigation, for which the permittee retains full responsibility. Applicants conduct advance mitigation at their own risk. Even if compensatory mitigation activities are themselves authorized by a permit, establishing compensatory mitigation in advance of the impacts does not create any presumption or guarantee that a proposed future impact will be authorized, or that the advance compensatory mitigation will be considered adequate and/or suitable mitigation for any specific future project. shing an advance mitigation site designed to compensate for future expected impacts. Alternatively, advance mitigation can also be combined with concurrent mitigation required by a Federal, State, or local permit, where the concurrent mitigation site provides additional area beyond the immediate mitigation requirements, and/or the site provides additional functions in excess of what is required for the permitted impact. The excess mitigation generated at a site would be established in advance of, and would generate credits for use against, expected future impacts. In these cases, the area being set aside for advance mitigation must be clearly identified and documented to distinguish from the area being used as concurrent mitigation. 1 The 2006 Joint Guidance can be found online at: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/wetlands/mitigation/guidance/index.html. 1 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 425 Advance mitigation can be proposed by any applicant, but the advance compensatory mitigation credits generated by a mitigation effort in advance of impacts can only be used by that same applicant. If it is determined a mitigation effort and the generated advance credits are not needed by the permittee, they should coordinate possible options with the regulatory agencies. Once any credits have been utilized on an approved advance mitigation site, further credits generated by the advance mitigation effort on that site cannot be sold to another applicant. The restriction on sale of credits derives from the lack of regulatory authority, except in a mitigation banking or in-lieu fee program context, to transfer the obligation for mitigation success to any party other than the permittee of the impacting project. The credit value of mitigation efforts at a site will generally increase over time because the temporal loss is eliminated or decreased if a mitigation effort is established and meeting performance standards prior to the use of the generated credits. The longer a site is functioning, the more credits it may generate for use until the site has reached its maximum potential of credits by meeting all of the listed performance standards (typically around year ten). The general policy of the regulatory agencies is that a site would not generate advance mitigation credit beyond the concurrent ratios recommended in the most current Joint Guidance for wetland mitigation, or in the WDFW mitigation policy POL-M5002 for fish habitat, until the site has been functioning and meeting the required performance standards for a minimum of two calendar years after earth work and planting have been completed. In cases where a permit applicant seeks to apply mitigation credits prior to this interval, it will usually be reviewed as concurrent mitigation. There may be circumstances where the site, or a portion of the site, may generate advance credit within the first two years (e.g., breaching dikes, removing fish passage barriers, preserving existing wetland or fish habitat, and in some cases wetland re-establishment or creation actions). These circumstances will be reviewed by the regulatory agencies on a case-by-case basis. When applying for approval to establish an advance mitigation site, applicants will need to provide information similar to that required for a mitigation plan approval. Additional information pertinent on pages 5-6 of this document. The agencies also recommend submitting a proposed credit generation schedule demonstrating a reduced ratio as the site matures, and proposed credit value(s) the applicant is anticipating the advance site may generate. The geographic area proposed as the potential project use area for future impacts should also be proposed by the applicant based on a watershed approach. The regulatory agencies can review and finalize the credit generation schedule and the geographic use area during the permitting process as part of the approval for the mitigation plan. This will provide the applicant a conditional decision on the potential credits a site may generate if a site is meeting performance standards outlined in the mitigation plan as well as what geographic areas will be acceptable for use. If this information is not available at the time of application for the advance mitigation establishment, it will be required to be approved by the agencies prior to using any credits generated at the site. At the time generated advance credits are proposed for use, the regulatory agencies with jurisdiction over the impacting proposal will decide if the advance compensatory mitigation project provides the appropriate type and extent of mitigati agencies will also consider how the mitigation site is functioning prior to determining how much of , pages 7-8 of this document). Credits can only be used once and upon their use as mitigation the mitigation effort reflected in these credits will not accumulate additional value over time. The 2 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 426 agencies with jurisdiction will require in the permit for the aquatic impact, the appropriate number of advance credits necessary for mitigation. If necessary, the agencies will also define specific areas of the advance mitigation site designed to address compensation for specific impacts to critical on-site functions or habitat type that might be required (e.g. a created stream channel may be required to mitigate for filling a stream). In some cases the agencies may require critical functions to be mitigated on-site at the impact location while other functions may be appropriately mitigated at the determined must be maintained on-site. The agency-approved use as compensatory mitigation of all advance credits must be documented in a ledger managed by the advance mitigation permittee, and submitted to the appropriate regulatory agencies for each ledger transaction. The transaction must document the use of credits and in some cases specific areas on a map that will be deducted or shown as used if necessary to offset critical habitat or function impacts (i.e. a stream creation area to offset stream loss). Any generated credits will not be officially accepted or released by the agencies for compensatory use until the time an applicant proposes the use of credits as mitigation for a specific impacting project, and the regulatory agencies approve use of those credits as mitigation. However if a site has achieved performance standards as outlined in the advance mitigation plan but the advance site has not been approved by the regulatory agencies for use, , the opportunity for the permittee to use the advance mitigation site will not expire. The functional lift achieved by the site will be considered by the agencies when proposed for use by the permittee. Pertinent Regulations Federal The Corps and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a rule on Compensatory Mitigation for Losses of Aquatic Resources (Mitigation Rule) (33 CFR Parts 325 and 332, 2 40 CFR Part 230), dated April 10, 2008. The Mitigation Rule defines requirements of compensatory activities. The Mitigation Rule is intended to enable the agencies to promote greater consistency, predictability and ecological success of mitigation projects under the Clean Water Act and Rivers and Harbors Act. The Mitigation Rule defines three forms of compensatory mitigation: mitigation banks; in-lieu fee programs; and permittee-responsible mitigation. The Federal hierarchy of preferred forms of mitigation is 1.Mitigation banks 2.In-lieu fee programs 3.Permittee-responsible mitigation that is undertaken using a watershed approach, if appropriate and practicable 4.On-site and in-kind 5.Off-site and/or out-of-kind. When proposing advance mitigation in a service area where a mitigation bank or in-lieu fee program has been approved, the applicant must demonstrate why the advance site is ecologically preferable to 2 The Mitigation Rule can be found online at: http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/guidance/wetlands/wetlandsmitigation_index.cfm. 3 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 427 other forms of mitigation. Also, in some cases it may be necessary to replace critical functions on- site. Appendix 1 sets forth a comparison of these various mitigation options and the responsibilities associated with each. Although the Mitigation Rule does not specifically define or discuss advance mitigation as a compensatory mitigation strategy, advance mitigation fulfills several of the objectives that are cited in 33 CFR 332.3(a) as bases for concluding that mitigation banks and in-lieu fee programs are preferable forms of compensatory mitigation: reducing temporal losses of functions, and reducing required to compensate for temporal loss, losses, the Federal regulations implicitly authorize comparatively reduced mitigation requirements when mitigation is accomplished in advance. It is thus an acceptable form of permittee-responsible mitigation for the federal regulatory agencies provided it follows the procedures and constraints outlined in this Guide. State associated water quality regulations (Chapter 173-201A WAC). Based on the anti-degradation policy (WAC 173-201A-300-330), adequate mitigation is required to effectively offset aquatic impacts. Per Section 401 of the Clean Water Act, Ecology must certify that projects comply with state water quality protection laws before the Department of the Army permit can be authorized. (Chapter 77.55 RCW). Any entity conducting work affecting the bed or flow of state waters is required to obtain an HPA from WDFW. An HPA must contain all avoidance, minimization, and compensation measures necessary to ensure the proper protection of fish and their habitats. The rules implementing the Hydraulic Project Approval authority not only allow the use of advance mitigation, they state that a project proponent may be required to establish functional compensatory mitigation prior to the impact (WAC 220-110-020(66)). For projects located on state owned aquatic lands, applicants must coordinate with the Department of Natural Resources. Local jurisdictions regulate critical areas including wetlands and streams. Projects affecting critical areas may need to obtain local permits for construction. Agency Support Federal and state regulations and guidance encourage implementation of mitigation in advance of the project impacts to reduce or eliminate temporal loss, and reduce the risk of unsuccessful mitigation. With advance mitigation, temporal loss is eliminated or reduced, therefore allowing for a reduced amount or ratio for compensation. In addition, the WDFW mitigation policy (POL-M5002) acknowledges the benefit of providing compensatory mitigation in advance of the impacting project. The risk of failed mitigation is reduced because mitigation credit will not be generated for use to offset aquatic impacts until the advance mitigation site demonstrates performance and functional lift. Applicants also may benefit from completing mitigation in advance. If a mitigation site is constructed and functioning prior to the impacts, the eventual compensatory mitigation decisions are likely to occur more quickly. This may result in a decrease in permit processing time because 4 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 428 regulatory agencies will have the certainty that a mitigation site is successfully functioning and will not have to review and approve a new site that has the risks associated with concurrent mitigation. maximum credit potential when the mitigation goals, objectives and performance standards are met. Ratios required to offset impacts generally will be reduced over time due to the decrease in temporal loss and risk, making advance mitigation more cost effective. Proposing Advance Mitigation In order to qualify for the enhanced compensation ratios associated with advance mitigation, agency verification of baseline conditions is necessary, so pre-approval of a Mitigation Plan prior to commencing the mitigation effort is required. When proposing an advance mitigation site, applicants should consider the anticipated location of future projects that will require mitigation so an appropriate location near potential impacts can be selected. The mitigation should be designed to achieve a self-sustaining site where appropriate. The type of mitigation proposed should consider future needs so the mitigation type can offset expected functional losses of future aquatic impacts. In cases where WDFW mitigation is required, the site should benefit the same fish stocks impacted by the project. a group of fish that return to spawn in a given area at the same time and are, for the most part, reproductively isolated from other such groups. A stock may The risk of advance mitigation is borne by the permittee planning to use the mitigation site. Establishing a mitigation effort generating advance credits provides no entitlement to, or guarantee of, use of those credits as compensation for any particular project causing impact to aquatic resources. The following information is requiredfor agency review and conditional approval when proposing an advance mitigation site: 1.Applicants shall submit a mitigation plan for agency review and approval. The plan shall be in accordance with 33 CFR 332.4(c) (see Appendix 2), and the current Joint Guidance, 2006 Interagency Guidance, Ecology Publication #06-06-011b, and WDFW POL-M5002 for fish habitat as applicable. The advance mitigation plan shall contain the requirements of a concurrent mitigation plan and the following additional information: a.Disclosure that the proposal is to construct a permittee-responsible advance mitigation site. b.The site location must be selected using a watershed approach. The watershed needs should be identified in the plan, and include an explanation of how the mitigation will improve the watershed. c.Detailed and adequate documentation of baseline conditions (e.g., wetland delineation and functional assessments, wetland category based on the Ecology rating form, condition of riparian or wetland buffers, and condition of stream and fish species if present), from which future ecological lift can be determined and adequate credit identified. The baseline must be thoroughly documented as it is the foundation mitigation credits that may be generated. d.The size/acreage and type of mitigation proposed to be established, restored, rehabilitated, enhanced, and/or preserved. 5 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 429 e.As stated above, if fish habitat mitigation is being included, the mitigation site should benefit the same fish stocks impacted by the project proposing to use the site for future mitigation needs. This may be required by WDFW prior to using a site for mitigation. For all mitigation sites proposed to be used for any fish or fisheries habitat impacts, provide size/acreage details for mitigation proposals that include fish habitat creation, restoration, or enhancement, fish barrier removals, or other mitigation that is required to offset expected fish habitat or stream impacts. Also include information on the limiting factors of the watershed if available, and an explanation of how the mitigation will improve these limiting factors for the species and habitats that may benefit. It may be necessary to track fish habitat mitigation elements separately from wetland credits in order to document appropriate establishment and use of mitigation for fish habitat impacts. The following information is recommendedfor agency review and approval when proposing an advance mitigation site. Submitting this additional information will facilitate agency approval earlier in the process on key mitigation decisions such as the anticipated credits that may be generated at a site if performance standards are met, and on the acceptable location (service area) that may apply to the proposed mitigation site. Getting agency approval on these elements prior to establishing the site should provide applicants with more assurance of how a site may be used on future actions. If an applicant decides not to provide this additional information prior to site establishment, they may have an increased risk that their anticipated use area and credit generating schedule may not be approved by the agencies at time of proposed use. f.Propose a credit generating schedule or framework demonstrating how the credits will increase over time as the site maturesand successfully reaches performance standards. This schedule should show how the advance credit may be generated as the site matures from construction (when concurrent mitigation ratios will apply) through year 10 and should include the performance standards guiding the credits that (e.g., post-construction) environmental value, credit, and ecological lift if all performance standards are accomplished, but they cannot determine the appropriateness for the use of any credits until such time as it is proposed to be used as compensatory mitigation for a specific project. g.Propose the boundary of the geographic area that is appropriate to be used for future impact locations. h.Propose appropriate ratios for credit use based on impact type, and quality of and functions provided by the aquatic resources at the impact site. This will likely be general information based on standard ratios for impacts to wetland category and type outlined in the Joint Guidance. Exact impact areas and functions may not be known and adequacy of ratios proposed must be considered on a case by case basis. In order to use the credits generated by an advance mitigation effort for compensatory mitigation, the permittee of the impacting project shall be responsible for the performance, sustainability, maintenance and monitoring (for both the establishment period of the advance mitigation site and the Long-term Monitoring and Maintenance period) of the advance mitigation site. This permittee can act through a third party agent to construct, maintain, and monitor the mitigation but the permittee is ultimately responsible for site performance. 6 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 430 The agencies strongly recommend applicants contact tribes and local governments involved in decisions for use of the site as mitigation (e.g., critical area or shoreline permits, sites affecting fish habitat, or Tribal 401 Certification) early in the permit review process. In some cases, local jurisdictions may not have regulations in place to allow mitigation in advance of impacts. If a project is located on state owned aquatic lands, applicants will also need to contact the Department of Natural Resources for approval. Use of the Advance Mitigation Site At the time that credits generated by the advance mitigation effort are proposed to be used as compensatory mitigation for a specific project, the permit applicant shall provide an Advance Mitigation Site Use Plan (Use Plan) to the regulatory agencies with jurisdiction over the action causing aquatic impacts. The Use Plan should include the following information: 1. above. This should include all of the elements listed in the required section. If the information listed in the recommended section was not included in the application stage, this information should be provided in the Use Plan. 2.All monitoring reports for the site, or a reference to the reports if they have been provided. 3. conditions, documented by meeting stated performance standards or demonstrated by a functional assessment and monitoring reports. 4.Describe the development pro Include type of aquatic impact, fish and wildlife species affected, acreage impacted, functions lost, and how impacts have been avoided and minimized. 5.Describe how the advance mitigation adequately compensates for the unavoidable impacts to waters of the U.S. and any impacts to fish life. 6.If the impact area is within the service area of an approved mitigation bank or in-lieu-fee program, demonstrate why the use of the advance mitigation site is ecologically preferable from a watershed perspective. Some critical functions may need to be mitigated on site. 7.Propose the amount of mitigation credit the applicant believes is necessary to offset lost functions from the proposed impacts. This should be based on the credit generating schedule if one was established during the application stage (see 1.f. above). If not established it should be based on the quality of the impacted area and functions lost, and the age and demonstrated success of the advance mitigation site. The final decision on the type, and amount of compensatory mitigation required for an impacting project is reserved to the exclusive discretion of the regulatory agencies with authority over that project. 8.The site must be protected in perpetuity prior to the use of the site as mitigation. Include information on what site protection mechanism has been established or is being proposed for 7 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 431 agency approval (restrictive covenant, deed restriction, conservation easement, etc.). Include financial assurances and/or long-term management and maintenance plan as required by the regulatory agencies. 9.Propose an adequate record-keeping method, ledgers to be used, and methods for tracking of Once credits are approved for use by the regulatory agencies, a ledger will be required and will include the documentation of all projects using credits from the site to date and which agency(s) required the credit for mitigation, how much credit is used for each project (based on a specific geographic area and/or function), and date of use. Prior to authorizing the use of any advance compensatory mitigation, the Corps, Ecology, and WDFW if applicable, will be required to approve the mechanisms for tracking the credit use of required to send a copy of an updated ledger within 30 days of the credit use to the assigned project manager for the Corps, Ecology and WDFW even if these agencies did not require the credit for a federal or state authorization. At the time a credit is used and debited from the ledger, the regulatory agencies will identify if the mitigation requires a specific geographic area or function to be deducted from use on the site plan, or if just a general credit deduction is necessary. This will allow the expenditure of advance credits to be accurately tracked. It will also provide direct linkage between activities causing loss of aquatic resources and the corresponding specific compensatory mitigation, for compliance and enforcement purposes. If only a portion of the advance mitigation site is used as mitigation, adequate buffers will be required to protect the mitigation area from adjacent land uses. As previously stated, once the first credits generated by the mitigation site are approved for use in accordance with a Use Plan, and once those credits are applied to an impacting project as compensatory credits, the released credits and the opportunity to generate any further credits from that site cannot be sold or otherwise transferred to another party. If it is determined the mitigation and the generated advance credits are not needed by the permittee, they should coordinate possible options with the regulatory agencies. There is no guarantee of any opportunity to transfer any released credits, either prior to or after use as compensatory mitigation for an impacting project, nor any guarantee that the right to use any potential credits, that may be generated by the mitigation site following the first use of credits, may be sold or transferred to another party. The permittee bears the risk of possible inability to utilize all the credits that could potentially be generated on a mitigation site. Regardless of any options for disposition of unused and unneeded potential credits, once credits generated by the advance mitigation have been authorized for use, the mitigation site constitutes permittee-responsible mitigation and the permittee of the impacting project retains legal responsibility for the success, sustainability, and monitoring of the advance mitigation site. The permittee is also responsible for funding and implementation of the site protection mechanism and any long-term management and maintenance plan as described in #8 above. 8 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 432 Appendices Appendix 1. Comparison of Permittee-Responsible Advance Mitigation to Other Mitigation Options TypeWho is When Can the Site Is the SaleWho Can use Responsible be Used of Credits the Site as for Site AllowedMitigation Development, Management, Performance & Protection Mitigation Bank Sponsor Credits must be generated and YesAs approved by Bankingany private, released prior to impacts; one major the permitting tribal, or public advantage of banking is that a agencies, an entity limited number of credits become applicant with available when the banking impacts in bank- instrument is approved, the site is service area protected, and financial assurances are posted. In-Lieu FeeProgram The fee must be applied to mitigation Yes, in-lieu As approved by Sponsor must effort within 3 growing seasonsfrom fee payment the permitting be a the first in-lieu fee payment within a is applied agencies, any governmental designated service area.toward the applicant with (including costsof impacts in an tribal) or establishing approved non-profit mitigationservice area that natural pays the in-lieu resource entityfee to an approved program Permittee-Permittee of the The site can be usedas concurrent No, advance The advance Responsible Advance Sitemitigation within one year of credits credits can only Advance impacts through the first two years cannot be be used by the after construction. If used two or sold permittee that more years after mitigation developed the construction, the ratio for use will advance site. decrease as additional credits generated will be valued as advance creditswhich generally increase in value as the effort matures and the performance standards are met. Permittee-PermitteeMitigation effort must be NoThe permittee Responsibleimplemented concurrently or within for the impact Concurrentone year of impacts.project 9 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 433 Appendix 2.Minimum requirements for a compensatory mitigation plan (33 CFR 332.4(c)) 1.Objectives: A description of the resource type(s) and amount(s) that will be provided, the method of compensation, and the manner in which the resource functions of the project will address the needs of the watershed. 2.Site Selection: A description of the factors considered during the site selection process. 3.Site Protection Instrument: A description of the legal arrangements and instrument that will ensure the long-term protection of the project site. 4.Baseline Site Information: A description of the ecological characteristics of the proposed site. 5.Determination of Credits: A description of the number of credits to be provided, including a brief explanation of the rationale for this determination. 6.Mitigation Work Plan: Detailed written specifications and work descriptions for the project, including geographic boundaries; construction methods, timing, and sequence; source(s) of water, including connections to existing waters and uplands; methods for establishing the desired plant community; plans to control invasive plant species; the proposed grading plan; soil management; and erosion control measures. 7.Maintenance Plan: A description and schedule of maintenance requirements to ensure the continued viability of the resource once initial construction is completed. 8.Performance Standards: Ecologically based standards that will be used to determine whether the compensatory mitigation project is achieving its objectives. 9.Monitoring Requirements*: A description of parameters to be monitored in order to determine if the compensatory mitigation project is on track to meet performance standards and if adaptive management is needed. A schedule for monitoring and reporting on monitoring results must also be included. 10.Long-term Management Plan*: A description of how the project will be managed after achievement of performance standards to ensure the long-term sustainability of the resource, including long-term financing mechanisms and the party responsible for long-term management. 11.Adaptive Management Plan*: A management strategy to address unforeseen changes in site conditions or other components of the project, including the party or parties responsible for implementing adaptive management measures. The adaptive management plan will guide decisions for revising mitigation plans and implementing measures to address both 12.Financial Assurances*: A description of financial assurances that will be provided and how they are sufficient to ensure a high level of confidence that the compensatory mitigation project will be successfully completed, in accordance with its performance standards. 13.Other information as deemed necessary. *These requirements may be deferred until submittal of the first Use Plan for the advance mitigation site. If technical advice is needed to address these requirements, please contact the Regulatory Agency(s). 10 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 434 Appendix B Reconnaissance-Level List of Plant Species Observed at the Otay Land Company Wetland Mitigation Site ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 435 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 436 PlantSpeciesDetectedintheSurveyArea Scientific NameCommon NameSpecial Status LYCOPHYTES Selaginellaceae - Spike-moss family Bushy spike-moss FERNS Pteridaceae - Brake family Goldback fern GYMNOSPERMS Cupressaceae - Cypress family Tecate cypressCRPR 1B.1 EUDICOTS Anacardiaceae - Sumac Or Cashew family Laurel sumac Lemonade berry *Peruvian pepper tree *Brazilian pepper tree Apiaceae - Carrot family *Celery *Fennel Asteraceae - Sunflower family Singlewhorl burrobrushCRPR 2B.2 California sagebrush Mule fat Broom baccharis San Diego sunflowerCRPR 4.2 California brickellbush *Italian thistle *Tocalote Fascicled tarplant Golden woolly sunflower Graceful tarplantCRPR 4.2 Coastal goldenbush San Diego marsh-elderCRPR 2B.2 Osmadenia ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 437 Scientific NameCommon NameSpecial Status Boraginaceae - Borage family Alkali heliotrope Brassicaceae - Mustard family *Shortpod mustard Cactaceae - Cactus family Coast cholla San Diego barrel cactusCRPR 2B.1 White fishhook cactus Coastal prickly pear Chenopodiaceae - Goosefoot family *Australian saltbush *Lamb's quarters *Prickly russian thistle Cistaceae - Rock-rose family Common peak rush-rose Crassulaceae - Stonecrop family Ladies fingers Chalk dudleya Cucurbitaceae - Gourd family Calabazilla Ericaceae - Heath family Otay manzanitaCRPR 1B.2 Euphorbiaceae - Spurge family Doveweed Many seed spurge Fabaceae - Legume family Deerweed Fagaceae - Oak family Nuttall's scrub oakCRPR 1B.1 Geraniaceae - Geranium family *Redstem filaree Grossulariaceae - Gooseberry family Fuchsia-flowered gooseberry ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 438 Scientific NameCommon NameSpecial Status Lamiaceae - Mint family White sage Black sage Malvaceae - Mallow family Southern checkerbloom Myrtaceae - Myrtle family Gum Nyctaginaceae - Four O'clock family Coastal wishbone plant Polygonaceae - Buckwheat family California buckwheat Willow smartweed *Curly dock Ranunculaceae - Buttercup family Few flowered virgin's bower Rhamnaceae - Buckthorn family Otay Mountain ceanothusCRPR 1B.2 Spiny redberry Rosaceae - Rose family Chamise San Diego mountain mahogany Toyon Holly-leaf cherry Salicaceae - Willow family Fremont cottonwood Goodding's black willow Arroyo willow Simmondsiaceae - Jojoba family Jojoba Tamaricaceae - Tamarisk family Tamarix MONOCOTS Arecaceae - Palm family *Canary Island palm ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 439 Scientific NameCommon NameSpecial Status *Mexican fan palm Juncaceae - Rush family Southwestern spiny rushCRPR 4.2 Poaceae - Grass family Nealley three-awn *Giant reed *Slender wild oat *Ripgut brome *Soft brome *Red brome *Purple pampas grass *Bermuda grass Salt grass *Rattail fescue *Smooth barley Coast range onion grass *Natal grass Littleseed muhly Purple needle grass Typhaceae - Cattail family Cattail ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 440 Scientific NameCommon NameSpecial Status Legend *=Nonnativeorinvasivespecies SpecialStatus: CRPRΑCaliforniaRarePlantRank 1A.PresumedextinctinCaliforniaandelsewhere 1B.RareorEndangeredinCaliforniaandelsewhere 2A.PresumedextinctinCalifornia,morecommonelsewhere 2B.RareorEndangeredinCalifornia,morecommonelsewhere 3.PlantsforwhichweneedmoreinformationReviewlist 4.PlantsoflimiteddistributionWatchlist ThreatRanks .1SeriouslyendangeredinCalifornia .2ΑFairlyendangeredinCalifornia ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 441 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 442 Appendix C List of Potential Sensitive Plant Species within the Mitigation Site ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 443 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 444 445 0 ¦¤ 6¤±¨¥¨¤£ ΐ Ȩ9¤²ȝ.®ȩ 3¨³¤ / YesYesYesYesYes NoNoNoNoNoNo 150 cone coniferous forest, moist ocean breezes may be a key to its habitat requirements; Annual/perennial herb. Mesic soils in coastal scrub, valley and foothill grassland, - grasslands, particularly near mima mound topography or the vicinity of vernal - 508 ft). Blooming period: April 140 m 1903 ft). Blooming cone coniferous forest, chaparral, cismontane woodland, meadows and seeps, Annual herb. Clay soils in coastal sage scrub and valley and foothill grassland; Bulbiferous herb. Found on mesic, clay, sometimes serpentinite soils in closed Perennial shrub. Sandy soils in chaparral, coastal sage scrub, Sonoran desert Perennial bulbiferous herb. Clay soils in chaparral, coastal sage scrub, valley e woodland, coastal scrub, - - and coastal scrub, typically on xeric hillsides; 30 Perennial stem succulent. Sandy soils in costal scrub, chaparral, and closed 5550 ft). Annual herb. Clay soils in cismontane woodland and valley and foothill - - June ). Blooming period: August Annual herb. Coastal bluff scrub, coastal dunes, coastal scrub, playas; 0 May - 2034 ft). Blooming period: April - 1692 m (98 May - 3936 ft). Blooming period: March - {ĻƓƭźƷźǝĻ tƌğƓƷ {ƦĻĭźĻƭ źƷŷ ƷŷĻ tƚƷĻƓƷźğƌ Ʒƚ hĭĭǒƩ 580 m (9 - ooming period : April 0±¤¥¤±¤¢¤ȝ2¤°´¨±¤¬¤³² - June othill grassland, and vernal pools ; 30 June - Perennial herb. Clay soils in chaparral, cismontan valley and foothill grassland, and vernal pools; 3 - 155 m (178 - 984 ft). Blooming period: May October - ( ¡¨³ ³ 1295 ft). Blooming period: May May 1640 ft - 492 ft). Blooming period: April - 459 ft). Blooming period: March - - 1526 ft). Bl 500 m (328 Perennial shrub. Coastal scrub; 55 - 620 m (65 July Stem succulent. Chaparral - 1200 m (50 -- Blooming period: May - 465 m (164 scrub, and washes; 10 - and vernal pools; 20 June - - - period: April 300 m (82 grassland; 15 valley and fo - 395 m (9 - November pools; 50 - m (98 June - - -25 (0 3 1B.1, SDC List A, FT, SE, 1B.1, SDC 1B.2, SDC List A, FE, SE, 1B.1, SDC #®£¤ lj 3³ ³´² List A, SDC NE, 2B.1, SDC List B1B.2, SDC List A2B.2, SDC List B1B.1, SDC List A1B.1, SDC List A1B.1, SDC List B SDC NE, SD NESDC NE, SD NE 3¤²¨³¨µ¨³¸ List A, SD NE SD NE 2B.2 #¸«¨£±®¯´³¨ ¢ «¨¥®±¨¢ %±¸¦¨´¬ ±¨²³´« ³´¬ µ ±ȁ ) !¬¡±®²¨ ¢§¤®¯®£¨¨¥®«¨ ) ) Singlewhorl burrobrush "¤±¤¦¤±®¢ ¢³´² ¤¬®±¸¨ San Diego button celery # «¨¥®±¨ ¬ ¢±®¯§¸«« #®¬¬® . ¬¤ ȩ) ) "«®®¬¤±¨ ¢«¤µ¤« £¨¨ San Diego goldenaster 3¢¨¤³¨¥¨¢ . ¬¤ ) $¤¨ £± ¢®©´¦¤² spined cereus leaved filaree !¬¡±®²¨ ¬®®¦¸± South coast saltscale ) San Diego bur sage )$´£«¤¸ µ ±¨¤¦ ³ ) "±®£¨ ¤ ®±¢´³³¨¨Variegated dudley !³±¨¯«¤· ¯ ¢¨¥¨¢ ) µ ±ȁ ¢ «¨¥®±¨¢ Otay tarplant Snake cholla ) - Packet parishii - Golden Round Ȩ !¦¤£ ((((((((((( ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ 446 0 ¦¤ 6¤±¨¥¨¤£ ΐ Ȩ9¤²ȝ.®ȩ 3¨³¤ / YesYesYes No NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo cone coniferous forest, cone coniferous forest, February Chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal scrub, and alkaline flats; 984 - 3493 ft). 640 m 500 m (32 -ages, often in mesic, sandy soils in Sonoran desert scrub. Within the coastal zone in 955 m June -1005 m (1000 - July 1476 ft). Blooming period: May Annual herb. Openings in chaparral and sage scrub; below 885 m (2900 ft). in closed - Annual herb. Chenopod scrub, assorted freshwater marshes and swamps, 300 m (590 areas; chaparral, coastal scrub, valley and - 2149 ft). Blooming period: April - - Perennial herb. Population wide, along minor creeks and seasonal drain 820 ft.). Blooming period: May 1312 ft.). Blooming period: Annual herb. Valley and foothill grassland, and alkaline vernal pools; 20 - - Annual herb. Clay soils in chaparral, grasslands, coastal sage scrub; 20 1065 m (393 - Perennial herb. Marshes and swamps, wetland areas, and playas; 10 Perennial evergreen tree. Clay, gabbroic, or metavolcanic soils with 4921 ft). - - chaparral, coastal scrub, and valley and foothill grassland; 305 streams and creeks, typically slow moving rocky streams; 180 - April - Perennial shrub. Gabbroic or metavolcanic soils in closed - Perennial evergreen shrub. Sandy or clay loam in closed Evergreen shrub. Chaparral and coastal sage scrub; 120 - 0±¤¥¤±¤¢¤ȝ2¤°´¨±¤¬¤³² 1500 m (262 - 2624 ft.). Blooming period: January May ( ¡¨³ ³ - - June 450 m (9 400 m (49 October - - December (65 to 3132 ft). Blooming period: March - cone coniferous forest and chaparral; 80 - (295 - 2100 ft). Blooming period: March 655 m (98 July 250 April - - 1640 ft). Blooming period: April - foothill grassland, vernal pools; 3 - une Stem succulent. Sandy to rocky chaparral, and coastal scrub; 15 July - - ft). Blooming period: January Annual herb. Vernal pools; 90 - - Blooming period: February 3296 ft). Blooming period: J playas, and vernal pools; 30 - Blooming Period: January - Annual herb. 800 m (49 August - June - (65 15 - 1B.3, SDC List A, FE, SE, 1B.1, SDC #®£¤ lj 3³ ³´² 2B.1, SDC List B1B.1, SDC List A2B.2, SDC List B1B.1, SDC List A2B.2, SDC List B2B.2, SDC List B2B.1, SDC List B FT, 1B.1, SDC 3¤²¨³¨µ¨³¸ 4.2, SDC List D4.3, SDC List ASDC List C List A, SD NEList A, SD NE SDC NE 3.1, ,¤¯¨£¨´¬ µ¨±¦¨¨¢´¬ µ ±ȁ ) -¸®²´±´² ¬¨¨¬´² ²²¯ȁ (¤²¯¤±®¢¸¯ ±¨² ¥®±¡¤²¨¨ ) ) San Diego barrel cactus ) #®¬¬® . ¬¤ ȩ &¤±®¢ ¢³´² µ¨±¨£¤²¢¤² ( ±¯ ¦®¤«« ¯ «¬¤±¨ elder ) 3³¤¬®£¨ £´± ³¨¥®«¨ 3¢¨¤³¨¥¨¢ . ¬¤ 0®¦®¦¸¤ ´£¨´²¢´« Spreading navarretia ) ) ) ,¤¯¤¢§¨¨ ¦ £¤±¨ 3¤¤¢¨® ¯§ ¢³¨² . µ ±±¤³¨ ¥®²² «¨² Chaparral ragwort ) - 1´¤±¢´² £´¬®² San Diego marsh Purple stemodia Little mousetail Otay Mesa mint ) ) Tecate cypress 3 «µ¨ ¬´¹¨¨ )µ § ¸¤²¨ ) robinsonii Packet Ȩ ) apus !¦¤£ ((((((((((((( ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ 447 0 ¦¤ Limited distribution and are uncommon but not presently rare or Rare, threatened or endangered in California but more common 6¤±¨¥¨¤£ ΐ Maybe quite rare, but more information is needed to determine Ȩ9¤²ȝ.®ȩ in the CNDDB database, or noted in 3¨³¤ Rare, threatened or endangered in California and elsewhere / YesYes 3280 ft). 2500 m San Diego County Narrow Endemic - - 1000 m (541 City of San Diego Narrow Endemic Perennial herb. Chaparral and lower montane coniferous forest; 670 Seriously endangered in California Not very endangered in California Fairly endangered in California previous biological surveys conducted by RECON Environmental as part of their preserve management efforts. - scrub; 165 0±¤¥¤±¤¢¤ȝ2¤°´¨±¤¬¤³² August San Diego County ( ¡¨³ ³ Deciduous shrub. Chaparral and coastal sage City of San Diego Threat Ranks - 8202 ft). Blooming period: May endangered their status elsewhere SDC NE SD NE May.1 .2 .3 D A B C - Blooming period: April SE - listed as endangered under the California Endangered Species Act. FE - listed as endangered under the federal Endangered Species Act. FT - listed as threatened under the federal Endangered Species Act. 2B. Rare or Endangered in California, more common elsewhere 2A. Presumed extinct in California, more common elsewhere - (2198 3. Plants for which we need more information - Review list 1B. Rare or Endangered in California and elsewhere 1A. Presumed extinct in California and elsewhere #®£¤ lj 3³ ³´² 1B.2, SDC List A 3¤²¨³¨µ¨³¸ 4.3, SDC List D 4. Plants of limited distribution - Watch list fully protected species in California. ) bernardinus #®¬¬® . ¬¤ ȩ 3¢¨¤³¨¥¨¢ . ¬¤ ) 4¤³± ¢®¢¢´² £¨®¨¢´² Laguna Mountains tetracoccus 3³±¤¯³ ³§´² jewelflower Plant Status: CRPR Rank Packet LEGEND: Ȩ Federal !¦¤£ State FPS (( 1 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ 448 0 ¦¤ Packet !¦¤£ ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ Appendix D List of Potential Sensitive Wildlife Species within the Mitigation Site ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 449 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 450 451 0 ¦¤ 6¤±¨¥¨¤£ / Ȩ9¤²ȝ.®ȩ ΐ Yes ¨³¤ NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo 3 and lake margins. Closely tied to its larval The habitat characteristics are poorly understood, however historically it was Grasslands, brushlands, woodlands, and open coniferous forest with sandy or arid brushy areas and chaparral in canyons, rocky hillsides, and C that areas. Heavy brush and densely forested areas are generally alities are below 701m (2,300 ft) and are within of a braided sandy floodplains or terraces along streams. Closely tied to coastal sage nia. In San /±³§®¢ ±¯´² Occurs from sea level to 914m (3000ft) in chaparral, woodland, and arid Exposed shallow pools with a sand or gravel base are used for breeding. Found in a variety of habitats but is most common in early successional channel with shorelines or central bars made of stable, sandy terraces. o Inhabits openings on clay soils within or in the vicinity of shrublands, C and < 30 Diego County, all populations are within 15 kilometers of the coast. Vernal pools. It occurs from Los Angeles County to Baja Califor Sensitive Wildlife Species With the Potential to Occur o Temporary rainpools with water temperatures between 9 100 m) water aquatic habitat with basking sites. desert habitats with rocky areas and dense vegetation. oose soil; requires abundant ant colonies for foraging. Ȟ0±¤¥¤±¤¢¤ȝ2¤°´¨±¤¬¤³² - Breeding pools must occur in the vicinity (ca. 10 avoided. Usually found in areas with leaf litter. Ȩ0« ³ ¦® ¤±¤¢³ ȩ ( ¡¨³ ³ scrub plants and some chaparral plants. 64km (40 miles) of the Pacific Ocean. grasslands, meadows, vernal pools, Vernal pools. All known loc host plant, dwarf plantain last at least 3 weeks. purpurescens). - - stages or open Inhabits semi or slow found in plains. - Slack l 3¤²¨³¨µ¨³¸ #®£¤ lj 3³ ³´² CSCCSCCSCCSCCSCCSCCSCCSC FEFEFEFE ) ) #¤¬¨£®¯§®±´² §¸¯¤±¸³§±´² "± ¢§¨¤¢³ ² £¨¤¦®¤²¨² Quino checkerspot butterfly ) 3³±¤¯³®¢¤¯§ «´² ¶®®³³®¨ ) throated whiptail nd turtle 0§±¸®²®¬ ¢®±® ³´¬ %´¯§¸£±¸ ² ¤£¨³§ °´¨® Red diamond rattlesnake ) sed snake 3¢ ¯§¨®¯´² § ¬¬®£¨¨ San Diego horned lizard ) %´¬¤¢¤² ²ª¨«³®¨ ´² San Diego fairy shrimp Riverside fairy shrimp) ! ·¸±´² ¢ «¨¥®±¨¢´² 3 «µ £®± §¤· «¤¯¨² #±®³ «´² ±´¡¤± ±´¡¤± Western spadefoot ) %¬¸² Ȩϒ#«¤¬¬¸²ȩ ¬ ±¬®± ³ ¯ ««¨£ ȩ #®¬¬® . ¬¤ 3¢¨¤³¨¥¨¢ . ¬¤ Southwestern po Coronado skink ) no interparietalis - Arroyo toad Coast patch ) ) blainvillii virgultea - Orange Packet !¦¤£ Ȩ((((((((((( ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ 452 0 ¦¤ 6¤±¨¥¨¤£ / Ȩ9¤²ȝ.®ȩ ΐ YesYes ¨³¤ NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo 3 sparsely vegetated areas on gently rolling or level terrain with an abundance Riparian thickets either near water or in dry portions of river bottoms; nests dered by Found near grassland, open sage scrub and chaparral, and desert scrub. They odlands along rivers, streams, or other wetlands. They Prairies, grasslands, lowland scrub, agricultural lands, coastal dunes, desert floors, and some artificial, open areas. They require large open expanses of bitats such as coastal sage scrub and some forms of o be found roosting and nesting cover and also known to use pipes, culverts, and nest shaded riparian forests. Only a few small small mammal burrows. They use rodent or other burrows for Inhabits perennial and intermittent streams with rocky beds and bor usually nest within close proximity of water or very saturated soil. dense vegetation adjacent to their open foraging habitats. along margins of bushes and forages low to the ground; may als Ȟ0±¤¥¤±¤¢¤ȝ2¤°´¨±¤¬¤³² using mesquite and arrow weed in desert canyons. ( ¡¨³ ³ willow thickets or other dense vegetation. boxes where burrows are scarce. - Inhabits relatively broad, well Mature riparian woodlands. Dense riparian woodland. Prefer open scrubby ha populations still exist. Breeds in riparian wo Cactus thickets chaparral. of active nest in 3¤²¨³¨µ¨³¸ #®£¤ lj 3³ ³´² CSCCSCCSCCSCCSCCSCCSC FTFEFEFT SESESE ) ¡±´¤¨¢ ¯¨««´² ² £¨¤¦¤²¨² ) %¬¯¨£® · ³± ¨«¨¨ ¤·³¨¬´² ) striped garter snake 4§ ¬®¯§¨² § ¬¬®£¨¨ San Diego cactus wren billed #®¢¢¸¹´² ¬¤±¨¢ ´² 0®«¨®¯³¨« ¢ «¨¥®±¨¢ Southwestern willow breasted chat ) $¤£±®¨¢ ¯¤³¤¢§¨ )) , ¨´² «´£®µ¨¢¨ ´² 6¨±¤® ¡¤««¨¨ ¯´²¨««´² # ¬¯¸«®±§¸¢§´² ularia Coastal California Loggerhead shrike ȩ #®¬¬® . ¬¤ 3¢¨¤³¨¥¨¢ . ¬¤ -Least Bell's vireo Burrowing owl Yellow warbler Western yellow ) !³§¤¤ ¢´¨¢ )¢³¤± µ¨±¤² ) gnatcatcher occidentalis ) ) californica flycatcher brewsteri - cuckoo Packet Yellow - Two !¦¤£ Ȩ(((((((((( ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ 453 0 ¦¤ 6¤±¨¥¨¤£ / Ȩ9¤²ȝ.®ȩ ΐ N o ¨³¤ NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo 3 habitats, from dry desert washes, flood plains, chaparral, oak woodland, open variety of ponderosa pine forest, grassland, montane meadows, and agricultural areas.grassland, sage scrub, and chaparral slopes. Roosts in rock Inhabits arid, rocky areas; roosts in crevices in cliffs. Has been recorded in Sparse, low brush on grassy hill slopes; prefers steep slopes with sparsely crevices, caves, mine shafts, under bridges, in buildings and tree hollows. shrublands, woodlands, & forest; most common in open, dry habitats w/ Mostly found on the coastal side of our local mountains in open habitats, Mostly in foothills, mtns., & desert regions of So. Cal.; desert, grasslands, long migrations from the northern latitudes to warmer climes for winter, Variety of shrub and desert habitats, primarily associated with rock Throughout So. Cal. from coast to mixed conifer forest; grasslands, Usually among dense foliage, in forests and wooded areas, making Coastal sage scrub, sage scrub/grassland ecotones, and chaparral dwelling species for breeding. Found foraging in a outcroppings, boulders, cacti, or areas of dense undergrowth. g; yearlong resident in most of range. sometimes hibernates in tree hollows or woodpecker holes. usually avoiding dense stands of chaparral or woodlands. rock crevices, caves, cliffs. b, roosts in rocky crevices. Ȟ0±¤¥¤±¤¢¤ȝ2¤°´¨±¤¬¤³² urban locations in San Diego County (CDFG 2005). ( ¡¨³ ³ Coastal and montane regions on Lives in deserts and sage scru onifer forest; Roosts rocky areas for roostin located California sage - Primarily a cliff communities. mixed c 3¤²¨³¨µ¨³¸ #®£¤ lj 3³ ³´² CSCCSCCSCCSCCSCCSCCSCCSCCSCCSCCSC ) ) ) ) ¢ «¨¥®±¨¢´² ¡¤¤³³¨¨ %´¬®¯² ¯¤±®³¨² ¢ «¨¥®±¨¢´² - .¸¢³¨®¬®¯² ¥¤¬®±®² ¢¢´² .¤®³®¬ «¤¯¨£ ¨³¤±¬¤£¨ Southern California rufous San Diego desert woodrat ) #§ ¤³®£¨¯´² ¢ «¨¥®±¨¢´² Northwestern San Diego #§ ¤³®£¨¯´² ¥ «« · ¥ «« · ) tailed bat .¸¢³¨®¬®¯² ¬ ¢±®³¨² tailed ) Dulzura pocket mouse ) %´£¤±¬ ¬ ¢´« ³´¬ , ²¨´±´² ¡«®²²¤µ¨««¨¨ !¨¬®¯§¨« ±´¥¨¢¤¯² ) Western mastiff bat !³±®¹®´² ¯ ««¨£´² ȩ tailed bat #®¬¬® . ¬¤ arrow 3¢¨¤³¨¥¨¢ . ¬¤ - Western red bat San Diego black - pocket mouse Pocketed free Spotted bat crowned sp ) jackrabbit ) canescens Pallid bat femoralis - Big free ,¤¯´² Packet !¦¤£ Ȩ((((((((((( ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ 454 0 ¦¤ 6¤±¨¥¨¤£ / Ȩ9¤²ȝ.®ȩ ΐ ¨³¤ NoNo 3 Inhabit a diversity of habitats with principal requirements of sufficient food, friable soils, and relatively open, uncultivated ground. Grasslands, savannas, noted in previous biological surveys conducted by RECON Environmental as part of their preserve management efforts. and mountain meadows near timberline are preferred. Ȟ0±¤¥¤±¤¢¤ȝ2¤°´¨±¤¬¤³² Grasslands and sparse coastal sage scrub habitats. ( ¡¨³ ³ listed as endangered under the California Endangered Species Act. listed as endangered under the federal Endangered Species Act. listed as threatened under the federal Endangered Species Act. ial concern in California. 3¤²¨³¨µ¨³¸ #®£¤ lj 3³ ³´² CSCCSC Southern grasshopper mouse /¸¢§®¬¸² ³®±±¨£´² species of spec ȩ #®¬¬® . ¬¤ can badger 3¢¨¤³¨¥¨¢ . ¬¤ life Status: ) 4 ·¨£¤ ³ ·´² LEGEND: ) Species Federal ramona Packet Ameri - State CSC Wild -- - FT FE SE !¦¤£ 1 Ȩ(( ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ Appendix E California Rapid Assessment Method (CRAM) Datasheets ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 455 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 456 RiverineCRAM;AA-1 OtayLandCompanyVillage8WestandVillage9MitigationSite 11/25/2014 LanikaCervantes,KristenKlienfelter 15meters 130meters 32.600408 -116.932355 32.599948 -116.933615 1 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 457 1 32.600392-116.932402NAD83 2 32.600061-116.932919NAD83 3 32.600347-116.932968NAD83 4 32.599959-116.933553NAD83 TheAAislocatedwithinthemostdownstreamedgeoftheOtayRiverthatsupportsadefinedchannel. directlydownstreamofthisAA,theOtayRiversheetflowswithinabroadfloodplain. 2 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 458 RiverineCRAM;AA-1 A12Nonon-bufferswithin500m A12100%buffer Avg250mbufferwidth A12 ~35%invasives;undisturbedsoils B9 2293.30% nohydromidifications 12 A 9 B someaggradation 12 A>2.2mentrenchmentratio 33 91.67% 3patches D3 lowtopocomplexity;1bench C6 9 37.50% 3plantlayers B9 3Co-dominates D3 0%invasion A12 8 9 BModerateinterspersion 2layers-moderateoverlap B9 26 72.22% 73.67% 3 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 459 00 00 00 00 00 00 100 250 250 250 250 250 0 250 250 250 250 4 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 460 5 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 461 13.00 15.00 16.00 1.501.501.60 3.003.003.20 20.00 60.0032.00 2.00 1.54 4.00 2.51 6 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 462 0 3 7 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 463 Top Top Mid Mid Bottom Bottom 8 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 464 Schoenoplectus californicus Schoenoplectus californicus Salix goodingii 3 Salixlaevigata 0 9 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 465 Schenoplectus Salixspecies Tamarisk Mulefat 10 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 466 11 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 467 Oldminingsitedirectlydownstreamofthisarea. 12 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 468 DepressionalCRAM;AA-2 OtayLandCompanyVillage8WestandVillage9MitigationSite AA-2 11/25/2014 LanikaCervantes,KristenKlienfelter AA Encompasses: entire wetland portion of the wetland ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 469 1 32.600750-116.943150NAD83 2 32.600878-116.943397NAD83 3 32.601042-116.943224NAD83 4 32.600923-116.943039NAD83 TheAAisafreshwaterdepressionthatappearsmanmade,createdseveraldecades agoduringminingoperations.Thedepressionisperennial,receivingcontributionsfrom groundwaterthroughouttheyear. ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 470 DepressionalCRAM;AA-211/25/2014 D 3Avg4%AquaticAbundance 100%Buffer A 12 250mAvgwidthforbuffer A 12 >75%invasivesandmoderatesoil C 6 disturbance ½½ 1148 A 12Nomodifiedhydrology A 12Naturalfillinganddrawdown C 6Steepbanksfor~60%ofAA 3083 C 4patchtypes 6 D 3nobenches,lowmicro-topography 938 2plantlayers C 6 3Co-dominantes D 3 33%invasives D 3 4 C 6lowinterspersion A 12highentrainment 2261 57 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 471 0 0 0 15 4 100 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 472 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 473 1 1 1 1 4 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 474 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 475 Schoenoplectuscalifornicus Typhadomingensis Tamarisksp. 3 33 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 476 TyphaandSchenoplectus Tamarisk Rhusintegrifolia ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 477 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 478 ThisAAandsurroundingareaisanoldminingsiteandisheavilydisturbed. ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 479 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 480 Appendix F Long-Term Management Plan Template ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 481 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 482 Appendix F Long-Term Management Plan Template Section 1.0 Introduction 1.1Purpose of Establishment 1.2Purpose and Goal of the Long Term Management Plan 1.3Regulatory Requirements 1.4Land Owners and Neighbors 1.5Land Manager, Responsibilities, and Qualifications 1.6Conservation Easement Monitor and Responsibilities 1.7Changes in Personnel Section 2.0 Property Description 2.1Location and Setting 2.2History and Land Use 2.3Adjacent Land Uses 2.3Cultural Resources 2.4Hydrology and Topography 2.5Soil Section 3.0 Biological Resources Summary 3.1Methods and Surveys 3.2Wetland and Riparian Habitats 3.3Native Transitional and Upland Communities 3.4Endangered and Threatened Species 3.5Rare Species and Species of Special Concern 3.6Wildlife Corridors and Movement Preservation Section 4.0 Habitat Monitoring Management Activities 4.1Inlet Maintenance 4.2Trash, Debris, and Trespass 4.2Monitoring Elements 4.2.1Vegetation Monitoring 4.2.2Species Monitoring 4.3Weed Management Plan and Integrated Pest Management (IPM) 4.5 Water Quality Monitoring 4.4 California Rapid Assessment Method (CRAM) Otay Land Company Village 8 West and Village 9 May 2015 F-1 Draft Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 483 Otay Land Company Appendix F. Long-Term Management Plan Template Section 5.0 Adaptive Management Strategy 5.1Trespass Repair 5.2Flooding or Sediment Management 5.3Vegetation Management 5.4Additional Monitoring Section 6.0 Allowable Conservation Area Land Uses and Management 6.1Fencing, Gates, and Signage 6.2Trail Maintenance and Seasonal Closures 6.3Other Infrastructure 6.4Brush or Fire Management 6.5Public Education and Volunteering Section 7.0 Annual Reports And Administration 7.1Administrative Tasks 7.2LTMP Annual Reports 7.3Conservation Easement Annual Inspection Reports Section 8.0 Updates And Amendments To The LTMP 8.1LTMP 5-Year Updates 8.2Process for Substantially Amending the LTMP 8.3Transfer of Responsibility Section 9.0 Costs And Funding 9.1Itemized Cost for Monitoring and Management Activities 9.2Task Prioritization 9.3Funding Allocations 9.4Endowment Holder and Preservation of Funds Section 10.0 Literature Cited And Referenced Documents Appendix. A Property Analysis Record (PAR) Otay Land Company Village 8 West and Village 9 May 2015 F-2 Draft Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 484 Otay Land Company Appendix F. Long-Term Management Plan Template Tables and Figures Figure 1 Regional Map Figure 2 Vicinity Map Figure 3 Conservation Area Map Figure 4 Easements Map Figure 5 Biological Resources Map Index & Legend Table 1 Regulatory Permits Table 2 Summary of Acreages within the Conservation Area Table 3 Maintenance and Monitoring Schedule Table 4 Vegetation Monitoring Schedule Table 5 Species Monitoring Schedule Table 6 Table Summary of Management Responsibilities Otay Land Company Village 8 West and Village 9 May 2015 F-3 Draft Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 485 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 486 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 487 U.S.ACEPFN: RMY ORPS OF NGINEERS ERMIT ILE UMBERS PPRMPV: ROPOSED ERMITTEE ESPONSIBLE ITIGATION FOR ENDING ILLAGES V3:SPL-2012-00181-MBS ILLAGE V8W:SPL-2013-00495-SAS ILLAGE PAPRMF: ROPOSED DVANCED ERMITTEE ESPONSIBLE ITIGATION OR V2,8E,910 ILLAGES AST AND ORVRP TAY IVER ALLEY EGIONAL ARK CCVUP ITY OF HULA ISTA NIVERSITY ROJECT A: PPLICANT Otay Land Company, LLC 1903 Wright Place, Suite 220 Carlsbad, CA 92008 Contact: Curt Smith CSmith@hfc-ca.com (760) 918-8200 P: REPARED BY ICF International 525 B Street, Suite 1700 San Diego, CA 92101 Contact: Michelle Mattson michelle.mattson@icfi.com (858) 444-3928 September 2015, Revised March 2016, Final April 2016 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 488 ICF International. 2016. Otay Land Company Village 3 and 8 West, Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (HMMP). Final. April (ICF 00296.14 and ICF 526.15) San Diego, CA. Prepared for Otay Land Company, LLC. Carlsbad, CA. ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 489 Contributors ICF Jones & Stokes (aka ICF International) Michelle Mattson and Lindsay Teunis 525 B Street, Suite 1700 San Diego, CA 92101 michelle.mattson@icfi.com and Lindsay.teunis@icfi.com (858) 444-3928 and (858) 444-3906 ICF International Steven Seville, PE 710 Second Avenue, Suite 550 Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 801-2842 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 490 Distribution List Otay Land Company 1903 Wright Place, Suite 220 Carlsbad, CA 92008 Contact: Curt Smith Email Address: CSmith@hfc-ca.com Phone: (760) 918-8200 City of Chula Vista Contact: Cheryl Goddard or Kim Vader Bie Email Address: GLaube@chulavistaca.gov Phone: (619) 476-2329 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Contact: Rose Galer Email Address: rose.a.galer@usace.army.mil Phone: (760) 602-4834 Regional Water Quality Control Board Contact: Lisa Homna Email Address: Lisa.Honma@waterboards.ca.gov Phone: (619) 521-3367 California Department of Fish and Wildlife Contact: Kelly Fisher Email Address: kfisher@dfg.ca.gov Phone: (858) 467-4207 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 491 Contents List of Tables ........................................................................................................................................... v List of Figures ........................................................................................................................................ vii List of Acronyms and Abbreviations .................................................................................................... viii Page Chapter 1 Project Description .......................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Guidelines ........................................................................................................................ 1-1 1.2 Project Summary.............................................................................................................. 1-4 1.3 Mitigation Obligation ....................................................................................................... 1-6 1.4 Compensatory Mitigation Credits Available .................................................................... 1-7 1.4.1 Village 3 Mitigation .......................................................................................................... 1-9 1.4.2 Village 8 West Mitigation ................................................................................................. 1-9 1.5 Responsible Parties, Roles, and Responsibilities ........................................................... 1-10 1.6 Regulatory Requirements and Compliance ................................................................... 1-12 1.7 Mitigation Site Location ................................................................................................. 1-12 1.8 Mitigation Area Ownership Status ................................................................................. 1-13 Chapter 2 Mitigation Goals and Objectives ...................................................................................... 2-1 2.1 Goals ................................................................................................................................ 2-1 2.2 Objectives ........................................................................................................................ 2-1 Chapter 3 Proposed Mitigation Site Baseline Information ................................................................. 3-1 3.1 Mitigation Site Location and Background Information ................................................... 3-1 3.2 Climate ............................................................................................................................. 3-1 3.3 Hydrologic Conditions ...................................................................................................... 3-2 3.3.1 Watershed ....................................................................................................................... 3-2 3.3.2 Historic Hydrological Conditions ...................................................................................... 3-2 3.3.3 Existing Hydrological Conditions ...................................................................................... 3-2 3.4 Water Quality ................................................................................................................... 3-4 3.5 Topography ...................................................................................................................... 3-4 3.6 Formerly Used Defense Site (FUDS) ................................................................................. 3-5 3.7 Soil Characteristics ........................................................................................................... 3-5 3.8 Vegetation Communities and Habitat Types ................................................................... 3-6 3.8.1 Arundo-Dominated Riparian ............................................................................................ 3-8 3.8.2 Chamise Chaparral ........................................................................................................... 3-8 3.8.3 Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub ............................................................................................... 3-8 Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 i Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.15 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 492 3.8.4 Disturbed Habitat ............................................................................................................. 3-9 3.8.5 Eucalyptus Woodland ...................................................................................................... 3-9 3.8.6 Fresh Water (Open Water) .............................................................................................. 3-9 3.8.7 Freshwater Marsh ............................................................................................................ 3-9 3.8.8 Mule Fat Scrub ................................................................................................................. 3-9 3.8.9 Nonnative Grassland (or Annual Grassland) .................................................................. 3-10 3.8.10 Nonnative Vegetation .................................................................................................... 3-10 3.8.11 San Diego Mesa Vernal Pool .......................................................................................... 3-10 3.8.12 Southern Cottonwood Willow Riparian Forest ........................................................... 3-11 3.8.13 Southern Interior Cypress Forest ................................................................................... 3-11 3.8.14 Southern Mixed Chaparral ............................................................................................. 3-11 3.8.15 Southern Riparian Scrub ................................................................................................ 3-11 3.8.16 Southern Willow Scrub .................................................................................................. 3-12 3.8.17 Tamarisk Scrub ............................................................................................................... 3-12 3.8.18 Urban/Developed .......................................................................................................... 3-12 3.8.19 Valleys and Foothill Grassland ....................................................................................... 3-12 3.9 Sensitive Species ............................................................................................................ 3-12 3.9.1 San Diego Fairy Shrimp (.ƩğƓĭŷźƓĻĭƷğ ƭğƓķźĻŭƚĻƓƭźƭ) Federally Listed as Endangered .................................................................................................................... 3-14 3.9.2 Riverside Fairy Shrimp ({ƷƩĻƦƷƚĭĻƦŷğƌǒƭ ǞƚƚƷƷƚƓź) Federally Listed as Endangered .................................................................................................................... 3-14 3.9.3 Quino Checkerspot Butterfly (9ǒƦŷǤķƩğǤğƭ ĻķźƷŷğ ƨǒźƓƚ) Federally Listed as Endangered................................................................................................................ 3-14 3.9.4 źƩĻƚ ĬĻƌƌźź Ʀǒƭźƌƌǒƭ) Federally Listed as Endangered; State-Listed as Endangered ........................................................................................... 3-15 3.9.5 Coastal California Gnatcatcher (tƚƌźƚƦƷźƌğ ĭğƌźŅƚƩƓźĭğ ĭğƌźŅƚƩƓźĭğ) Federally Listed as Threatened ...................................................................................................... 3-16 3.9.6 Western Yellow-billed Cuckoo (/ƚĭĭǤǩǒƭ ğƒĻƩźĭğƓǒƭ ƚĭĭźķĻƓƷğƌźƭ) Federally Listed as Threatened; State-Listed as Endangered ........................................ 3-16 3.10 Jurisdictional Delineation ............................................................................................... 3-16 3.11 Existing Functions and Values ........................................................................................ 3-18 3.12 Present and Proposed Uses of Mitigation Site and Adjacent Areas .............................. 3-21 3.13 Reference Site ................................................................................................................ 3-23 Chapter 4 Mitigation Design ............................................................................................................ 4-1 4.1 Site Selection Process ...................................................................................................... 4-1 4.2 Mitigation Design ............................................................................................................. 4-1 4.2.1 Re-establishment ............................................................................................................. 4-2 4.2.2 Establishment .................................................................................................................. 4-2 Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 ii Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.15 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 493 4.2.3 Rehabilitation ................................................................................................................... 4-2 4.2.4 Enhancement ................................................................................................................... 4-3 4.3 Rationale for Expecting Implementation Success............................................................ 4-3 4.3.1 Design Hydrology ............................................................................................................. 4-4 Chapter 5 Implementation Plan ....................................................................................................... 5-1 5.1 Schedule ........................................................................................................................... 5-1 5.2 Phased Installation ........................................................................................................... 5-1 5.3 FUDS Safety Measures ..................................................................................................... 5-3 5.4 Grading Site Preparation.................................................................................................. 5-3 5.5 Contractor Education ....................................................................................................... 5-4 5.6 Access and Staging ........................................................................................................... 5-4 5.7 Grading ............................................................................................................................. 5-5 5.8 Soils Analysis .................................................................................................................... 5-6 5.9 Nonnative Tree Removal ................................................................................................. 5-6 5.9.1 Upstream Enhancement Area.......................................................................................... 5-6 5.9.2 Restoration Site ............................................................................................................... 5-7 5.10 Planting and Seeding Plan ................................................................................................ 5-8 5.10.1 Container Plant Specifications ....................................................................................... 5-11 5.10.2 Container Plant Installation Steps.................................................................................. 5-12 5.10.3 Container Plant Guarantee ............................................................................................ 5-12 5.10.4 Seed Specifications ........................................................................................................ 5-12 5.10.5 Seed Application Steps .................................................................................................. 5-13 5.10.6 Planting and Seeding Timing .......................................................................................... 5-13 5.11 Irrigation Plan................................................................................................................. 5-13 5.12 Erosion Control .............................................................................................................. 5-14 5.13 Fencing and Signage ...................................................................................................... 5-14 5.14 Final Landscape/Mitigation Construction Plans ............................................................ 5-15 5.15 As-built Conditions ......................................................................................................... 5-16 Chapter 6 Site Maintenance ............................................................................................................ 6-1 6.1 Maintenance Duration ..................................................................................................... 6-1 6.2 Responsible Parties .......................................................................................................... 6-1 6.3 120-Day Plant Establishment Period ............................................................................... 6-1 6.4 Irrigation .......................................................................................................................... 6-2 6.5 Weed Control ................................................................................................................... 6-2 6.6 Supplemental Planting ..................................................................................................... 6-4 6.7 Clearing and Trash Removal ............................................................................................ 6-4 6.8 Fence Inspection and Repair ............................................................................................ 6-5 Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 iii Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.15 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 494 6.9 Schedule of Maintenance ................................................................................................ 6-5 Chapter 7 Site Monitoring ............................................................................................................... 7-1 7.1 Implementation Monitoring ............................................................................................ 7-1 7.2 Horticultural (Qualitative) Monitoring ............................................................................. 7-1 7.2.1 Reporting ......................................................................................................................... 7-2 7.3 Botanical (Quantitative) Monitoring ................................................................................ 7-3 7.3.1 Quantitative Monitoring .................................................................................................. 7-3 7.3.2 Sampling Design and Statistical Rigor .............................................................................. 7-7 7.4 Performance Standards ................................................................................................... 7-7 7.5 Annual Reports .............................................................................................................. 7-10 7.6 Adaptive Management Plan .......................................................................................... 7-10 Chapter 8 Mitigation Cost and Financial Assurances ......................................................................... 8-1 8.1 Total Estimated Mitigation Implementation Cost ........................................................... 8-1 8.2 Financial Assurances ........................................................................................................ 8-2 Chapter 9 Compensatory Mitigation and Preservation Credits .......................................................... 9-1 9.1 Compensatory Mitigation Credits Available .................................................................... 9-1 9.2 Long-Term Management Plan ......................................................................................... 9-2 9.3 Site Protection Mechanism .............................................................................................. 9-2 9.4 Management Plan Preparation Requirement ................................................................. 9-3 9.5 Funding Mechanisms/Schedule ....................................................................................... 9-3 Chapter 10 Completion of Compensatory Mitigation ...................................................................... 10-1 10.1 Notification of Completion ............................................................................................ 10-1 10.2 Agency Confirmation of Site Performance .................................................................... 10-1 Chapter 11 References .................................................................................................................. 11-1 Appendix A Interagency Regulatory Guide for Advance Permittee-Responsible Mitigation by the USACE Seattle District Appendix B Reconnaissance-Level List of Plant Species Observed at the Otay Land Company Wetland Mitigation Site Appendix C List of Potential Sensitive Plant Species within the Mitigation Site Appendix D List of Potential Sensitive Wildlife Species within the Mitigation Site Appendix E California Rapid Assessment Method (CRAM) Datasheets Appendix F Long-Term Management Plan Template Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 iv Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.15 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 495 Tables Table Page 1-1Summary of Estimated Mitigation Obligations for Each Project ...................................................... 1-7 1-2 Compensatory Mitigation Acreage Quantities by Restoration Type for Entire Plan ............... 1-8 1-3 Compensatory Mitigation Linear Feet Quantities for Entire Plan ................................................... 1-8 1-4 Summary of Village 3 Impacts and Proposed Mitigation for Village 3 .......................................... 1-9 1-5 Summary of Village 8 West Impacts and Proposed Mitigation for Village 8W ........................ 1-10 1-6Mitigation Area Ownership Parcels ........................................................................................................... 1-13 3-1Vegetation Communities in the Mitigation Parcel and Upstream Enhancement Area .............................................................................................................................................. 3-7 3-2Federally and/or State-Listed Species with CNDDB Records Within 1-Mile Radius of the Restoration Areas .................................................................................................................. 3-13 3-3Existing Mitigation Area Wetlands and Waters .................................................................................... 3-18 3-4CRAM Attributes and Metrics ....................................................................................................................... 3-19 3-5Expected Relationship among CRAM Attributes, Metrics, and Key Services ............................ 3-20 3-6Summary of CRAM Attribute Scores for Existing Wetland Features ............................................ 3-20 4-1HEC-HMS Estimated Peak Flows ................................................................................................................... 4-4 5-1Implementation Schedule ................................................................................................................................ 5-1 5-2Compensatory Mitigation Quantities .......................................................................................................... 5-2 5-3Proposed Container Plant Palette for Restored Aquatic Resources ............................................... 5-8 5-4Proposed Container Plant Palette for Upland Transitional Habitat ............................................... 5-9 5-5Proposed Container Seed Palette for Floodplain and Upland Transitional Habitat .................................................................................................................................................................... 5-10 6-1Nonnative Invasive Species Detected or Potentially Occurring in the Restoration Area .................................................................................................................................................. 6-3 7-1 Projected CRAM Scores for Year 3 and Year 5 Post Installation and the Maximum Score .......... 7-5 7-2Performance Standards ..................................................................................................................................... 7-8 8-1Preliminary Cost Estimate for Entire Plan ................................................................................................ 8-1 8-2Phased Financial Assurances .......................................................................................................................... 8-3 Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 v Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.15 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 496 9-1Compensatory Mitigation Acreage Quantities by Restoration Type for Entire Plan ............................................................................................................................................................................ 9-1 9-2Compensatory Mitigation Linear Feet Quantities for Entire Plan ................................................... 9-2 Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 vi Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.15 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 497 Figures Figure Follows Page 1-1 Regional Vicinity .................................................................................................................................................. 1-4 1-2 Mitigation Parcel Service Area ....................................................................................................................... 1-4 1-3 Restoration Plan Overview .............................................................................................................................. 1-6 1-4 USGS Otay Mesa Quad Map ............................................................................................................................ 1-12 1-5 Parcel Map ............................................................................................................................................................ 1-14 2-1 Potential Restoration Phases .......................................................................................................................... 2-2 3-1 FUDS & Mitigation Site Overlay ..................................................................................................................... 3-6 3-2 Mitigation Parcel Vegetation Map ................................................................................................................. 3-8 3-3 Upstream Enhancement Area ......................................................................................................................... 3-8 3-4 Jurisdictional Delineation ............................................................................................................................... 3-18 3-5 Existing Infrastructure, OVRP Concept Plan Trails, and Other Constraints .............................. 3-22 3-6 Mitigation Parcel Trails ................................................................................................................................... 3-22 4-1 Upper and Lower Otay River Watersheds ................................................................................................. 4-2 4-2 Potential Restoration Types ............................................................................................................................ 4-2 4-3 Restoration Area Watershed ........................................................................................................................... 4-4 5-1 Mitigation Parcel Concept Plan Map ............................................................................................................ 5-6 5-2 Floodplain Cross-Sections ................................................................................................................................ 5-6 7-1 Photo Documentation Stations ...................................................................................................................... 7-4 7-2 Quantitative Monitoring Locations .............................................................................................................. 7-4 Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 vii Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.15 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 498 Acronyms and Abbreviations AA Assessment Area BMPs best management practices Cal-IPC California Invasive Plant Council CDFW California Department of Fish and Wildlife CFR Code of Federal Regulations cfs cubic feet per second City City of Chula Vista CNDDB California Natural Diversity Database CNPS California Native Plant Society CRAM California Rapid Assessment Method GIS geographic information systems GPS Global Positioning System )³¤± ¦¤¢¸ 2¤¦´« ³®±¸ '´¨£¤ ¥®± !£µ ¢¤ 0¤±¬¨³³¤¤-2¤²¯®²¨¡«¤ -¨³¨¦ ³¨® Guide HEC-HMS Hydrologic Engineering Center-Hydrologic Modeling System HMMP Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF ICF International MBTA Migratory Bird Treaty Act MRZ Mineral Resource Zone NWP Nationwide Permit OHWM ordinary high water mark OLC Otay Land Company ORWMP Otay River Watershed Management Plan OVRP Otay Valley Regional Park OWD Otay Water District PAR Property Analysis Record PEP plant establishment period plan Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan PLS pure live seed POM Preserve Owner/Manager Quino Quino checkerspot butterfly RMP Otay Ranch Resource Management Plan RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board SAMP Special Area Management Plan SANDAG San Diego Association of Governments SDG&E San Diego Gas and Electric SPD South Pacific Division SWPPP Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan University City of Chula Vista University project USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers USDA U.S. Department of Agriculture USGS U.S. Geological Survey Village 8 Otay Ranch Village 8 West Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 viii Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.15 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 499 Village 9 Ranch Village 9 WMP Watershed Management Plan Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 ix Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.15 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 500 This page intentionally left blank. Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 x Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.15 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 501 Chapter 1 Project Description 1.1Guidelines The document has been prepared to be consistent with the following regulatory and local guidelines: -Mitigation Rule 1 (April 2008). The Mitigation Rule establishes regulations governing compensatory mitigation for activities authorized by permits issued by the Department of the Army. The rule improves the level of planning, implementation and management of compensatory mitigation sites and provides guidance on site identification (use of the watershed approach), ecological )#& § ² £¤²¨¦¤£ ³§¤ /³ ¸ 2¨µ¤± performance standards, monitoring and monitoring periods. 2¤²³®± ³¨® 0±®©¤¢³ ³® ¬¤¤³ £ ¤·¢¤¤£ ³§¤²¤ ²³ £ ±£² ¡¸ ¢§®®²¨¦ «®¢ ³¨® ² ¥ ± ´¯ ¨ ³§¤ «®¶¤± /³ ¸ ¶ ³¤±²§¤£ ² ¯®²²¨¡«¤ £ ¨¢«´£¨¦ ¥´±³§¤± ¯±®³¤¢³¨® ¡¸ ¢®£´¢³¨¦ ¨µ ²¨µ¤ ²¯¤¢¨¤² ¬ ¦¤¬¤³ ¨ ³§¤ ±¤ ¢§¤² ´¯²³±¤ ¬ £ ®¶¤£ ¡¸ ®³§¤± «®¢ « ©´±¨²£¨¢³¨®²ȁ ) ££¨³¨®Ǿ ³§¤ ²¨³¤ ¨² ¶¨³§¨ £¤£¨¢ ³¤£ ®¯¤ ²¯ ¢¤Ǿ ¡´³ § ² ¡¤¤ §¨²³®±¨¢ ««¸ £¨²³´±¡¤£ £ ¨² ²´¡²¤°´¤³«¸ « ¢ª¨¦ §¨¦§ °´ «¨³¸ ±¤²®´±¢¤²Ǿ ¨¢«´£¨¦ «¨¬¨³¤£ ©´±¨²£¨¢³¨® « ¶ ³¤±² £ ¶¤³« £²ȁ 4§¤ ²¨³¤ ¨² ¨£¤ « ¥®± ±¤ȃ¤²³ ¡«¨²§¬¤³ ®¥ °´ ³¨¢ £ ´¯« £ ±¤²®´±¢¤² £ ¨² ¤·¯¤¢³¤£ ³® °´¨¢ª«¸ ²´¯¯®±³ ²¤²¨³¨µ¤ ¥«®± £ ¥ ´ ³§ ³ ®¢¢´± ¨ ®³§¤± ±¤ ² ®¥ ³§¤ ¶ ³¤±²§¤£ ³§ ³ ±¤ ¬®±¤ ¨³ ¢³ȁ )³¤± ¦¤¢¸ 2¤¦´« ³®±¸ '´¨£¤ ¥®± !£µ ¢¤ 0¤±¬¨³³¤¤ȃ2¤²¯®²¨¡«¤ -¨³¨¦ ³¨® - by the USACE Seattle District 2 (Guide) (Appendix A; USACE 2012). The Guide is intended to provide assistance to applicants proposing to establish mitigation in advance of permitted impacts pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act. Otay Land Company is requesting that USACE utilize this guidance to authorize this Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (HMMP) to address compensatory mitigation for unavoidable impacts on jurisdictional waters and wetlands associated with the Otay Ranch University Villages (Villages 2, 3, 4, 8 East, 8 West, 9, and 10), the #´±±¤³«¸Ǿ Otay River Valley Regional Park, and the City of Chula Vista University Project. ²¯¤¢¨¥¨¢ ¯¤±¬¨³³¤¤ȃ±¤²¯®²¨¡«¤ ¢®¬¯¤² ³®±¸ ¬¨³¨¦ ³¨® ¥®± 6¨«« ¦¤² Ζ £ Λ 7¤²³ § ² ¡¤¤ ¨£¤³¨¥¨¤£ ¨ ³§¨² (--0 ² 0§ ²¤ Δ £ Ε ®¥ ³§¤ ®µ¤± «« ¬¨³¨¦ ³¨® ¯±®¦± ¬ȁ )³ ¨² ³¨¢¨¯ ³¤£ ³§ ³ ¥³¤± ³§¤ ±¤¬ ¨¨¦ µ¨«« ¦¤² § µ¤ £¤¬®²³± ³¤£ µ®¨£ ¢¤ £ ¬¨¨¬¨¹ ³¨® ®¥ ¶ ³¤±² £ ¶¤³« £²Ǿ ³§ ³ ³§¨² ²¨³¤ ¶®´«£ «²® ¯±®µ¨£¤ £µ ¢¤£ ¢®¬¯¤² ³®±¸ ¬¨³¨¦ ³¨® ¨ ²´¡²¤°´¤³ ¯§ ²¤² ¥®± ´ µ®¨£ ¡«¤ ¨¬¯ ¢³² ¶§¤ ´³§®±¨¹¤£ ¡¸ ¯±®©¤¢³ȃ²¯¤¢¨¥¨¢ ¯¤±¬¨³²ȁ 4§¤ #®¬¯¤² ³®±¸ -¨³¨¦ ³¨® ¥®± ,®²²¤² ®¥ !°´ ³¨¢ 2¤²®´±¢¤² 1 , Federal Register Department of Defense 33 CFR Parts 325 and 332 and Environmental Protection Agency 40 CFR Part 230, April 2008 )³¤± ¦¤¢¸ 2¤¦´« ³®±¸ '´¨£¤ !£µ ¢¤ 0¤±¬¨³³¤¤ȃ2¤²¯®²¨¡«¤ -¨³¨¦ ³¨® 2 , U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington State Department of Ecology, and Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife, December 2012, Ecology Publication No. 12-06-015. Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 1-1 Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.15 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 502 Otay Land Company Project Description -Regional Compensatory Mitigation and Monitoring Guidelines for South Pacific Division (SPD; 2015)3. These guidelines help to implement the Mitigation Rule for the region by reiterating the important sections, definitions, and requirements of the Mitigation Rule. Further, the guidelines describe local requirements and tools, provide a higher level of detail on design parameters such as hydrologic analysis and soils, and provides other recommendations for meeting the requirements in the Mitigation Rule through successful implementation, monitoring, and adaptive management planning. -12505-SPD Regulatory Program Uniform Performance Standards for Compensatory Mitigation Requirements (USACE 2014), which outlines the procedure for use of uniform performance standards associated with permittee-responsible compensatory mitigation requirements as required for processing of Department of the Army permits under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act, and Section 103 of the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act. -Over the past decade, two key documents have been created for the Otay River Watershed: the /³ ¸ 2¨µ¤± 7 ³¤±²§¤£ - ¦¤¬¤³ 0« 3¯¤¢¨ « !±¤ - ¦¤¬¤³ 0« (WMP) and the (SAMP) (Jones and Stokes 2006), which ran out of funding before completion (Aspen 2007). The County of San Diego, with partial funding from a Proposition 13 grant, prepared the WMP in collaboration with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW), City of Chula Vista, the City of Imperial Beach, and the Port of San Diego, and it was adopted in 2006. Together these two documents provide a framework program that is consistent with the local General Plans (County and City), the San Diego RWQCB National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit, and They also represent a the County of San Diego Multi-Species Conservation Plan (MSCP). proactive watershed planning and permitting approach that identified the areas within the that should be protected. The WMP includes implementation strategy to ensure the protection of existing beneficial uses and natural resources, including methods to monitor, maintain, and/or enhance existing water quality levels using non-structural and structural best management practices (BMPs). In addition, recommendations for appropriate aquatic resource enhancement and monitoring programs are provided. SAMPs are intended to strike a balance between aquatic resources and reasonable economic development and uses in the watershed or region in which they are developed. The County of San Diego, Department of Planning and Land Use, was working with USACE (federal sponsoring agency) and the CDFW to prepare the SAMP and provide a comprehensive planning instrument to serve as a basis for development of a programmatic permitting mechanism for unavoidable impacts within the watershed. USACE lost funding for this program in 2008, but was anticipated to restart in 2015. -In 1997 the Otay Valley Regional Park (OVRP) Concept Plan was released. The OVRP Concept Plan was the result of a multi-jurisdictional planning effort in the Otay River Valley by the County of San Diego and the cities of Chula Vista and San Diego. The Concept Plan proposed a boundary for the OVRP that includes this restoration plan boundary. The OVRP Concept Plan 3 Final 2015 Regional Compensatory Mitigation and Monitoring Guidelines for South Pacific Division (2015). http://www.spd.usace.army.mil/Missions/Regulatory/PublicNoticesandReferences/tabid/10390/Article/558934 /final-regional-compensatory-mitigation-and-monitoring-guidelines.aspx Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 1-2 Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.15 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 503 Otay Land Company Project Description also included recommendations for open space/core preserve areas, recreation areas, trail corridors, staging areas, viewpoint and overlook areas, and interpretive centers. Although this restoration project was not designed to specifically include components of the OVRP Concept Plan, it does not preclude any of these elements. The restoration project has identified trail corridors in compliance with the OVRP Concept Plan and would implement trail improvements to a portion of the existing dirt roads and existing unofficial trails within the City parcel both through and adjacent to the restoration project area. These improvements include installing wood split-rail fencing, trail signage, and educational kiosks, which all serve to designate the roads and trails and to protect the restoration site from existing uses. Two existing road crossings through the restoration project area running north-to-south have been identified as necessary for property access by U.S. Border Patrol, San Diego Gas and Electric (SDG&E), Otay Water District (OWD), and the City of Chula Vista. These crossings also overlap with OVRP trail corridors. These road and trail crossings have been designed as part of the restoration project to be at-grade and will be protected using native rock to minimize erosion and maintenance while allowing for unobstructed hydrology and sediment transport. Any other improvements to the roads and trails or other OVRP recreational facilities planned in the river valley would be evaluated under separate regulatory processes including subsequent environmental review and resource permitting if necessary. The proposed project would be consistent with OVRP goals and policies to site and develop park features and facilities consistent with the requirements and guidelines of the MSCP and all federal, state, and local policies; encourage recreational uses as buffers between the Open Space/Core Preserve Area and new private development; and encourage development standards for roads across the Otay River to minimize impacts on habitat and wildlife movement as well as trail connectivity. The proposed project would also comply with the OVRP Trail Guidelines for education, design and layout, erosion control, signage, fencing, and educational kiosks. The intent of the restoration project is to ensure the OVRP Concept Plan is accommodated, including additional recreational facilities outside of the restoration project area, but on the city of Chula Vista property. This restoration project is not intended to restrict trail development or use as long as its done to minimize (to the extent practicable) impacts on aquatic resources and other protected habitats. -The City of Chula Vista Greenbelt Master Plan provides guidance and continuity for planning open space and constructing and maintaining trails that encircle the City of Chula Vista. The pose is to provide goals and policies, trail design standards, and implementation tools that guide the creation of the Greenbelt system. The Greenbelt system is composed of a series of open space segments connected by a multi-use trail extending through each segment; from the channelized Sweetwater River, along golf courses and banks of the Otay Lakes, following the Otay River valley to the Chula Vista Bayfront. The restoration project would implement minor improvements to a portion of the existing dirt road/trail identified within the Otay Valley Regional Park East/Otay Ranch Village Greenway Segments. The proposed project would be consistent with goals and policies to provide connected open space areas around the City of Chula Vista to enhance and protect native biological and sensitive habitats as well as establish a greenbelt system that ensures public access utilizing existing fire roads, access roads, and/or utility easements for the trail system when possible and limit the use of multi-use trails to non-motorized uses except for motorized wheelchairs, and utility, maintenance, and emergency vehicles. The restoration project would also comply with greenbelt design standards for trail signage, educational kiosks, and wood split-rail fencing. The intent of the restoration Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 1-3 Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.15 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 504 Otay Land Company Project Description project is to ensure the Greenbelt trail is accommodated by identification of a realistic corridor, installation of trail signage, split-rail fencing, and educational kiosks while avoiding any sensitive resources. The existing roads and trails will be moved or modified as needed to avoid road ponds, protect the San Diego fairy shrimp, and the restoration area. The restoration project does not preclude the future implementation of new or upgraded trail facilities identified in the City of Chula Vista Greenbelt Master Plan on the property. Additional trail amenities, if needed, would be evaluated and approved through a subsequent environmental review, if necessary, and associated permitting process if needed. 1.2Project Summary This Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (HMMP or plan) provides direction for implementing a program to restore hydrologic and sediment transport processes and native habitats in the Otay River Valley on the City of Chula Vista parcel. This HMMP was prepared by ICF International (ICF) staff serving as consultants to the Otay Land Company (OLC), a subsidiary of HomeFed Corporation. The representative contacts at ICF are Michelle Mattson, Southern California Natural Resources Team Manager and Lindsay Teunis, Restoration Team Manager. The HMMP is intended for use as compensatory mitigation for unavoidable impacts on jurisdictional waters of the U.S., waters of the State, and associated habitats due to the implementation of the Otay Ranch University Villages. At this time, two projects for mixed-use private developments are under review by the regulatory agencies (Otay Ranch Village 3 and Otay Ranch Village 8 West). In addition, this HMMP has been designed to comprehensively cover the unavoidable impacts associated with Villages 2, 8 East, 9, and 10, as well as Otay River Valley Regional Park and the City of Chula Vista University Project pending future site-specific authorizations by the regulatory agencies. All proposed projects and the mitigation site proposed in this HMMP are in the City of Chula Vista (City) and within the Otay River Watershed (Figure 1-1). A geographic service area (Figure 1-2) of the lower Otay River sub-basin that incorporates the areas of future projects will be used to determine a project eligibility to mitigate at the proposed mitigation site The Otay Ranch Village 3 and 8 West project sites are on the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS series Otay Mesa Quadrangle and are within the southeast quadrant of the Otay Ranch neighborhood in the City of Chula Vista. The Village 8 West site occupies approximately 300.3 acres. Surrounding land uses include private residence developments and agricultural lands to the north, State Route 125 and agricultural lands to the west, and the Otay River Valley to the south. Village 3 site is approximately 436 acres and surrounding land uses include the Otay landfill to the north, Wolf Canyon to the east, existing industrial uses to the west, and Otay River Valley and Otay Valley Regional Park to the south. The Village 8 West development consists of the Village 8 West Sectional Planning Area plan and Tentative Map, and offsite sewer and storm drain conveyance alignment with a paved access road and trail facilities. The Village 3 land plan includes a mixed-use village core with commercial/retail uses surrounded by multi-family attached and detached neighborhoods, an elementary school, neighborhood park site, small recreation sites, and Community Purpose Facility. Both Village 3 and 8 West sites include small first- and second-order ephemeral drainages. Although both projects include some avoidance of these features as well as larger streams, there would be direct impacts Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 1-4 Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.15 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 505 ST 94 Kern ST San Bernardino 54 Los Angeles Riverside a Orange e e S Pacific Imperial San Diego Ocean e e Upper Otay m ST Lake 125 Rancho Rancho del Ray del Ray Lower Otay Lake r University a Village 8 West Village 9 Village 3 North _ ^ Village 4 Savage Dam _ ^ ^_ _ ^ ^_Upstream ^_ ^_ Enhancement Area ^_ O Mitigation Parcel t a y R i v e ^_ ^_ Village 8 East Village 10 Brown Field Brown Field Municipal Airport Municipal Airport River Valley Parcel ST (Possilble Otay River 905 Valley Regional Park) Parcel A (Possilble Otay River Valley S E T A T S D E T Regional Park) I N U O C I X E M ± 00.512 Miles SOURCE: ESRI Streetmap (2012) Map Prepared: 9/14/2015 Figure 1-1 Regional Vicinity Otay River Restoration Project ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 506 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 507 K:\\San Diego\\projects\\Otay_Land_Co_Village\\00296_14_8and9_Mitigation_Site\\mapdoc\\HMMP\\Fig01_2_ServiceArea.mxd Date: 9/14/2015 35528 Otay Land Company Project Description associated with the projects, thereby requiring compensatory mitigation to offset unavoidable loss of stream acreage and function. Compensatory mitigation is proposed within the nearby Otay River Valley, specifically within the Otay River mainstem approximately 1 mile below Savage Dam (Figure 1-3). This plan represents the uppermost reach of the Lower Otay River Watershed and provides an ideal opportunity for restoration. This plan includes the design for approximately 100-acres of channel, floodplain, and buffer reestablishment within the approximately 300-acre City of Chula Vista parcel ( Parcel Number 6440900400), as well as enhancement (removal of invasive species). This plan is in line with the restoration recommendations described in the Otay River Watershed Management Plan (ORWMP) (Aspen 2007), which was completed in partnership with the County of San Diego, City of Chula Vista, City of San Diego, USACE, RWQCB, CDFW and community stakeholders. The ORWMP provides an evaluation of the baseline conditions of the Upper and Lower Otay River Watershed and recommendations for BMPs and restoration opportunities based on five key goals identified by the ORWMP stakeholders. The ORWMP provides 17 strategies that are intended to protect, enhance, restore, and/or manage watershed resources in consideration of expected natural and anthropogenic stressors. Each strategy is focused on achieving one or more of the stakeholder-identified ORWMP goals. Specifically, this HMMP addresses one of the key strategies identified in the ORWMP: Lower Otay River Floodplain to Enhance the Quality of Water Entering San Diego Bay. is ranked as a HIGH priority along with 8 other strategies based on their expected large benefits to the watershed and their capacity to build upon other efforts being planned or underway (Aspen 2007). The mainstem and floodplain within the Mitigation parcel were highly disturbed by a record flood event in 1916, which resulted in the failure of the original Savage Dam (an earthen and steel structure) and left a substantial amount of sediment and debris in the broad floodplain. The dam was reconstructed in 1918 and has remained intact since. The deposited flood material was subsequently mined for sand and gravel over several decades, continuing until approximately the mid-1980s. The flood of 1916, deposition and intensive harvesting of alluvium material, as well as the presence of the dam itself have substantially altered the natural topography and hydrologic and sediment transport functions of the Otay River within the plan area. In particular, the mainstem was filled and manipulated to the point of being nonexistent, with surface flows dissipating and water flowing down-gradient from east to west as shallow groundwater through much of the plan area. Similarly the floodplain has been manipulated, with much of the area characterized by artificial mounding from the mine tailings. The disturbed hydrology and topography of the site are further exacerbated by the presence of dense stands of an invasive nonnative tree, tamarisk or salt cedar Tamarix!±´£® £® · ( spp.) and other invasive species such as arundo () and Peruvian Pepper tree 3¢§¨´² ¬®««¤ (). These species provide a significant nonnative seed source to downstream habitats. As mentioned above, the approximately 100-acre restoration site and the larger 300-acre mitigation parcel are owned by the City of Chula Vista. A portion of the parcel is within the City of Chula Vista Greenbelt Master Plan boundaries and entirely within the OVRP Concept Plan boundaries. Both of these plans identify future multi-use trails where the existing dirt roads and unofficial trails are currently located. These existing dirt roads are used for a variety of purposes by the U.S. Border Patrol, SDG&E, City of San Diego, and OWD, as well as by hikers, cyclists, and equestrians. To prevent the restoration site from being disturbed by existing and future users, wood split-rail fencing would be installed at key locations. The fencing, along with signage indicating the general sensitivity of the Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 1-5 Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.15 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 510 Otay Land Company Project Description restoration site and providing wayfinding, would help to minimize trespassing from trail users who would otherwise be unaware of the sensitivity of the habitat restoration area. The existing roads and trails may be moved slightly to accommodate the 14-foot-wide pathway (required width for SDG&E access) and installation of the fencing and signage while also avoiding road ponds that support the San Diego fairy shrimp. Only disturbed areas would be used to designate the narrow trail corridor or pathway. In addition, educational kiosks would be installed at key viewing locations within the disturbed areas to help inform the readers of the importance of the restoration site. Altogether, the proposed project would (1) improve approximately 12,800 linear feet of existing dirt roadways with fencing, signs, and kiosks; (2) improve approximately 1,600 linear feet of road crossings in the active floodplain; and (3) close approximately 4,500 linear feet of existing dirt roads. Additional improvements that are not part of the proposed project and that may occur at a future date under the OVRP Concept Plan and Greenbelt Master Plan could be developed with subsequent environmental review, if necessary, and would not be precluded as a result of implementation of the proposed restoration project. The restoration project is divided into two discrete work areas, the Mitigation Parcel (City of Chula Vista) and the Upstream Enhancement Area. The primary restoration project will be occurring in the Mitigation Parcel while a singular treatment season of invasive plant species will occur in the Upstream Enhancement Area. The project is also divided into three distinct components Phase 1, Phase 2, and future phases. Phase 1 includes the singular treatment of the Upstream Enhancement area as well as the initial treatment of the Phase 2 work area within the Mitigation Parcel. Phase 2 takes place solely in the Mitigation Parcel and focuses on the compensatory mitigation for Village 8 and Village 3. Future phases will address the needs of additional Otay Villages as well as other projects requiring compensatory mitigation. These components and the objectives of each are described further below. 1.3Mitigation Obligation As described above, this HMMP is intended to meet the compensatory mitigation needs for two projects under permit review now and several future projects including the City of Chula Vista University Project. Table 1-1 outlines the potential estimated mitigation obligations for each of the projects using a conservative ratio of 5:1 to ensure sufficient coverage. These numbers are subject to change because the permit application process is ongoing for Villages 3 and 8 West and has not begun for the other future projects. In addition, impact acreages for future projects are estimates based on preliminary project footprints and are subject to change as a result to project refinements. 4§±®´¦§ ¤ ¢§ ¯¤±¬¨³ ¯±®¢¤²²Ǿ ¤ ¢§ ¯±®©¤¢³ ¶¨«« £¤¬®²³± ³¤ ³§¤¸ § µ¤ ¬¤³ ³§¤ #«¤ 7 ³¤± !¢³ ±¤°´¨±¤¬¤³² ³® µ®¨£ £ ¬¨¨¬¨¹¤ ³® ³§¤ ¬ ·¨¬´¬ ¤·³¤³ ¯± ¢³¨¢ ¡«¤ ¨ «¨¦§³ ®¥ ¢®²³Ǿ «®¦¨²³¨¢²Ǿ £ ³¤¢§®«®¦¸ £ ¥¨ ««¸ ¬¨³¨¦ ³¤ ¥®± ´³§®±¨¹¤£ ´ µ®¨£ ¡«¤ ¨¬¯ ¢³²ȁ 4§¤±¤¥®±¤Ǿ ³§¨² (--0 £®¤² ®³ £¨¢³ ³¤ ¢³´ « ¬¨³¨¦ ³¨® ± ³¨®² £ ³§¤ ± ³¨®² ¯±®µ¨£¤£ ±¤ ¥®± ¯« ¨¦ ¯´±¯®²¤² ®«¸ȁ Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 1-6 Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.15 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 511 Upper Otay Lake Lower Otay Lake Savage Dam Restoration Plan Boundary Upstream Enhancement Area City Parcel Boundary ± S 00.51 E T A T S D E T I N U Miles O C I X E M Source: Bing Imagery (2010) Map Prepared: 9/14/2015 Figure 1-3 Restoration Plan Overview Otay River Restoration Project ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 512 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 513 Otay Land Company Project Description Table 1-1. Summary of Estimated Mitigation Obligations for Each Village Project 3³±¤ ¬² !µ¦ 3³ ¢ª¤£ 53!#%ȝ 53!#%ȝ ,¨¤ ± 53!#%ȝ ,¤¦³§ 3³±¤ ¬ Impact #$&7 271#" 271#" &¤¤³ Project 271#" Ȩ«¨¤ ± 7¨£³§ ,¨¤ ± (acres) -¨³¨¦ ³¨® -¨³¨¦ ³¨® -¨³¨¦ ³¨® 1 (acres) feet) (feet) Feet*Width Ratio Acreage Ratio 22 5:1 1:1 Village 2 4,500 3 13,500 0.31 0.31 1.55 5:1 1:1 Village 3 4,424 3 13,272 0.213 3 0.253 1.065 Village 3 - 5:1 1:1 685 5 3,425 0.07 0.09 0.35 Takashima 5:1 1:1 Village 8 West 7,169 3 21,507 1.3 5.26 6.5 5:1 1:1 Village 8 East 5,500 4 22,000 0.59 0.59 2.95 5:1 1:1 Village 9 6,244 3 18,732 0.37 0.78 1.85 5:1 1:1 Village 10 3,670 5 18,350 0.57 0.99 2.85 5:1 1:1 University 4 8,900 6 53,400 0.38 0.46 1.9 Otay River - - - 0.10 0.10 1.0 5:1 - VRP Total 41,092 164,186 3.90 8.81 - 20.01 - Total includes acres of USACE/RWQCB jurisdiction plus additional acres of exclusive CDFW jurisdiction (i.e., 1 extending outside of the ordinary high water mark \[OHWM\] and to the top of bank). For the purpose of planning and evaluating mitigation available this plan assumes a 1:1 mitigation ratio for linear 2 feet of streams and 5:1 for all aquatic acreage. Acreage includes 0.003 acre of disturbed vernal pools/seasonal depression. It is anticipated that mitigation can be 3 provided in the seasonal ponds of the Otay River Restoration Project if vernal pools cannot be avoided on site. 4 A formal jurisdiction delineation has not yet been completed for the University Project Site or the Otay River Valley Regional Park sites. The estimated values are based on aerial and topographic interpretation using an estimated average 5-foot-wide OHWM and 10-foot-wide CDFW bank to bank. In addition, these numbers do not account for potential avoidance. 1.4Compensatory Mitigation Credits Available The compensatory mitigation acreage and linear feet quantities available onsite are shown in Tables 1-2 and Table 1-3, respectively. These are further depicted in Chapter 4 (Mitigation Design). The design includes an upland buffer component in an effort to maximize the long term success of the site and the habitat function. The credit associated with the buffer acreage was based on the projected functional lift associated with quality buffer habitat, in which the CRAM scores would increase (compared to current buffer conditions) by at least 10%. As such, 10% of the total buffer acreage was estimated for credit. As shown in Table 1-3, the restoration site is anticipated to re-establish up to 9,555 linear feet of stream channel. As shown in Table 1-1 impacts on linear feet for all of the projects total approximately 41,000 feet. A use of straight linear feet to compare the impacted streams to the restored stream does not adequately illustrate the difference. It is more appropriate to used stacked linear feet, which accounts for the streambank width and the active low floodplain (10-years flood). While the average width of the impacted streams ranges between 3 and 6 feet, the restored primary drainage and active low floodplain averages 100 feet at its broadest and 25 feet at its narrowest, similarly the secondary channels average at least 8 feet wide. Table 1-3 presents both the straight linear feet and stacked linear feet of the mitigation site. The mitigation site will restore over 424,000 Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 1-7 Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.15 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 514 Otay Land Company Project Description stacked linear feet while the proposed projects are expected to impact approximately 164,000 stacked linear feet, as shown in Table 1-1. Table 1-2. Compensatory Mitigation Acreage Quantities by Restoration Type for Entire Plan #$&7 "´¥¥¤± 2¤²³®± ³¨® 4¸¯¤ Habitat Acreage 7®53 #±¤£¨³ Credit Credit 12 Primary Channel 5.27 5.27 5.27 - Secondary 2.22 2.22 2.22 - Channels Active Low Re-establishment Floodplain (10 24.2 24.2 24.2 - year flood) High Floodplain 21.8 - 21.8 2.18 (25 year flood) Seasonal Ponds Establishment 1.34 1.34 1.34 - (created) Primary Channel 0.75 0.75 0.75 - Seasonal Ponds 0.38 0.38 0.38 - (existing) Active Low Rehabilitation 3 Floodplain (10 0.16 0.16 0.16 year flood) Transitional 47.15 - - 4.72 Uplands Total WoUS Credit 34.32 Total CDFW Credit 56.12 Total Upland Credits 6.9 1 Acreage includes WoUS Credit and is not additive. Functional increase based on projected CRAM scores, %10 change. Buffer credit can be applied to WoUS 2 and CDFW credit as the total acreage available has been reduced from the full acres of high floodplain rehabilitation (21.8 to 2.18 acres) and transitional uplands (47.15 to 4.72 acres) based on the functional increase. 3 Use of Rehabilitation credits are not as valuable as re-establishment and establishment in the USACE mitigation ratio checklist, as such, the mitigation ratio will be higher when using this credit type. Table 1-3. Compensatory Mitigation Linear Feet Quantities for Entire Plan *´±¨²£¨¢³¨® « 3³ ¢ª¤£ 7¨£³§ #§ ¤« ,¤¦³§ ,¨¤ ± &¤¤³ Width (Linear &¤¤³ ȴ 7¨£³§ ) Straight Linear All Channels10,170-- Feet Secondary Channel 1,0001010,000 (North) Stacked Linear Secondary Channel 2.2202248,840 Feet (South) Primary Channel 5,17050258,500 Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 1-8 Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.15 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 515 Otay Land Company Project Description Tributaries1,7802340,940 4®³ « 3³ ¢ª¤£ ,¨¤ ± &¤¤³358,280 1.4.1Village 3 Mitigation Table 1-4 summarizes the jurisdictional impacts for Village 3 as well as the proposed mitigation for Village 3. As shown below, Village 3 is expected to directly impact 0.29 acres of jurisdictional features in the form of ephemeral streams and a depressional basin. Mitigation will occur in Phase 2 of the Otay River Restoration Project at a minimum 5:1 ratio including 1.91 acres of jurisdictional habitat and an additional 1.05 acres of high floodplain/transitional habitat. Table 1-4. Summary of Village 3 Impacts and Proposed Mitigation for Village 3 Development 53!#%ȝ 271#" 53!#%ȝ 271#" ( ¡¨³ ³ 4¸¯¤ 3³ ¢ª¤£ ,¨¤ ± 53!#%ȝ 271#" )¬¯ ¢³² -¨¨¬´¬ 2¤°´¨±¤£ Impacted Impact -¨³¨¦ ³¨® 2 ³¨® 1 (acres) -¨³¨¦ ³¨® !¢±¤ ¦¤ Ephemeral 5,109 0.28 5:1 1.4 Stream Depressional - 0.003 5:1 0.02 Basin Total 5,109 0.29 - 1.42 Proposed -¨³¨¦ ³¨® ¥®± 6¨«« ¦¤ Β ¡¸ -¨³¨¦ ³¨® 4¸¯¤ £ ( ¡¨³ ³ 4¸¯¤ -¨³¨¦ ³¨® 4¸¯¤ -¨³¨¦ ³¨® ( ¡¨³ ³ Acres -¨³¨¦ ³¨® 4¸¯¤-¨³¨¦ ³¨® ( ¡¨³ ³Acres Establishment Seasonal Ponds 0.31 Re-Establishment Primary Channel 0.14 Re-Establishment Active Low Floodplain (10-yr) 1.19 Re-Establishment 0.24 High Floodplain/Transitional (non- jurisdictional) Re-Habilitation Primary Channel 0.10 Re-Habilitation Active Low Floodplain (10-yr) 0.01 ΑȁΏΏ ȨΐȁΖΕȝΏȁΑΓȩ 4®³ « -¨³¨¦ ³¨® 0±®¯®²¤£ (Jurisdictional/Non-Jurisdictional) 1 Stacked linear feet are calculated by multiplying the total stream length by the stream width. The details are shown in Table 1-1 1.4.2Village 8 West Mitigation Table 1-5 summarizes the jurisdictional impacts for Village 8 West as well as the proposed mitigation for Village 8 West. As shown below, Village 8 West is expected to directly impact 1.30 acres of jurisdictional features in the form of ephemeral streams and wetlands. Mitigation will occur in Phase 2 of the Otay River Restoration Project at a minimum 5:1 ratio including 6.10 acres of jurisdictional habitat and an additional 8.87 acres of high floodplain and upland buffer habitat. Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 1-9 Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.15 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 516 Otay Land Company Project Description Table 1-5. Summary of Village 8 West Impacts and the Proposed Mitigation for Village 8W Development 53!#%ȝ 271#" 53!#%ȝ 271#" ( ¡¨³ ³ 4¸¯¤ 3³ ¢ª¤£ ,¨¤ ± 53!#%ȝ 271#" Impacts -¨¨¬´¬ 2¤°´¨±¤£ Impacted Impact -¨³¨¦ ³¨® 2 ³¨® 1 (acres) -¨³¨¦ ³¨® !¢±¤ ¦¤ Ephemeral 7,169 1.30 5:1 6.5 Stream/ Wetlands Total 7,169 1.30-6.5 0±®¯®²¤£ -¨³¨¦ ³¨® ¥®± 6¨«« ¦¤ Η 7¤²³ ¡¸ -¨³¨¦ ³¨® 4¸¯¤ £ ( ¡¨³ ³ 4¸¯¤ -¨³¨¦ ³¨® 4¸¯¤ -¨³¨¦ ³¨® ( ¡¨³ ³ Acres Re-Establishment Primary Channel 1.67 Re-Establishment Active Low Floodplain (10-yr) 4.04 2 Re-Establishment High Floodplain/Transitional (non-3.06 (0.31 credit) jurisdictional) Re-Habilitation Primary Channel 0.65 2 Re-Habilitation Upland (non-jurisdictional) 8.11 (0.81 credit) Re-Habilitation Active Low Floodplain (10-yr) 0.16 4®³ « -¨³¨¦ ³¨® 0±®¯®²¤£ (Jurisdictional/Non-Jurisdictional) ΐΖȁΖΏ ȨΕȁΔΑȝΐΐȁΐΗȩ 1 Stacked linear feet are calculated by multiplying the total stream length by the stream width. The details are shown in Table 1-1 2 Credit determined by functional increase based on projected CRAM scores, resulting in a %10 change to overall wetland condition with improved buffer. Buffer credit can be applied to WoUS and CDFW credit as the total credit available has been reduced to 10% of the restored acreage based on the functional increase. 1.5Responsible Parties, Roles, and Responsibilities Ultimately, the OLC and its contractors are responsible for installation, maintenance, and monitoring in accordance with this HMMP to successfully complete the mitigation program. Their roles and responsibilities, as well as those of other involved parties, are summarized below. Additional details for each role are discussed throughout the document, where applicable. /¶¤±ȝ2¤²¯®²¨¡«¤ 0 ±³¸Ȁ OLC will be the party financially responsible for (1) all negotiations and costs associated with the mitigation implementation, (2) the 5-year maintenance and monitoring of the mitigation area, and (3) the costs associated with the perpetual monitoring and management of the mitigation property as defined in this HMMP. At this time the individual representative for OLC is Curt Smith. The OLC will be responsible for contracting a qualified habitat restoration ecologist and a licensed landscape contractor(s) for installation, maintenance, and monitoring to carry out the provisions of this HMMP. The OLC may select separate contractors for the installation and maintenance phases. Both contractors will meet the minimum requirements described below. The OLC will establish contractual mechanisms to ensure the completion of installation, maintenance, and monitoring activities delineated in this HMMP. The OLC may, with sole discretion, replace any of these parties. Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 1-10 Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.15 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 517 Otay Land Company Project Description The OLC or the contracted consultant will obtain all required permits, which may include the following. City of Chula Vista Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) and Grading Permit CDFW 1600 Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement San Diego RWQCB 401 Certification USACE Nationwide Permit (NWP) 27 for Aquatic Habitat Restoration, Establishment, and Enhancement Activities 2¤²³®± ³¨® %¢®«®¦¨²³Ȁ The restoration ecologist will be an individual or team of individuals with a degree in botany, ecology, or related field, and a minimum of 10 years of experience in Southern California with successful wetland restoration (preferably riverine). The lead restoration ecologist must have knowledge of the riverine and upland vegetation associations proposed for the restoration effort as well as the nonnative species of concern. The restoration ecologist, in coordination with the contractor, will oversee protection of existing biological resources, nonnative plant removal, contour grading; site preparation, planting and seeding, maintenance and monitoring, as well as reporting. The restoration ecologist will be responsible for the following. Supervision of all phases of restoration installation, including contractor education, site protection, site preparation, planting installation, seeding, and final installation inspection and approvals as delineated in this HMMP. Halting work by the installation contractor at any point where the provisions of this HMMP are not being adhered to until such times as the inconsistency is resolved with the OLC. After installation, the restoration ecologist will be responsible for monitoring and making remedial recommendations (regarding weeding, irrigation frequency, erosion control, etc.) for ongoing maintenance activities performed by the maintenance contractor after HMMP installation, as specified herein. The restoration ecologist will be responsible for carrying out the biological monitoring and reporting program described in this HMMP. The program will include the following tasks: agency notification (as needed), qualitative and quantitative data collection as required to measure success progress, photo documentation, post-installation monitoring reports documenting progress, and a final assessment of success at the end of the 5-year maintenance and monitoring program. )²³ «« ³¨® #®³± ¢³®±Ȁ The installation and maintenance contractor will be a qualified firm (or more than one firm) with successful experience in Southern California and direct experience installing and maintaining native habitat mitigation projects. The installation contractor will be responsible for design of a temporary irrigation system (if needed) for the high marsh and upland transitional habitats in consultation with the restoration ecologist. Currently, this HMMP does not include an automated temporary irrigation system, and assumes that irrigation will primarily include supplemental hand watering and/or truck watering. Subsequently, the installation contractor will be responsible for site protection, grading, contouring, and installation of all vegetation in accordance with the provisions of this plan and as approved by the restoration ecologist. In addition, the installation contractor will prepare a Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) and any other requirements of the permits to avoid impacts on adjacent resources Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 1-11 Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.15 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 518 Otay Land Company Project Description and water quality. The responsibilities of the installation contractor will end with the completion of the requirements for the 120-day plant establishment period. The installation contractor will verify in writing to the OLC prior to starting work the following minimal qualifications: a C- Pest Control Applicator, previous successful experience with at least three prior native habitat restoration project installations of similar size and scope, and knowledge of local flora and fauna. - ¨³¤ ¢¤ #®³± ¢³®± : After the 120-day plant establishment period, a separate maintenance contractor may be hired by OLC to maintain the restoration site for the remaining balance of the 5 years according to the provisions of this HMMP. The OLC may choose to use the same contractor for both installation and post-installation maintenance if the contractor meets both sets of qualifications. Prior to starting work, the maintenance contractor will demonstrate the same qualifications as the installation contractor, including demonstrating past maintenance experience with habitat restoration projects, previous successful experience maintaining at least three native restoration projects, and knowledge of local flora and fauna. 4± ¨«ȝ2® £ - ¨³¤ ¢¤ : During the 5 years of maintenance and monitoring for the restoration project, the Maintenance Contractor would conduct minor repairs on all fencing, signs, and educational kiosks installed as part of the project improvements. This includes reposting loose signs and fence posts, removing graffiti, and conducting road repair to avoid new ruts or ponds from being artificially created. The maintenance contractor will replace up to two signs per year and one educational kiosk over a 5 year period. If excessive vandalism occurs, Homefed would coordinate with the City of Chula Vista and the County of San Diego to support upkeep through the existing Preserve Owner/Manager (POM) funded by the existing Community Facilities District. After the project has completed the 5 years of maintenance and monitoring and the regulatory agencies have signed off on the mitigation site, San Diego County would maintain OVRP trails and trail improvements per the OVRP Joint Exercise of Powers Agreement (JEPA). 1.6Regulatory Requirements and Compliance &¨ « ΕΓΔΘ This HMMP has been prepared in accordance with the guidelines recommended in the 2¤¦¨® « #®¬¯¤² ³®±¸ -¨³¨¦ ³¨® £ -®¨³®±¨¦ '´¨£¤«¨¤² ¥®± 3®´³§ 0 ¢¨¥¨¢ $¨µ¨²¨® 5ȁ3ȁ !±¬¸ #®±¯² ®¥ %¦¨¤¤±² (USACE 2015) and addresses waters of the U.S. and wetland impacts regulated by the federal Clean Water Act, the California Fish and Wildlife Code, and Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act. This plan will support applications for issuance of a USACE 404 permit, a CDFW 1602 streambed alteration agreement, and an RWQCB 401 water quality certification. The plan will additionally outline the mitigation strategies designed to fulfill the regulatory requirements of the federal Clean Water Act and the California Fish and Game Code. USACE, RWQCB, and CDFW will be involved with the plan throughout the review and permitting phases and the installation and 5-year monitoring of each phase of the project, if phased. 1.7Mitigation Site Location The mitigation site is lo-4), in the Otay River Valley in southwestern San Diego County, California (Figure 1-2). The mitigation site Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 1-12 Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.15 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 519 520 0 ¦¤ Packet !¦¤£ ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ K:\\San Diego\\projects\\Otay_Land_Co_Village\\00296_14_8and9_Mitigation_Site\\mapdoc\\HMMP\\Fig01_4_USGS_Quad.mxd 9/14/2015 35528 521 0 ¦¤ Packet !¦¤£ ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ Otay Land Company Project Description occurs within the upper portion of the Lower Otay River Watershed, approximately 1 mile downstream of Savage Dam. As described above, the restoration project is divided into two discrete areas, the Mitigation Parcel (City of Chula Vista) and the Upstream Enhancement Area. The primary restoration project will be occurring in the Mitigation Parcel while a singular treatment season of invasive plant species will occur in the Upstream Enhancement Area. 1.8Mitigation Area Ownership Status The mitigation area consists of nine parcels owned by four entities; the City of Chula Vista owns one parcel that contains the floodplain area, while the Otay River channel below the dam is owned by the County of San Diego (two parcels), the United States of America Public Domain (one parcel), and the City of San Diego (four parcels) (Figure 1-5 and Table 1-6). Table 1-6. Mitigation Area Ownership Parcels 0 ±¢¤« .´¬¡¤± Owner 0±®©¤¢³ #®¬¯®¤³² 64409004 City of Chula Vista (Mitigation Parcel) Phase 1 (Habitat Enhancement), Phase 2 (River Restoration), Future Phases 64713003 City of Chula Vista Phase 1 Upstream Enhancement 644100019 County of San Diego Phase 1 Upstream Enhancement 64713001 City of San Diego Phase 1 Upstream Enhancement 64713002 City of San Diego Phase 1 Upstream Enhancement 64713010 City of San Diego Phase 1 Upstream Enhancement 64713012 Phase 1 Upstream Enhancement United States of America Public Domain 64713008 County of San Diego Phase 1 Upstream Enhancement 64713007 City of San Diego Phase 1 Upstream Enhancement Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 1-13 Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.15 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 522 Otay Land Company Project Description This page intentionally left blank. Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 1-14 Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.15 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 523 K:\\San Diego\\projects\\Otay_Land_Co_Village\\00296_14_8and9_Mitigation_Site\\mapdoc\\HMMP\\Fig01_5_Parcels.mxd Date: 9/14/2015 35528 Chapter 2 Mitigation Goals and Objectives 2.1Goals The overall goal of this plan is to fulfill the mitigation requirements for Village 8 West and Village 3 and to provide advance permittee responsible mitigation for the additional Otay Village Projects, the University Project, and the Otay Valley Regional Park. The primary goal for the restoration itself is to create an ecologically functional, self-sustaining wetland that is resilient to a range of natural disturbances (drought, flood, etc.). The following are the specific goals of the restoration project. Restore proper hydrology based on existing conditions and create complex channel morphology including primary and secondary channels. Tie the recreated channel into the existing channel upstream and downstream of the City of Chula Vista parcel. Upgrade the two identified north-to-south road/trail crossings through the Otay River to better provide quality access while limiting disruptions in hydrology due to artificial deepening and berming from vehicular traffic. Recreate a floodplain with low and high terraces capable of conveying various flood events. Create a series of seasonal ponds in the northern high floodplain capable of providing refugia into the dry season. Maximize buffer condition by restoring and enhancing the adjacent upland habitat. Maximize sustainability of the recreated site by removing the nonnative seed sources occurring in the 1 mile of channel upstream of the Mitigation parcel, below Savage Dam. Create and maximize habitat diversity and structural complexity. Maximize wildlife use opportunities including local listed species. 2.2Objectives Mitigation for the project impacts will occur within the Otay River mainstem and floodplain (Figures 1-1 and 1-3) immediately below and downstream from the Savage Dam. This area was targeted for enhancement and rehabilitation due to its location at the upstream origination point of the Otay River at Savage Dam. This mitigation location is the appropriate first step in the overall restoration of the lower Otay River sub-basins that exist below the Savage Dam. The removal of nonnative invasive trees and the establishment of native vegetation will be crucial to the success of future downstream restoration efforts due to the presence of a significant upstream nonnative seed source within the restoration project boundary. The re-creation of the river channel and adjacent floodplains within the Mitigation parcel will improve the biological functions of the existing resources and support native flora and fauna. Although the restoration can be installed in one phase it has been designed into at least two distinct self-sustaining phases to correspond to the potential timing of each permitted project requiring mitigation with Phase 1 and 2 mitigating for Village 8 Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 2-1 Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.15 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 526 Otay Land Company Mitigation Goals and Objectives West and Village 3. The consecutive phases are described below and shown in Figure 2-1. In habitat. 0§ ²¤ ΐ /¡©¤¢³¨µ¤² Ȩ)µ ²¨µ¤ 3¯¤¢¨¤² 2¤¬®µ «ȝ%§ ¢¤¬¤³ȩȀ #¨³¸ ®¥ 3 $¨¤¦® £ #®´³¸ ®¥ 3 $¨¤¦® 0 ±¢¤«² ȃ 5¯²³±¤ ¬ %§ ¢¤¬¤³ !±¤ Enhance 6,000 feet of existing channel upstream of the main mitigation parcel, by treating 2.74 approximately acres of riparian habitat in the upstream Otay River mainstem immediately below the Savage Dam (Figure 1-4 and 2-1). The proposed enhancement areas are disturbed riparian areas whose natural habitat functions and services have been compromised and degraded due to the abundance of invasive trees and plants and the presence of Savage Dam. The proposed enhancement areas generally contain areas heavily infested and/or disturbed by !±´£® £® ·SchinusEucalyptus tamarisk, giant reed (), pepper trees ( spp.), eucalyptus ( spp.) 0§®¤¨· ¢ ±¨¤²¨², and Canary Island date palms () as well as several other non-native species. Invasive species in the upstream area will be treated for up to 5 years following the initial treatment or until the initial right-of-entry permits expire (whichever comes first). No success standards or monitoring is associated with the Upstream Enhancement Area as this effort to protect the restoration project downstream from nonnative seed sources and does not correspond to any mitigation credit. #¨³¸ ®¥ #§´« 6¨²³ 0 ±¢¤« ȃ -¨³¨¦ ³¨® 0 ±¢¤« Complete initial removal of invasive species within the Phase 2 boundary (approximately 14 acres) and a 150-footbuffer within the mitigation parcel with a focus on dense stands of tamarisk. Complete treatment of all large woody trees within the mitigation parcel including eucalyptus, 3¢§¨´² ³¤±¤¡¨³§¨¥®«¨ Brazilian pepper trees (), as well as date and fan palms. Leave on site to degrade and be incorporated as organic material and structure in future grading. 0§ ²¤ Α /¡©¤¢³¨µ¤² Ȩ2¤²³®± ³¨®ȝ2¤ȃ%²³ ¡«¨²§¬¤³ ®¥ /³ ¸ 2¨µ¤± - ¨²³¤¬ &®± 6Β £ 6Η7ȩȀ #¨³¸ ®¥ #§´« 6¨²³ 0 ±¢¤« ȃ -¨³¨¦ ³¨® 0 ±¢¤« Re-establish approximately 2,300 linear feet of the intermittent Otay River mainstem at the upstream portion of the mitigation parcel that was not returned to natural conditions following the departure of sand-mining operations. The grading will remove flow obstructions including berms, rows of cobble piles, and sediment and spoil piles, and will recreate the contours of the Otay River mainstem and the east tributary connection, connect existing low-lying pooling areas, and create floodplains. These actions will improve flow conditions during rain events and hydrological conditions for native plants and will include an upland Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub buffer of approximately 100 feet. Re-habilitate and enhance 2.56 acres surrounding the re-established primary channel with a focus on removal of invasive species such as tamarisk and arundo. Re-establish approximately 5.7 acres of floodplain habitat including the mainstem by removing structures such as berms, rows of cobble piles and sediment and spoil piles that impede flow, and by removing and managing invasive species. This area within the plan boundary currently supports a large, nearly monotypic stand of tamarisk. The tamarisk and other non-native vegetation will be removed, the natural floodplain contours that were corrupted by mining Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 2-2 Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.15 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 527 K:\\San Diego\\projects\\Otay_Land_Co_Village\\00296_14_8and9_Mitigation_Site\\mapdoc\\HMMP\\Fig02_1_Potential_Resto_Phases.mxd Date: 4/27/2016 35528 Otay Land Company Mitigation Goals and Objectives activities will be recreated, and native plants will be installed following invasive plant removal and regrading. Re-establish a river and floodplain cross section at the 1 identified upstream crossings to allow for adequate vehicular and foot traffic for U.S. Border Patrol, SDG&E, OWD, and future trail users that minimizes artificial deepening and maintenance and avoids the creation of berms that impound water upstream. Establish the easternmost seasonal pond in the north high floodplain totaling approximately 0.3 acre. The remaining ponds will be created in future phases. These ponds will create a unique niche habitat and increase the overall complexity of the site and the ecological services available. Protect existing and proposed native riparian habitat by focusing users (i.e., Border Patrol) to key access roads and closing others permanently. One permanent at-grade channel crossing will be created using rock and other natural hard material at the upstream end of the project. Fencing, trail signage, and educational kiosks will be installed at key locations. Rehabilitate approximately 8.1 acres of upland transitional habitat in the northern portion of the site through recontouring, revegetation, and removal of non-native species. This habitat serves as a buffer to the restored riverine system and provides foraging and breeding habitat for many species and refugia for riparian species during high flood events. Establish OVRP Concept Plan and City of Chula Vista Greenbelt Master Plan trail corridors to minimize the potential impacts on the restoration area from existing and potential future uses. These trail corridors will be identified and approximate road/trail alignments established within the existing disturbed roads or other adjacent disturbed habitat to avoid impacts on all road ponds that support San Diego fairy shrimp. Split-rail fencing, trail signage, and educational kiosks will be installed to keep users on the trails and outside of the restoration area. &´³´±¤ 0§ ²¤Ȩ²ȩ /¡©¤¢³¨µ¤²Ȁ #¨³¸ ®¥ #§´« 6¨²³ 0 ±¢¤« ȃ -¨³¨¦ ³¨® 0 ±¢¤« Re-establish approximately 3,000 linear feet of the intermittent Otay River mainstem connecting the upstream portion of the mitigation parcel and the existing channel downstream. The grading will remove flow obstructions including berms, rows of cobble piles, and sediment and spoil piles, and will recreate the contours of the Otay River mainstem, connect existing low-lying pooling areas, and create floodplains. These actions will improve flow conditions during rain events and hydrological conditions for native plants and will include an upland Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub buffer of approximately 100 feet. Enhance and establish the remaining seasonal ponds in the north high floodplain totaling approximately 1.4 acres. Three existing ponds would be recontoured and up to five new ponds created to form a wetland resource that is available well into the dry season, as it is dependent on groundwater elevations. These ponds create a unique niche habitat and increase the overall complexity of the site and the ecological services available. Re-establish a small 1,500 linear feet (1.4 acres) of secondary ephemeral channel along the northern high floodplain. This will improve flow conditions during rain events and create hydrologic flow complexity, as well as habitat complexity. Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 2-3 Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.15 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 530 Otay Land Company Mitigation Goals and Objectives Re-establish approximately 2,900 linear feet (2.6 acres) of an ephemeral secondary channel within the southern portion of the floodplain. This will improve flow conditions during rain events and create hydrologic flow complexity, as well as habitat complexity. Re-establish approximately 800 linear feet of the west tributary to connect with the re- established floodplain and secondary channels. This tributary currently is cut off by access roads and filled. Re-establish approximately 970 linear feet of the east tributary with the re-established floodplain and secondary channels. This tributary currently is cut off by access roads and filled. Re-establish approximately 28 acres of outer floodplain in the northern and southern portion of the site that, under current hydrologic conditions, function as alluvial fan habitat. The plan will remove berms, spoil piles, and numerous non-native trees including pepper trees, eucalyptus, and tamarisk. The recontoured outer floodplain will improve hydrological flow and hydrological conditions. This rehabilitation will also include regrading the outer floodplain that was not returned to natural conditions following the departure of sand-mining operations. Rehabilitation of this area will include installation of native riparian plants following invasive plant removal and regrading. Rehabilitate approximately 31 acres of upland transitional habitat in the northern and southern portion of the site through recontouring, revegetation, and removal of non-native species. This habitat serves as a buffer to the restored riverine system and provides foraging and breeding habitat for many species and refugia for riparian species during high flood events. Upgrade one permanent at-grade channel crossing at the downstream end of the project using rock and other natural hard material and protect the existing SDG&E gas transmission line. Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 2-4 Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.15 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 531 Chapter 3 Proposed Mitigation Site Baseline Information 3.1Mitigation Site Location and Background Information The mitigation site is generally located south and west of the Lower Otay Reservoir, north of the George F. Bailey Detention Facility, and north of the Otay Water District Roll Reservoir. Parcels are located on land owned by the City of Chula Vista, the City of San Diego and the County of San Diego. It is located immediately south of the Savage Dam, which impounds the Otay River waters within the Lower Otay Reservoir, and includes the mainstem of the Otay River that initially runs southeast through a deep canyon and around a large hill and then runs generally westerly where it broadens into a large floodplain. The mitigation area is included within the City of Chula Vista General Plan, the Otay Ranch General Development and Resource Management Plan, the County of San Diego Multiple Species Conservation Program Subarea Plan, and the Otay River Watershed Special Area Management Plan. %´¯§¸£±¸ ² ¤£¨³§ It occurs within designated critical habitat for Quino checkerspot butterfly ( quino ; Quino) as well as within the recommended survey area for Quino (USFWS 2014). Surrounding lands to the east and west support undeveloped lands with mostly native habitat. Park, and the Otay Water District Roll Reservoir and associated pump stations. 3.2Climate Climate in the mitigation area is characterized as Mediterranean, with generally warm dry summers (June through September) and mild, wet winters (October through May) (Major 1977). The Mediterranean climate results in relatively long periods of low-flow dry conditions, with minimal runoff into the Otay River. These dry conditions are punctuated by brief, seasonal episodes of heavy rainfall and higher volume runoff. Monthly average extreme temperatures generally range between a mean low of 48°F in December through January and a mean high of 75°F in July through September (Western Regional Climate Center 2014). Mean annual rainfall in the mitigation area is 11.3 inches/year (National Weather Service Lower Otay Reservoir Weather Station 2013). The Otay River Watershed occurs within a naturally fire-prone landscape. Data from the U.S. Forest Service Database indicates that the mainstem region immediately below the Savage Dam of the mitigation area has burned four times since 1994, most recently during the 2007 Harris Fire, while the downstream river portion and floodplain has burned once during that period in the 1994 Otay Fire. Many species in the Southern California region produce seeds capable of germinating only as a result of exposure to fire or smoke from a fire; however, a too-frequent fire regime may burn areas before native vegetation has time to reach maturity and the ability to produce seed. The frequent fires in the upstream region may have had negative effects on the watershed by affecting the hydrological processes indirectly by altering the physical and chemical properties of soil and Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 3-1 Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.15 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 532 Otay Land Company Proposed Mitigation Site Baseline Information converting plant cover to soluble ash, thereby increasing soil runoff, erosion, and sedimentation in the channel. 3.3Hydrologic Conditions 3.3.1Watershed The mitigation area is part of the approximately 145-square-mile (92,920-acre) Otay River Watershed, which is situated between the Sweetwater River Watershed to the north and the Tijuana River Watershed to the south; the latter extends over the international border with Mexico. The 25-mile-long Otay River originates at San Miguel Mountain, flows through the Upper and Lower Otay Reservoirs, continues west, and empties into San Diego Bay (Aspen 2007). The mitigation area is situated approximately in the middle of the Otay River Watershed and contains a floodplain and the Otay River main channel up to the Savage Dam and Lower Otay Reservoir. The area exists in a post-disturbance state; the floodplain was mined for sand/gravel in the 1980s, and a portion near the Savage Dam was most recently burned in 2003. 3.3.2Historic Hydrological Conditions Historically, the mitigation area was part of a large watershed that drained into San Diego Bay at the River. The Upper Otay Dam was built in 1901; it forms the Upper Otay Reservoir, which serves as a municipal water supply. The Lower Otay Dam, which represents the northern border of the mitigation area, was originally built in 1897 as rock- and earth-fill based on massive masonry with a riveted steel plate diaphragm. It was erected by the Southern California Mountain Water Company to provide water storage. Information about the Otay River Watershed before the construction of the original dam is extremely limited (Aspen 2007). The original Lower Otay Dam failed catastrophically during a high rain event in 1916. The 1916 dam failure drained the Lower Otay Reservoir in 2.5 hours and sent a wall of water initially 100 feet high down through the canyon and river valley, destroying buildings, bridges, and farms, and killing 11 people. The canyon immediately downstream of the dam was completely scoured of vegetation and boulders (McGlashan and Ebert 1918). The Lower Otay Reservoir dam was replaced in 1919 after the flood of 1916 with a concrete gravity- arch structure known as the Savage Dam, which still stands today. The Savage Dam forms the approximately 49,510 acre-foot Lower Otay Reservoir and supplies drinking water to parts of Southern California. The Lower Otay Reservoir was designed primarily to provide a water supply for with its sediment supply and has limited flood control capacity (Aspen 2007). However, both the Upper and Lower Otay Reservoirs effectively handle increased flow from small rain events in the upper watershed and have mostly eliminated major flood events along the Otay River; dam spills are infrequent and minor. 3.3.3Existing Hydrological Conditions Existing conditions for the plan area are primarily defined by the construction of Savage Dam in 1919 as development in the immediate watershed has remained minimal. The dam has experienced Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 3-2 Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.15 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 533 Otay Land Company Proposed Mitigation Site Baseline Information spillovers resulting in water entry to the Otay River a total of 27 times since 1919. As such, the Otay River immediately downstream of the dam does not receive water from the upper watershed except during rain events and infrequent minor over-spills. The dam and reservoir have distorted the sediment equilibrium of the Otay River by retaining all of the upstream sediment, causing a sediment deficit and channel degradation for the portion of the mainstem below the Savage Dam. The 1916 dam failure had temporary effects on the shape of the river, and channel-forming events have not occurred since the flood of 1916; therefore, the planform of the Otay River below the Savage Dam has remained largely stable during the twentieth century. The Lower Otay River currently has a low degree of sinuosity and consists of braided streams with multiple bars and islands. However, sand and gravel extraction activities have affected the topography of the Otay River mainstem and make braiding patterns difficult to evaluate (Aspen 2007). Three creeks flow into the mitigation area: two are un-named drainages that meet the Otay River from the south (Features , which meets the Otay River toward the downstream end of the restoration project (Feature 5) on the southern edge of the mitigation area and originates in the Otay Mountain Wilderness near Otay Mountain (see Section 3.9 and Figure 3-3 for further information). None of the drainages are gaged, and no readily available Creek runs primarily through undeveloped land with the exception of the R.J. Donovan Correctional Facility. The creek flows through a culvert and through a significant embankment supporting the access road connecting the East and West Mesa portions of the facility. This culvert acts as a significant flood management facility as the slopes are very steep and the high road embankment is greater than undeveloped land that is inaccessible by automobile (Aspen 2007). The occurrence of plant material y River Valley is significant as this confluence facilitates the introduction into the floodplain of rare plant species originating from Otay Mountain. Salt Creek runs through the extreme northwest portion of the project site but does not drain into the floodplain. The impounding of river waters by the installation of the Savage Dam has changed the hydrological functions of the Otay River mainstem, and sand and gravel extraction activities and migration of foreign materials into the area have changed the original sediment distribution on the Otay River (Aspen 2007). In-stream mining typically degrades and destabilizes streambeds by causing a reduction of downstream sediment supply and also dilutes and removes soil organic matter, nutrients, and native seed banks. Disruption of the soil profile leads to leaching of nutrients and soil moisture loss (Aspen 2007). Similarly, because the mitigation site is situated immediately below the Savage Dam it no longer receives perennial water. It is therefore no longer fully functional as a river and river floodplain and primarily provides hydrologic, biogeochemical, and habitat functions associated with intermittent/ephemeral streambeds and dry alluvial fans, although several scattered areas persist that support riparian habitat. The river channel immediately south of the dam runs through a deep canyon and contains scattered areas of riparian habitat which support native trees such as willows; however, due to dry conditions it also supports Diegan coastal sage scrub species such as laurel Malosmalaurina sumac ( ). The river channel contains abundant nonnative species such as !±¤¢ ¢¤ ¤ eucalyptus, pepper tree, palm trees (spp.), and tamarisk. The downstream floodplain area that was mined for sand was not restored to natural conditions. The departure of Nelson and Sloan Materials from the river valley potentially preceded laws Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 3-3 Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.15 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 534 Otay Land Company Proposed Mitigation Site Baseline Information requiring reclamation after site abandonment, and site conditions indicate that the company removed its equipment and left the floodplain in a highly disturbed condition. Literature indicates that at least the top 15 feet of soil was removed from the site; conditions on site indicate that at least the top 20 feet of soil was removed from some areas, thereby reducing the elevation of possibly a majority of the floodplain area and removing topsoil along with associated native seedbank, microorganisms, and nutrients. Sediment and gravel piles appear in abundance throughout the floodplain, and several deep pits and large berms remain. In addition, dozens of smaller, roughly south direction, opposite to that of flow, and are easily seen in aerial photographs. Previous studies of the Otay River Watershed have concluded that it is not a major source of groundwater. Groundwater within the watershed occurs within unconsolidated alluvium, semi- consolidated sedimentary bedrock and bedrock surrounding the alluvium, and the flow generally mimics surface topography. Most of the groundwater in the watershed occurs west and downstream of the mitigation area. Significant changes to the hydrologic and sediment regimes of the Otay River mainstem have occurred as a result of the curtailment of channel discharge and sediment deposit due to the installation of the Savage Dam; because of these changes, it is expected that over time the Otay River will experience flattening of slopes and downcuts in the upper reaches and aggrade in the lower reaches. The San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG 1985) characterizes the Otay Groundwater basin to be in hydrologic equilibrium, such that recharge and discharge are approximately equal. The portion of mitigation site that is directly within the river floodplain provides minimal short- and long-term storage of surface water in scattered areas within the mainstem and within the floodplain (watershed management). 3.4Water Quality Water quality monitoring data are not available for the mitigation area. Groundwater quality downstream of the mitigation area is rated as marginal to inferior for domestic and irrigation purposes because of high total dissolved solids and high chloride concentrations, respectively (Aspen 2007). Groundwater upstream of the mitigation area generally meets safe drinking standards; however, some sampling locations have high iron, manganese, chloride, nitrate, and/or total dissolved solids concentrations (Aspen 2007). 3.5Topography The mitigation site is completely contained within the existing Otay River Valley. At the upstream end of the site the valley is narrow (approximately 100200 feet) for several hundred feet before widening noticeably to approximately 1,0001,500 feet. Most of the site resides in this wide section of the valley floor. The proposed channel alignment meanders through the wide valley before tying back into the existing channel near the downstream end of the site where the valley walls close back in to approximately 500 feet. The valley floor itself is mostly flat, but does feature several topographic features: on both the north and south sides of the proposed channel alignment there are dozens of mine tailing mounds (approximately 810 feet tall), which were left behind as a result of instream sand and gravel mining in the twentieth century. Several ponds are present north of the proposed channel alignment, with an average depth of approximately 58 feet relative to adjacent ground. Elevations of the valley floor itself range from approximately 228 feet at the downstream Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 3-4 Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.15 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 535 Otay Land Company Proposed Mitigation Site Baseline Information end to 252 feet at the upstream end; typically the valley floor is 1020 feet below the adjacent ground of the surrounding foothills. 3.6Formerly Used Defense Site (FUDS) The mitigation site is located within the Brown Field Formerly Used Defense Site (FUDS) (Figure 3- 1). The Brown Field Bombing Range (also known as the Otay Mesa Bombing Range, the Otay Bombing Target, or Otay Mesa Bombing Target #32) was used by the Navy as a dive-bombing practice range, and later as an aerial rocket range. The property was used by the Navy between 1942 and 1960. By mid-1961, the bombing range and the easement had been determined to be surplus and assigned to the General Services Administration for disposal. The Department of Defense (DoD) has established the Military Munitions Response Program (MMRP) to address DoD sites suspected of containing munitions and explosives of concern (MEC) or munitions constituents (MC). Under the MMRP, the USACE is conducting environmental response activities at FUDS for the Executive Agent for the FUDS program. A MMRP Site Inspection (SI) report was prepared for the Brown Field FUDS boundary (Parsons 2007). The primary objective of the MMRP SI is to determine whether a FUDS project warrants further response action under Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) or not. The SI collects the minimum amount of information necessary to make this determination. Additionally, it (i) determines the potential need for a removal action (ii) collects or develops additional data, as appropriate, for Hazard Ranking System (HRS) scoring by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA); and (iii) collects data, as appropriate, to characterize the release for effective and rapid initiation of the Remedial Investigation and Feasibility Study (RI/FS), if warranted. An additional objective of the MMRP SI is to collect the additional data necessary to complete the Munitions Response Site Prioritization Protocol (MRSPP). The SI for the Brown Field Bombing Range evaluated potential MEC and MC presence within the Munitions Response Site (MRS) designated within the FUDS eligible property boundary. Although sand mining activities occurred for more than two decades after range activities ceased, there is still a potential to unearth unexploded ordinances (UXO). As such implementation of restoration activities will include safety measures as described in Chapter 5. 3.7Soil Characteristics It is important to note when describing soils within the Mitigation parcel that Nelson and Sloane Materials operated several sand pits in the Otay River Valley. In 1982 they had permits to mine in three locations within the river valley and two locations along terrace deposits adjacent to the river valley, and the floodplain area of the mitigation area was mined for sand by this company (Kohler and Miller 1982). Its operations ended in approximately 1985 because Nelson and Sloan was unable to complete new permitting processes required for in-stream mining (Miller 1996). Soils in the Otay East sub-basin are predominan The riparian areas and previously active floodplains of the Otay River lack distinct layers and are generally well drained and poorly developed (Aspen 2007). Soils in the floodplain area are characterized as having a high infiltration rate when thoroughly wetted, comprising primarily deep Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 3-5 Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.15 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 536 Otay Land Company Proposed Mitigation Site Baseline Information well-drained sand and gravel. The water transmission rate is high, while runoff potential is low. The California Division of Mines and Geology has classified lands according to the presence or absence of significant sand and gravel deposits and crushed rock source areas in the form of Mineral Resource Zones (MRZs). The Otay River Valley in the mitigation area is classified as MRZ-2, which are Quaternary river channel and floodplain deposits, Tertiary and Quaternary conglomerate and alluvial fans, Cretaceous granitic rocks, and Jurassic meta-volcanic rocks (California Department of Conservation 1982). The mitigation area ranges in elevation from 230 feet above mean sea level at its lowest point in the floodplain area of the Otay River to 370 feet above mean sea level at its highest point just below the Savage Dam. Otay River well logs indicate that the depth of sand and gravel is approximately 90 feet; however, mining did not occur much below 15 feet due to a clay layer that was reported by mining companies to occur at approximately that depth. Sand to gravel ratio was reported to be 50/50 (California Department of Conservation 1982). Five soil types, as defined by the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), are mapped within the mitigation site (Bowman 1973; NRCS 2014). These include Olivenhain-cobbly loam, Huerhuero loam, Visalia gravely sandy loam, Riverwash, San ilt loams, and Terrace escarpments. /«¨µ¤§ ¨ ¢®¡¡«¸ «® ¬ soils are well-drained, moderately deep to deep, cobbly loams with a cobbly clay subsoil and form in old gravelly or cobbly alluvium. They occur on gentle to strong slopes on dissected marine terraces at elevations of 100 to 600 feet. They are generally well- drained with slow or medium runoff and very slow permeability. (´¤±§´¤±® «® ¬ ²®¨«² are moderately well-drained loams with a clay subsoil that have developed in sandy marine sediments at elevations of 10 to 400 feet and slopes of 2 to 30%. 6¨² «¨ ¦± µ¤«¸ ² £¸ «® ¬ soils consist of moderately well-drained, very deep sandy loams that occur on alluvial fans and floodplains and are derived from granitic alluvium. They occur on slopes of 0 to 15% at elevations of 100 to 2,000 feet. loam is about 50% San Miguel silt loam and 40% Exchequer silt loam. Soils in the San Miguel series consist of wellshallow to moderately deep silt loams that have a clay subsoil. Soils in the Exchequer series consist of shallow and very shallow, site. Riverwash typically occurs in intermittent stream channels. The material is typically sandy, gravelly, or cobbly and is well-drained and rapidly permeable. Shrubs and forbs occur in patches and many areas are bare. This soil type is often mined for sand and gravel. 4¤±± ¢¤ ¤²¢ ±¯¬¤³² landscapes. The terrace escarpments typically occur on the nearly even fronts of terraces or alluvial fans between narrow flood plains and adjoin uplands, often with 4 to 10 inches of loamy or gravelly soil over soft marine sandstone, shale, or gravelly sediments. They occur typically on the coastal plain and small areas in foothills. 3.8Vegetation Communities and Habitat Types The southern portion of the floodplain has self-vegetated primarily with plants consistent with Eriogonum Diegan coastal sage scrub and alluvial fan communities; these plants include buckwheat ( Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 3-6 Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.15 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 537 K:\\San Diego\\projects\\Otay_Land_Co_Village\\00296_14_8and9_Mitigation_Site\\mapdoc\\HMMP\\Fig03_1_FUDS.mxd 1/25/2016 35528 Otay Land Company Proposed Mitigation Site Baseline Information fasciculatumArtemisiacalifornicaHeteromeles ), laurel sumac, California sagebrush ( ), toyon ( arbutifoliaBaccharissarothroides ), and broom baccharis ( ), although the area also contains numerous nonnative invasive species such as pepper tree and tamarisk. The southwestern side of se of (¤²¯¤±®¢¸¯ ±¨² ¥®±¡¤²¨¨ Tecate cypress (). The northern portion of the floodplain is a near monotypic stand of tamarisk, which is a species that lowers the water table and salinizes the soil in areas that it has invaded (Busch and Smith 1995). The downstream floodplain also contains scattered areas of riparian habitat containing native trees such as willows, as well as several areas of freshwater marsh; however, these areas also contain abundant individuals of eucalyptus, pepper tree, palm tree, and tamarisk. In addition, a large eucalyptus woodland has established on the western portion of the floodplain, which also contains numerous individuals of pepper trees and tamarisk. In November 2013, ICF biologists conducted a vegetation mapping exercise of the entire project area including the Mitigation parcel and the upstream drainage up to Savage Dam. Vegetation communities were categorized using the standard classifications of Oberbauer et al. (2008). A list of all plant species opportunistically detected in the mitigation areas are provided in Appendix B. A total of 11 vegetation communities and land cover types were mapped within the mitigation area and upstream enhancement area and include Diegan coastal sage scrub, southern willow scrub, southern cottonwood-willow riparian forest, freshwater marsh, disturbed habitat, urban/developed, chamise chaparral, southern interior Cypress forest, nonnative grassland, eucalyptus woodland, and nonnative vegetation. (Table 3-1, Figures 3-2 and 3-3). Table 3-1. Vegetation Communities in the Mitigation Parcel and Upstream Enhancement Area 6¤¦¤³ ³¨® -¨³¨¦ ³¨® 5¯²³±¤ ¬ #« ²²¨¥¨¢ ³¨® 6¤¦¤³ ³¨® #®¬¬´¨³¸ £ , £ #®µ¤± 4¸¯¤² 0 ±¢¤« Enhancement Category (Acreage) Area (Acreage) 1 65100 Arundo-Dominated Riparian 0.016 - 37200 Chamise Chaparral 6.151 - 32500 Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub 73.967 23.503 Disturbed Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub 82.352 - 2 11300 Disturbed Habitat 20.216 0.014 79100 Eucalyptus Woodland 6.6.184 0.005 64140 Fresh Water (Open Water) 0.172 0.044 52400 Freshwater Marsh 0.255 0.008 63310 Mule Fat Scrub 0.0.506 - 42200 Non-Native Grassland 12.025 - 11000 Non-Native Vegetation 4.504 1.303 44320 San Diego Mesa Vernal Pool Complex 13.183 - 61330 Southern Cottonwood - Willow Riparian Forest 1.885 - Southern Cottonwood - Willow Riparian Forest - Disturbed 1.1.809 2 83200 Southern Interior Cypress Forest 2.82 - 37120 Southern Mixed Chaparral 1.498 4.225 63300 Southern Riparian Scrub - 0.790 63320 Southern Willow Scrub 0.010 - Southern Willow Scrub Disturbed 0.976 - Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 3-7 Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.15 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 540 Otay Land Company Proposed Mitigation Site Baseline Information 6¤¦¤³ ³¨® -¨³¨¦ ³¨® 5¯²³±¤ ¬ #« ²²¨¥¨¢ ³¨® 6¤¦¤³ ³¨® #®¬¬´¨³¸ £ , £ #®µ¤± 4¸¯¤² 0 ±¢¤« Enhancement Category (Acreage) Area (Acreage) 1 63810 Tamarisk Scrub 54.995 1.318 12000 Urban/Developed 0.014 0.396 42000 Valley and Foothill Grassland 2.078 0.370 '± £ 4®³ « 285.061 31.976 1 Based on Oberbauer et al. 2008. 2 the use of the term in Oberbauer et al. 3.8.1Arundo-Dominated Riparian These areas are densely vegetated riparian thickets dominated almost exclusively by giant reed. This designation should only be used where Arundo accounts for greater than 50% of the total vegetative cover within a mapping unit. This species is a problem throughout Southern California and is extensive along most of the major rivers. In San Diego County, this vegetation community is common in major river channels such as Otay River, Sweetwater River, San Diego River, San Dieguito River, and San Luis Rey River. 3.8.2Chamise Chaparral !£¤®²³®¬ ¥ ²¢¨¢´« ³´¬ This community is dominated by chamise () and exists in the southeastern portion of the mitigation site. This habitat is an important community for a variety of small native animals such as rodents, rabbits, and lizards as well as their predators such as the California species #±®³ «´² ±´¡¤± of special concern red diamond rattlesnake (). 3.8.3Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub Diegan coastal sage scrub is considered to be a sensitive habitat by USFWS, CDFW, and many local jurisdictions and is thought to be one of the most endangered vegetation types in California (Atwood 1993); it is characterized by low-growing, woody, drought-deciduous aromatic shrubs and typically occurs on hotter, south-facing slopes. Diegan coastal sage scrub was the dominant habitat type on the coastal plains of San Diego County; its occurrence has been greatly reduced by development. Because of prior significant disturbance within the mitigation area, Diegan coastal sage scrub exists in tracts of varying quality and species composition. This habitat exists in the mitigation area along roadsides and hillsides; this community is often dominated by California buckwheat, deerweed !¢¬¨²¯® ¦« ¡¤±3 «µ¨ ¯¨ (), and white sage () with scattered individuals of lemonade berry 2§´² ¨³¤¦±¨¥®«¨ () and California sagebrush that are suffering severely from current drought conditions. Other areas along roads and streambeds are heavily dominated by broom baccharis. The Diegan coastal sage scrub community within the floodplain is dominated by California buckwheat, laurel sumac, toyon, and lemonade berry while low-lying areas with more moisture contain )µ § ¸¤²¨ abundant San Diego marsh-elder (; California Rare Plant Rank 2.2). A few drought- &¤±®¢ ¢³´² µ¨±¨£¤²¢¤² affected individuals of San Diego barrel cactus () occur within the mitigation area. This community provides nesting habitat for a variety of avian species including those protected by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act (MBTA) federally listed species protected by the Endangered Species Act, including federally listed as Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 3-8 Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.15 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 541 K:\\San Diego\\projects\\Otay_Land_Co_Village\\00296_14_8and9_Mitigation_Site\\mapdoc\\HMMP\\Fig03_2_MitParcel_Veg.mxd Date: 1/25/2016 35528 Freshwater Eucalyptus Woodland Savage Dam Freshwater Non-Native Marsh Vegetation Non-Native Vegetation Disturbed Habitat Southern Riparian Scrub Eucalyptus Woodland Non-Native Vegetation Valley and Foothill Grassland Southern Mixed Chaparral 37120 Southern Mixed Chaparral Diegan Coastal Valley Sage Scrub and Foothill Grassland Tamarisk Scrub Non-Native Southern Vegetation Mixed Chaparral Tamarisk Scrub Non-Native Vegetation Legend Upstream Enhancement AreaEucalyptus WoodlandSouthern Riparian Scrub Vegetation FreshwaterTamarisk Scrub Freshwater MarshUrban/Developed Diegan Coastal Sage Scrub Non-Native VegetationValley and Foothill Grassland Disturbed Habitat Southern Mixed Chaparral ± Figure 3-3 0200400 Upstream Enhancement Area Feet Otay River Restoration Project ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 544 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 545 Otay Land Company Proposed Mitigation Site Baseline Information 0®«¨®¯³¨« threatened and California species of special concern coastal California gnatcatcher ( ¢ «¨¥®±¨¢ ¢ «¨¥®±¨¢ ) and the federally listed as endangered Quino. 3.8.4Disturbed Habitat Disturbed habitat consists of areas that have experienced persistent mechanical disturbance that has resulted in severely limited native plant growth; these areas may be depauperate or may support sparsely distributed nonnative and/or native vegetation. Disturbed areas exist within the floodplain area as dirt roads and as areas that experience heavy use by off-road vehicles. 3.8.5Eucalyptus Woodland This habitat often consists of monotypic stands of introduced eucalyptus trees. The understory is typically depauperate or sparse due to allelopathic properties of the eucalyptus leaf litter. While not described in Holland (1986) as a distinct vegetation community, it is assigned a category in the Draft Vegetation Communities of San Diego County (Oberbauer et al. 2008); it is widespread throughout San Diego County, often occupying large tracts of land and displacing native plant communities. Eucalyptus trees are found as individuals or in small populations throughout both the Otay River channel and the Otay River floodplain. A large eucalyptus woodland exists in the northwestern portion of the site that also contains tamarisk and pepper trees. Eucalyptus woodlands provide habitat and foraging value for many native animals, and are utilized by raptors for nesting and roosting sites and may therefore be considered a resource for those species. 3.8.6Fresh Water (Open Water) Fresh water areas are composed of year-round bodies of fresh water (extremely low salinity) in the form of lakes, streams, ponds, or rivers. This includes those portions of water bodies that are usually covered by water and contain less than 10% vegetative cover. Within the Mitigation parcel these areas are predominantly located in the seasonal ponds, which are deep enough to hit groundwater on the northern side of the floodplain as well as upstream of the eastern channel crossing where water ponds. In this dry intermittent/ephemeral setting, these year-round fresh water sources are a unique habitat. 3.8.7Freshwater Marsh This community occurs in areas where water tends to accumulate and supports emergent plant 4¸¯§ Scirpus species such as cattail (sp.) and bulrush ( sp.). Freshwater marsh occurs in scattered locations within the Otay River channel and the floodplain. This community provides nesting habitat !¦¤« ¨´² ¯§®¤¨¢¤´²#¨²³®³§®±´² ¯ «´²³±¨² for the red-winged blackbird () and marsh wren (), and provides foraging habitat for numerous avian species. 3.8.8Mule Fat Scrub " ¢¢§ ±¨² ² «¨¢¨¥®«¨ A depauperate, tall, herbaceous riparian scrub strongly dominated by mule fat() and commonly found in intermittent stream channels with fairly coarse substrate. This early seral community is maintained by frequent flooding. Absent the frequent disturbance, most stands would 0®¯´«´² ¥±¤¬®³¨¨0« ³ ´² ± ¢¤¬®² succeed to cottonwood () or sycamore () dominated riparian Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 3-9 Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.15 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 546 Otay Land Company Proposed Mitigation Site Baseline Information forests or woodlands. This habitat is heavily used for both nesting and foraging by birds including 6¨±¤® ¡¤««¨¨ ¯´²¨««´² coastal (). 3.8.9Nonnative Grassland (or Annual Grassland) Nonnative grassland is a dense to sparse cover of annual grasses with flowering culms less than 1 meter high. The vegetation community often occurs where native habitats such as native grassland and coastal sage scrub habitat have been disturbed or removed. It is often associated with numerous species of showy-flowered, native annual forbs (wildflowers), especially in years of favorable "± ²²¨¢ ¨¦± rainfall. In San Diego County the presence of black mustard (), slender wild oats !µ¤ ¡ ±¡ ³ BromusErodium cicutarium (), a variety of brome grasses ( sp.), and red-stem filaree ( ) are common indicators. In some areas, depending on past disturbance and annual rainfall, annual forbs may be the dominant species; however, it is presumed that grasses will soon dominate. Germination occurs with the onset of the late fall rains; growth, flowering, and seed-set occur from winter through spring. With a few exceptions, the plants are dead through the summerfall dry season, persisting as seeds. Remnant native species are variable. Nonnative grasslands are considered sensitive habitat by CDFW and some local jurisdictions because they may serve as habitat linkages and may support raptor foraging and sensitive plant species. Nonnative grassland occurs in scattered locations within the mitigation area including along roadsides and upon hillsides containing species such as black mustard, slender wild oats, a variety of - ±±´¡¨´¬ µ´«¦ ±¤, ¢³´¢ ²¤±±¨®« brome grasses, horehound (), prickly lettuce (), and tocalote #¤³ ´±¤ ¬¤«¨³¤²¨² (). Some isolated individual native shrub species persist in some of these areas. 4§®¬®¬¸² -gophers ( bottae#±®³ «´² ®±¤¦ ´² §¤««¤±¨ ) and native reptiles such as the Southern Pacific rattlesnake (), and is often of value to raptors as foraging areas. 3.8.10Nonnative Vegetation Nonnative vegetation communities are dominated by plant species that do not naturally and historically occur in this region. Some nonnative species may be characterized as invasive due to their ability to out-compete and displace native species. Nonnative vegetation within the mitigation #®±³ £¤±¨ ²¤««® area includes pepper tree, eucalyptus, pampas grass (), and tamarisk. Although this community may provide some support of native animal species in the form of shelter, foraging habitat, and roosting or nesting habitat, it is generally understood to degrade natural conditions, and may result in the exclusion of certain native animal species that are dependent upon natural plant species and habitats for their survival. 3.8.11San Diego Mesa Vernal Pool This habitat is characterized by small depressions in flat-topped marine terraces where Fe-Si cemented hardpan prevents downward drainage of rainwater. Soils often are stonier than Northern Hardpan Vernal Pools, and are always coarser and redder than San Diego Mesa Claypan Vernal Pools. San Diego Mesa Vernal Pool is very similar in aspect to Northern Hardpan Vernal Pools, but with different species composition. This is a low, amphibious, herbaceous community dominated by annual herbs and grasses. Germination and growth begin with winter rains, often continuing even when inundated. Rising spring temperatures evaporate the pools, leaving concentric banks of vegetation that colorfully encircle the drying pool. Surrounding high ground is often mantled with Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 3-10 Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.15 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 547 Otay Land Company Proposed Mitigation Site Baseline Information chamise chaparral. In addition to often supporting a suite of unique wildlife including fairy shrimp and various amphibians, these pools also host a variety of unique flora. This includes San Diego %±¸¦¨´¬ ±¨²³´« ³´¬ ¯ ±¨²§¨¨ -¸®²´±´² ¬¨¨¬´² button-celery (var.),tiny mousetail(),spreading . µ ±±¤³¨ ¥®²² «¨² 0®¦®¦¸¤ ´£¨´²¢´« navarretia(),and Otay Mesa mint(). 3.8.12Southern Cottonwood Willow Riparian Forest This habitat is composed primarily of tall tree species such as willows, cottonwood and sycamore that are adapted to wet conditions, and are found in streambeds and other wet areas. They support high avian diversity and abundance, and provide nesting habitat for species such as yellow warbler 3¤³®¯§ ¦ ¯¤³¤¢§¨ !¢¢¨¯¨³¤± ¢®®¯¤±¨¨%¬¯¨£® · ³± ¨««¨¨ (), and willow flycatcher (). 3.8.13Southern Interior Cypress Forest This community is considered a sensitive natural community by the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) and applicable local jurisdictions. It is typically a dense, fire-maintained, low forest of even-aged stands of Tecate cypress, often surrounded by chaparral. The mitigation area contains stands of Tecate cypress, a tree found only in four isolated groves in Orange County and San Diego County, and in Baja California, Mexico. In San Diego County, groves occur on Guatay Mountain, Otay Mountain, and Tecate Peak. The majority of the Otay Mountain population burned during the Otay Fire in 2003, and most of the Tecate Peak population burned during the Harris Fire CallophrysMitoura¦±¸¤´² ³§®±¤¨ \[\] ) is completely dependent upon this species for its survival; this butterfly lays eggs only upon this species of cypress. 3.8.14Southern Mixed Chaparral Southern mixed chaparral occurs in the coastal foothills of San Diego County and northern Baja California, usually below 3,000 feet (910 meters). It is composed of broad-leaved sclerophyll shrubs ranging in height from 1.5 to 3 meters tall. It is a dense habitat but occasionally occurs with patches of bare soil or with Venturan Coastal Sage Scrub (32300) or Riversidean Sage Scrub (32700) forming a mosaic. In San Diego County, it is dominated by blue-colored lilacs, especially Ramona lilac #¤ ®³§´² ³®¬¤³®²´²olivaceus#ȁ «¤´¢®£¤±¬¨²#ȁ ®«¨¦ ³§´²Ceanothus ( var. ) as well as and ; other spp. generally indicate other chaparral types. 3.8.15Southern Riparian Scrub This vegetation community occurs throughout San Diego County and is characterized by riparian zones dominated by small trees or shrubs, lacking taller riparian trees. At times it can be found encroaching into some Coastal Saltmarsh habitats. It is often associated with river systems where scour events occur, minimizing the opportunity for large trees to form. This habitat is characterized 3 «¨· « ²¨®«¤¯¨²Salix by arroyo willow () and other willow species ( spp.). As with other riparian habitats, vireo. Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 3-11 Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.15 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 548 Otay Land Company Proposed Mitigation Site Baseline Information 3.8.16Southern Willow Scrub Southern willow scrub communities are riparian thickets dominated by several willow species, mule fat, and occasionally western cottonwood. Many stands are too dense to allow much understory 3 «¨· development. Within the mitigation area this community included Gooddings black willow ( gooddingii7 ²§¨¦³®¨ ±®¡´²³ ), cattail, Mexican fan palm (), giant reed, Canary Island date palm, and Peruvian pepper tree. Southern willow scrub in the mitigation area supports the federally and state-listed as endangered l bird species protected by the federal MBTA. 3.8.17Tamarisk Scrub This community comprises a weedy, virtual monoculture of tamarisk species. These stands often occur as a result of major disturbance. Tamarisk outcompetes native species due to its extensive lateral root system that can draw down the water table, and it develops very deep roots. Its leaves secrete salt crystals that when introduced into the soil can prevent native plants from establishing. Tamarisk is also prolific seeder, and has replaced riparian habitat within the floodplain that was disturbed as a result of sand-mining activities. 3.8.18Urban/Developed Urban/developed land cover is characterized by areas that have been constructed upon or otherwise physically altered to an extent that native vegetation is no longer supported. Developed land is characterized by permanent or semi-permanent structures, pavement or hardscape, and landscaped areas that often require irrigation. Areas where no natural land is evident due to a large amount of debris or other materials being placed upon it may also be considered Urban/Developed (e.g., car recycling plant, quarry). Little to no vegetation occurs in these areas other than ruderal, disturbance-loving species and a variety of ornamental (usually nonnative) plants. 3.8.19Valleys and Foothill Grassland Valleys and Foothill Grassland are a low-growing (less than 2 feet) grassland habitat dominated by StipaNasellapulchra perennial, tussock-forming purple needlegrass ( \[previously \] ). Native and introduced annuals occur between the perennials, often actually exceeding the bunchgrasses in Sanicula cover. In San Diego County, native perennial herbs such as sanicles ( spp.), checkerbloom 3¨£ «¢¤ 3¨²¨±¸¢§¨´¬ ¡¤««´¬%²¢§²¢§®«¹¨ ¢ «¨¥®±¨¢ (spp.), blue-eyed grass (), California poppy (), or , ²³§¤¨ goldfields (spp.) are present. Nonnative grasses occurring include those described in the nonnative grassland vegetation community above. The percentage cover of native species at any one time may be quite low, but is considered native grassland if 20% aerial cover of native species is present. 3.9Sensitive Species No formal plant or wildlife surveys have been conducted within the restoration sites. At this time, wildlife species within the restoration sites are limited due to the lack of native habitat and the disturbed nature of the sites. Prior to conducting fieldwork, the CNDDB (CDFW 2015) was reviewed for the most recent distribution information for special-status plant and wildlife species within the Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 3-12 Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.15 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 549 Otay Land Company Proposed Mitigation Site Baseline Information Otay Lakes USGS quadrangles. Table 3-2 depicts the approximate locations of these observations within a 1-mile radius of the project area. Special-status species are those that meet any of the following criteria. Listed as endangered, threatened, or proposed for listing as endangered by USFWS. Listed as endangered, threatened, or rare by CDFW. Considered special vascular plants, bryopytes, or lichens by CDFW. Listed on the California Native ) Inventory of Rare and Endangered Plants of California. W. A search of the CNDDB revealed 41 species of plants and wildlife that were recorded within 1 mile of the restoration site (Appendices C and D). An additional 19 wildlife species with no CNDDB records within 1 mile of the restoration site were also determined to have potential to occur in the plan area based on species range and habitat requirements. These species are also included in Appendix D. Federally and/or state-listed plant and wildlife species that are known to occur in the mitigation site are presented in Table 3-2. A brief discussion of these species follows. Table 3-2. Federally and/or State-Listed Species with CNDDB Records Within 1-Mile Radius of the Restoration Areas .¤ ±¤²³ 3¢¨¤³¨¥¨¢ . ¬¤ #®¬¬® . ¬¤ Status $¨²³ ¢¤ (feet) Plants $¤¨ £± ¢®©´¦¤² Found on site Otay tarplant FT, SE %±¸¦¨´¬ ±¨²³´« ³´¬ 180 var. parishii San Diego button-celery FE, SE . µ ±±¤³¨ ¥®²² «¨² Found on site spreading navarretia FT 0®¦®¦¸¤ ´£¨´²¢´« 1,982 Otay Mesa mint FE, SE Wildlife "± ¢§¨¤¢³ ² £¨¤¦®¤²¨² Found on site San Diego fairy shrimp FE 3³±¤¯³®¢¤¯§ «´² ¶®®³³®¨ 423 Riverside fairy shrimp FE %´¯§¸£±¸ ² ¤£¨³§ °´¨® 660 Quino checkerspot butterfly FE 6¨±¤® ¡¤««¨¨ ¯´²¨««´² Found on site least Bells vireo FE, SE 0®«¨®¯³¨« ¢ «¨¥®±¨¢ ¢ «¨¥®±¨¢ Found on site coastal California gnatcatcher FT #®¢¢¸¹´² ¬¤±¨¢ ´² ®¢¢¨£¤³ «¨² 4 western yellow-billed cuckoo FT, SE Federal FE = listed as endangered under the federal Endangered Species Act. FT = listed as threatened under the federal Endangered Species Act. State SE = listed as endangered under the California Endangered Species Act. Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 3-13 Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.15 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 550 Otay Land Company Proposed Mitigation Site Baseline Information 3.9.1San Diego Fairy Shrimp (.ƩğƓĭŷźƓĻĭƷğ ƭğƓķźĻŭƚĻƓƭźƭ) Federally Listed as Endangered San Diego fairy shrimp are small freshwater crustaceans that are found in shallow vernal pools and other ephemeral basin (USFWS 2002). San Diego fairy shrimp is found in southwestern coastal California and extreme northwestern Baja California, Mexico, with all known localities below 2,300 feet and within 40 miles of the Pacific Ocean, from Santa Barbara County south to northwestern Baja California (USFWS 1997, 1998a, 2002). These species can also occur in road ruts and ditches that provide suitable conditions for the species. Water temperature is an important factor for this fairy shrimp. The water must not get too hot (above 86°F) or too cold (below 41°F) for this species to occur (USFWS 2002). San Diego fairy shrimp were historically prevalent in vernal pool complexes across Otay Mesa (USFWS 2008). 3.9.2Riverside Fairy Shrimp ({ƷƩĻƦƷƚĭĻƦŷğƌǒƭ ǞƚƚƷƷƚƓź) Federally Listed as Endangered Riverside fairy shrimp are limited to a small number of vernal pools, all in Riverside, San Diego, or coastal Orange counties or Baja California. This small (less than an inch long) shrimp spends late spring and summer as an encysted embryo, lying in the soil left behind when the pools dry up. After the rains of winter arrive, filling the pools again, the larvae emerge and mature into adults, filter feeding on detritus and zooplankton. This process may require as much as 2 months to complete, 3ȁ ¶®®³³®¨ depending on water temperature. Because of this relatively long development period, tends to be found only in deeper, more dependable pools. Survival of this species is further challenged by its inability to tolerate muddy, salty, or alkaline conditions. Listed as endangered on August 2, 1993, major threats include habitat loss due to urban and agricultural development, off- road vehicles, trampling, and other human-initiated disturbance 3.9.3Quino Checkerspot Butterfly (9ǒƦŷǤķƩğǤğƭ ĻķźƷŷğ ƨǒźƓƚ) Federally Listed as Endangered %ȁ ¤£¨³§ Quino checkerspot butterfly ) and is a member of the Nymphalidae family, and the Melitaeinae subfamily, checkerspots and fritillaries. Primary host 0« ³ ¦® ¤±¤¢³ plants for the Quino are dot-seed plantain (), thread-k #®±£¸« ³§´² ±¨¦¨£´²!³¨±±§¨´¬ ¢®´«³¤±¨ ´¬ (), and white snapdragon (). Larval Quino may also # ²³¨««¤© ¤·¤±³ ) as primary or secondary host plants and will diapauses in or near the base of native shrubs, such as California buckwheat. Quino are generally found in open areas and ecotone situations that may occur in a number of plant communities, and optimal habitat appears to contain little or no invasive exotic vegetation, and densely vegetated areas are not known to support Quino (Mattoni et al. 1997). Habitat patch suitability is determined primarily by larval host plant density, topographic diversity, nectar resource availability, and climatic conditions (USFWS 2003). The life cycle of Quino begins with adult Quino during flight season between late February and May, when adult butterflies move about to search for nectar sources and mates. Eggs hatch in about 10 days, and larvae begin to feed immediately and migrate in search of additional plants to consume (USFWS 2003). When plants dry out, and the larvae are in their third or fourth instar of development, they enter an obligatory diapause. Diapause is a low-metabolic resting state that may Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 3-14 Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.15 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 551 Otay Land Company Proposed Mitigation Site Baseline Information last a year or more depending on conditions, and enables larvae to survive seasonal climatic extremes and times of extended adverse conditions, such as drought. The time between diapause termination and pupation can range from 2 weeks to 3 months. Sufficient rainfall is required to break diapause, which normally occurs during November or December. After diapause, larvae become active and feed until they enter their pupal stage. Within 2 to 6 weeks they transform into adults and emerge as butterflies. Adults live for approximately 10 to 14 days. 3.9.4źƩĻƚ ĬĻƌƌźź Ʀǒƭźƌƌǒƭ) Federally Listed as Endangered; State-Listed as Endangered The lvireo is a small, grayish songbird whose breeding distribution extends northwest to from San Diego County north to Santa Barbara County (rarely to Monterey County and formerly to the northern Sacramento Valley), northeast to Inyo County, south into northern Baja California, Mexico, and east into the edges of the deserts at a few points such as at the Mohave River (USFWS 1998). Nesting elevation ranges from below sea level to at least 4,100 feet. The subspecies winters in southern Baja California (Howell and Webb 1995). vireo numbers are currently increasing, with a 400 to 500% increase estimated between 1986 and 1996. However, they remain -®«®³§±´² ³¤± imperiled in the long term, primarily by brown-headed cowbird () nest parasitism and threats to the quantity and quality of remaining potential habitat (USFWS 1998b). vireos select dense vegetation low in riparian zones for nesting. As discussed in Franzreb (1989), among 126 locations of California nests recorded in the literature and in museum records, 71 (56%) were in willows and 14 (11%) were in wild rose (Rosa spp.). The remaining nests were distributed among 20 other species of vines, shrubs, herbs and trees. At least locally, least vireos will also fairly commonly use non-riparian habitats such as chaparral for foraging and even nest location when more typical habitat is adjacent (Kus and Miner 1989). about 26 feet (Salata 1983). Salata believed that a dense, shrubby layer near the ground was a critical component in the breeding habitat. Goldwasser (1981) found that the most critical structural component is a dense shrub layer from 2 to 10 feet from the ground, which agrees with findings of both Salata (1983) and Gray and Greaves (1984). Vegetation preferences are well-summarized in the study by Goldwasser: nest sites, although nearly all other common riparian shrub species are used. The frequency with which a given plant is chosen seems to be consistent with the relative abundance of shrubs growing in riparian woodlands. There is no obvious preference for any of the uncommon shrubs as nest sites and no apparent avoidance of As determined from field data for Southern California (RECON 1990) vireo nest sites are most frequently located in riparian stands between 5 and 10 years old. Even though mature trees are present at many of the sites, the average age of willow vegetation in the immediate vicinity of most nests was between 4 and 7 years. When mature riparian woodland is selected, vireos nest in areas with a substantial robust understory of willows as well as other plant species (Goldwasser 1981). Based on rigorous statistical analysis of vireo habitat structure and composition (RECON 1990), vireos appear to select sites with large amounts of both shrub and tree cover, a large degree of vertical stratification, and small amounts of aquatic and herbaceous cover. Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 3-15 Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.15 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 552 Otay Land Company Proposed Mitigation Site Baseline Information 3.9.5Coastal California Gnatcatcher (tƚƌźƚƦƷźƌğ ĭğƌźŅƚƩƓźĭğ ĭğƌźŅƚƩƓźĭğ) Federally Listed as Threatened The coastal California gnatcatcher is a small, gray, insect-gleaning bird. It is the only subspecies of the California gnatcatcher occurring in the United States. It is a year-round resident of sage scrub of several subtypes and is currently listed by USFWS as a threatened species (USFWS 1993, 1995). Within California it is found from the Mexican border north to extreme eastern and southern Los Angeles County with several small, disjunct populations known north to the Moorpark area of Ventura County. It extends east into western San Bernardino County and well across cismontane Riverside County. Habitat losses, degradation, and fragmentation due to land alteration and development are considered the major threats (Atwood 1990, 1993). 3.9.6Western Yellow-billed Cuckoo (/ƚĭĭǤǩǒƭ ğƒĻƩźĭğƓǒƭ ƚĭĭźķĻƓƷğƌźƭ) Federally Listed as Threatened; State-Listed as Endangered This neotropical migrant is a relative of the roadrunner and an inhabitant of extensive riparian forests. It formerly occurred from southwestern British Columbia south to the highlands of northern Mexico and the Yucatan Peninsula, wintering in South America. It has declined from a fairly common, local breeder in much of California 60 years ago, to virtual extirpation, with only a handful of tiny populations remaining in all of California today. Losses are tied to obvious loss of nearly all suitable habitat, but other factors may also be involved. Relatively broad, well-shaded riparian forests are utilized, although it tolerates some disturbance. A specialist to some degree on tent caterpillars, young develop remarkably quickly covering only 1821 days from incubation to fledging. 3.10Jurisdictional Delineation A jurisdictional delineation was performed by ICF biologists within the mitigation site on November 12 and 13, 2014. Prior to beginning the field delineation aerial photography, USGS topographic maps and National Wetland Inventory maps were analyzed to determine the locations of potential areas of USACE, RWQCB, and CDFW jurisdiction. Based on the pre-field analysis it was determined that both wetland and non-wetland features had the potential to occur within the plan area. Potential jurisdictional features were evaluated for the presence of a definable channel and/or wetland vegetation, soils, and hydrology. The plan area was analyzed for potential wetlands using #®±¯² ®¥ %¦¨¤¤±² 7¤³« £ $¤«¨¤ ³¨® - ´ « the methodology set forth in the 1987 2¤¦¨® « 3´¯¯«¤¬¤³ ³® ³§¤ #®±¯² ®¥ %¦¨¤¤±² (Environmental Laboratory 1987) and the 2008 7¤³« £ $¤«¨¤ ³¨® - ´ «Ȁ !±¨£ 7¤²³ 2¤¦¨® (USACE 2008a). Lateral limits of non-wetland waters were identified using field indicators (e.g., ordinary high water mark \[OHWM\]) (USACE 2008b). While in the field, potential jurisdictional features were recorded onto a 100-foot-scale color aerial photograph using visible landmarks and mapped using a Trimble hand-held Global Positioning 4§¤ *¤¯²® System (GPS) unit with sub-meter accuracy. Vascular plants were identified using - ´ «Ȁ 6 ²¢´« ± 0« ³² ®¥ # «¨¥®±¨ 4§¤ . ³¨® « 7¤³« £ 0« ³ ,¨²³ (Baldwin et al. 2012) and (Lichvar et al. 2014). Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 3-16 Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.15 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 553 Otay Land Company Proposed Mitigation Site Baseline Information A total of 13 features were delineated on site, including the Otay River, 9 ephemeral/intermittent tributaries, and 3 depressional wetlands/open water areas located farther in the floodplain. Table 3- 3 presents the acreage and linear feet for each feature delineated. Figure 3-4 shows the location and extent of USACE/RWQCB and CDFW jurisdiction. Below is a brief description of each feature delineated. &¤ ³´±¤ ΐ is the Otay River, which enters the site from the east (flowing west) and supports wetland habitat within its defined OHWM for approximately 1,306 feet until it sheetflows within a board floodplain across the remainder of the property. &¤ ³´±¤ Α is an ephemeral drainage, flowing in a northern direction for approximately 1,093 linear feet before entering the Otay River. &¤ ³´±¤ Β is an ephemeral drainage, flowing west along a hillside. Indicators of OHWM and a defined bed and bank end at an access road, and the feature appears to sheetflow toward the bottom of the valley. &¤ ³´±¤ Γ supports OHWM and wetland habitat and flows in a northern direction within the survey area. The upstream portion of Feature 4 supports wetland habitat, supporting both shallow groundwater and a dominance of San Diego marsh-elder, a facultative wetland species. However, the downstream portion of the feature does not support wetland habitat or shallow groundwater contributions and is more characteristic of an ephemeral drainage, dominated by upland coastal sage scrub species. Indicators of OHWM and a defined bed and bank end at an access road, and the feature appears to sheetflow toward the bottom of the valley. &¤ ³´±¤ Δ northwestern direction within the survey area. This feature supports OHWM and is characteristic of a desert wash; until it hits the valley floor a defined channel no longer exists and the channel sheetflows west along with the Otay River. &¤ ³´±¤ Ε is an ephemeral drainage that flows in a southwestern direction. OHWM was observed throughout the length of the feature. The feature flows outside of the mitigation site survey area, eventually flowing along the valley bottom. &¤ ³´±¤ Ζ is an ephemeral drainage, flowing in a southern direction before flowing directly within the Otay River. &¤ ³´±¤ Η is an ephemeral drainage that flows in a northwest direction for approximately 321 linear feet before dissipating. Indicators of OHWM and a defined bed and bank end once the feature reaches a flat and broad open space, and appears to only sheetflow toward the bottom of the valley. &¤ ³´±¤ Θ is an ephemeral drainage, flowing south along a hillside before turning west, paralleling an access road. The feature eventually peters out and sheetflows along the road no longer supporting a defined OHWM or bed and bank. &¤ ³´±¤ 10 is also known as Salt Creek. Only a short segment (307 linear feet) occurs within the mitigation site. This feature supports both OHWM and wetland habitat, dominated by mule fat and 4¸¯§ £®¬¨¦¤²¨² southern cattail (). &¤ ³´±¤² ΐΐ £ ΐΑ are human-made depressional wetlands that are primarily unvegetated open water habitat with a freshwater marsh fringe. These features support both a defined OHWM and wetland habitat. Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 3-17 Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.15 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 554 Otay Land Company Proposed Mitigation Site Baseline Information &¤ ³´±¤ ΐΒ is a human-made depressional wetland supporting freshwater marsh habitat. This feature supports both a defined OHWM and wetland habitat. Table 3-3. Existing Mitigation Area Wetlands and Waters USACE/RWQCB CDFW 3³±¤ ¬ Non- Length 7¤³« £ 7¤³« £ 3³±¤ ¬¡¤£ 2¨¯ ±¨ &¤ ³´±¤ Ͱ Ȩ«¨¤ ± ¥¤¤³ȩ (acres) (acres) (acres) (acres) 1111 1 (Otay River) 1,306 0.98 1.94 2 1,093 0.17 0.30 3 678 0.05 0.07 4 704 0.08 0.32 0.15 0.32 2,096 0.91 1.51 6 891 0.07 0.13 7 206 0.01 0.02 8 321 0.02 0.04 9 588 0.03 0.06 10 (Salt Creek) 307 0.12 0.28 11 N/A 0.05 12 N/A 0.02 13 N/A 0.12 Total 8,191 1.34 1.62 2.28 2.54 1 Total acreage may not add up to the total shown; total is reflective of rounding geographic information system (GIS) raw data in each category. USACE = U.S. Army Corps of Engineers RWQCB = Regional Water Quality Control Board CDFW = California Department of Fish and Wildlife N/A = not applicable 3.11Existing Functions and Values Although the site is degraded and the wetlands within the Mitigation parcel are limited as a result of past activities, there are still various functions provided by the existing wetlands and the adjacent upland areas (Figure 3-3). These functions may include but are not limited to groundwater recharge due to the extensive alluvium soils on site, wildlife movement opportunities due to the connectivity to adjacent open space and preserve land, and nesting and foraging habitat associated with the existing vegetation. The area provides foraging and limited water sources for a variety of mammal, avian, reptile and amphibian species, including sensitive species. Coastal California gnatcatcher is present within coastal sage scrub communities on site, and the area has potential to support the federally listed as endangered Quino checkerspot butterfly. Southern willow scrub in the area supports the federally and state- habitat for a variety of bird species protected by the MBTA. The dry conditions in the floodplain have allowed for the establishment of several groves of the Tecate cypress. A major population of this species was severely affected by the Otay Fire of 2003; this floodplain population may be an important source for seed for restoration on Otay Mountain and other areas. Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 3-18 Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.15 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 555 K:\\San Diego\\projects\\Otay_Land_Co_Village\\00296_14_8and9_Mitigation_Site\\mapdoc\\HMMP\\Fig03_4_JD.mxd Date: 1/25/2016 35528 Otay Land Company Proposed Mitigation Site Baseline Information Current wetland conditions were assessed using the California Rapid Assessment Method (CRAM). CRAM was conducted on the upstream channel at the eastern side of the parcel and within one of the three onsite seasonal pools. This information will be used with the restoration design to project the es ambient conditions of a wetland and has been in development over the last 10 years in collaboration with resource agencies defensible, standardized, cost-effective assessments of the status and trends in the condition of ). The final CRAM score for each Assessment Area (AA) is composed of four main attribute scores (buffer and landscape context, hydrology, physical structure, and biotic structure), which are based on the metric and submetric scores (a measurable component of an attribute) (Table 3-4). The anticipated relationships between the CRAM attributes and metrics, and various ecological services expected from conceptual models of wetland form and function, are presented in Table 3-5. The CRAM practitioners assign a letter rating (AD) for each metric/submetric based on a defined set of D) has a fixed numerical value (A=12, B=9, C=6, D=3), which, when combined with the other metrics, results in a score for each attribute. Each metric/submetric condition level (letter rating) has a fixed numerical value, which, when combined with the other metrics, results in a raw score for each attribute. That number is then converted to a percentage of the maximum score achievable for each attribute and represents the final attribute score ranging from 25 to 100%. The final overall CRAM score is the sum of the four final attribute scores, ranging from 25 to 100%. Table 3-4. CRAM Attributes and Metrics Attributes -¤³±¨¢² £ 3´¡¬¤³±¨¢² Aquatic Area Abundance Buffer: Buffer and Landscape Context Percentage of Assessment Area with Buffer Average Buffer Width Buffer Condition Water Source Hydrology Hydroperiod Hydrologic Connectivity Structural Patch Richness Physical Topographic Complexity Plant Community Composition: Number of Plant Layers Structure Number of Codominant Species Biotic Percentage Invasion Horizontal Interspersion and Zonation Vertical Biotic Structure Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 3-19 Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.15 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 558 Otay Land Company Proposed Mitigation Site Baseline Information Table 3-5. Expected Relationship among CRAM Attributes, Metrics, and Key Services "´¥¥¤± £ , £²¢ ¯¤ Physical Biotic Attributes Context Hydrology Structure Structure "´¥¥¤± £ , £²¢ ¯¤ )µ ²¨® #®¤¢³¨µ¨³¸ -¤³±¨¢² #®£®¬¨ ³ 3¯¤¢¨¤² .´¬¡¤± ®¥ 0« ³ 3³±´¢³´± « 0 ³¢§ 6¤±³¨¢ « "¨®³¨¢ )³¤±²¯¤±²¨® 7 ³¤± 3®´±¢¤ 4®¯®¦± ¯§¨¢ Hydroperiod Connectivity -¤³±¨¢² ®± (¸£±®«®¦¨¢ (®±¨¹®³ « .´¬¡¤± ®¥ Complexity age 3³±´¢³´±¤ Submetrics Richness Percent , ¸¤±² Short- or long-term surface water storage Subsurface water storage Moderation of groundwater flow or discharge +¤¸ 3¤±µ¨¢¤² Dissipation of energy Cycling of nutrients Removal of elements and compounds Retention of particulates Export of organic carbon Maintenance of plant and animal communities A summary of the attribute scores for each of the CRAM assessment areas is provided in Table 3-6. For metric scores and worksheets, refer to Appendix E. The overall CRAM score for the upstream segment of the Otay River (Feature 1) was 74% and the depressional wetland (Feature 13) was 57%. A discussion of the scoring factors is provided below. Table 3-6. Summary of CRAM Attribute Scores for Existing Wetland Features "´¥¥¤± £ /µ¤± «« 0§¸²¨¢ « "¨®³¨¢ !²²¤²²¬¤³ !±¤ Ȩ!!ȩ !! 3¨¹¤ , £²¢ ¯¤ Hydrology #2!- Structure Structure #®³¤·³ 3¢®±¤ Score #1 (Riverine; Feature 1) 130 meters 93% 92% 37.5% 72% 74% 0.2 acre 48% 83% 38% 61% 57% #2 (Depressional; Feature 13) Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 3-20 Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.15 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 559 Otay Land Company Proposed Mitigation Site Baseline Information It is important to note that these CRAM scores are only applicable to the minimal wetlands documented on site. Because the remaining site is not currently classified as a wetland, the CRAM score for those areas is considered 0 at this point. !³³±¨¡´³¤ ΐǾ "´¥¥¤± £ , £²¢ ¯¤ #®³¤·³Ȁ Full 250-meter buffers were present throughout the AAs; however, they were primarily vegetated with nonnative grasses and/or disturbed coastal sage scrub and subject to minor soil disturbance. The Aquatic Area Abundance score (proximity to other aquatic resources) for the Depressional AA was low due to the minimum amount of adjacent aquatic features, which affected the overall attribute score. !³³±¨¡´³¤ ΑǾ (¸£±®«®¦¸Ȁ Due to the construction of the reservoir upstream, the watershed that drains to the AAs has diminished significantly. Since this has been the existing condition for the past century, the remaining existing watershed (i.e., excluding all areas upstream of the dam) was determined to be the appropriate watershed for this assessment. Water source throughout the site was primarily natural, with some runoff potentially occurring from the small amount of development surrounding the site. Some aggradation was observed within the Riverine AA, reducing its score to a B, while the Depressional AA received a reduced score in hydrologic connectivity due to its steep banks along approximately 60% of the AA. !³³±¨¡´³¤ ΒǾ 0§¸²¨¢ « 3³±´¢³´±¤Ȁ Topographic Complexity and Structural Patch Richness scored low for both AAs. The AAs did not support benches and were generally flat along the channel bottom. !³³±¨¡´³¤ ΓǾ "¨®³¨¢ 3³±´¢³´±¤Ȁ Both AAs supported 23 plant layers with low species richness (three codominant species); the overall attribute scored low. However, invasive species were low within these areas, only accounting for 33% or less of the biotic structure. 3.12Present and Proposed Uses of Mitigation Site and Adjacent Areas The mitigation area is currently undeveloped. Open space bounds the western, eastern and southern boundaries of the mitigation area as well as large portions of the northern boundary. Various dirt roads and unofficial trails traverse the parcel. These roads are used for a variety of purposes including for National Security by the U.S. Border Patrol and for utility maintenance by SDG&E, OWD, the City of San Diego, and the City of Chula Vista. The roads also act as unofficial trails and are heavily used by hikers, cyclists, and equestrians (Figure 3-5). SDG&E accesses the site on a monthly basis to monitor the conditions of their electric poles and buried gas line. OWD manages a critical pipeline at the upstream end of the project as well as supporting infrastructure throughout their right-of-way. Both the City of San Diego and U.S. Border Patrol use the site for general access as it applies to their mission on this and adjacent properties. Many of these roads are identified as future multi-use trails as part of the OVRP Concept Plan and the City Greenbelt Master Plan (Figures 3-5 and 3-6). Altogether there is approximately 6,500 linear feet of the future Greenbelt Master Plan trail and approximately 10,200 linear feet of OVRP trails that occur on the property. This area is a travel route for migrants entering the U.S. from Mexico; there is regular immigrant foot traffic through the river valley and a corresponding significant use of the area by Border Patrol agents using off-road vehicles. The persistent use by these large vehicles has resulted in large berms perpendicular to the flow of water at the upstream crossings, which Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 3-21 Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.15 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 560 Otay Land Company Proposed Mitigation Site Baseline Information impound surface water, creating ponds upstream and forcing the limited surface water supply to go subsurface. Large portions of the floodplain area are fenced along the south side at the road edge, and there are several signs denoting this area as a sensitive habitat. The upland roads experience regular use by bicyclists, and the floodplain area experiences heavy use by equestrians, despite the sensitive habitat signs posted along the fence. The equestrians additionally appear to be grazing their horses within the upland and floodplain habitats; several large areas of grazing by horses were noted as evident by hoof prints and horse droppings. Adjacent land uses include the OVRP and City of Chula Vista Water Treatment Plant north of the floodplain, and the Richard J. Donovan and George Bailey Correctional Facilities to the south. Nearby planned land uses include light industry in the agricultural areas of upper Johnson Canyon and low-density residentia Canyon. Although the Project has attempted to focus users (i.e., Border Patrol and recreationalists) to key access roads and trails while closing some permanently, it has not been designed to preclude future trail development and use. As road and trail uses are expected to persist and potentially increase with the future construction of the Otay Villages, it is critical to protect the restoration site while simultaneously educating the public and maintaining utility access. To prevent the restoration site from being disturbed by future users, wooden split-rail fencing would be installed at key locations along these existing road and trail corridors (Figures 3-5 and 3-6). The fencing, along with signage indicating the general sensitivity of the restoration site and providing wayfinding, would help to minimize trespassing from trail users who would otherwise be unaware of the sensitivity of the habitat restoration area. In addition, educational kiosks would be installed at key viewing locations within the disturbed areas near the existing dirt roadways to help inform the readers of the importance of the restoration site. Figures 3-5 and 3-6 identify the designated Greenbelt Master Plan (Master Plan) trail and the OVRP trails, and indicate where these corridors are located within the project site. The figures also indicate which trails (i.e., existing roads) would receive trail improvements such as split-rail fencing, signage, and educational kiosks and which trails would be closed. Improvements associated with the consistent with the guidelines of that plan and would be installed on existing roads or disturbed habitat that cross and meander in Per the Master Plan as well as SDG&E Right of Way Guidelines, the restoration project would identify a 14-foot-wide trail location for the Greenbelt Trail to accommodate multiple uses. Improvements associated with trails identified under the OVRP Concept Plan would be consistent with the guidelines of that plan and would be installed on existing roads that cut through the restoration site and also meander south and east across the property. The restoration project would allow for trail corridors consistent with Type A, B, and C that range between 4 and 8 feet in width. All road and trail improvements would avoid existing road ponds that support San Diego fairy shrimp by moving the alignment as needed, and the adjacent upland area would be restored with native species. The proposed restoration project would armor two at-grade road crossings through the active floodplain to provide access to the user community while protecting the restored hydrology on site. The western (downstream) crossing corresponds to the 40 foot wide SDG&E right-of-way corridor for a 36 inch gas transmission line. Any improvements to this crossing with be done in accordance with the SDG&E gas pipeline cover standards. The draft 60% plans will be provided to SDG&E Electric and Gas Transmission department for review and comments. Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 3-22 Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.15 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 561 K:\\San Diego\\projects\\Otay_Land_Co_Village\\00296_14_8and9_Mitigation_Site\\mapdoc\\HMMP\\Fig03_5_TrailsOverview.mxd Date: 4/25/2016 35528 K:\\San Diego\\projects\\Otay_Land_Co_Village\\00296_14_8and9_Mitigation_Site\\mapdoc\\HMMP\\Fig03_6_TrailsDetail.mxd Date: 3/2/2016 35528 Otay Land Company Proposed Mitigation Site Baseline Information Proposed general improvements to each crossing would include over-excavation, underlain by native large rock, and reformed to match the stream profile as much as possible for safe crossing and utility protection. The armoring would be provided to prevent the washing away of the crossings during flood events and eliminate the current berming resulting from consistent vehicle use during wet conditions. These artificial berms currently impound water upstream and force the limited surface hydrology subsurface. In addition, the restoration project proposes four road closures that would be revegetated per the HMMP as these are either redundant or relocated as discussed with U.S. Border Patrol, SDG&E, and OWD. ICF and the City of Chula Vista have been in communication with these entities on these road closures, and all are in agreement that they would not limit their ability to achieve their missions. Border Patrol has asked to install reflectors along trail fencing at road intersections, trail closures, and at the river crossings at specific locations. The exact location of these reflectors will be coordinated with the Border Patrol to ensure safe passage. 3.13Reference Site Due to the degraded nature of the mitigation site and the uniqueness (broad and sandy) relative to the surrounding areas, no reference site has been identified. Upstream of the mitigation site is narrow, drier, and dominated by upland scrub species while the downstream portion is degraded and dominated by nonnative tamarisk scrub. The restoration ecologist will use their best professional judgement and experience in similar systems to discuss the trajectory of the site and potential reference conditions. Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 3-23 Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.15 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 566 Otay Land Company Proposed Mitigation Site Baseline Information This page intentionally left blank. Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 3-24 Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.15 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 567 Chapter 4 Mitigation Design 4.1Site Selection Process This specific mitigation location was selected after reviewing compensatory mitigation opportunities near the development projects as well as the watershed planning documents including the Otay WMP and the draft SAMP. The Otay River Valley lies in proximity to the mitigation sites and is an important historic waterway that has existed in a highly disturbed state for decades. This area was targeted for enhancement and rehabilitation due to its location at the upstream terminal point of the Otay River at Savage Dam and represents the upper portion of the Lower Otay River Watershed (Figure 4-1). This location is the crucial first step in the overall restoration of the lower Otay River sub-basins that exist below the Savage Dam and will be crucial to the success of future downstream restoration efforts by removing significant upstream invasive seed sources as well as improving hydrology and wetland functions. 4.2Mitigation Design This HMMP is designed to enhance, rehabilitate, and re-establish hydrological processes, vegetation communities, and wildlife habitats associated with the Lower Otay River Watershed that will be self- sustaining and can adjust to dynamic natural processes. The plan will re-establish primary and secondary flow channels, low and high floodplains, and native transitional habitat as well as remove nonnative invasive species and restore native vegetation. This will serve to improve hydrological conditions, reduce the significant upstream invasive species seed source, preserve connectivity between adjacent areas of preserved land and natural habitats, and preserve wildlife movement corridors, and will result in a net gain in functions and services following restoration activities. The restoration design could be installed in a single effort, but has also been designed in multiple self-functioning phases permitting the different projects (Village 3 and Village 8 West) requires Objectives phasing of activities (see Section 2.2, ). The restoration in the Otay River Valley, will begin with the enhancement of the upstream areas of the Otay River by removing and managing nonnative invasive species. This will be followed by the re-establishment of the Otay River mainstem and the creation of a secondary channel by re-contouring the disturbed floodplain and connecting existing pools in the northern plan area. An additional secondary channel and floodplain terrace will be re- established in the southern plan area to maximize the hydrologic function of the overall floodplain. Finally the transitional areas and upland habitat buffering the site will be rehabilitated by re- contouring appropriate slopes, removing invasive species, and planting appropriate native species. As shown in Figure 4-2, the site will include a series of restoration types as defined by the 2008 USACE mitigation rule including re-establishment, establishment, rehabilitation, and enhancement (EPA and USACE 2008). The following sections describe each of these restoration types and the specifics for this mitigation plan. Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 4-1 Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.15 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 568 Otay Land Company Mitigation Design 4.2.1Re-establishment As defined in the 2008 Mitigation Rule, re-establishment means the manipulation of the physical, chemical, or biological characteristics of a site with the goal of returning natural/historic functions to a former aquatic resource.-establishment results in rebuilding a former aquatic resource and results in a gain in aquatic resource area and functions. Because the site historically comprised a braided river channel and associated floodplain, most of the planned active restoration falls under re-establishment. This will be accomplished in the northern portion of the floodplain by re-creating a sinuous Otay River mainstem and in the southern portion of the floodplain by creating a secondary channel. The created channels will connect to the up- and downstream existing mainstem and will include a low and high terrace along with sandy bar complexes and will be designed to accommodate flood events. In particular the active low floodplain is intended to accommodate a 10- year flood event, while the high floodplain will likely correspond to a 25-year event. At larger events the entire valley floor will be inundated, and the water will rise into the upland areas as needed. 4.2.2Establishment As defined in the 2008 Mitigation Rule, establishment (creation) means the manipulation of the physical, chemical, or biological characteristics present to develop an aquatic resource that did not previously exist at an upland site. Establishment results in a gain in aquatic resource area and at this site is permanently changed as a result of Savage Dam. As such, what was once an intermittentperhaps even perennialsystem, now functions as an ephemeral system or limited intermittent system. Currently three seasonal ponds exist on the northern plan boundary. These features provide emergent habitat and water in an otherwise dry system. The restoration project has been designed with an additional series of seasonal ponds, all in the northern high floodplain so that their proximity to the other ponds creates a complex for wildlife movement and plant propagules. Because these seasonal features are not known to have been on site historically, they are considered establishment. The new seasonal ponds will only be engaged at extreme high flood events but will persist throughout most of the year as a result of their depth and shallow groundwater. 4.2.3Rehabilitation As defined in the 2008 Mitigation Rule, rehabilitation means the manipulation of the physical, chemical, or biological characteristics of a site with the goal of repairing natural/historic functions to a degraded aquatic resource. does not result in a gain in aquatic resource area. Rehabilitation activities will include removing flow-impeding features left behind by the mining operation, including existing berms, cobble rows, and sediment piles, and recontouring the transitional upland area to mirror adjacent natural slopes and accommodate rising floodwaters. This area will also be aggressively treated for nonnative species and revegetated with native species such as sage scrub and cactus scrub. Similarly, the current channel in the upstream portion of the site will be rehabilitated and will include access road improvements for the Border Patrol crossing, which is currently prohibiting flow as well as recontouring the channel and adjacent floodplain. These improvements to the vegetative cover are expected to result in improved hydrology and flood capacity, bio-filtration, and sediment and toxicant trapping. Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 4-2 Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.15 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 569 570 0 ¦¤ Packet !¦¤£ ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ K:\\San Diego\\projects\\Otay_Land_Co_Village\\00296_14_8and9_Mitigation_Site\\mapdoc\\HMMP\\Fig04_1_USGS_Watershed.mxd 9/11/2015 35528 571 0 ¦¤ Packet !¦¤£ ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ 2 A A K:\\San Diego\\projects\\Otay_Land_Co_Village\\00296_14_8and9_Mitigation_Site\\mapdoc\\HMMP\\Fig04_2_Resto_Types.mxd Date: 4/25/2016 35528 Otay Land Company Mitigation Design 4.2.4Enhancement As defined in the 2008 Mitigation Rule, enhancement means the manipulation of the physical, chemical, or biological characteristics of an aquatic resource to heighten, intensify, or improve a specific aquatic resource function(s).nt results in the gain of selected aquatic resource function(s), but may also lead to a decline in other aquatic resource function(s). Enhancement does not result in a gain in aquatic resource area. Enhancement activities would include removing and managing nonnative invasive species in several locations throughout the upstream enhancement area. This includes removal of arundo, tamarisk, palms, and eucalyptus. Removal of nonnative invasive plant species will help lower the overall distribution of nonnative seed and propagules within the watershed area and protect the primary restoration site within the Mitigation parcel. In addition, a series of (Figure 4-2). At this time these areas are not included in the restoration plan because the mitigation needs of the two projects (Village 3 and Village 8 West,) will be fulfilled by the other activities on site. However, this upland enhancement presents an ideal opportunity to further improve buffer habitat for the restoration site should another mitigation need arise. 4.3Rationale for Expecting Implementation Success The Otay River mainstem and floodplain exist in a highly degraded state due to the upstream impounding of the Otay River, years of sediment removal by mining activities, and the invasion of nonnative noxious plant species. Hydrology is generally considered the most important variable driving wetland and aquatic resource development (Mitsch and Gosselink 2000). The site has historically supported an intermittent braided stream and floodplain; however, the conditions that formed this system originally are now changed and the watershed reduced. As such, understanding the current hydrologic and hydraulic conditions of the site with the presence of Savage Dam is key to success. With a proper understanding of the current conditions, in particular hydrology and soils, restoration ecologists and the design team have developed a plan with appropriate elevations. This, coupled with the correct selection of local drought-tolerant riparian, transitional, and upland species, results in the high probability of successful re-establishment of a functional channel and floodplain system. The mitigation is also expected to be successful because of the location of the site within an open space preserve under the management of the City of Chula Vista and its proximity to other open space areas. The adjacent open space and other potential future restoration and mitigation efforts (that may occur in this area as a result of separate projects) will contribute to improved native habitat connectivity and wildlife habitat within the lower Otay River. In addition, the sites likelihood of success will be furthered by a robust monitoring and maintenance program during the 5 years following installation combined with a comprehensive long-term management plan. The surface hydrology and groundwater conditions currently support riparian (mostly invasive) vegetation; therefore, appropriate conditions exist to support wetlands species once grading activities and invasive tree eradication is conducted. Grading and contouring will improve conditions for water and sediment flow during rain events and improve elevations, which will allow for potential expansion of the riparian habitat. Species compositions for the mitigation area plant palettes were determined using surrounding native habitat as a reference and species observed in the area. Invasive nonnative species that have displaced native species within the plan area, Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 4-3 Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.15 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 574 Otay Land Company Mitigation Design including the upstream channel up to Savage Dam, will be removed, and an upland buffer area will protect the site from further invasion. Groundwater wells will be established in appropriate areas prior to final construction grading plans and plan implementation to determine depth to groundwater. Although Savage Dam impounds the Otay River waters upstream, hydrological flow occurs in the channel as a result of seasonal rain events, and input via secondary flow channels and overland flows also occurs. Groundwater elevations are believed to be shallow, as evident by the series of seasonal ponds in the northern section of the site. This information will be utilized to establish final plant palettes and final elevations as necessary to allow for successful establishment of container plantings and seed. 4.3.1Design Hydrology Development of an appropriate mitigation design to meet the goals and objectives for stream corridor re-establishment and associated riparian and floodplain enhancement requires an understanding of expected hydrologic conditions in the plan area proposed downstream of Savage Dam. The dam itself can serve as a source of surface water flows, but has only spilled 27 times in 11 water years since its reconstruction in 1919. Although it cannot be a reliable source of surface water, the mitigation design should recognize the design size of the spillway and its capacity to pass the required probable maximum flood of 170,600 cubic feet per second (cfs). This design flow would result when 15.5 feet of water depth crests the spillway. Such a flow event will inundate any proposed design with several feet of flow depth in the plan area and has the potential to cause substantial channel migration, erosion, and floodplain disturbance. A more reliable and frequent source of surface water will come from the local topography, which directs tributary flow toward the plan area in the watershed located upstream of the proposed mitigation site and downstream of the dam. Approximately, 14.3 square miles of watershed drain to the downstream point of the proposed mitigation site (Figure 4-3). The land use varies from open space in the south to urban in the north. To determine the approximate magnitude of expected Hydrologic Engineering CenterHydrologic Modeling System (HEC-HMS) and the design guidance and 3 $¨¤¦® #®´³¸ (¸£±®«®¦¸ - ´ « modeling methodology presented in the (County of San Diego 2003), ICF estimated peak storm runoff values for the upstream and downstream ends of the proposed plan area (Table 4-1). Table 4-1. HEC-HMS Estimated Peak Flows Frequency 5¯²³±¤ ¬ %£ ®¥ 0« !±¤ (cfs) $®¶²³±¤ ¬ %£ ®¥ 0« !±¤ (cfs) 2-year 730 2,310 5-year 1,200 3,190 10-year 2,560 5,500 25-year 2,800 6,300 50-year 3,760 7,980 100-year 4,420 8,930 Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 4-4 Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.15 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 575 K:\\San Diego\\projects\\Otay_Land_Co_Village\\00296_14_8and9_Mitigation_Site\\mapdoc\\HMMP\\Fig04_3_Hydrobasins.mxd Date: 9/11/2015 35528 Otay Land Company Mitigation Design As Table 4-1 shows, the flow peaks at the downstream end of the plan site are typically 2 times greater than those at the upstream end. This is due to increased runoff expected from the urban development. While these flows will generally pass downstream of the proposed plan area, their contribution to the stream can create a backwater effect and increase depths and retention times of flows passing through the plan area. This is an expected benefit given the goals and objectives of the HMMP, especially where additional floodplain activation will further enhance the performance. Finally, the mitigation design will rely on available groundwater. During site visits, remnant excavations from mining operations offered evidence that shallow (e.g., within 10 feet of the ground surface) groundwater was present in the plan area. The proposed design will include channel alignments and excavation depths to intercept available sources and improve the restoration performance to the extent possible. Building on the assessment of the surface water hydrology modeling, ICF is in the process of developing a hydraulic model to determine the expected water surface elevations during a variety of potential storm flow events. Using USACE , the mitigation design cross-sections will be paired with the expected storm flows. The resultant channel flow characteristicsincluding depth and velocitywill allow for refinement to the proposed grading design and plant palette/distribution. This information will be included in the Final HMMP. Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 4-5 Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.15 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 578 Otay Land Company Mitigation Design This page intentionally left blank. Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 4-6 Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.15 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 579 Chapter 5 Implementation Plan 5.1Schedule The compensatory mitigation program, which provides mitigation for permanent and temporary impacts, is contingent upon the approval of this conceptual mitigation plan by the resource agencies and local jurisdictions and the acquisition of the related permits. Upon appropriate approvals, implementation of the mitigation program could begin in the summer/fall of 2016. Table 5-1. Implementation Schedule )¬¯«¤¬¤³ ³¨® 4 ²ª² Schedule Nine months prior to planting Contract growing agreement with native plant nursery UXO Surface Sweep Prior to site work Remove invasive species (Phase 1) Winter/spring of implementation year, following breeding season completion Grade site (Phase 2) Fall of implementation year Promptly following site preparation Install temporary irrigation system (as needed) Plant container stock Following irrigation system installation and weed abatement (where needed). Apply hydroseed Immediately following container planting Install fencing and signage Immediately following planting and seeding 5.2Phased Installation If the agencies agree to the advanced permittee responsible mitigation for the development projects, then the HMMP will be implemented at one time. A single installation is both more cost effective and ecologically preferred. However, the restoration plan has been designed with the option of being installed in multiple distinct self-functioning phases if this approach is needed as a result of permitting and timing for the different projects. The first two phases would provide compensatory mitigation for Village 8 West and Village 3 with subsequent phases defined as projects move Objectives forward into permitting (see Figure 2-1 and Section 2.2, ). Phase 1 will begin with the enhancement of the upstream areas of the Otay River by removing and managing nonnative invasive species from the Mitigation parcel up to Savage Dam. Phase 1 will also include initial treatment of tamarisk within the Phase 2 footprint and treatment of large perennial woody invasive species within the entire mitigation parcel include the large trees (eucalyptus, palms, and Brazilian peppertree). Phase 2 will initiate the re-establishment of the Otay River mainstem at the upstream portion of the Mitigation parcel and will include a portion of the adjacent floodplain, a seasonal pool, and upland buffer habitat. Subsequent phases will include completing connection between the new mainstem channel and the downstream channel, the creation of secondary channels, and the remaining seasonal pools. Subsequent phases will rehabilitate the transitional areas and upland Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 5-1 Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.15 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 580 Otay Land Company Implementation Plan habitat buffering the site to the south by re-contouring appropriate slopes, removing invasive species, and planting appropriate native species. Table 5-2 shows the habitats and corresponding acreages that will be installed with each phase. Table 5-2. Compensatory Mitigation Quantities Phase Habitat !¬®´³ (acres) Phase 1 Enhancement Upstream Enhancement 2.74 Onsite Enhancement (Phase 2 footprint and trees 14.00 throughout Mitigation parcel) 0§ ²¤ ΐ 4®³ « 16.74 Phase 2 6¨«« ¦¤ Β Establishment Seasonal Ponds 0.31 Re-Establishment Primary Channel 0.14 Re-Establishment Active Low Floodplain (10-yr) 1.19 Re-Establishment High Floodplain/Transitional (non-jurisdictional) 0.24 Re-Habilitation Primary Channel 0.10 Re-Habilitation Active Low Floodplain (10-yr) 0.01 6¨«« ¦¤ Η7 Re-Establishment Primary Channel 1.67 Re-Establishment Active Low Floodplain (10-yr) 4.04 1 Re-Establishment High Floodplain/Transitional (non-jurisdictional) 3.06 (0.31 credit) Re-Habilitation Primary Channel 0.65 1 Re-Habilitation Upland (non-jurisdictional) 8.11 (0.81 credit) Re-Habilitation Active Low Floodplain (10-yr) 0.16 0§ ²¤ Α 4®³ « 19.70 Future Phase(s) Establishment Seasonal Ponds 1.03 Re-Establishment Primary Channel 3.45 Re-Establishment Active Low Floodplain 18.97 Re-Establishment High Floodplain (non-jurisdictional) 18.46 (1.85 credit) Re-Establishment Secondary Channel 2.22 Re-Habilitation Seasonal Ponds 0.38 Re-Habilitation Upland (non-jurisdictional) 39.04 &´³´±¤ 0§ ²¤ 4®³ «83.56 Optional Upland Enhancement 63.89 Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 5-2 Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.15 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 581 Otay Land Company Implementation Plan 5.3FUDS Safety Measures Phase 1, Invasive Species Removal Prior to initiating invasive species removal or any onsite grading activities, a surface clearance will be conducted on the Mitigation parcel where the property intersects the FUDS boundary and along any access roads and staging areas to identify all munitions and explosives of concern (MEC) and Munitions Debris (MD). A qualified survey company would be contracted and a team of experienced UXO staff would include a Senior UXO Supervisor (SUXOS) and a dual-hatted UXO Safety Officer (UXOSO)/Quality Control Specialist (UXOQCS). The team would be comprised UXO technicians that will be overseen by a UXO Technician team leader and will be equipped with hand-held metal detectors and GPS units. The UXO technicians will form a line and walk in parallel lines spaced approximately 10 feet apart, depending on vegetation and terrain. As the team progresses the Team Leader will place flags at the outside edge of the sweep line. The sweep team will return to the starting point using the flags as their guide to ensure complete coverage of the sweep area. The metal detectors will help the UXO technicians identify metallic items that may be obscured by vegetation or surface debris. The GPS units will track the paths of the UXO technicians. The data will be downloaded to a computer and used to ensure that the entire site has been covered and to generate site maps for reporting purposes. All munitions debris will be evaluated to determine if any explosive residue remains. If it is determined that there is the potential for an explosive hazard the SUXOS will contact local law enforcement to respond to the item and dispose it appropriately. All MD determined to no longer contain explosive residue will be inspected by the SUXOS and UXOSO and containerized in lockable 55-gaJJon drums for later disposal by an approved recycler. The SUXOS will prepare a MEC Daily Operational Journal for submittal to the Project Manager. The MEC Daily Operational Journal will detail the daily MEC operations, areas swept, items recovered, and the depth, orientation, and a Global Positioning System (GPS) location (latitude/longitude) of each MEC item identified. Upon completion of MEC construction support services, a Summary Report to include overall details from the Daily Operational Journals. Phase 2 and Future Phase(s) During all ground disturbing activities, the construction contractor will be accompanies by 1-2 qualified UXO technicians. The technicians will work directly with all earth moving equipment and will evaluate the excavated material as work progresses. The construction support team will use handheld magnetometers to detect all ferrous and non-ferrous anomalies in the soil that is being excavated or removed. Each of these anomalies will be evaluated to ensure that they do not pose a MEC hazard to the work crew. If no MEC items are identified excavations may be advanced to the depth of detection (not to exceed two feet). 5.4Grading Site Preparation The project will comply with all avoidance and minimization measures identified in the Biological Technical Report (ICF 2016) and the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND). This includes all pre-construction measures and construction measures. Initial site preparation activities will include the following. Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 5-3 Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.15 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 582 Otay Land Company Implementation Plan Defining and staking the limits of the work area, including temporary access roads, staging areas, and stockpile areas. Installing staking or fencing around Environmentally Sensitive Areas. Adding temporary signage notifying the public of activities. The site preparation effort necessary to prepare the wetland mitigation areas for native planting will include the removal of all invasive nonnative tree, shrub, and herbaceous species followed by grading of the channel and floodplain areas to remove spoil piles, berms, and pits to restore the area to the desired functions. Areas that contain tamarisk will require additional measures beyond removal of existing trees because this species will have created a copious seed bank in the soil that will result in sprouts that will need to be repeatedly treated for adequate management. 5.5Contractor Education Before beginning any installation activities, the installation landscape contractor and the lead field foreman will meet at the site with the restoration ecologist to review all installation, scheduling, and resource protection measures specified in this HMMP. The restoration ecologist will review all aspects of this HMMP, including site protection, inspections, landscape installation procedures, and guarantees. It will be made clear at that time that the restoration ecologist will have final say over review and acceptance of field installation. Prior to initiating any installation activities (including construction equipment placement or other non-ground-breaking activities), the restoration ecologist will develop and implement environmental training for the contractor and all subcontractor personnel, explaining the sensitive resources within the work area and adjacent areas. The environmental training will include information on the following. Project regulatory and permit requirements. Environmental compliance procedures and protocols. Water quality requirements and proper construction BMPs. Environmentally Sensitive Areas and no-access areas. Sensitive species and nesting birds. Consequences of noncompliance. Emergency response protocols. The installation contractor will notify the restoration ecologist when new crew personnel will be on site, and an additional environmental training will be scheduled before they are allowed to work. 5.6Access and Staging Prior to commencement of installation activities, the area limits of the restoration site will be surveyed and marked in the field. These limits will be checked and confirmed by the restoration ecologist and OLC before the contractor begins the installation phase. All access points, storage, and staging areas will be located in a manner that has the least impact on vehicular and pedestrian Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 5-4 Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.15 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 583 Otay Land Company Implementation Plan traffic as well as natural resources. The access and staging areas are still being identified but will be provided in the Final HMMP. To protect against contaminant leakages during access and staging, the contractor will be responsible for taking measures to prevent chemicals, fuels, oils, and other hazardous materials from entering public water, air, and/or soils. Disposal of any materials, waste, effluent trash, garbage, oil, grease, and chemicals will be done in accordance with state and federal regulations. the RWQCB 401 permit. 5.7Grading This HMMP presents the current conceptual plan (Figure 5-1), which combined with the digital terrain model, hydrology model, and hydraulic model currently under development will be used to generate 60% grading plans and specs suitable for constructionwith the understanding that the ideal construction approach will be design/build. This construction/installation strategy allows for maximum flexibility in the final restoration contours and provides opportunities for the restoration ecologists to direct the installation contractor throughout the embracing the existing natural conditions and modifying the design at a fine-scale resolution that cannot be depicted in plans and specs. These fine-scale modifications may include, for example, such features as channel bars, tertiary channels, swales, cobble pools, and small islands in the floodplain. As part of the conceptual design, ICF utilized currently available and newly flown (2015) topographic data to create a digital terrain model of the plan area. The data was useful for the development of conceptual design cross-sections, plan views, and initial cost estimates based on the amount of material that will need to be moved/excavated. The ICF design team created a single --sections to convey the conceptual design intent (Figure 5-2). Channel layout considers the anticipated geomorphology of the mitigation area and the potential staging and construction phasing to allow an efficient earthwork operation to achieve the conceptual plan grading. ICF is developing cut-and-fill quantities required to achieve the conceptual design grading to 30% and 60%. All attempts will be made to balance the cut-and-fill on site. Based on a preliminary site visit, it is evident that spoils areas may be needed. The final 60% plans will identify upland rehabilitation areas within the plan boundaries for excess spoils placement. Depending on the desired vegetation establishment, topsoil may need to be imported to assist in achieving required health and vigor. At this time no soil import is anticipated. Following initial design of the restoration project, the grading limits have been further restricted to and other nesting birds. The project will avoid most significant stands of riparian habitat in the project site as shown in Figure 5-1. Prior to installation the grading plans will also be updated to reflect this avoidance area. Within these avoidance areas, project activities will be limited to enhancement (non-native treatment), which will be conducted through the use of hand tools to drill and poison nonnative trees that will be left in place. Following agency review of the draft HMMP and conceptual drawing, final grading plans will be prepared by the civil engineer in coordination with the plan biologist. Grading activities will focus on removing berms, spoil piles, and pits left behind by the sand extraction operation and Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 5-5 Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.15 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 584 Otay Land Company Implementation Plan achieving the appropriate contouring such that a natural hydrological regime may be restored. Site grading plans for the mitigation areas shall be incorporated into the final grading plans. 5.8Soils Analysis No soil nutrient testing or amendments are proposed because the long term success of species should be based on existing conditions. However, due to the historic sand mining operations finer sand and silts are expected to be limited on site, and, as such, import of smaller grain materials may be warranted. This decision will be made during grading by the restoration ecologist because the overall current composition of soil on site is highly disturbed. 5.9Nonnative Tree Removal All vegetation remnants from tamarisk and other invasive species (excluding arundo) will be treated and felled onsite to allow for additional organic material to be incorporated onsite. The restoration biologist will work closely with a local native maintenance contractor to determine the specific approach for each species and area. The following are general recommendations that may be modified as appropriate. For trees with large woody trunks, the restoration ecologist can elect to kill on site and leave standing if the tree is not highly visible to the public or does not represent a safety hazard as these trees provide nesting opportunity and structure for many species. If tree removal is necessary during the migratory bird nesting season (i.e., March 15August 31), a focused avian nesting survey will be performed by a qualified wildlife biologist 2 days prior to tree removal to comply with the MBTA. Results will be documented and forwarded to the permitting agencies. If nesting birds are detected, the nest location will be protected until fledging has occurred. The following sections summarize the removal techniques for the larger invasive trees on site. Methods may be modified by the installation contractor with approval from the restoration ecologist. 5.9.1Upstream Enhancement Area For trees that occur within the primary channel upstream of the restoration project (upstream enhancement area), the primary method will use the drill and kill technique, in which large holes are drilled into the base of the trees trunk(s) and filled with a high concentration herbicide. This will result in the tree dying on site. Although the area is relatively remote, there is the potential for trees to create both an eye sore and a hazard if in proximity to the public, each tree will be evaluated by the restoration ecologist and maintenance contractor to determine if it can be left in place. If a tree cannot die in place then trees in the upstream canyon will be felled and hauled out either manually or via helicopter following preparation by ground crews. A mesa-top staging area will be prepared to accommodate the helicopter trailer and associated support vehicles and to accommodate debris bins and haul trucks. If removal is proposed, preparation of trees by ground crews will include cutting the trees into pieces that are manageable by the helicopter and preparing them for lift by applying lift chains. Follow-up treatments of the remaining stumps will be required; as such, all Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 5-6 Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.15 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 585 K:\\San Diego\\projects\\Otay_Land_Co_Village\\00296_14_8and9_Mitigation_Site\\mapdoc\\HMMP\\Fig05_1_ConceptPlanMar2016.mxd Date: 4/25/2016 35528 K:\\San Diego\\projects\\Otay_Land_Co_Village\\00296_14_8and9_Mitigation_Site\\mapdoc\\HMMP\\Fig05_2_Cross_Sections.mxd Date: 9/10/2015 35528 Otay Land Company Implementation Plan trees will be marked using geographic information systems (GIS), and crews will revisit and retreat trees twice at least 6 weeks apart or as required for the specific species. ations, and agency regulations and must be applied by a licensed or certified Pest Control Applicator. Any herbicide application within close proximity to water will be approved for aquatic use by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as having been reviewed and considered compatible with the aquatic environment when used according to label directions. 5.9.2Restoration Site , ±¦¤ 7®®£¸ 4±¤¤²Ȁ Trees with large woody trunks (excluding tamarisk and arundo) within the primary restoration siteincluding pepper trees and eucalyptuscan be removed via truck or helicopter following preparation by ground crews. Because active restoration will be occurring throughout the property and proximity to future trails is likely, no large dead eucalyptus trees are to remain upright in the primary restoration site. Palm trees, including date and fan palm may be drilled and left upright. If close to access roads or trails, the foliage may be topped. 4 ¬ ±¨²ª ³±¤¤²Ȁ Tamarisk trees within the tamarisk scrub stand in the primary restoration site will be removed by one of the following methods. Prescribed burning followed by repeated herbicidal application to resprouts. This method will require permissions by several entities including but not limited to the City of Chula Vista, . USACE, and the Chula Vista Fire Department For dense stands cut stump may be used whereby the trunks are cut and herbicide is immediately applied to the fresh cut. For sparse stands foliar spray may be more appropriate and efficient. For both methods, follow-up foliar spray will be required. Mechanical removal using heavy equipment followed by repeated herbicidal application to resprouts. Entire trees can be easily removed using a track hoe with a thumb bucket. Alternatively, the trees can be removed with a root-plow pulled by a bulldozer; this method has become standard in tamarisk control and is described as providing good to excellent control. This method is most effective when the soil is relatively dry, and must be combined with a program of scheduled follow-up sprout treatments such as hand-pulling and/or herbicidal application. The trees can also be removed by using a skid steer or site preparation tractor equipped with a forestry mulching attachment such as a hydro-ax, which mows or chips living and dead tamarisk at a reported 1 acre per hour on level terrain. (DiTamoso et al. 2013) All methods will require a valley staging area to accommodate heavy equipment and associated support vehicles and to accommodate debris bins and haul trucks. Herbicidal application to resprouts may be accomplished by allowing the plants to grow to an appropriate size to allow for herbicide to be suitably assimilated by the plant. This procedure must be repeated to fully ensure the adequate control of weeds from the mitigation areas. '¨ ³ ±¤¤£Ȁ All giant reed will be physically marked by the biological monitor, mapped using GIS, and treated twice, once in fall before going dormant using Glycophosate and again in spring using Imazapyr. Any cut material will be removed from the site. Remaining canes will be treated with an herbicide to help control resprouts. Any giant reed clumps that are intertwined within existing native vegetation will be cut to grade and carefully treated with an appropriate systemic herbicide as specified by a Licensed Pest Control Advisor. The contractor will conduct follow-up treatments to Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 5-7 Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.15 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 590 Otay Land Company Implementation Plan check for resprouts on a monthly basis through grading and the 120-day plant establishment period and then bi-annually through the 5-year maintenance period. Resprouts will be treated with foliar spray. 5.10Planting and Seeding Plan A container plant palette and seed mix were developed for the restoration site. The specification for seeding and planting are described below. Three distinct plant palettes were developed for the aquatic restoration area including riparian, floodplain, and seasonal ponds as shown in Table 5-3. A separate plant palette was developed for the upland as shown in Table 5-4. Although it is anticipated that within each of these areas more distinct vegetation communities will develop, these broad plant palettes are appropriate for the broader area, allowing plants to fill-in where conditions suit them best. The seed mix prepared for the floodplain and upland transitional habitats is provided in Table 5-5. Because many of the species are expected to occur in both areas, one master list has been developed. A modified (shorter) list for the upland area will be included in the 30% and 60% plans and specifications currently being prepared. The species selections are based on native plant species observed or known to occur within the plan area and adjacent upland habitat, and in the vicinity of the site. The spacing on center is given for calculation purposes only and as an indication of the appropriate spacing between similar species. Species will not be evenly distributed throughout the site; rather, the restoration ecologist will lay out the species and will provide appropriate composition layouts within different ecological settings. Container plants will be installed in a manner that mimics natural plant distribution (e.g., random and/or aggregate distributions rather than uniform rows). Table 5-3. Proposed Container Plant Palette for Restored Aquatic Resources Spacing #®³ ¨¤± Species#®¬¬® . ¬¤ ® #¤³¤± # ¯¤± Acre 1,2,3 Size (feet) 4 Riparian Corridor and Active Low Floodplain !¤¬®¯²¨² ¢ «¨¥®±¨¢ yerba mansa 4-inch 3 75 " ¢¢§ ±¨² ² «¨¢¨¥®«¨ mule fat 1-gallon 6 75 # ±¤· ²¯¨²² San Diego sedge 1-gallon 6 50 %«¤®¢§ ±¨² ¬ ¢±®²³ ¢§¸ pale spike rush 1-gallon 3 75 )µ § ¸¤²¨ San Diego marsh elder 1-gallon 4 60 *´¢´² ¢´³´²leopoldii ssp. southwestern spiny rush 1-gallon 5 60 *´¢´² mexicanus Mexican wire rush 1-gallon 3 75 ,¤¸¬´² ³±¨³¨¢®¨£¤² beardless wild ryegrass 1-gallon 3 75 0« ³ ´² ± ¢¤¬®² western sycamore 5-gallon 30 15 0®¯´«´² ¥±¤¬®³¨¨ Fremont cottonwood 1-gallon 30 15 2®² ¢ «¨¥®±¨¢ California wild rose 1-gallon 6 75 2´¡´² ´±²¨´² California blackberry 1-gallon 5 75 3 «¨· ¤·¨¦´ sandbar willow 1-gal/cutting 8 100 3 «¨· ¦®®££¨¦¨¨ black willow 1-gal/cutting 15 50 3 «¨· « ¤µ¨¦ ³ red willow 1-gal/cutting 12 75 3 «¨· « ²¨®«¤¯¨² arroyo willow 1-gal/cutting 12 75 Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 5-8 Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.15 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 591 Otay Land Company Implementation Plan Spacing #®³ ¨¤± Species#®¬¬® . ¬¤ ® #¤³¤± # ¯¤± Acre 1,2,3 Size (feet) 4 High Floodplain !±³¤¬¨²¨ ¢ «¨¥®±¨¢ California sagebrush 1-gallon 6 60 " ¢¢§ ±¨² ² «¨¢¨¥®«¨ mule fat 1-gallon 10 40 %±¨®¦®´¬ ¥ ²¢¨¢´« ³´¬ California buckwheat 1-gallon 6 60 (¤«¨®³±®¯¤ ¢´±µ ²²¨¢´¬ salt heliotrope 1-gallon 10 50 )µ § ¸¤²¨ San Diego marsh elder 1-gallon 6 50 *´¢´² ¢´³´²leopoldii ssp. southwestern spiny rush 1-gallon 10 45 ,¤¸¬´² ¢®£¤² ³´² giant wild rye 1-gallon 6 45 -´§«¤¡¤±¦¨ ±¨¦¤² deergrass 1-gallon 10 50 3 ¬¡´¢´² ¬¤·¨¢ ´² Mexican elderberry 1-gallon 12 25 Seasonal Ponds/Main Channel Bank !¤¬®¯²¨² ¢ «¨¥®±¨¢ yerba mansa 4-inch 2 170 "®«¡®²¢§®¤´² ±®¡´²³´² prairie bulrush 1-gallon 2 170 #¸¯¤±´² ¤± ¦±®²³¨² tall flatsedge 1-gallon 4 100 %«¤®¢§ ±¨² ¬¨¢±®²³ ¢§¸² pale spike sedge 4-inch 2 150 *´¢´² mexicanus Mexican juncus 1-gallon 3 150 *´¢´² ·¨¯§¨®¨£¤² iris leaf juncus 1-gallon 4 75 ,¤¸¬´² ¢®£¤² ³´² giant wild rye 1-gallon 6 50 0«´¢§¤ ®£®± ³ salt marsh fleabane 1-gallon 3 150 0«´¢§¤ ²¤±¨¢¤ arrowweed 1-gallon 6 67 3¢§®¤®¯«¤¢³´² americanus 1-gallon 3 100 Any potential substitutions or changes to quantity must be approved by the restoration ecologist. 1 2 Plants should be propagated on site or from material from the watershed or within 10 miles of the mitigation site. Plants that cannot be provided from the immediate vicinity will be provided from the closest commercially available sources. 3 Plants will be certified as free of exotic pests (e.g., Argentine ants) prior to delivery on site. 4 The spacing on center is given for calculation purposes only and as an indication of the appropriate spacing between similar species. Species will not be evenly distributed throughout the site; rather, the restoration ecologist will lay out the species and will provide appropriate composition layouts within different ecological settings. Container plants will be installed in a manner that mimics natural plant distribution (e.g., random and/or aggregate distributions rather than uniform rows). Table 5-4. Proposed Container Plant Palette for Upland Transitional Habitat #®³ ¨¤± 3¯ ¢¨¦ ® Ͱ ¯¤± Species #®¬¬® . ¬¤ 1,2,3 Size Center (feet) Acre 4 !£¤®²³®¬ ¥ ²¢¨¢´« ³´¬ chamise 1-gallon 6 25 fasciculatum var. !±³¤¬¨²¨ ¢ «¨¥®±¨¢ coastal sage scrub 1-gallon 5 50 " ¢¢§ ±¨² ¯¨«´« ±¨² coyote bush 1-gallon 6 40 " ¢¢§ ±¨² ² ±®³§±®¨£¤² broom baccharis 1-gallon 6 15 #¸«¨£±®¯´³¨ ¯±®«¨¥¤± coast cholla 1-gallon 4 40 $´£«¤¸ ¤£´«¨² lady fingers 1-gallon 3 5 Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 5-9 Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.15 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 592 Otay Land Company Implementation Plan #®³ ¨¤± 3¯ ¢¨¦ ® Ͱ ¯¤± Species #®¬¬® . ¬¤ 1,2,3 Size Center (feet) Acre 4 $´£«¤¸ ¯´«µ¤±´«¤³ chalk dudleya 1-gallon 3 5 %±¨®¦®´¬ ¥ ²¢¨¢´« ³´¬ California buckwheat 1-gallon 5 40 &¤±®¢ ¢³´² µ¨±¨£¤²¢¤² San Diego barrel cactus 1-gallon 4 20 (¤³¤±®¬¤«¤² ±¡´³¨¥®«¨ toyon 1-gallon 8 15 )²®¢®¬ ¬¤¹¨¤²¨¨ coast goldenbush 1-gallon 5 50 ,¸¢¨´¬ ¢ «¨¥®±¨¢´¬ boxthorn 1-gallon 6 15 - «®²¬ « ´±¨ laurel sumac 1-gallon 8 15 /¯´³¨ «¨³³®± «¨² coast prickly-pear 1-gallon 4 20 0¤±¨³®¬ ±¡®±¤ bladderpod 1-gallon 6 15 2§´² ¨³¤¦±¨¥®«¨ lemonade berry 1-gallon 8 15 3 «¨µ ¯¨ white sage 1-gallon 6 25 3 «µ¨ ¬¤««¨¥¤± black sage 1-gallon 6 40 3 ¬¡´¢´² ¬¤·¨¢ ´² elderberry 1-gallon 12 15 9´¢¢ ¶§¨¯¯«¤¨ 1-gallon 12 12 Any potential substitutions or changes to quantity must be approved by the restoration ecologist. 1 2 Plants should be propagated on site or from material from the watershed or within 10 miles of the mitigation site. Plants that cannot be provided from the immediate vicinity will be provided from the closest commercially available sources. Plants will be certified as free of exotic pests (e.g., Argentine ants) prior to delivery on site. 3 The spacing on center is given for calculation purposes only and as an indication of the appropriate spacing between 4 similar species. Species will not be evenly distributed throughout the site; rather, the restoration ecologist will lay out the species and will provide appropriate composition layouts within different ecological settings. Container plants will be installed in a manner that mimics natural plant distribution (e.g., random and/or aggregate distributions rather than uniform rows). Table 5-5. Proposed Container Seed Palette for Floodplain and Upland Transitional Habitat 1,2,3 -¨¨¬´¬ 0®´£² ®¥ 0®´£² ®¥ Percentage 0´±¤ ,¨µ¤ Species #®¬¬® . ¬¤ "´«ª 3¤¤£ 0´±¨³¸ȝ Seed Ȩ0,3ȩ ¯¤± !¢±¤ Germination ¯¤± !¢±¤ 4,5 !¢¬¨²¯® ¦« ¡¤± ,®³´² ²¢®¯ ±¨´² (formerly)deerweed 4 95/80 3.0 !¬¡±®²¨ ¯²¨«®²³ ¢§¸ western ragweed 2 45/45 0.50 !¬²¨¢ª¨ ¬¤¹¨¤²¨¨ fiddleneck 0.5 35/65 0.15 Artemi²¨ £®´¦« ²¨ mugwort 2 15/40 0.10 Artemi²¨ £± ¢´¢´«´² tarragon 2 10/50 0.10 Artemi²¨ ¯ «¬¤±¨ San Diego sagewort 2 20/50 0.20 !²¢«¤¯¨ ² ¢ «¨¥®±¨¢ California milkweed data unavailable # ¬¨²²®¨ ¡¨²³®±³ California suncup 0.5 90/80 0.25 #±®³® ¢ «¨¥®±¨¢´² California croton 1 90/40 0.40 $¤¨ £± ¥ ²¢¨¢´« ³ fasciculated tarweed 3 25-65 0.50 %¢¤«¨ ¢ «¨¥®±¨¢ California bush sunflower 2 30/45 0.50 %±¨®¦®´¬ ¥ ²¢¨¢´« ³´¬ California buckwheat 4 55/20 0.50 %±¨®¯§¸««´¬ ¢®¥¤±³¨¥«®±´¬ golden yarrow 2 36/62 0.50 Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 5-10 Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.15 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 593 Otay Land Company Implementation Plan -¨¨¬´¬ 0®´£² ®¥ 0®´£² ®¥ Percentage 0´±¤ ,¨µ¤ Species #®¬¬® . ¬¤ "´«ª 3¤¤£ 0´±¨³¸ȝ Seed Ȩ0,3ȩ ¯¤± !¢±¤ Germination ¯¤± !¢±¤ 4,5 (¤«¨®³±®¯¨´¬ ¢´± ²² µ¨¢´¬ salt heliotrope 1 15/50 0.10 )²®¢®¬ ¬¤¹¨¤²¨¨ coastal goldenbush 3 18/40 0.25 )µ hayesiana San Diego marsh elder 0.5 30/30 0.05 , ²³§¤¨ ¦« ¡± ³ ssp. data unavailable coulteri -marsh daisy ,¤²²¨¦¨ ¥¨« ¦¨¨¥®«¨ common sandaster 0.5 8/30 0.05 ,¤¸¬´² ¢®£¤² ³´² giant wildrye 1 70/76 0.50 ,¤¸¬´² ³±¨³¨¢®¨£¤² creeping wild rye 2 90/80 1.50 ,´¯¨´² ¡¨¢®«®± pygmy-leaved lupine 2 98/85 1.50 ,´¯¨´² ²´¢¢´«¤³´² arroyo lupine 3 98/85 2.50 ,´¯¨´² ³±´¢ ³¤² collared annual lupine 2 98/85 1.50 -´§«¤¡¤±¦¨ ±¨¦¤² deergrass 0.5 70/45 0.15 0§ ¢¤«¨ ¢¨¢´³ ±¨ caterpillar phacelia 0.5 98-90 0.45 0«´¢§¤ ®£®± ³ marsh fleabane 0.5 30/40 0.20 3 «µ¨ ¢®«´¬¡ ±¨ ¤ chia 1 93/79 0.75 3³¨¯ ¯´«¢§± purple needlegrass 3 90/75 2.25 1 Seed will be applied by hydroseeding with standard amendments (i.e., cellulose fiber mulch and organic soil stabilizer). 2 Seeds will be collected within the watershed or within a 10-mile radius of the site to the extent feasible. Seeds that cannot be collected from the immediate vicinity will be provided from the closest available sources. 3 Any potential substitutions or quantity adjustments must be approved by the restoration ecologist. The pounds per acre of pure live seed (PLS) in this table have been rounded. The pounds per acre of seed will be 4 adjusted to achieve the specified pounds per acre of PLS when actual percentage purity and germination rates are calculated. Quantities in this table are presented on a per-acre basis. 5.10.1Container Plant Specifications When possible, cuttings will be harvested from adjacent riparian habitat or from within the restoration area footprints. Unique plants such as cactus should be salvaged prior to contour grading; the restoration ecologist will identify and mark all specimens to be salvaged prior to grading and will work with the contractor on appropriate collection methods. All other plantings will be obtained from nursery sources. Plants will be provided from source material from Otay Mesa, San Diego, or alternative sources (closest commercially available sources) approved by the restoration ecologist. If container plant material is not available from these areas, at minimum, stock will be obtained from within the watershed or within 10 miles of the mitigation site. Plants that cannot be provided from the immediate vicinity will be provided from the closest commercially available sources, subject to the approval of the restoration ecologist. Source locations should be as close to the restoration site as possible. Plants must be certified by the supplier (nursery) to be free of exotic pests (e.g., Argentine ants) prior to delivery on site. The restoration ecologist will confirm that plants are delivered to the site in a healthy and vigorous condition before they are installed. Plants will not be installed that are root-bound, stunted, pest- Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 5-11 Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.15 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 594 Otay Land Company Implementation Plan infested, diseased, or unacceptable for other reasons. The restoration ecologist and contractor will coordinate the layout for plant material in ecologically appropriate locations and natural groupings. The restoration ecologist will direct all planting, and may place flags, directly place containers, or direct the contractor on the placement of plants. In general, container plants will be installed in a manner that mimics natural plant distribution (e.g., random and/or aggregate distributions rather than uniform rows). No substitutions of specified plants will be allowed, and container sizes will not be changed unless approved in advance by the restoration ecologist. If the installation contractor is unable to obtain the specified size or species at the time of planting, commencement of the 120-day plant and hydrology establishment period will be delayed until all specified plants are installed or until a suitable substitution is determined by the restoration ecologist. The specific planting areas and corresponding plant palettes will be included in the 30% and subsequent 60% plans and specifications currently being developed. 5.10.2Container Plant Installation Steps Prior to planting, the contractor will ensure the site is wet from rainfall or adequately watered so that the first few inches of soil are saturated. The contractor will install container plants using standard horticultural practice, as follows. Thoroughly water all plants in their containers before planting. Dig a hole twice as deep and three times as wide as the container. Break up soil clods and roughen the side of the hole to avoid a smooth- water and allow water to drain completely into the soil; repeat twice. Partially backfill the hole with native soil to allow planting at the proper depth. The backfill mix will contain only native soil with no rocks larger than 3/4-inch diameter. Moisten and gently tamp the backfill into place. Remove the plant from its container and place on top of the moistened backfill so that the plant collar is approximately 1 inch above finish grade. Backfill the remaining hole with native soil. For plantings 1 gallon or larger, create a planting basin berm roughly 2 feet in diameter around the plant and apply 1 to 2 inches of coarse, organic, weed-free mulch inside the berm. No mulching or berms will be used around container plantings within the primary channel. Thoroughly water and allow the basin to drain. 5.10.3Container Plant Guarantee All plants determined by the restoration ecologist to be dead or diseased will be replaced by the installation contractor before the end of the 120-day plant and hydrology establishment period and as required by the maintenance program. Unless the restoration ecologist approves changes, the replacement plants will be of the same size and species as originally planted. 5.10.4Seed Specifications Seed will be applied throughout the restoration site. Seed will be from Otay Mesa, San Diego, or alternative sources (closest commercially available sources) approved by the restoration ecologist. If seed is not available from these areas, at minimum, seed will be obtained from within the Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 5-12 Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.15 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 595 Otay Land Company Implementation Plan watershed or within 10 miles of the mitigation site. Seed that cannot be provided from the immediate vicinity will be provided from the closest commercially available sources, subject to the approval of the restoration ecologist. Seed will be delivered to the site in sealed and labeled packaging, along with a California State Agricultural Code seed certification that includes the percentage rates. The seeds will be ordered and delivered in separate, original containers by species, and inspected by the restoration ecologist. Seed will be labeled with the species, purity, germination, percentage live seed, and quantity of seed in pounds. The seed mix will be applied by hydroseeding with a hydroseed slurry containing seed, natural fiber mulch, and organic tackifier. Although hydroseed mulch with seed can be carried and moved by flowing water, the mulch will help more of the seed stay in place and germinate compared to hand seeding. The specific seeding areas and corresponding seed mixes will be included in the 60% Submittal, Restoration Plans currently being developed. 5.10.5Seed Application Steps The contractor will install seed in the upland transitional areas using standard hydroseed practice, as follows. Seed application rates provided in Table 5-5 are to be followed. If the delivered seed differs from specified purity and germination rates, the total pounds-per-acre rates will be adjusted accordingly to achieve the specified pounds of pure live seed. Seed will be applied by hydroseed application. Application steps include the following. Create a slurry of seed (at specified rates per acre), 2,000 pounds per acre of organic fiber mulch, and 150 pounds per acre of organic tackifier. Evenly apply; spray hydroseed from at least two directions to help interlock mulch fibers. 5.10.6Planting and Seeding Timing There is an ideal window for planting native plants in Southern California, which occurs in winter generally between November and February. The contractor will need to coordinate installation efforts with any rain events to ensure that work is not being conducted on the site during periods of inundation. 5.11Irrigation Plan The ultimate goal of the wetlands mitigation program is to create a functioning riparian system capable of maintaining and supporting itself in perpetuity. Temporary irrigation may be required to enhance the survivorship of newly installed native plants and seed when they have been grown in nursery conditions, when they are planted under initially dry or drought conditions, or when planting does not occur within an ideal seasonal planting time frame. If deemed necessary a temporary irrigation system may be installed to supply supplemental water for newly installed plants and applied seed. Although supplemental irrigation may be required to establish habitat, an automated temporary irrigation system is not proposed due to cost, potential damage to an irrigation system from periodic flows and vandalism, and potential damage to native plants from removal of an irrigation system. Although an irrigation system is not considered to be critical for Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 5-13 Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.15 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 596 Otay Land Company Implementation Plan meeting the success criteria of this plan, the following are options that may be considered by the installation contractor and restoration ecologist. It is likely that a combination of the following will be used based on site conditions, seasonal constraints, efficacy, and cost. A well (new or existing) fitted with a pump powered by a diesel generator or municipal electricity (if available). The well and pump could feed a drip irrigation system or an overhead spray system, both of which would have on-grade hard pipe that will be easier to remove after the establishment period. Instead of a pump, a large plastic tank could be set up above the project site and gravity fed to a drip irrigation system. The tank could be refilled with a water truck as needed. Truck watering is another possibility, but the use of hoses can impact plants farther from the trucks location. Dri-water (semi-solid polymer-like product) may be used for select plantings such as larger trees and shrubs. This product can be used to temporarily provide water to the root mass of larger plantings. It is also possible to replace the polymer as a means of more long-term water supply. Any system installed will be designed for temporary use for at least 3 years and discontinued once plant establishment is meeting plan goals. Ideally, the irrigation system should be shut-off by the end of the third year of the 5-year maintenance and monitoring period. Irrigation system components will be removed from the site entirely at the end of the maintenance and monitoring period after approval is granted by the resource agencies. Regardless of long-term irrigation solutions, prior to planting and seeding, the soil on site should be moist from watering by the contractor or rainfall. All attempts will be made to coordinate seeding with rain events. 5.12Erosion Control Erosion control for the mitigation areas will be specified within the mitigation SWPPP and on the erosion control plans as prepared by the installation contractor. Implementation of such erosion control measures will prevent sediment from leaving the mitigation site. Consultation with local jurisdictions regarding local erosion control requirements should precede mitigation implementation. These requirements may include specific erosion control BMPs. 5.13Fencing and Signage As mentioned above, the mitigation parcel currently supports numerous trails and dirt roads that are used by a variety of groups including the U.S. Border Patrol, SDG&E, City of San Diego, and OWD, as well as by hikers, cyclists, and equestrians. In addition, the mitigation parcel is within a portion of the City of Chula Vista Greenbelt Master Plan boundary and is entirely within the OVRP Concept Plan boundaries. These uses present both an opportunity to educate the public and also a risk to the restored habitat. As such, the project will use both temporary and permanent fencing and signage, including educational kiosks, to educate the public about the sensitivity of the habitat on the property. The fencing will aid in excluding human activity that may result in plant and habitat trampling, the introduction of nonnative plant seed, harm to native animals by domestic pets, and harm to native plants by the grazing of horses. Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 5-14 Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.15 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 597 Otay Land Company Implementation Plan Figures 3-5 and 3-6 show the location of all existing and future trails as well as the various locations for project improvements. All improvements associated with the portion of the trail identified within the City of Chula Vista with the guidelines of that plan and would be installed on existing roads that that cross and meander in and out of and along the restoration site. The 60% construction drawings will include fencing specifications. Temporary fencing will be installed to protect the work site from vandalism and accidental damage to restoration plantings and irrigation systems. In addition to the split-rail fence proposed along the trails to the north and south of the restoration area, select permanent fencing/rocks/logs may be installed in sensitive areas to maintain the integrity of the area. Fencing determinations should be done by a biologist and take into consideration the sensitive resources on site (i.e., rare flora and fauna) and the extensive use of the roads and general area by Border Patrol agents as well as SDG&E and OWD. Signage will be installed throughout the site and is considered essential for this mitigation area due to the extensive use of this area by equestrians, bicyclists, and Border Patrol agents. Signage should indicate the site is a sensitive native restoration site and that unauthorized personnel should not enter. Reflective material will also be installed along the fencing at strategic locations to aid in Border Patrol agents navigating the site at night. The final locations of reflective material will be made in coordination with the Border Patrol. At least four interpretive signs (e.g., educational kiosks) will be placed throughout the restoration site at key user locations such as major entry points or look outs. The signs will be designed to promote a conservation ethic through the preservation of native habitats and the communities of plants and animals they support. Specifically, the information on a sign may focus on the historical aspects of rivers and wetlands in Southern California, the process of restoration, identification of native plants and wildlife that will use the restoration area, ecological benefits of wetlands and buffer habitat, current threats to natural areas, and ways to minimize human impacts on the remaining natural areas (planting native species, keeping dogs on a leash, not wasting water). 5.14Final Landscape/Mitigation Construction Plans A final set of mitigation area construction documents, including grading and site preparation plans, planting plans, irrigation plans, fencing plans, signage plans, installation details, and specifications (installation and maintenance) acceptable for bidding will be prepared in order to implement the conceptual guidelines for the mitigation program outlined in this document. The proposed final elevations of the wetland rehabilitation areas will be shown on construction grading plans. The final elevations of the wetland rehabilitation areas will be similar to existing wetlands and based upon the results of groundwater monitoring well data. The grading plans will include sections for each wetland rehabilitation area and show the proposed finished grades in relation to both the spring and winter season average groundwater table elevation. Construction drawings should take into consideration the extensive use of the dirt roads and general area by Border Patrol agents, and plan for use of the area by the agents to avoid damage to the mitigation effort. Grading plans and associated sections will be submitted to USACE for review and approval prior to initiating wetland impacts. Implementation of the mitigation program must be coordinated among the appropriate jurisdictions, the biologist/habitat restoration specialist, the landscape architect, the landscape contractor, and the plant material supplier(s). The contracting nursery and seed collectors should be Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 5-15 Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.15 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 598 Otay Land Company Implementation Plan given the maximum possible lead time (i.e., no less than 9 months prior to actual planting installation) to complete special collections and prepare plant material in order to assure availability at planting time and to minimize cost. Field coordination will be provided by the biological monitor/landscape architect during all phases of the mitigation area implementation. Species to be planted in the mitigation areas are listed in the plant palette (see Tables 5-3, 5-4, and 5-5). Plant materials will include container stock plantings and seed applications. The nursery contracted to provide plant materials should be contacted immediately following approval of the plan to provide them with sufficient time to grow material prior to installation. An experienced and licensed native plant nursery should be contracted to collect propagules and seed and to supply the necessary container-grown plant material. Local native plant nurseries include Tree of Life Nursery in San Juan Capistrano, Moosa Creek Nursery in Valley Center, Las Pilitas Nursery in Escondido, and RECON Native Plants, Inc., in Chula Vista. A seed supplier specializing in native species, such as S&S Seeds in Carpinteria, California, should supply the necessary native seed. All plants and seeds should be inspected prior to installation to verify species accuracy and to ensure the material is free of weeds, disease, and pests. The plant survival rates can be increased and the need for supplemental watering can be decreased by installing plant container stock and seed during the appropriate time of year. Optimal survival rates in Southern California may be achieved when planting activities take place between November and February. Planting activities that take place during the fall and early spring have the advantage of cooler weather, increased natural soil moisture, and reduced evapotranspiration. Because this area may be prone to seasonal flows, plant and seed installation should take place before the onset of the rainy season to ensure they have adequate time to establish before being subject to seasonal stream flows. Hydroseeding should be timed to take advantage of seasonal rainfall patterns and should be applied in early fall or mid spring, if possible. 5.15As-built Conditions The applicant will submit a letter report to USACE, RWQCB, and CDFW upon completion of site preparation, planting, and the initial 120-day plant establishment period describing the completion of the installation phase and the as-built status of the mitigation project. 2¤¦¨® « #®¬¯¤² ³®±¸ -¨³¨¦ ³¨® £ -®¨³®±¨¦ '´¨£¤«¨¤² ¥®± 3®´³§ 0 ¢¨¥¨¢ Per the Draft 2013 Division (SPD Mitigation Guidelines), the letter report will include the following. Date(s) that all compensatory mitigation construction activities were completed. A schedule of future mitigation monitoring, implementation, and reporting activities pursuant to final USACE-approved mitigation plan. A summary of compliance status with each special condition of the associated USACE permit or verification (including any noncompliance previously having occurred or currently occurring and corrective actions taken to achieve compliance). Photographs documenting the site conditions prior to mitigation activities and at the completion of the monitoring period, as well as the final site conditions. Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 5-16 Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.15 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 599 Otay Land Company Implementation Plan The report will include a reduced set of revegetation construction drawings in accordance with USACE SPD Map and Drawing Standards (USACE 2013) presenting the final as-built locations of the below itemized components. Extent of re-established, rehabilitated, and enhanced areas in plan view. Extent of both cut and fill. Spot elevations to accurately characterize the finished surfaces, including high and low points. As-built cross-sections. Location of any permanent markers (e.g., identification stakes, photo-documentation stations). Seeded and planted areas. Irrigation system point(s) of connection and components. Other pertinent features. Any changes from the original construction drawings will be indicated in indelible red ink. The as- built drawings will be submitted to the appropriate public resource agencies within 6 weeks of construction completion. Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 5-17 Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.15 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 600 Otay Land Company Implementation Plan This page was intentionally left blank. Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 5-18 Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.15 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 601 Chapter 6 Site Maintenance The goal of the mitigation plan is to create a natural, self-sustaining wetlands system requiring minimal follow-up maintenance. The maintenance program will begin when construction and installation have been completed and will be concentrated on the first few seasons of growth to control weeds and assist and promote native plant and seed establishment. The maintenance activities described in this Chapter are also applicable to the upstream enhancement area. The installation contractor will be responsible for maintenance during the 120-day plant establishment period (PEP), and the maintenance contractor will be responsible for the remainder of the scheduled 5-year maintenance and monitoring period, which will begin after the 120-day PEP is complete. As a guideline, the contractor is expected to perform maintenance approximately once a month during the first 4 months (i.e., 120-day PEP). The contractor is also expected to perform maintenance approximately monthly during Year 1; every 2 months during Year 2; and quarterly during Years 3, 4, and 5. Maintenance may be needed more frequently to perform remedial measures (e.g., replanting, erosion control). The contractor will coordinate with the restoration ecologist on a regular basis to determine priority maintenance activities during different periods of the plan. The primary maintenance obligations are reviewed below. 6.1Maintenance Duration Short-term maintenance will take place for 5 years following completion of construction activities and the 120-day plant establishment period. If success standards are not being met, the maintenance period may be extended. Following signoff by the agencies, the site will enter a long- term maintenance period. 6.2Responsible Parties Short-term maintenance (through the 5 years) will be the responsibility of OLC or its designee. Long-term maintenance will be the responsibility of the City of Chula Vista under their Otay Ranch Resource Management Plan (RMP) and the POM. 6.3120-Day Plant Establishment Period After installation work is completed, a 120-day (4-month) PEP will begin. At the completion of installation planting, the installation contractor will request a pre-maintenance inspection by the completion by the contractor. After punchlist items are corrected, the restoration ecologist will recommend to OLC that the landscape installation phase is complete and that the 120-day PEP has begun. During the PEP, the installation contractor will provide regular maintenance of the restoration area, including trash removal, supplemental irrigation, erosion control, and nonnative treatment. Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 6-1 Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.15 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 602 Otay Land Company Site Maintenance The installation contractor will perform maintenance visits and activities in accordance with the goals presented in this HMMP. The number of maintenance visits will vary depending on the amount of work necessary for the mitigation area to meet its success standards on schedule. As a guideline, the contractor is expected to perform maintenance approximately twice a month during the 120-day PEP. Weed control during the PEP will focus on the restoration area. Treatment will include all species listed in Table 6-1 and any additional problematic species identified by the restoration ecologist. Herbicide application will be in accordance with BMPs, and agency regulations. At the end of the 120-day PEP, the restoration ecologist will flag all dead and diseased plant materials requiring replacement and prepare a final maintenance punchlist of correction items. After the installation contractor has satisfactorily completed the punchlist, the restoration ecologist will recommend acceptance of the 120-day PEP to OLC. 6.4Irrigation Any irrigation system used for the mitigation areas will be temporary and will be used to ease the establishment of native seeds and nursery-grown container plantings. It is expected that supplemental irrigation will be used for only the first 2 years. Upon completion and approval of the plan, the irrigation system will be removed. The biological monitor will determine the timing for the termination of irrigation. 6.5Weed Control Nonnative weed control will consist of controlling populations of invasive weeds within the mitigation site by the following methods: (1) hand removal, (2) cutting or mowing, (3) chemical herbicide application, and (4) light exclusion. Hand removal of weeds is the most effective method of control and will be used around individual container plantings. Other herbaceous weeds should be removed by hand before setting seed. Weed control activities will take place monthly for the first 6 months and quarterly thereafter. Weed species should be controlled before they set seed and before they shade and out-compete native plantings. With prior consent of the biologist, string trimmers may be used in certain instances. Chemical control will be used for control of perennial weed species. The contractor will coordinate with the biologist to identify specific areas where chemical herbicides may be used. Any herbicide treatment must be applied by a licensed or certified Pest Control Applicator. Any herbicide application within close proximity to water will be approved for aquatic use by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) as having been reviewed and considered compatible with the aquatic environment when used according to label directions. Light-exclusion measures may include organic mulch, which is useful around individual container plantings to reduce weed growth. Mulch should be 3 to 4 inches deep, and cover a 24-inch diameter around container plants. A 5% total cover of weed species will be tolerated at the end of the 5-year maintenance period. Thus, 95% of the revegetation site will be weed free. Table 6-1. Nonnative Invasive Species Detected or Potentially Occurring in the Restoration Area 1 Family 3¢¨¤³¨¥¨¢ . ¬¤ #®¬¬® . ¬¤ )µ ²¨µ¤ ,¤µ¤« 2 Angiosperms Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 6-2 Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.15 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 603 Otay Land Company Site Maintenance Family 3¢¨¤³¨¥¨¢ . ¬¤ #®¬¬® . ¬¤ )µ ²¨µ¤ ,¤µ¤« 2 Eudicots Aizoaceae # ±¯®¡±®³´² ¤£´«¨² Hottentot-fig High Amaranthaceae !³±¨¯«¤· «¨£«¤¸¨ N/A 3 «²®« ³± ¦´² tumbleweed Limited Anacardiaceae 3¢§¨´² ¬®««¤ Peruvian pepper tree Moderate 3¢§¨´² ³¤±¤¡¨³§¨¥®«¨´² Brazilian pepper tree Moderate Apiaceae !¯¨´¬ ¦± µ¤®«¤² celery N/A &®¤¨¢´«´¬ µ´«¦ ±¤ Fennel High Arecaceae 7 ²§¨¦³®¨ ±®¡´²³ Mexican fan palm High Asteraceae # ±£´´² ¯¸¢®¢¤¯§ «´² ²²¯ȁ Italian thistle Moderate pycnocephalus #¤³ ´±¤ ¬¤«¨³¤²¨² tocalote Moderate #¸ ± ¢ ±£´¢´«´² globe thistle Moderate '«¤¡¨®¨² ¢®±® ±¨´¬ crown daisy N/A , ¢³´¢ ²¤±±¨®« prickly lettuce N/A 3®¢§´² ²¯¤± prickly sow-thistle N/A 3®¢§´² ®«¤± ¢¤´² common sow-thistle N/A Brassicaceae "± ²²¨¢ ¨¦± black mustard Moderate (¨±²¢§¥¤«£¨ ¨¢ short-pod mustard Moderate 2 ¯§ ´² ² ³¨µ´² wild radish Limited Chenopodiaceae !³±¨¯«¤· ²¤¬¨¡ ¢¢ ³ Australian saltbush Moderate #§¤®¯®£¨´¬ «¡´¬ Limited 3 «²®« ³± ¦´² prickly Russian thislte High Euphorbiaceae %´¯§®±¡¨ ¯¤¯«´² petty spurge N/A 2¨¢¨´² ¢®¬¬´¨² castor-bean Limited Fabaceae -¤«¨«®³´² spp.sweet clover N/A Geraniaceae %±®£¨´¬ ¢¨¢´³ ±¨´¬ red-stem filaree Limited Malvaceae - «µ ¯ ±µ¨¥«®± cheeseweed N/A Oxalidaceae /· «¨² ¯¤²-caprae Bermuda buttercup Moderate Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 6-3 Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.15 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 604 Otay Land Company Site Maintenance Family 3¢¨¤³¨¥¨¢ . ¬¤ #®¬¬® . ¬¤ )µ ²¨µ¤ ,¤µ¤« 2 Poaceae !±´£® £® · giant reed High !µ¤ ¡ ±¡ ³ wild oats Moderate "±®¬´² §®±£¤ ¢¤´² soft brome Moderate "±®¬´² ¬ £±¨³¤²¨² ²²¯ȁ ±´¡¤² foxtail chess High "±®¬´² £¨ £±´² ripgut brome Moderate #®±³ £¤±¨ ©´¡ ³ pampas grass High #®±³ £¤±¨ ²¤««® pampas grass High #¸®£® £ ¢³¸«® Bermuda grass Moderate &¤²³´¢ ¬¸´±®² rattail fescue Low (®±£¤´¬ ¬´±¨´¬ ²²¯ȁ ¦« ´¢´¬ Smooth barley Moderate -¤«¨¨² ±¤¯¤² ²²¯ȁ ±¤¯¤² natal grass Low Solanaceae .¨¢®³¨ ¦« ´¢ tree tobacco Moderate Tamaricaceae 4 ¬ ±¨· ¯ ±µ¨¥«®± tamarisk High Urticaceae 5±³¨¢ ´±¤² dwarf nettle N/A 1 The installation and maintenance contractor(s) is responsible for eradication/removal of additional exotics that may be identified by the restoration ecologist in the restoration area. Any exotics recognized by the California Invasive Plant Council (Cal-IPC) and/or the University of California Statewide Integrated Pest Management Project that are identified on site must be removed wherever they occur in the restoration areas. Additionally, less problematic nonnative species that may be identified on site will be controlled when it is determined by the restoration ecologist that they are inhibiting the establishment and development of native plant species. Cal-IPC 2010 rating: Threat to California Wildlands: N/A = not listed 2 6.6Supplemental Planting If planted and seeded vegetation does not readily colonize the restoration areas, the contractor will provide supplemental planting and seeding for the first 2 years of maintenance. All dead container plant materials and cuttings above the allowable tolerance levels will be replaced with the same species and in the same size containers as originally specified. Vegetation will be monitored monthly for the first 6 months and quarterly thereafter for 5 years. 6.7Clearing and Trash Removal Leaf litter and deadwood of native trees and shrubs will not be removed from the mitigation areas. The decomposition of deadwood and leaf litter is essential for the replenishment of soil nutrients and minerals, and deadwood and snags provide valuable habitat for invertebrates, reptiles, small mammals, and birds. Human-made trash and debris will be removed from the mitigation areas by hand monthly for the first 6 months and quarterly thereafter for 5 years. Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 6-4 Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.15 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 605 Otay Land Company Site Maintenance 6.8Fence Inspection and Repair Fencing will be inspected by the maintenance contractor monthly for the first 6 months and quarterly thereafter for 5 years. 6.9Schedule of Maintenance Weed removal and irrigation inspection will be conducted by the maintenance contractor monthly for the first 6 months and quarterly thereafter. Thereafter, the biological monitor will conduct maintenance inspections on a quarterly basis during Years 1 through 5. Recommendations for maintenance efforts will be based upon the , which will occur monthly for the first 6 months and quarterly thereafter. Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 6-5 Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.15 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 606 Otay Land Company Site Maintenance This page was intentionally left blank. Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 6-6 Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.15 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 607 Chapter 7 Site Monitoring qualitative This chapter outlines the monitoring program from installation to completion including °´ ³¨³ ³¨µ¤ and monitoring. In addition, primary and secondary success standards are proposed. 7.1Implementation Monitoring The restoration ecologist will coordinate with the installation contractor and OLC to monitor the )¬¯«¤¬¤³ ³¨® 0« including initial grading, contouring, and native planting and seedingand the 120-day PEP, to ensure that installation is performed in accordance with this HMMP. During this period, the restoration ecologist will prepare a brief weekly memorandum that reviews implementation progress, which will be submitted to OLC. The installation contractor will be responsible for the 120-day PEP after the grading, erosion control, and native plant installation are complete to ensure that the site meets defined success criteria and is established in a desirable manner prior to the start of the 5-year maintenance and monitoring program. The installation contractor will receive approval from the restoration ecologist and OLC, indicating a successful implementation and 120-day PEP before the start of the 5-year maintenance and monitoring program. In addition, the installation process will require the restoration ecologist to inspect and approve progress at the following times. During and after environmental protection fencing installation. During demarcation of the restoration area boundaries. During contouring of the channel and the floodplain. At the end of grading and contouring. After completion of grubbing and soil ripping for decompaction before the start of planting. At the time of container plant delivery when container plant materials will be inspected by the restoration ecologist to confirm the receipt of the correct species and that the plants are healthy, disease free, and of proper size prior to planting. During final container plant layout to ensure correct ecological positioning. When the contractor requests inspection to determine if installation is complete. At completion of the 120-day plant and hydrology establishment period. 7.2Horticultural (Qualitative) Monitoring A restoration ecologist with the qualifications outlined previously will direct the horticultural (qualitative) monitoring program. The goal of this monitoring is to proactively assess site conditions to address issues before they become a problem. Horticultural monitoring will include design review of the contractor-designed irrigation system (if needed), performing pre-installation environmental education, and performing all required installation inspections described above. An important feature of the horticultural monitoring is effective coordination with the installation and Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 7-1 Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.15 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 608 Otay Land Company Site Monitoring maintenance contractor(s) to exchange information, provide feedback, and agree on priority maintenance items and potential remedial measures as needed. The restoration ecologist will perform qualitative horticultural monitoring throughout the installation period and the 5-year maintenance and monitoring program. Each horticultural visit will focus on soil conditions (e.g., moisture and fertility), container plant health and growth, seed germination rates, presence of native and nonnative plant species, any significant disease or pest problems, and any erosion problems. During installation, the restoration ecologist will inspect progress on a weekly basis and then at least once a month during the 120-day plant and hydrology establishment period. The restoration ecologist will monitor the restoration areas monthly during the first 2 years of the 5-year maintenance and monitoring program and then quarterly during Years 3, 4, and 5. During each horticultural site visit, the restoration ecologist will conduct a site overview of the restoration areas to evaluate the following. Overall site conditions. General condition of plants, including plant health/vigor and mortality. Seed germination rates. Native plant recruitment. Presence and type of terrestrial fauna using the mitigation site. Potential issues, including hydrology, irrigation problems (too much or too little), invasive nonnative species of concern (e.g., tamarisk, pampas grass, and Brazilian pepper tree), vandalism, and other problems that need to be addressed by the installation or maintenance contractor. It is unrealistic to require a formal plant count, as plant installation will include large quantities of 1-gallon and small rose pot (liner) plantings. As such, the restoration ecologist will be responsible for a visual estimate of plant survival and condition during horticultural visits. During each annual July/August site visit, the restoration ecologist will assess the need for potential remedial planting during the winter. Recommendations will be included in the October monthly/quarterly memoranda. Recommendations may include container planting and broadcast seeding. 7.2.1Reporting Following each horticultural site visit, the restoration ecologist will prepare a short memorandum. These memoranda will focus on issues such as replacements of dead or diseased plants, weeding, irrigation scheduling, trash removal, and pest control. In addition, the restoration ecologist will coordinate with the installation or maintenance contractor for the following. Schedule upcoming maintenance based on the maintenance needs and priorities at each of the restoration areas. Walk the restoration areas to identify any problem issues, including erosion issues, irrigation damage, occurrence of invasive nonnative species, and potential human impacts such as dirt bike usage and vandalism. Provide support to field maintenance crew in the identification of common native and nonnative species. Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 7-2 Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.15 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 609 Otay Land Company Site Monitoring Determine an irrigation schedule (for a given period of the plan) based on seasonal and annual variation in rainfall, native plant water requirements, and site-specific conditions (e.g., soil condition and slope). 7.3Botanical (Quantitative) Monitoring A restoration ecologist with the qualifications specified previously will supervise all botanical (quantitative) monitoring. This will allow for adaptive management (Section 7.6) decisions to be made, as well as allow site progress to be tracked. At a minimum, quantitative botanical monitoring will consist of point-intercept transects, diversity belt transects, a condition-based rapid assessment for each restoration area, as well as cross-sections for channel morphology and topography. 7.3.1Quantitative Monitoring Photo-Documentation Permanent stations for photo-documentation will be established during the implementation period using a GPS unit. At this time, 10 photo stations have been identified; however, others may be added post implementation to maximize capturing the changes on site (Figure 7-1). These locations and directions will be mapped in the annual monitoring report. The photos will be used to document the installation process in addition to the vegetation establishment. Permanent stations will ensure photographs will be taken from the same photo-point, at the same time of year, and in the same compass direction each year. Following the 120-day PEP, photos will be taken twice a year (June and December) at these 10 fixed locations and catalogued to be included in the annual reports. Photographs will reflect material discussed in the annual monitoring report, and will document the progress of the site. Vegetation The vegetation community will be quantitatively measured using semi-permanent 50-meter transects that will be established randomly throughout the restoration area (Figure 7-2). Transects will be run perpendicular to the primary channel, and a photo station will be established at the end farthest from the channel. These transects will be used to determine native and nonnative cover across each of the restoration areas during the 5-year maintenance and monitoring program. The use of permanent transects as a sampling design allows for the removal of spatial variability and increases the ability to detect annual changes in the site. This improves the ability to detect positive or negative trends in the restoration area and allows the project biologist and OLC to make prompt adaptive management decisions. Specifically, 25 semi-permanent transects will be established within the restored aquatic area including the channels and floodplains. In addition 10 semi- permanent transects will be established in the upland areas, 5 in the north area and 5 in the south area. This will result in 35 transects total. During Year 1, each transect will be marked with a 4-foot-tall metal rebar post. All posts will also be flagged with neon whiskers for visibility. The location of all transects will be marked using a GPS unit and displayed on a site map in the annual report. Data will be collected each year during late spring/early summer (May to July), and sampling times will be consistent from year to year to minimize variation in the data. Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 7-3 Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.15 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 610 Otay Land Company Site Monitoring For each transect the point-intercept method will be used to record the species. The sampling method is based on a 50-meter-long point-intercept transect centered on a 50 by 5 meter belt transect plot. At each 50-centimeter interval along the transect (beginning at the 50-centimeter mark and ending at the 50-meter mark), a point is projected vertically into the vegetation. Each species intercepted by a point is recorded, providing a tally of hits for each species in the herb, shrub, and tree canopies. The measuring tape will be stretched taught to maintain a consistent sampling area. Absolute cover for each species according to vegetation layer can be calculated from these data (CNPS 1999). To conduct the measurement, a 50meter-long tape is laid along the center of the pot and secured at both ends. The observer uses a 1-meter dowel to sight along a vertical line at every 0.5-meter interval. Each species intercepted by the vertical line is tallied by vegetation layer. A total of 100 points along the transect is thus sampled. Species were categorized as herbaceous layer (vegetation shorter than 60 centimeters), shrub layer (60 centimeters to 3 meters), or trees (woody material taller than 3 meters). To measure vegetation change, the native vegetation cover in each layer is calculated as follows. Cover = number of points covered by a species / total number of points x 100% The cover of all nonnative and invasive plants, as defined by Cal- Priority Species (Cal-IPC 2014), will be calculated for each transect. Values for each re-established or rehabilitated wetland unit will be compared to the reference site. In addition to cover, native species richness will be measured for each belt transect. For each belt transect (centered on the point- intercept transect) all species present will be recorded, and a count of all native species will be presented. Only plants rooted within the belt will be counted. The native species richness of each belt transect will be compared to the reference site. In addition, a complete list of additional species occurring within each restoration area will be recorded to measure total species richness. Separate lists will be generated for the aquatic and upland habitat because each has distinct success criteria. Wetland Condition A CRAM analysis will be used to provide an evaluation of the ambient conditions of the re- established, rehabilitated, and enhanced wetlands within the restoration area with a focus on the primary channel. The assessment will follow the protocols found in the latest version of the # «¨¥®±¨ 2 ¯¨£ !²²¤²²¬¤³ -¤³§®£ ¥®± 7¤³« £² 2¨µ¤±¨¤ 7¤³« £² &¨¤«£ "®®ª at the time of the Year #2!- $¤¯±¤²²¨® « &¨¤«£ "®®ª 1 assessment. In addition, the will be used to assess the seasonal ponds. The same version will be used for the 5-year maintenance and monitoring period. Representative AAs will be established within the primary channel and at least 3 of the seasonal ponds to measure the change in ecosystem functions and services over the course of the monitoring program. At this time five CRAM Riverine AAs have been identified within the restoration site and three Depressional AAs (Figure 7-2). Because the site is expected to be wadable at all times, two- sided AAs are planned for the riverine assessments. If the Episodic Streams CRAM module (currently under development) is available for use then both the Riverine and Episodic module will be used during Year 1, and the restoration ecologist will evaluate which module is most appropriate for the site. A sample size analysis of CRAM assessment areas will be conducted in Years 13 as described in the s manual with the intent of determining adequate sample size for the project. One of the five AAs will be randomly selected. If the overall CRAM score for that AA differs from the average score of the other four AAs by more than 15%, another AA would need to be added. If the randomly chosen AA does not differ by more than 15%, then no more AAs are needed. Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 7-4 Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.15 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 611 K:\\San Diego\\projects\\Otay_Land_Co_Village\\00296_14_8and9_Mitigation_Site\\mapdoc\\HMMP\\Fig07_1_Photo_Stations.mxd Date: 4/22/2016 35528 K:\\San Diego\\projects\\Otay_Land_Co_Village\\00296_14_8and9_Mitigation_Site\\mapdoc\\HMMP\\Fig07_2_Quantitative_Mon_Stations.mxd Date: 4/22/2016 35528 Otay Land Company Site Monitoring Because there are no viable wetlands onsite now, there will be an immediate increase in wetland condition following recontouring. However, once the mainstem channel and floodplain has been established, both the Landscape and Hydrology Attributes are expected to change very little if any over time. As such the primary wetland condition success standards are based on the Biotic and Physical Attribute scores. Table 7-1 shows the projected CRAM wetland condition scores for the riverine AAs post installation (Year 3 and Year 5) as well as the maximum score anticipated at site maturity, which may take 10 to 20 years to achieve and as such is not tied to the projects success. Scores are based on best professional judgement using experience in other intermittent/ephemeral systems. Please note that the scores shown would be the average for the site and as such may vary within each AA. Table 7-1. Projected CRAM Scores for Year 3 and Year 5 Post Installation and the Maximum Score #2!- !³³±¨¡´³¤² #2!- -¤³±¨¢ £ 3´¡¬¤³±¨¢² 9¤ ± Β 9¤ ± Δ Maximum !³³±¨¡´³¤ 3¢®±¤ 85%93%93% Stream Corridor Continuity 12 12 12 "´¥¥¤± £ "´¥¥¤± 3´¡¬¤³±¨¢² Ȩ¡¤«®¶ȩ 8.5 10.4 10.4 , £²¢ ¯¤ % of AA with Buffer 12 12 12 Connectivity Average Buffer Width 12 12 12 Buffer Condition 6 9 9 !³³±¨¡´³¤ 3¢®±¤ 83%83%92% Water Source 12 12 12 (¸£±®«®¦¸ Channel Stability 9 9 12 Hydrologic Connectivity 9 9 9 !³³±¨¡´³¤ 3¢®±¤ 50%75%75% 0§¸²¨¢ « 3³±´¢³´±¤ Structural Patch Richness 6 9 9 Topographic Complexity 6 9 9 !³³±¨¡´³¤ 3¢®±¤ 56%67%81% PC: No. of plant layers 6 9 12 PC: No. of codominants 9 6 9 "¨®³¨¢ 3³±´¢³´±¤ PC: Percent Invasion 9 12 12 0« ³ #®¬¬´¨³¸ 3´¡¬¤³±¨¢ 3¢®±¤ 8 9 11 Interspersion 6 6 9 Vertical Biotic Structure 6 9 9 /µ¤± «« !! 3¢®±¤ 69% 80% 85% Channel and Floodplain Morphology Permanent transects will be established throughout the site perpendicular to the primary channel. These transects will be monitored annually to document changes to the primary channel morphology as well as the overall floodplain. In the primary channel, a topographic cross-section will be collected at 10 permanent locations throughout the site, occurring approximately every 100 meters (Figure 7-2). Each transect will be surveyed using ground-based surveying equipment to capture and track channel morphology; elevations along the cross-section will be collected at intervals close enough to capture changes in elevation along the channel sides and bottom. In addition to the channel morphology transects, an additional 5 transects have been established throughout the floodplain to monitor overall topographic changes over time, including changes to Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 7-5 Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.15 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 616 Otay Land Company Site Monitoring the secondary channels and floodplain terraces. These five transects correspond to five of the channel morphology transects (Figure 7-2). The location of each cross-section will be permanently marked in the field using 4-foot-tall metal t-posts or other method. Transect endpoints will be documented using GPS units. Hydrology and Groundwater Monitoring Improvements to surface hydrology are anticipated throughout the site, including the primary and secondary channels as well as the floodplains. Evidence of improved surface hydrology will be evident by the appearance of an ordinary high water mark, surface flows, and overbank flows. Because the site will be freshly graded to create the new topographic landscape, it may take a few years and sufficient storm events to create surface hydrology indicators. With each annual monitoring event evidence of surface hydrology will be recorded and a summary of key indicators will be presented in the annual report. Groundwater monitoring wells will be installed throughout the northern floodplain of the mitigation site. Five permanent groundwatering stations will be established prior to installation and tracked up until grading, at which point they will be removed (Figure 7-2). They will be reinstalled following mitigation installation and monitored throughout the 5-year period. Shallow Groundwater Monitoring Site visit observations have identified approximate groundwater levels at discrete locations in the plan area during a single drought year fall season. Additional observations can improve the understanding of seasonal variations of shallow groundwater tables and inform and improve conceptual designs to propose adequate depth of excavation to recreate a feasible river channel. ICF will work with a subcontractor to install five dig/drill shallow holes, and ICF staff will install five PVC piezometers fitted with water-level data loggers. The data loggers will remain deployed and retrieved as necessary to collect a complete year of recorded water levels leading up to implementation such that the design/build operation can be adapted as needed to achieve the desired habitat mosaic. Updated Jurisdictional Delineation An updated jurisdictional delineation will be performed within the mitigation site in Year 3 and Year 5. The mitigation site will be evaluated for the presence of a definable channel and/or wetland vegetation, soils, and hydrology. The study area will be analyzed for potential wetlands using the #®±¯² ®¥ %¦¨¤¤±² 7¤³« £ $¤«¨¤ ³¨® - ´ « methodology set forth in the 1987 (Environmental 2¤¦¨® « 3´¯¯«¤¬¤³ ³® ³§¤ #®±¯² ®¥ %¦¨¤¤±² 7¤³« £ $¤«¨¤ ³¨® Laboratory 1987) and the 2008 - ´ «Ȁ !±¨£ 7¤²³ 2¤¦¨® (USACE 2008a) or more current guidance. Lateral limits of non-wetland waters will be identified using field indicators (e.g., OHWM) (USACE 2008b). While in the field, potential jurisdictional features will be recorded onto a 100-foot-scale color aerial photograph using visible landmarks and mapped using a GPS unit with sub-meter accuracy. Vascular plants will 4§¤ *¤¯²® - ´ «Ȁ 6 ²¢´« ± 0« ³² ®¥ # «¨¥®±¨ 4§¤ identified using (Baldwin et al. 2012) and . ³¨® « 7¤³« £ 0« ³ ,¨²³ (Lichvar et al. 2014) or current references. Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 7-6 Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.15 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 617 Otay Land Company Site Monitoring 7.3.2Sampling Design and Statistical Rigor The monitoring program has been designed to maximize ability to characterize the site and detect change while minimizing costs. A statistical power analysis will be conducted to determine the appropriate number of sampling units needed to achieve 90% confidence with 15% precision around absolute native cover (Elzinga et al. 1998). Power, by definition, is the ability to find a statistically significant difference when the null hypothesis is in fact false; in other words, power is your ability to find a difference when a real difference exists (i.e., native cover is higher in Year 2 than Year 1). The power of a study is determined by three factors: the sample size, the alpha level, and the effect size. After Year 2, a power analysis using paired (permanent) data will be conducted to ensure 90% power is being achieved, alpha of 0.1, and a minimum detectable change of 15% native cover. If 90% power is not being achieved, additional transects may be added. Additionally, 90% confidence intervals will be calculated each year around native and nonnative cover of the restoration areas. These confidence intervals will be compared to vegetation success standards calculated based on the reference site to determine if success is being achieved. For native cover, the entire confidence interval must be higher than the success standard for success to be achieved. For nonnative cover, the entire confidence interval must be less than the success standard for success to be achieved. Using permanent sampling units allows for higher power with fewer samples because variability in space is removed, as the sampling units are in the same place year after year. Repeating the power analysis after Year 1 will ensure high power is still achieved with the most efficient sampling design possible. A similar power analysis will be conducted for the CRAM assessment, as described above 7.4Performance Standards Success criteria have been established for the mitigation plan based on the qualitative and quantitative monitoring described above. These performance standards have been designed specifically for this HMMP as a means of monitoring the progress and performance of the physical, hydrological, and biological conditions of the mitigation activities. The success criteria include multiple measures of the performance and final success, and include general site requirements, native and nonnative cover goals, and functional assessment target scores as shown in Table 7-2. Plan performance will be evaluated annually during regularly scheduled monitoring visits unless otherwise specified. If the plan at any time does not appear to be on a trajectory to meet final success standards, the biological monitor will recommend remedial actions (adaptive management) to ensure conformance to the goals and schedule. Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 7-7 Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.15 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 618 619 0 ¦¤ Packet !¦¤£ ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ 620 0 ¦¤ Packet !¦¤£ ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ Otay Land Company Site Monitoring 7.5Annual Reports Annual monitoring reports will be submitted to the appropriate resource agencies as specified by monitoring activities. Per the SPD Mitigation Guidelines, the annual report will include a short narrative letter report that includes a vicinity map, compensatory mitigation map, mitigation treatments, photograph, transect locations, and other monitoring locations; and will be accompanied by the SPD mitigation monitoring forms. Supporting data will be summarized by within the upland and floodplain area using relative cover. Mean absolute cover values for each species by will be included in an appendix. 7.6Adaptive Management Plan Pursuant to Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Title 33, Section 332.7(c) of the 2008 Mitigation Rule (33 CFR 325 and 332, and 40 CFR 230), the plan must include an adaptive management strategy to account for unforeseen problems in the implementation, short-term development, and overall success of the mitigation program. Otay Land Company will ensure that an experienced restoration ecologist who is familiar with the mitigation design and goals is on site during each phase of the HMMP. The most critical time for adaptive management will be during implementation, which will include initial clearing and grubbing activities through grading and planting activities. Correcting problems at this early stage should reduce potential problems during site development. During implementation, the restoration ecologist will be responsible for early detection of problems with the proposed site elevations and contours and will adapt the plan as needed with engineers and construction crews. The restoration ecologist will be responsible for the specified native plants being installed in the proper location and densities and for adjusting those specifications as needed to accommodate site conditions or other issues such as a species being unavailable. The restoration ecologist will train the planting crews on the proper methodology to plant each container type correct problems as needed. Interim performance standards are crucial to ensuring mitigation performance follows a trajectory to attain final mitigation success. Although not anticipated, if these interim performance standards are not achieved during annual monitoring, the restoration ecologist will work with the mitigation team and regulatory agencies if these problems require substantial action. A substantial action needing agency coordination could involve channel instability, large-scale infestation by invasive, nonnative plants and animals, a need to replant more than 20% of the site to improve species cover or diversity, supplemental soil amendments, or installation of new or replacement fencing and signage at new locations or with a new design. The team will prepare a recommendation and gain agency approval prior to implementation. Minor problems, such as trash, vandalism, isolated instances of plant mortality, or small-scale weed or pest infestations, will be rectified as they are discovered during routine site monitoring and maintenance and included in annual reporting. In some cases when performance standards are not being met, a site may be viewed as performing correctly and performance standards may be determined to have been incorrectly estimated. In these cases, OLC may request performance standards to be modified in accordance with 33 CFR 332.7(c)(4). Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 7-10 Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.15 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 621 Otay Land Company Site Monitoring If the mitigation site has not met the performance criteria, and the criteria are considered accurate and reasonable, the maintenance and monitoring obligations will continue until performance criteria are achieved or alternative contingency measures will be negotiated with regulatory agencies. Otay Land Company understands that failure of any significant portion of the mitigation site may result in a requirement to replace that portion of the site and/or extend the monitoring and maintenance period until all success standards are met. Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 7-11 Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.15 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 622 Otay Land Company Site Monitoring This page intentionally left blank. Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 7-12 Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.15 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 623 Chapter 8 Mitigation Cost and Financial Assurances Pursuant to 33 CFR 332.3(n)(2) of the Mitigation Rule, OLC will provide financial assurances in the form of a performance bond, letter of credit, or escrow account providing USACE contingency funding in the event that the OLC Wetland Mitigation site cannot be obtained or the mitigation successfully implemented. OLC has proposed providing financial assurances in two phases (implementation and post-implementation) for each of the two projects (Village 3 and Village 8 West). Financial assurances for the future phase of restoration will be included in the development of the mitigation bank. The first financial assurance is the estimated amount of acquiring replacement lands within the watershed or region in the event that the mitigation site cannot be successfully purchased. The second would be equal to the costs of planning, implementation, short-term monitoring (5-year monitoring period), and contingency funds for implementation of Phase 1 and Phase 2. The amount of the combined financial assurances provides sufficient funds to ensure that an alternative site can be acquired and a replacement compensatory mitigation plan can be implemented. 8.1Total Estimated Mitigation Implementation Cost The total cost for the compensatory mitigation, including the required short-term maintenance and monitoring and a 10% contingency, is estimated to be approximately $4.97 million. Cost estimates will be refined prior to executing the financial assurances and prior to implementation of the authorized impacts associated with the Village 3 and Village 8 West. Table 8-1 provides an itemized budget for successfully completing the Restoration Plan ICF staff used their best professional judgment and past experience with constructing similar projects to develop the line items and unit costs for the estimate. For convenience, the tasks have been categorized into property acquisition and protection, restoration planning and permitting, and implementation. Table 8-1. Preliminary Cost Estimate for Entire Plan 2¤²³®± ³¨® 0§ ²¤ȝ)³¤¬ 4®³ « #®²³ Assumptions Site Acquisition and Protection Real Estate Costs $0 Mitigation occurring on city and county owned properties $25,000 Developing and Recording Develop conservation easement, Conservation Easement attorney and recording fees Long-Term Endowment $170,955 Annual costs of $5,983.45 Restoration Planning and Permitting Design $202,000 Includes concept design, detailed design, and hydraulic analysis Mitigation and Monitoring Plan $57,000 Includes baseline surveys, vegetation map, and jurisdictional delineation Permitting $68,000 Includes biological surveys, California Environmental Quality Act compliance, Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 8-1 Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.15 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 624 Otay Land Company Mitigation Cost and Financial Assurances 2¤²³®± ³¨® 0§ ²¤ȝ)³¤¬ 4®³ « #®²³ Assumptions NWP 27, 1602, 401 Certification, SWPPP Implementation (by Phase) 0§ ²¤ Δ Invasive Species Treatment $195,000 Initial treatment of Phase 2 footprint, treatment of all trees, treatment of upstream areas. Includes initial UXO sweep. 0§ ²¤ Ε Construction $720,000 Includes mobilization, demolition, grading, planting, and construction monitoring 0§ ²¤ Ε $395,000 Post-Construction 5 years of post-construction Performance Monitoring and performance monitoring and site Maintenance maintenance &´³´±¤ 0§ ²¤² Construction $1,870,500 Includes mobilization, demolition, grading, planting, and construction monitoring &´³´±¤ 0§ ²¤² $835,000 Post-Construction 5 years of post-construction Performance Monitoring and performance monitoring and site Maintenance Phase 2 maintenance Subtotal $4,538,000 10% Contingency $436,650 Total $4,974,650 8.2Financial Assurances The financial assurance will be provided in the format agreed to by OLC, USACE, other regulatory agencies, and the City of Chula Vista as necessary. Financial assurances will be provided to USACE in the amount estimated in Table 8-2 unless adjusted based on new site information and as approved by USACE. Financial assurances will be provided using USACE templates if available and posted using the present standards for financial guarantees to warrantee mitigation requirements pursuant to the Mitigation Rule. The first financial assurance would be released upon initiation of Phase 2 construction, while the second financial assurance would be released by USACE upon notice of completion of the minimum 5-year maintenance and monitoring program, final annual report documenting attainment of all ecological performance standards, and an agency compliance visit if - ¦¤¬¤³ 0« 0±¤¯ ± ³¨® 2¤°´¨±¤¬¤³ requested (Section 9.4, ). Financial assurances have been divided across two phases of the project. As illustrated in Table 8-2 there is a disproportionate cost associated with the planning and installation of this HMMP. This is not uncommon but does warrant a distinction between the two phases. As such, a phased release schedule has been proposed corresponding to (1) the as-built at installation completion and (2) the 5-year maintenance and monitoring period and success achievement of all permit success standards for Phase 1 and Phase 2 (Village 3 and Village 8 West). Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 8-2 Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.15 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 625 Otay Land Company Mitigation Cost and Financial Assurances Table 8-2. Phased Financial Assurances &¨ ¢¨ « !²²´± ¢¤ 4®³ « #®²³ 2¤«¤ ²¤ 3¢§¤£´«¤ Phase First Phase 1 $717,955 Upon initiation of Phase 2 construction Second Phase $1,115,000 2 Completion of 5 year maintenance and monitoring program Total Financial Assurance $1,832,955 1 Includes Site Acquisition and Protection, Restoration Planning and Permitting, and Phase 1 Invasive Species Treatment. Includes Installation of Phase 2, Post-Construction Performance Monitoring and Maintenance for Phase 2, and the 10% 2 Contingency for the Phase 2 cost. Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 8-3 Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.15 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 626 Otay Land Company Mitigation Cost and Financial Assurances This page intentionally left blank. Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 8-4 Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.15 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 627 Chapter 9 Compensatory Mitigation and Preservation Credits 9.1Compensatory Mitigation Credits Available The compensatory mitigation quantities (acreage and stacked linear feet) that will be restored at the mitigation site are shown in Tables 9-1 and 9-2. Table 9-1. Compensatory Mitigation Acreage Quantities by Restoration Type for Entire Plan #$&7 "´¥¥¤± 2¤²³®± ³¨® 4¸¯¤ Habitat Acreage 7®53 #±¤£¨³ Credit Credit 12 Primary Channel 5.27 5.27 5.27 - Secondary 2.22 2.22 2.22 - Channels Re-establishment Active Low Floodplain (10 24.2 24.2 24.2 - year flood) High Floodplain 21.8 - 21.8 2.18 (25 year flood) Seasonal Ponds Establishment 1.34 1.34 1.34 - (created) Primary Channel 0.75 0.75 0.75 - Seasonal Ponds 0.38 0.38 0.38 - (existing) Rehabilitation 3 Active Low Floodplain (10 0.16 0.16 0.16 year flood) Transitional 47.15 - - 4.72 Uplands Total WoUS Credit 34.32 Total CDFW Credit 56.12 Total Upland Credits 6.9 1 Acreage includes WoUS Credit and is not additive. 2 Functional increase based on projected CRAM scores, %10 change. Buffer credit can be applied to WoUS and CDFW credit as the total acreage available has been reduced from the full 67 acres of rehabilitation to 6.7 acres based on the functional increase. Use of Rehabilitation credits are not as valuable as re-establishment and establishment in the USACE mitigation ratio 3 checklist, as such, the mitigation ratio will be higher when using this credit type. Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 9-1 Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.15 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 628 Otay Land Company Compensatory Mitigation and Preservation Quantities Table 9-2. Compensatory Mitigation Linear Feet Quantities for Entire Plan 3³ ¢ª¤£ 7¨£³§ ,¨¤ ± *´±¨²£¨¢³¨® « #§ ¤« ,¤¦³§ -¨³¨¦ ³¨® Ȩ,¨¤ ± &¤¤³ ȴ Feet Width Width) Straight Linear Feet All Channels 10,170 - - Secondary Channel 1,000 10 10,000 (North) Secondary Channel 2.220 22 48,840 (South) Stacked Linear Feet Primary Channel 5,170 50 258,500 Tributaries 1,780 23 40,940 4®³ « 3³ ¢ª¤£ ,¨¤ ± &¤¤³358,280 9.2Long-Term Management Plan Pursuant to 33 CFR 332.7(a) of the Mitigation Rule, OLC will prepare a specific long-term management plan that will govern the management of the mitigation site in perpetuity after all performance standards have been met. Although one goal of the OLC mitigation program is to reestablish self-sustaining native riparian scrub habitat, some level of long-term management will be required to ensure that target functions and services are maintained. The purpose of the long- term management plan will be to maintain control over factors that could adversely affect the site, such as invasive species, trespassing, and urban encroachment. OLC will evaluate the potential factors that could adversely affect the mitigation site in light of the location, the condition of riparian/wetland areas surrounding the mitigation site, and the proposed mitigation program, including the ecological performance standards described previously. The long-term management lude a provision to be updated every 5 years so that changes in the physical or anthropogenic environments can be adequately addressed. The long-term management plan will be developed to be compatible with the OVRP JEPA and will distinguish between monitoring and maintenance requirements that are over and above those included in the JEPA for the OVRP. The long-term management plan will include identification of financing mechanism(s) for long-term management and identification of responsible party(ies), such as a third-party land manager. The draft long-term management plan will be submitted to the regulatory agencies for review and approval. A draft outline for the long-term management plan is provided in Appendix F and additional details are provided below. 9.3Site Protection Mechanism The mitigation site will be protected through recordation of a real estate instrument such as a conservation easement, deed restriction, or covenant that will run with the land and will obligate OLC or its successor or assigns to retain the site as natural open space in perpetuity. The site protection mechanism will be developed to be compatible with the OVRP JEPA. The protection mechanism will ensure that the site is protected for the primary purpose of maintaining natural aquatic resources functions and services as targeted through the ecological performance standards 3¨³¤ -®¨³®±¨¦ in Chapter 7, . The protection mechanism will establish an appropriate third party to Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 9-2 Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.16 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 629 Otay Land Company Compensatory Mitigation and Preservation Quantities hold the easement with the right to enforce site protections and provide the third party the financial resources necessary to monitor and enforce the site protections. OLC will draft the long-term protection available. The mechanism will identify a third-party easement holder and a third-party land manager. OLC is currently in discussions with various entities to be an easement holder and land manager. The conservation mechanism will preclude establishment of fuel modification zones, road crossings, paved public trails, maintained public trails, maintenance access roads, and future easements within USACE jurisdiction other than those identified in the existing restoration plans. These include the City of Chula Vista Greenbelt Master Plan and the OVRP trails as identified in the 1997 OVRP Concept Plan and currently under evaluation, with a projected OVRP Concept Plan Update in 2016. It is expected that within the restoration project boundary, that planned trails would follow existing roads and paths, be located outside of jurisdictional waters with the exception of existing river crossings, and be marked with fencing, signage, other necessary amenities and maintained to minimize indirect effects on habitat. The road crossings over the river have been identified to maximize overlap with utilities (including SDG&E and OWD) and Border Patrol crossings. Additional multi-uses can also be approved by USACE and other regulatory agencies as desired for these crossings. 9.4Management Plan Preparation Requirement OLC will prepare a specific long-term management plan utilizing the draft outline provided in Appendix F, which was based on the California templates for Mitigation Banks developed by San Francisco, Sacramento, and Los Angeles Districts of USACE and their respective Interagency Review Teams. The long-term management plan will govern the management of the mitigation site following successful implementation of the restoration program and achievement of the 5-year ecological performance standards. The long-term management plan will summarize the management goals and objectives, identify responsible parties, characterize the baseline conditions, and define management and monitoring tasks and schedules, reporting requirements, and contingencies for adaptive management. The long- 5-year intervals and revised as needed to accommodate new management and monitoring strategies if necessary. Following successful completion of the mitigation program (i.e., achievement of ecological performance standards) and written concurrence by USACE and other regulatory agencies as needed, management of the mitigation site will be transferred along with the long-term management plan to the third-party land manager. The land manager will be funded in perpetuity on an annual basis through the non-wasting endowment described below. 9.5Funding Mechanisms/Schedule OLC will fund the long-term management and monitoring of the mitigation site by establishing a financial instrument such as a non-wasting endowment or other mechanism approved by USACE for the purposes of fulfilling the long-term responsibilities described in the long-term management plan. The restoration project will be included in the City of Chula Vista POM as it is part of the reserve system. Under the POM minimal management activities are performed annually based on Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 9-3 Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.16 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 630 Otay Land Company Compensatory Mitigation and Preservation Quantities the priorities identified in the annual work plan, (currently RECON). As these management actions are limited and not expected to meet the criteria described in the long-term management plan, OLC will financially supplement the POM via the non- wasting endowment or other approved financial mechanism to fund long term management of the restoration area in perpetuity to meet the long-term requirements for the restoration project. Following completion of the 5-year monitoring and maintenance period in which reporting will be done by OLCPOM will include a small chapter specific to the restoration site. OLC will as well as USACE. The amount of the endowment will be based on a Property Analysis Record (PAR) or PAR-equivalent analysis accounting for all the required management responsibilities, including monitoring, reporting, and a contingency to account for unforeseen adaptive management needs. The PAR and PAR-like analysis relies upon assumptions regarding capitalization rate, market rate of labor, equipment, materials, monitoring, and maintenance requirements. OLC and its consultant will work collaboratively with USACE to ensure clear, consistent, and well-substantiated evaluation and accurate outputs of projected costs. The non-wasting endowment will be provided to an approved financial institution such as the National Fish and Wildlife Foundation. A legal agreement between OLC, USACE, and the endowment manager will be developed if necessary to govern how the endowment is managed and when monies will be released to the long-term land manager. Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 9-4 Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.16 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 631 Chapter 10 Completion of Compensatory Mitigation 10.1Notification of Completion Upon achievement of the 5-year ecological performance standards and completion of the 5-year maintenance and monitoring period, OLC and its restoration ecologist will prepare a Final Monitoring Report and Notice of Completion. The final report will detail whether all the requirements of the mitigation program have been met and make any necessary recommendations for modifications to the long-term management plan or initial funding amount. An updated long- term management plan and PAR or PAR-equivalent analysis will be provided if required. The final report will be submitted to the regulatory agencies for verification of successful completion and final acceptance, and OLC will extend an invitation for a final agency site visit. !£ ¯³¨µ¤ - ¦¤¬¤³ 0« Pursuant to Section 7.6, , the restoration ecologist will consult with regulatory agencies annually if substantial remedial actions are needed to achieve performance standards. Should any of the restoration areas fail to meet the final performance standards at the end of the 5-year maintenance and monitoring period, OLC will consult with the resource agencies to determine if any additional actions are needed to attain the 5-year ecological performance standards or if alternative mitigation options need to be pursued. 10.2Agency Confirmation of Site Performance Upon receipt of the final report the regulatory agencies will be requested to either confirm that the required performance standards have been met or to accept an invitation for a site visit. If regulatory agency personnel reject terminating the 5-year monitoring and maintenance program, reasons for the objection should be clearly stated so that corrective measures may be immediately scheduled. OLC will schedule a meeting to resolve agency concerns, which may include implementing additional adaptive management measures, arranging to extend the monitoring period. Upon acceptance of the termination of the 5-year monitoring and maintenance program, OLC will request a letter verifying the successful completion of the mitigation plan and transfer responsibilities to the long-term manager. Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 10-1 Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.15 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 632 Pacifc Gas and Electric Company Completion of Compensatory Mitigation This page intentionally left blank. Mira Monte Marina Wetland Restoration Project October 2013 10-2 Conceptual Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00707.12 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 633 Chapter 11 References /³ ¸ 2¨µ¤± 7 ³¤±²§¤£ - ¦¤¬¤³ 0« Aspen Environmental Group. 2007. . Prepared for the County of San Diego and the City of Chula Vista. http://www.sandiegocounty.gov/dplu/docs/05-06FinalDraft_OtayRiverWMP.pdf. 3³ ³´² ±¤µ¨¤¶ ®¥ ³§¤ # «¨¥®±¨ ¦ ³¢ ³¢§¤± Ȩ0®«¨®¯³¨« ¢ «¨¥®±¨¢ ȩ Atwood, J. L. 1990. . Unpubl. tech. rep., Manomet Bird Observatory, Manomet, MA. 79 pp. . 1993. California gnatcatchers and coastal sage scrub: the biological basis for endangered species listing. Pages 149169 in J. E. Keeley, ed. Interface between ecology and land development in California. Southern Calif. Acad. Sci., Los Angeles. 4§¤ Baldwin, B. G., D. H. Goldman, D. J. Keil, R. Patterson, T. J. Rosatti, and D. H. Wilken (eds.). 2012. *¤¯²® - ´ «Ȁ 6 ²¢´« ± 0« ³² ®¥ # «¨¥®±¨ ȁ Second edition. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. 3®¨« 3´±µ¤¸Ǿ 3 $¨¤¦® !±¤ Ǿ # «¨¥®±¨ Ǿ 0 ±³ Δȁ Bowman, R. H. 1973. United States Department of Agriculture. Busch, D. E. and S. D. Smith. 1995. Mechanisms Associated with Decline of Woody Species in %¢®«®¦¨¢ « -®®¦± ¯§² Riparian Ecosystems of the Southwestern U.S. 65(3):347370. -¨¤± « , £ California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology. 1982. #« ²²¨¥¨¢ ³¨®Ȁ !¦¦±¤¦ ³¤ - ³¤±¨ «² ¨ ³§¤ 7¤²³¤± 3 $¨¤¦® #®´³¸ 0±®£´¢³¨®ȃ#®²´¬¯³¨® Region . Special Report 153. Available: https://ia601201.us.archive.org/26/items/minerallandclass153kohl/minerallandclass153kohl. pdf. California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). 2015. California Natural Diversity Database, RareFind 4. Available: https://www.dfg.ca.gov/biogeodata/cnddb/. Accessed: May 2015. California Invasive Plant Council (Cal-IPC). 2014. California Invasive Plant Inventory Database. Available: http://www.cal-ipc.org/paf/. Accessed: October 18, 2014. California Native Plant Society. 1999. Field Sampling Protocol. Available: https://web.archive.org/web/19990128000628/http://www.calpoly.edu/~dchippin/protocol. html. California Wetlands Monitoring Workgroup (CWMW). 2013. California Rapid Assessment Method 3 $¨¤¦® #®´³¸ (¸£±®«®¦¸ - ´ « County of San Diego. 2003. . Available: http://www.sandiegocounty.gov/content/sdc/dpw/flood/hydrologymanual.html. DiTomaso, J. M., G. B. Kyser, S. R. Oneto, R. G. Wilson, S. B. Orloff, L. W. Anderson, S. D. Wright, J. A. Roncoroni, T. L. Miller, T. S. Prather, C. Ransom, K. G. Beck, C. Duncan, K. A. Wilson, and J. J. Mann. 7¤¤£ #®³±®« ¨ . ³´± « !±¤ ² ¨ ³§¤ 7¤²³¤± 5¨³¤£ 3³ ³¤² 2013. . Weed Research and Information Center, University of California, Davis. Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 11-1 Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.15 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 634 Otay Land Company References -¤ ²´±¨¦ £ -®¨³®±¨¦ 0« ³ 0®¯´« ³¨®²ȁ Elzinga, C. L., D. W. Salzer, and J. W. Willoughby. 1998. Bureau of Land Management Technical Reference 17301. Denver, Colorado. #®±¯² ®¥ %¦¨¤¤±² 7¤³« £ $¤«¨¤ ³¨® - ´ «ȁ Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Technical Report Y-87-1. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experimental Station. Franzreb, K. E. 1989. . U.S. Fish Wildlife Service Biol. Rep. 89. ( ¡¨³ ³ ±¤°´¨±¤¬¤³² ®¥ ³§¤ «¤ ²³ "¤««͖² µ¨±¤® Goldwasser, S. 1981. . Calif. Dept. of Fish and Game Final Report., Job IV-38.1. Gray, M. V. and J. -611, )Ȁ R.E. Warner and K. M. Hendrix, (eds.), California riparian systems: Ecology, conservation, and productive management. Univ. California Press, Berkeley, California. Holland, R. 1986. Preliminary descriptions of the terrestrial natural communities of California. Unpublished document, California Department of Fish and Game, Natural Heritage Division. Sacramento, CA. ! '´¨£¤ ³® ³§¤ "¨±£² ®¥ -¤·¨¢® £ .®±³§¤± #¤³± « !¬¤±¨¢ Howell, Steve N. G., Sophie Webb. 1995. . Oxford University Press. pp. 654655. ISBN 0-19-854012-4. /³ ¸ 2¨µ¤± 7 ³¤±²§¤£ 3¯¤¢¨ « !±¤ - ¦¤¬¤³ 0« Jones and Stokes. 2006. . -¨¤± « , £ #« ²²¨¥¨¢ ³¨®Ȁ !¦¦±¤¦ ³¤ - ³¤±¨ «² ¨ ³§¤ 7¤²³¤± Kohler, S. L., and R. V. Miller. 1982. 3 $¨¤¦® #®´³¸ 0±®£´¢³¨®ȃ#®²´¬¯³¨® 2¤¦¨® . California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology. Special Report 153. In Kus, B. E. and K. L. Miner. 1989. Use of Non-: Abell, Dana L., Technical Coordinator. 1989. Lichvar, R. W., M. Butterwick, N. C. Melvin, and W. N. Kirchner. 2014. The National Wetland Plant Phytoneuron List: 2014 Update of Wetland Ratings. 2014(41):142. Major, J. 1977. California Climate in Relation to Vegetation. Pages 1174 in M. Barbor and J. Majors 4¤±±¤²³±¨ « 6¤¦¤³ ³¨® ®¥ # «¨¥®±¨ (eds.), . NY: John Wiley. Mattoni, R., T. Longcore, J. George, and C. Rich. 1997. Down memory lane: the Los Angeles coastal prairie and its vernal pools. Poster presentation at 2nd Interface Between Ecology and Land Development in California. Occidental College, April 1819. 3®´³§¤± # «¨¥®±¨ &«®®£² ®¥ * ´ ±¸Ǿ ΔΜΔΙ McGlashan, H. D., and F. C. Ebert. 1918. . Department of the Interior, United States Geological Survey. Government Printing Office. 5¯£ ³¤ ®¥ -¨¤± « , £ #« ²²¨¥¨¢ ³¨®Ȁ !¦¦±¤¦ ³¤ - ³¤±¨ «² ¨ ³§¤ 7¤²³¤± 3 Miller, R. V. 1996. $¨¤¦® #®´³¸ 0±®£´¢³¨®ȃ#®²´¬¯³¨® 2¤¦¨® . California Department of Conservation, Division of Mines and Geology. DMG Open-File Report 96-04. Mitsch, W. J. and J. G. Gosselink. 2000. Wetlands. Third edition. John Wiley & Sons. New York, New York, USA. National Weather Service Lower Otay Reservoir Weather Station. 2013. http://www.weather.gov/. Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 11-2 Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.15 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 635 Otay Land Company References Oberbauer, Thomas, Meghan Kelly, and Jeremy Buegge. 2008. Draft Vegetation Communities of San ommunities of Regional Environmental Consultants (RECON). 1989. Comprehensive species management plan for 6¨±¤® ¡¤««¨¨ ¯´²¨««´² ). Prepared for San Diego Association of Governments, San Diego. Salata, L. 1983. ¨ ΔΜΛΖ . Unpubl. Rept., U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Laguna Niguel, CA. 7 ³¤± ¨ ³§¤ 3 $¨¤¦® 2¤¦¨® San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG). 1985. . October. 2¤¦¨® « 3´¯¯«¤¬¤³ ³® ³§¤ #®±¯² ®¥ %¦¨¤¤±² U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2008a. 7¤³« £ $¤«¨¤ ³¨® - ´ «Ȁ !±¨£ 7¤²³ 2¤¦¨® . Version 2.0. Vicksburg, MS: U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Center. Report dated September 2008. ! &¨¤«£ '´¨£¤ ³® ³§¤ )£¤³¨¥¨¢ ³¨® ®¥ ³§¤ /±£¨ ±¸ (¨¦§ 7 ³¤± - ±ª ¨ ³§¤ !±¨£ 7¤²³ . 2008b. 2¤¦¨® ®¥ ³§¤ 7¤²³¤± 5¨³¤£ 3³ ³¤²Ȁ ! $¤³¤±¬¨ ³¨® - ´ « . August. Available: http://www.crrel.usace.army.mil/library/technicalreports/ERDC-CRREL-TR-08-12.pdf. )³¤± ¦¤¢¸ 2¤¦´« ³®±¸ '´¨£¤ ¥®± !£µ ¢¤ 0¤±¬¨³³¤¤ȃ2¤²¯®²¨¡«¤ -¨³¨¦ ³¨®ȁ . 2012. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington State Department of Ecology, and Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife, Ecology Publication No. 12-06-015. December. $± ¥³ ΕΓΔΖ 2¤¦¨® « #®¬¯¤² ³®±¸ -¨³¨¦ ³¨® £ -®¨³®±¨¦ '´¨£¤«¨¤² ¥®± 3®´³§ . 2013. 0 ¢¨¥¨¢ $¨µ¨²¨® 53!#% . Available: http://www.spd.usace.army.mil/Portals/13/docs/regulatory/qmsref/RMMG/SPD%20MMG%2 020130820.pdf. . 2014. 12505-SPD Regulatory Program Uniform Performance Standards for Compensatory Mitigation Requirements. Available: http://www.spd.usace.army.mil/Portals/13/docs/regulatory/qmsref/ups/12505.pdf. . 2014. Web Soil Survey. Available at http://websoilsurvey.nrcs.usda.gov/app/WebSoilSurvey.aspx. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)/U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). 2008. Compensatory Mitigation for Losses of Aquatic Resources: Final Rule. Federal Register 73(70) 2008. Available: http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/guidance/wetlands/upload/2008_04_10_wetlands_wetlands_m itigation_final_rule_4_10_08.pdf. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1993. Threatened coastal California gnatcatcher; final rule and proposed special rule. Federal Register 58, number 59. . 1995. Endangered and threatened wildlife and plants; notice of determination to retain the threatened status for the coastal California gnatcatcher under the Endangered Species Act. March 27, 1995. Notice of determination. Federal Register 60: 1569315699. . 1997. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants; Determination of Endangered Status for the San Diego Fairy Shrimp. Federal Register Vol. 62, No. 22. Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 11-3 Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.15 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 636 Otay Land Company References . 1998a. . Portland, Oregon. Available: http://www.fws.gov/carlsbad/SpeciesStatusList/RP/19980506_Draft%20RP_LBV.pdf. . 1998b. Recovery Plan for Vernal Pools of Southern California. Portland, Oregon. 113+ pp. Available: http://www.fws.gov/sacramento/es/Recovery-Planning/Vernal- Pool/es_recovery_vernal-pool-recovery.htm. ,¨¥¤ (¨²³®±¸ ®¥ ³§¤ 6¤± « 0®®« 4 £¯®«¤ 3§±¨¬¯ . 2002. . 14 Updated February 4, 2002. http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/life_histories/K048.html. 2¤¢®µ¤±¸ 0« ¥®± ³§¤ 1´¨® #§¤¢ª¤±²¯®³ "´³³¤±¥«¸%´¯§¸£±¸ ² ¤£¨³§ °´¨® . 2003. (). Portland, Oregon. Available: http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/recovery_plan/030917.pdf. 3 $¨¤¦® & ¨±¸ 3§±¨¬¯ &¨µ¤ȃ¸¤ ± 2¤µ¨¤¶ . 2008. . September 30. Available: http://ecos.fws.gov/docs/five_year_review/doc1999.pdf. 1´¨® #§¤¢ª¤±²¯®³ "´³³¤±¥«¸ 3´±µ¤¸ '´¨£¤«¨¤²ȁ . 2014. December 15. Available: http://www.fws.gov/carlsbad/TEspecies/Documents/QuinoDocs/Quino%20Survey%20Guidel ines_version%2015DEC2014.pdf. Western Regional Climate Center. 2014. Period of Record Monthly Climate Summary for Chula Vista, CA (041758). Otay Land Company Villages 3 and 8 West April 2016 11-4 Final Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 and 526.15 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 637 Appendix A Interagency Regulatory Guide for Advance Permittee- Responsible Mitigation by the USACE Seattle District ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 638 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 639 Interagency Regulatory Guide Advance Permittee-Responsible Mitigation U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Washington State Department of Ecology Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife USArmyCorps ofEngineers SeattleDistrict December 2012 Ecology Publication no. 12-06-015 Template ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 640 Publication and Contact Information This Interagency Regulatory Guide on Advance Permittee-Responsible Mitigation (Guide) was cooperatively developed by an interagency workgroup. The workgroup members include: Sandra Manning, Corps of Engineers Lauren Driscoll and Caroline Corcoran, Ecology Randi Thurston, WDFW and Mark Daily (formerly with WDFW) Doug Swanson, Gretchen Lux and Ken Risenhoover, WSDOT https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/SummaryPages/120615.html. That Works website at: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/mitigation. If you have questions on the Guide, please contact the following agency representatives: Corps of Engineers: Sandra Manning, Transportation Policy Lead at (360) 407-6912 Gail Terzi, Mitigation Manager at (206) 764-6903 Department of Ecology: Lauren Driscoll, Wetlands Section Manager at (360) 407-7045 Department of Fish and Wildlife: Randi Thurston, (360) 902-2602 Acknowledgements The workgroup would like to acknowledge the assistance provided by Gail Terzi, Corps of Engineers and Hans Ehlert, CH2MHill in developing and editing the document. Development of this document was partially funded through a Wetland Program Development Grant from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (Making Mitigation Work, #CD-00J00701-0). If you need this document in a format for the visually impaired, call the Shorelands and Environmental Assistance Program at 360-407-6600. Persons with hearing loss can call 711 for Washington Relay Service. Persons with a speech disability can call 877-833-6341. ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 641 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 642 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 643 US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS AND WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENTS OF ECOLOGY AND USArmyCorps ofEngineers FISH AND WILDLIFE SeattleDistrict INTERAGENCY REGULATORY GUIDE ON ADVANCE PERMITTEE-RESPONSIBLE MITIGATION DECEMBER 2012 Purpose The purpose of this Interagency Regulatory Guide on Advance Permittee-Responsible Mitigation (Guide) is to identify the circumstances under which the Seattle District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and the Washington State Departments of Ecology (Ecology) and Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) will consider advance permittee-responsible compensatory mitigation for unavoidable impacts to aquatic resources. Nothing in this Guide either diminishes or expands the regulatory authorities of these agencies. This Guide is meant to provide assistance to applicants proposing to establish an advance mitigation site and to explain how a site might be used as mitigation. This Guide supersedes the definitions for advance and excess mitigation found in 1 Guidance) March 2006, pages 33 and 34, Chapter 4, section 4.1. This Guide complements -M5002). Definition of Permittee-Responsible Advance Mitigation In the context of this Guide, advance mitigation is a form of permittee-responsible compensatory mitigation constructed in advance of a permitted impact. Permittee-responsible mitigation is defined by 33 CFR 332.2 as aquatic resource restoration, establishment, enhancement, and/or preservation, undertaken to provide compensatory mitigation, for which the permittee retains full responsibility. Applicants conduct advance mitigation at their own risk. Even if compensatory mitigation activities are themselves authorized by a permit, establishing compensatory mitigation in advance of the impacts does not create any presumption or guarantee that a proposed future impact will be authorized, or that the advance compensatory mitigation will be considered adequate and/or suitable mitigation for any specific future project. shing an advance mitigation site designed to compensate for future expected impacts. Alternatively, advance mitigation can also be combined with concurrent mitigation required by a Federal, State, or local permit, where the concurrent mitigation site provides additional area beyond the immediate mitigation requirements, and/or the site provides additional functions in excess of what is required for the permitted impact. The excess mitigation generated at a site would be established in advance of, and would generate credits for use against, expected future impacts. In these cases, the area being set aside for advance mitigation must be clearly identified and documented to distinguish from the area being used as concurrent mitigation. 1 The 2006 Joint Guidance can be found online at: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/wetlands/mitigation/guidance/index.html. 1 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 644 Advance mitigation can be proposed by any applicant, but the advance compensatory mitigation credits generated by a mitigation effort in advance of impacts can only be used by that same applicant. If it is determined a mitigation effort and the generated advance credits are not needed by the permittee, they should coordinate possible options with the regulatory agencies. Once any credits have been utilized on an approved advance mitigation site, further credits generated by the advance mitigation effort on that site cannot be sold to another applicant. The restriction on sale of credits derives from the lack of regulatory authority, except in a mitigation banking or in-lieu fee program context, to transfer the obligation for mitigation success to any party other than the permittee of the impacting project. The credit value of mitigation efforts at a site will generally increase over time because the temporal loss is eliminated or decreased if a mitigation effort is established and meeting performance standards prior to the use of the generated credits. The longer a site is functioning, the more credits it may generate for use until the site has reached its maximum potential of credits by meeting all of the listed performance standards (typically around year ten). The general policy of the regulatory agencies is that a site would not generate advance mitigation credit beyond the concurrent ratios recommended in the most current Joint Guidance for wetland mitigation, or in the WDFW mitigation policy POL-M5002 for fish habitat, until the site has been functioning and meeting the required performance standards for a minimum of two calendar years after earth work and planting have been completed. In cases where a permit applicant seeks to apply mitigation credits prior to this interval, it will usually be reviewed as concurrent mitigation. There may be circumstances where the site, or a portion of the site, may generate advance credit within the first two years (e.g., breaching dikes, removing fish passage barriers, preserving existing wetland or fish habitat, and in some cases wetland re-establishment or creation actions). These circumstances will be reviewed by the regulatory agencies on a case-by-case basis. When applying for approval to establish an advance mitigation site, applicants will need to provide information similar to that required for a mitigation plan approval. Additional information pertinent on pages 5-6 of this document. The agencies also recommend submitting a proposed credit generation schedule demonstrating a reduced ratio as the site matures, and proposed credit value(s) the applicant is anticipating the advance site may generate. The geographic area proposed as the potential project use area for future impacts should also be proposed by the applicant based on a watershed approach. The regulatory agencies can review and finalize the credit generation schedule and the geographic use area during the permitting process as part of the approval for the mitigation plan. This will provide the applicant a conditional decision on the potential credits a site may generate if a site is meeting performance standards outlined in the mitigation plan as well as what geographic areas will be acceptable for use. If this information is not available at the time of application for the advance mitigation establishment, it will be required to be approved by the agencies prior to using any credits generated at the site. At the time generated advance credits are proposed for use, the regulatory agencies with jurisdiction over the impacting proposal will decide if the advance compensatory mitigation project provides the appropriate type and extent of mitigati agencies will also consider how the mitigation site is functioning prior to determining how much of , pages 7-8 of this document). Credits can only be used once and upon their use as mitigation the mitigation effort reflected in these credits will not accumulate additional value over time. The 2 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 645 agencies with jurisdiction will require in the permit for the aquatic impact, the appropriate number of advance credits necessary for mitigation. If necessary, the agencies will also define specific areas of the advance mitigation site designed to address compensation for specific impacts to critical on-site functions or habitat type that might be required (e.g. a created stream channel may be required to mitigate for filling a stream). In some cases the agencies may require critical functions to be mitigated on-site at the impact location while other functions may be appropriately mitigated at the determined must be maintained on-site. The agency-approved use as compensatory mitigation of all advance credits must be documented in a ledger managed by the advance mitigation permittee, and submitted to the appropriate regulatory agencies for each ledger transaction. The transaction must document the use of credits and in some cases specific areas on a map that will be deducted or shown as used if necessary to offset critical habitat or function impacts (i.e. a stream creation area to offset stream loss). Any generated credits will not be officially accepted or released by the agencies for compensatory use until the time an applicant proposes the use of credits as mitigation for a specific impacting project, and the regulatory agencies approve use of those credits as mitigation. However if a site has achieved performance standards as outlined in the advance mitigation plan but the advance site has not been approved by the regulatory agencies for use, , the opportunity for the permittee to use the advance mitigation site will not expire. The functional lift achieved by the site will be considered by the agencies when proposed for use by the permittee. Pertinent Regulations Federal The Corps and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) published a rule on Compensatory Mitigation for Losses of Aquatic Resources (Mitigation Rule) (33 CFR Parts 325 and 332, 2 40 CFR Part 230), dated April 10, 2008. The Mitigation Rule defines requirements of compensatory activities. The Mitigation Rule is intended to enable the agencies to promote greater consistency, predictability and ecological success of mitigation projects under the Clean Water Act and Rivers and Harbors Act. The Mitigation Rule defines three forms of compensatory mitigation: mitigation banks; in-lieu fee programs; and permittee-responsible mitigation. The Federal hierarchy of preferred forms of mitigation is 1.Mitigation banks 2.In-lieu fee programs 3.Permittee-responsible mitigation that is undertaken using a watershed approach, if appropriate and practicable 4.On-site and in-kind 5.Off-site and/or out-of-kind. When proposing advance mitigation in a service area where a mitigation bank or in-lieu fee program has been approved, the applicant must demonstrate why the advance site is ecologically preferable to 2 The Mitigation Rule can be found online at: http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/guidance/wetlands/wetlandsmitigation_index.cfm. 3 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 646 other forms of mitigation. Also, in some cases it may be necessary to replace critical functions on- site. Appendix 1 sets forth a comparison of these various mitigation options and the responsibilities associated with each. Although the Mitigation Rule does not specifically define or discuss advance mitigation as a compensatory mitigation strategy, advance mitigation fulfills several of the objectives that are cited in 33 CFR 332.3(a) as bases for concluding that mitigation banks and in-lieu fee programs are preferable forms of compensatory mitigation: reducing temporal losses of functions, and reducing required to compensate for temporal loss, losses, the Federal regulations implicitly authorize comparatively reduced mitigation requirements when mitigation is accomplished in advance. It is thus an acceptable form of permittee-responsible mitigation for the federal regulatory agencies provided it follows the procedures and constraints outlined in this Guide. State associated water quality regulations (Chapter 173-201A WAC). Based on the anti-degradation policy (WAC 173-201A-300-330), adequate mitigation is required to effectively offset aquatic impacts. Per Section 401 of the Clean Water Act, Ecology must certify that projects comply with state water quality protection laws before the Department of the Army permit can be authorized. (Chapter 77.55 RCW). Any entity conducting work affecting the bed or flow of state waters is required to obtain an HPA from WDFW. An HPA must contain all avoidance, minimization, and compensation measures necessary to ensure the proper protection of fish and their habitats. The rules implementing the Hydraulic Project Approval authority not only allow the use of advance mitigation, they state that a project proponent may be required to establish functional compensatory mitigation prior to the impact (WAC 220-110-020(66)). For projects located on state owned aquatic lands, applicants must coordinate with the Department of Natural Resources. Local jurisdictions regulate critical areas including wetlands and streams. Projects affecting critical areas may need to obtain local permits for construction. Agency Support Federal and state regulations and guidance encourage implementation of mitigation in advance of the project impacts to reduce or eliminate temporal loss, and reduce the risk of unsuccessful mitigation. With advance mitigation, temporal loss is eliminated or reduced, therefore allowing for a reduced amount or ratio for compensation. In addition, the WDFW mitigation policy (POL-M5002) acknowledges the benefit of providing compensatory mitigation in advance of the impacting project. The risk of failed mitigation is reduced because mitigation credit will not be generated for use to offset aquatic impacts until the advance mitigation site demonstrates performance and functional lift. Applicants also may benefit from completing mitigation in advance. If a mitigation site is constructed and functioning prior to the impacts, the eventual compensatory mitigation decisions are likely to occur more quickly. This may result in a decrease in permit processing time because 4 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 647 regulatory agencies will have the certainty that a mitigation site is successfully functioning and will not have to review and approve a new site that has the risks associated with concurrent mitigation. maximum credit potential when the mitigation goals, objectives and performance standards are met. Ratios required to offset impacts generally will be reduced over time due to the decrease in temporal loss and risk, making advance mitigation more cost effective. Proposing Advance Mitigation In order to qualify for the enhanced compensation ratios associated with advance mitigation, agency verification of baseline conditions is necessary, so pre-approval of a Mitigation Plan prior to commencing the mitigation effort is required. When proposing an advance mitigation site, applicants should consider the anticipated location of future projects that will require mitigation so an appropriate location near potential impacts can be selected. The mitigation should be designed to achieve a self-sustaining site where appropriate. The type of mitigation proposed should consider future needs so the mitigation type can offset expected functional losses of future aquatic impacts. In cases where WDFW mitigation is required, the site should benefit the same fish stocks impacted by the project. a group of fish that return to spawn in a given area at the same time and are, for the most part, reproductively isolated from other such groups. A stock may The risk of advance mitigation is borne by the permittee planning to use the mitigation site. Establishing a mitigation effort generating advance credits provides no entitlement to, or guarantee of, use of those credits as compensation for any particular project causing impact to aquatic resources. The following information is requiredfor agency review and conditional approval when proposing an advance mitigation site: 1.Applicants shall submit a mitigation plan for agency review and approval. The plan shall be in accordance with 33 CFR 332.4(c) (see Appendix 2), and the current Joint Guidance, 2006 Interagency Guidance, Ecology Publication #06-06-011b, and WDFW POL-M5002 for fish habitat as applicable. The advance mitigation plan shall contain the requirements of a concurrent mitigation plan and the following additional information: a.Disclosure that the proposal is to construct a permittee-responsible advance mitigation site. b.The site location must be selected using a watershed approach. The watershed needs should be identified in the plan, and include an explanation of how the mitigation will improve the watershed. c.Detailed and adequate documentation of baseline conditions (e.g., wetland delineation and functional assessments, wetland category based on the Ecology rating form, condition of riparian or wetland buffers, and condition of stream and fish species if present), from which future ecological lift can be determined and adequate credit identified. The baseline must be thoroughly documented as it is the foundation mitigation credits that may be generated. d.The size/acreage and type of mitigation proposed to be established, restored, rehabilitated, enhanced, and/or preserved. 5 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 648 e.As stated above, if fish habitat mitigation is being included, the mitigation site should benefit the same fish stocks impacted by the project proposing to use the site for future mitigation needs. This may be required by WDFW prior to using a site for mitigation. For all mitigation sites proposed to be used for any fish or fisheries habitat impacts, provide size/acreage details for mitigation proposals that include fish habitat creation, restoration, or enhancement, fish barrier removals, or other mitigation that is required to offset expected fish habitat or stream impacts. Also include information on the limiting factors of the watershed if available, and an explanation of how the mitigation will improve these limiting factors for the species and habitats that may benefit. It may be necessary to track fish habitat mitigation elements separately from wetland credits in order to document appropriate establishment and use of mitigation for fish habitat impacts. The following information is recommendedfor agency review and approval when proposing an advance mitigation site. Submitting this additional information will facilitate agency approval earlier in the process on key mitigation decisions such as the anticipated credits that may be generated at a site if performance standards are met, and on the acceptable location (service area) that may apply to the proposed mitigation site. Getting agency approval on these elements prior to establishing the site should provide applicants with more assurance of how a site may be used on future actions. If an applicant decides not to provide this additional information prior to site establishment, they may have an increased risk that their anticipated use area and credit generating schedule may not be approved by the agencies at time of proposed use. f.Propose a credit generating schedule or framework demonstrating how the credits will increase over time as the site maturesand successfully reaches performance standards. This schedule should show how the advance credit may be generated as the site matures from construction (when concurrent mitigation ratios will apply) through year 10 and should include the performance standards guiding the credits that (e.g., post-construction) environmental value, credit, and ecological lift if all performance standards are accomplished, but they cannot determine the appropriateness for the use of any credits until such time as it is proposed to be used as compensatory mitigation for a specific project. g.Propose the boundary of the geographic area that is appropriate to be used for future impact locations. h.Propose appropriate ratios for credit use based on impact type, and quality of and functions provided by the aquatic resources at the impact site. This will likely be general information based on standard ratios for impacts to wetland category and type outlined in the Joint Guidance. Exact impact areas and functions may not be known and adequacy of ratios proposed must be considered on a case by case basis. In order to use the credits generated by an advance mitigation effort for compensatory mitigation, the permittee of the impacting project shall be responsible for the performance, sustainability, maintenance and monitoring (for both the establishment period of the advance mitigation site and the Long-term Monitoring and Maintenance period) of the advance mitigation site. This permittee can act through a third party agent to construct, maintain, and monitor the mitigation but the permittee is ultimately responsible for site performance. 6 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 649 The agencies strongly recommend applicants contact tribes and local governments involved in decisions for use of the site as mitigation (e.g., critical area or shoreline permits, sites affecting fish habitat, or Tribal 401 Certification) early in the permit review process. In some cases, local jurisdictions may not have regulations in place to allow mitigation in advance of impacts. If a project is located on state owned aquatic lands, applicants will also need to contact the Department of Natural Resources for approval. Use of the Advance Mitigation Site At the time that credits generated by the advance mitigation effort are proposed to be used as compensatory mitigation for a specific project, the permit applicant shall provide an Advance Mitigation Site Use Plan (Use Plan) to the regulatory agencies with jurisdiction over the action causing aquatic impacts. The Use Plan should include the following information: 1. above. This should include all of the elements listed in the required section. If the information listed in the recommended section was not included in the application stage, this information should be provided in the Use Plan. 2.All monitoring reports for the site, or a reference to the reports if they have been provided. 3. conditions, documented by meeting stated performance standards or demonstrated by a functional assessment and monitoring reports. 4.Describe the development pro Include type of aquatic impact, fish and wildlife species affected, acreage impacted, functions lost, and how impacts have been avoided and minimized. 5.Describe how the advance mitigation adequately compensates for the unavoidable impacts to waters of the U.S. and any impacts to fish life. 6.If the impact area is within the service area of an approved mitigation bank or in-lieu-fee program, demonstrate why the use of the advance mitigation site is ecologically preferable from a watershed perspective. Some critical functions may need to be mitigated on site. 7.Propose the amount of mitigation credit the applicant believes is necessary to offset lost functions from the proposed impacts. This should be based on the credit generating schedule if one was established during the application stage (see 1.f. above). If not established it should be based on the quality of the impacted area and functions lost, and the age and demonstrated success of the advance mitigation site. The final decision on the type, and amount of compensatory mitigation required for an impacting project is reserved to the exclusive discretion of the regulatory agencies with authority over that project. 8.The site must be protected in perpetuity prior to the use of the site as mitigation. Include information on what site protection mechanism has been established or is being proposed for 7 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 650 agency approval (restrictive covenant, deed restriction, conservation easement, etc.). Include financial assurances and/or long-term management and maintenance plan as required by the regulatory agencies. 9.Propose an adequate record-keeping method, ledgers to be used, and methods for tracking of Once credits are approved for use by the regulatory agencies, a ledger will be required and will include the documentation of all projects using credits from the site to date and which agency(s) required the credit for mitigation, how much credit is used for each project (based on a specific geographic area and/or function), and date of use. Prior to authorizing the use of any advance compensatory mitigation, the Corps, Ecology, and WDFW if applicable, will be required to approve the mechanisms for tracking the credit use of required to send a copy of an updated ledger within 30 days of the credit use to the assigned project manager for the Corps, Ecology and WDFW even if these agencies did not require the credit for a federal or state authorization. At the time a credit is used and debited from the ledger, the regulatory agencies will identify if the mitigation requires a specific geographic area or function to be deducted from use on the site plan, or if just a general credit deduction is necessary. This will allow the expenditure of advance credits to be accurately tracked. It will also provide direct linkage between activities causing loss of aquatic resources and the corresponding specific compensatory mitigation, for compliance and enforcement purposes. If only a portion of the advance mitigation site is used as mitigation, adequate buffers will be required to protect the mitigation area from adjacent land uses. As previously stated, once the first credits generated by the mitigation site are approved for use in accordance with a Use Plan, and once those credits are applied to an impacting project as compensatory credits, the released credits and the opportunity to generate any further credits from that site cannot be sold or otherwise transferred to another party. If it is determined the mitigation and the generated advance credits are not needed by the permittee, they should coordinate possible options with the regulatory agencies. There is no guarantee of any opportunity to transfer any released credits, either prior to or after use as compensatory mitigation for an impacting project, nor any guarantee that the right to use any potential credits, that may be generated by the mitigation site following the first use of credits, may be sold or transferred to another party. The permittee bears the risk of possible inability to utilize all the credits that could potentially be generated on a mitigation site. Regardless of any options for disposition of unused and unneeded potential credits, once credits generated by the advance mitigation have been authorized for use, the mitigation site constitutes permittee-responsible mitigation and the permittee of the impacting project retains legal responsibility for the success, sustainability, and monitoring of the advance mitigation site. The permittee is also responsible for funding and implementation of the site protection mechanism and any long-term management and maintenance plan as described in #8 above. 8 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 651 Appendices Appendix 1. Comparison of Permittee-Responsible Advance Mitigation to Other Mitigation Options TypeWho is When Can the Site Is the SaleWho Can use Responsible be Used of Credits the Site as for Site AllowedMitigation Development, Management, Performance & Protection Mitigation Bank Sponsor Credits must be generated and YesAs approved by Bankingany private, released prior to impacts; one major the permitting tribal, or public advantage of banking is that a agencies, an entity limited number of credits become applicant with available when the banking impacts in bank- instrument is approved, the site is service area protected, and financial assurances are posted. In-Lieu FeeProgram The fee must be applied to mitigation Yes, in-lieu As approved by Sponsor must effort within 3 growing seasonsfrom fee payment the permitting be a the first in-lieu fee payment within a is applied agencies, any governmental designated service area.toward the applicant with (including costsof impacts in an tribal) or establishing approved non-profit mitigationservice area that natural pays the in-lieu resource entityfee to an approved program Permittee-Permittee of the The site can be usedas concurrent No, advance The advance Responsible Advance Sitemitigation within one year of credits credits can only Advance impacts through the first two years cannot be be used by the after construction. If used two or sold permittee that more years after mitigation developed the construction, the ratio for use will advance site. decrease as additional credits generated will be valued as advance creditswhich generally increase in value as the effort matures and the performance standards are met. Permittee-PermitteeMitigation effort must be NoThe permittee Responsibleimplemented concurrently or within for the impact Concurrentone year of impacts.project 9 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 652 Appendix 2.Minimum requirements for a compensatory mitigation plan (33 CFR 332.4(c)) 1.Objectives: A description of the resource type(s) and amount(s) that will be provided, the method of compensation, and the manner in which the resource functions of the project will address the needs of the watershed. 2.Site Selection: A description of the factors considered during the site selection process. 3.Site Protection Instrument: A description of the legal arrangements and instrument that will ensure the long-term protection of the project site. 4.Baseline Site Information: A description of the ecological characteristics of the proposed site. 5.Determination of Credits: A description of the number of credits to be provided, including a brief explanation of the rationale for this determination. 6.Mitigation Work Plan: Detailed written specifications and work descriptions for the project, including geographic boundaries; construction methods, timing, and sequence; source(s) of water, including connections to existing waters and uplands; methods for establishing the desired plant community; plans to control invasive plant species; the proposed grading plan; soil management; and erosion control measures. 7.Maintenance Plan: A description and schedule of maintenance requirements to ensure the continued viability of the resource once initial construction is completed. 8.Performance Standards: Ecologically based standards that will be used to determine whether the compensatory mitigation project is achieving its objectives. 9.Monitoring Requirements*: A description of parameters to be monitored in order to determine if the compensatory mitigation project is on track to meet performance standards and if adaptive management is needed. A schedule for monitoring and reporting on monitoring results must also be included. 10.Long-term Management Plan*: A description of how the project will be managed after achievement of performance standards to ensure the long-term sustainability of the resource, including long-term financing mechanisms and the party responsible for long-term management. 11.Adaptive Management Plan*: A management strategy to address unforeseen changes in site conditions or other components of the project, including the party or parties responsible for implementing adaptive management measures. The adaptive management plan will guide decisions for revising mitigation plans and implementing measures to address both 12.Financial Assurances*: A description of financial assurances that will be provided and how they are sufficient to ensure a high level of confidence that the compensatory mitigation project will be successfully completed, in accordance with its performance standards. 13.Other information as deemed necessary. *These requirements may be deferred until submittal of the first Use Plan for the advance mitigation site. If technical advice is needed to address these requirements, please contact the Regulatory Agency(s). 10 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 653 Appendix B Reconnaissance-Level List of Plant Species Observed at the Otay Land Company Wetland Mitigation Site ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 654 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 655 PlantSpeciesDetectedintheSurveyArea Scientific NameCommon NameSpecial Status LYCOPHYTES Selaginellaceae - Spike-moss family Bushy spike-moss FERNS Pteridaceae - Brake family Goldback fern GYMNOSPERMS Cupressaceae - Cypress family Tecate cypressCRPR 1B.1 EUDICOTS Anacardiaceae - Sumac Or Cashew family Laurel sumac Lemonade berry *Peruvian pepper tree *Brazilian pepper tree Apiaceae - Carrot family *Celery *Fennel Asteraceae - Sunflower family Singlewhorl burrobrushCRPR 2B.2 California sagebrush Mule fat Broom baccharis San Diego sunflowerCRPR 4.2 California brickellbush *Italian thistle *Tocalote Fascicled tarplant Golden woolly sunflower Graceful tarplantCRPR 4.2 Coastal goldenbush San Diego marsh-elderCRPR 2B.2 Osmadenia ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 656 Scientific NameCommon NameSpecial Status Boraginaceae - Borage family Alkali heliotrope Brassicaceae - Mustard family *Shortpod mustard Cactaceae - Cactus family Coast cholla San Diego barrel cactusCRPR 2B.1 White fishhook cactus Coastal prickly pear Chenopodiaceae - Goosefoot family *Australian saltbush *Lamb's quarters *Prickly russian thistle Cistaceae - Rock-rose family Common peak rush-rose Crassulaceae - Stonecrop family Ladies fingers Chalk dudleya Cucurbitaceae - Gourd family Calabazilla Ericaceae - Heath family Otay manzanitaCRPR 1B.2 Euphorbiaceae - Spurge family Doveweed Many seed spurge Fabaceae - Legume family Deerweed Fagaceae - Oak family Nuttall's scrub oakCRPR 1B.1 Geraniaceae - Geranium family *Redstem filaree Grossulariaceae - Gooseberry family Fuchsia-flowered gooseberry ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 657 Scientific NameCommon NameSpecial Status Lamiaceae - Mint family White sage Black sage Malvaceae - Mallow family Southern checkerbloom Myrtaceae - Myrtle family Gum Nyctaginaceae - Four O'clock family Coastal wishbone plant Polygonaceae - Buckwheat family California buckwheat Willow smartweed *Curly dock Ranunculaceae - Buttercup family Few flowered virgin's bower Rhamnaceae - Buckthorn family Otay Mountain ceanothusCRPR 1B.2 Spiny redberry Rosaceae - Rose family Chamise San Diego mountain mahogany Toyon Holly-leaf cherry Salicaceae - Willow family Fremont cottonwood Goodding's black willow Arroyo willow Simmondsiaceae - Jojoba family Jojoba Tamaricaceae - Tamarisk family Tamarix MONOCOTS Arecaceae - Palm family *Canary Island palm ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 658 Scientific NameCommon NameSpecial Status *Mexican fan palm Juncaceae - Rush family Southwestern spiny rushCRPR 4.2 Poaceae - Grass family Nealley three-awn *Giant reed *Slender wild oat *Ripgut brome *Soft brome *Red brome *Purple pampas grass *Bermuda grass Salt grass *Rattail fescue *Smooth barley Coast range onion grass *Natal grass Littleseed muhly Purple needle grass Typhaceae - Cattail family Cattail ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 659 Scientific NameCommon NameSpecial Status Legend *=Nonnativeorinvasivespecies SpecialStatus: CRPRΑCaliforniaRarePlantRank 1A.PresumedextinctinCaliforniaandelsewhere 1B.RareorEndangeredinCaliforniaandelsewhere 2A.PresumedextinctinCalifornia,morecommonelsewhere 2B.RareorEndangeredinCalifornia,morecommonelsewhere 3.PlantsforwhichweneedmoreinformationReviewlist 4.PlantsoflimiteddistributionWatchlist ThreatRanks .1SeriouslyendangeredinCalifornia .2ΑFairlyendangeredinCalifornia ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 660 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 661 Appendix C List of Potential Sensitive Plant Species within the Mitigation Site ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 662 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 663 664 0 ¦¤ 6¤±¨¥¨¤£ ΐ Ȩ9¤²ȝ.®ȩ 3¨³¤ / YesYesYesYesYes NoNoNoNoNoNo 150 cone coniferous forest, moist ocean breezes may be a key to its habitat requirements; Annual/perennial herb. Mesic soils in coastal scrub, valley and foothill grassland, - grasslands, particularly near mima mound topography or the vicinity of vernal - 508 ft). Blooming period: April 140 m 1903 ft). Blooming cone coniferous forest, chaparral, cismontane woodland, meadows and seeps, Annual herb. Clay soils in coastal sage scrub and valley and foothill grassland; Bulbiferous herb. Found on mesic, clay, sometimes serpentinite soils in closed Perennial shrub. Sandy soils in chaparral, coastal sage scrub, Sonoran desert Perennial bulbiferous herb. Clay soils in chaparral, coastal sage scrub, valley e woodland, coastal scrub, - - and coastal scrub, typically on xeric hillsides; 30 Perennial stem succulent. Sandy soils in costal scrub, chaparral, and closed 5550 ft). Annual herb. Clay soils in cismontane woodland and valley and foothill - - June ). Blooming period: August Annual herb. Coastal bluff scrub, coastal dunes, coastal scrub, playas; 0 May - 2034 ft). Blooming period: April - 1692 m (98 May - 3936 ft). Blooming period: March - {ĻƓƭźƷźǝĻ tƌğƓƷ {ƦĻĭźĻƭ źƷŷ ƷŷĻ tƚƷĻƓƷźğƌ Ʒƚ hĭĭǒƩ 580 m (9 - ooming period : April 0±¤¥¤±¤¢¤ȝ2¤°´¨±¤¬¤³² - June othill grassland, and vernal pools ; 30 June - Perennial herb. Clay soils in chaparral, cismontan valley and foothill grassland, and vernal pools; 3 - 155 m (178 - 984 ft). Blooming period: May October - ( ¡¨³ ³ 1295 ft). Blooming period: May May 1640 ft - 492 ft). Blooming period: April - 459 ft). Blooming period: March - - 1526 ft). Bl 500 m (328 Perennial shrub. Coastal scrub; 55 - 620 m (65 July Stem succulent. Chaparral - 1200 m (50 -- Blooming period: May - 465 m (164 scrub, and washes; 10 - and vernal pools; 20 June - - - period: April 300 m (82 grassland; 15 valley and fo - 395 m (9 - November pools; 50 - m (98 June - - -25 (0 3 1B.1, SDC List A, FT, SE, 1B.1, SDC 1B.2, SDC List A, FE, SE, 1B.1, SDC #®£¤ lj 3³ ³´² List A, SDC NE, 2B.1, SDC List B1B.2, SDC List A2B.2, SDC List B1B.1, SDC List A1B.1, SDC List A1B.1, SDC List B SDC NE, SD NESDC NE, SD NE 3¤²¨³¨µ¨³¸ List A, SD NE SD NE 2B.2 #¸«¨£±®¯´³¨ ¢ «¨¥®±¨¢ %±¸¦¨´¬ ±¨²³´« ³´¬ µ ±ȁ ) !¬¡±®²¨ ¢§¤®¯®£¨¨¥®«¨ ) ) Singlewhorl burrobrush "¤±¤¦¤±®¢ ¢³´² ¤¬®±¸¨ San Diego button celery # «¨¥®±¨ ¬ ¢±®¯§¸«« #®¬¬® . ¬¤ ȩ) ) "«®®¬¤±¨ ¢«¤µ¤« £¨¨ San Diego goldenaster 3¢¨¤³¨¥¨¢ . ¬¤ ) $¤¨ £± ¢®©´¦¤² spined cereus leaved filaree !¬¡±®²¨ ¬®®¦¸± South coast saltscale ) San Diego bur sage )$´£«¤¸ µ ±¨¤¦ ³ ) "±®£¨ ¤ ®±¢´³³¨¨Variegated dudley !³±¨¯«¤· ¯ ¢¨¥¨¢ ) µ ±ȁ ¢ «¨¥®±¨¢ Otay tarplant Snake cholla ) - Packet parishii - Golden Round Ȩ !¦¤£ ((((((((((( ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ 665 0 ¦¤ 6¤±¨¥¨¤£ ΐ Ȩ9¤²ȝ.®ȩ 3¨³¤ / YesYesYes No NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo cone coniferous forest, cone coniferous forest, February Chaparral, cismontane woodland, coastal scrub, and alkaline flats; 984 - 3493 ft). 640 m 500 m (32 -ages, often in mesic, sandy soils in Sonoran desert scrub. Within the coastal zone in 955 m June -1005 m (1000 - July 1476 ft). Blooming period: May Annual herb. Openings in chaparral and sage scrub; below 885 m (2900 ft). in closed - Annual herb. Chenopod scrub, assorted freshwater marshes and swamps, 300 m (590 areas; chaparral, coastal scrub, valley and - 2149 ft). Blooming period: April - - Perennial herb. Population wide, along minor creeks and seasonal drain 820 ft.). Blooming period: May 1312 ft.). Blooming period: Annual herb. Valley and foothill grassland, and alkaline vernal pools; 20 - - Annual herb. Clay soils in chaparral, grasslands, coastal sage scrub; 20 1065 m (393 - Perennial herb. Marshes and swamps, wetland areas, and playas; 10 Perennial evergreen tree. Clay, gabbroic, or metavolcanic soils with 4921 ft). - - chaparral, coastal scrub, and valley and foothill grassland; 305 streams and creeks, typically slow moving rocky streams; 180 - April - Perennial shrub. Gabbroic or metavolcanic soils in closed - Perennial evergreen shrub. Sandy or clay loam in closed Evergreen shrub. Chaparral and coastal sage scrub; 120 - 0±¤¥¤±¤¢¤ȝ2¤°´¨±¤¬¤³² 1500 m (262 - 2624 ft.). Blooming period: January May ( ¡¨³ ³ - - June 450 m (9 400 m (49 October - - December (65 to 3132 ft). Blooming period: March - cone coniferous forest and chaparral; 80 - (295 - 2100 ft). Blooming period: March 655 m (98 July 250 April - - 1640 ft). Blooming period: April - foothill grassland, vernal pools; 3 - une Stem succulent. Sandy to rocky chaparral, and coastal scrub; 15 July - - ft). Blooming period: January Annual herb. Vernal pools; 90 - - Blooming period: February 3296 ft). Blooming period: J playas, and vernal pools; 30 - Blooming Period: January - Annual herb. 800 m (49 August - June - (65 15 - 1B.3, SDC List A, FE, SE, 1B.1, SDC #®£¤ lj 3³ ³´² 2B.1, SDC List B1B.1, SDC List A2B.2, SDC List B1B.1, SDC List A2B.2, SDC List B2B.2, SDC List B2B.1, SDC List B FT, 1B.1, SDC 3¤²¨³¨µ¨³¸ 4.2, SDC List D4.3, SDC List ASDC List C List A, SD NEList A, SD NE SDC NE 3.1, ,¤¯¨£¨´¬ µ¨±¦¨¨¢´¬ µ ±ȁ ) -¸®²´±´² ¬¨¨¬´² ²²¯ȁ (¤²¯¤±®¢¸¯ ±¨² ¥®±¡¤²¨¨ ) ) San Diego barrel cactus ) #®¬¬® . ¬¤ ȩ &¤±®¢ ¢³´² µ¨±¨£¤²¢¤² ( ±¯ ¦®¤«« ¯ «¬¤±¨ elder ) 3³¤¬®£¨ £´± ³¨¥®«¨ 3¢¨¤³¨¥¨¢ . ¬¤ 0®¦®¦¸¤ ´£¨´²¢´« Spreading navarretia ) ) ) ,¤¯¤¢§¨¨ ¦ £¤±¨ 3¤¤¢¨® ¯§ ¢³¨² . µ ±±¤³¨ ¥®²² «¨² Chaparral ragwort ) - 1´¤±¢´² £´¬®² San Diego marsh Purple stemodia Little mousetail Otay Mesa mint ) ) Tecate cypress 3 «µ¨ ¬´¹¨¨ )µ § ¸¤²¨ ) robinsonii Packet Ȩ ) apus !¦¤£ ((((((((((((( ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ 666 0 ¦¤ Limited distribution and are uncommon but not presently rare or Rare, threatened or endangered in California but more common 6¤±¨¥¨¤£ ΐ Maybe quite rare, but more information is needed to determine Ȩ9¤²ȝ.®ȩ in the CNDDB database, or noted in 3¨³¤ Rare, threatened or endangered in California and elsewhere / YesYes 3280 ft). 2500 m San Diego County Narrow Endemic - - 1000 m (541 City of San Diego Narrow Endemic Perennial herb. Chaparral and lower montane coniferous forest; 670 Seriously endangered in California Not very endangered in California Fairly endangered in California previous biological surveys conducted by RECON Environmental as part of their preserve management efforts. - scrub; 165 0±¤¥¤±¤¢¤ȝ2¤°´¨±¤¬¤³² August San Diego County ( ¡¨³ ³ Deciduous shrub. Chaparral and coastal sage City of San Diego Threat Ranks - 8202 ft). Blooming period: May endangered their status elsewhere SDC NE SD NE May.1 .2 .3 D A B C - Blooming period: April SE - listed as endangered under the California Endangered Species Act. FE - listed as endangered under the federal Endangered Species Act. FT - listed as threatened under the federal Endangered Species Act. 2B. Rare or Endangered in California, more common elsewhere 2A. Presumed extinct in California, more common elsewhere - (2198 3. Plants for which we need more information - Review list 1B. Rare or Endangered in California and elsewhere 1A. Presumed extinct in California and elsewhere #®£¤ lj 3³ ³´² 1B.2, SDC List A 3¤²¨³¨µ¨³¸ 4.3, SDC List D 4. Plants of limited distribution - Watch list fully protected species in California. ) bernardinus #®¬¬® . ¬¤ ȩ 3¢¨¤³¨¥¨¢ . ¬¤ ) 4¤³± ¢®¢¢´² £¨®¨¢´² Laguna Mountains tetracoccus 3³±¤¯³ ³§´² jewelflower Plant Status: CRPR Rank Packet LEGEND: Ȩ Federal !¦¤£ State FPS (( 1 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ 667 0 ¦¤ Packet !¦¤£ ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ Appendix D List of Potential Sensitive Wildlife Species within the Mitigation Site ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 668 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 669 670 0 ¦¤ 6¤±¨¥¨¤£ / Ȩ9¤²ȝ.®ȩ ΐ Yes ¨³¤ NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo 3 and lake margins. Closely tied to its larval The habitat characteristics are poorly understood, however historically it was Grasslands, brushlands, woodlands, and open coniferous forest with sandy or arid brushy areas and chaparral in canyons, rocky hillsides, and C that areas. Heavy brush and densely forested areas are generally alities are below 701m (2,300 ft) and are within of a braided sandy floodplains or terraces along streams. Closely tied to coastal sage nia. In San /±³§®¢ ±¯´² Occurs from sea level to 914m (3000ft) in chaparral, woodland, and arid Exposed shallow pools with a sand or gravel base are used for breeding. Found in a variety of habitats but is most common in early successional channel with shorelines or central bars made of stable, sandy terraces. o Inhabits openings on clay soils within or in the vicinity of shrublands, C and < 30 Diego County, all populations are within 15 kilometers of the coast. Vernal pools. It occurs from Los Angeles County to Baja Califor Sensitive Wildlife Species With the Potential to Occur o Temporary rainpools with water temperatures between 9 100 m) water aquatic habitat with basking sites. desert habitats with rocky areas and dense vegetation. oose soil; requires abundant ant colonies for foraging. Ȟ0±¤¥¤±¤¢¤ȝ2¤°´¨±¤¬¤³² - Breeding pools must occur in the vicinity (ca. 10 avoided. Usually found in areas with leaf litter. Ȩ0« ³ ¦® ¤±¤¢³ ȩ ( ¡¨³ ³ scrub plants and some chaparral plants. 64km (40 miles) of the Pacific Ocean. grasslands, meadows, vernal pools, Vernal pools. All known loc host plant, dwarf plantain last at least 3 weeks. purpurescens). - - stages or open Inhabits semi or slow found in plains. - Slack l 3¤²¨³¨µ¨³¸ #®£¤ lj 3³ ³´² CSCCSCCSCCSCCSCCSCCSCCSC FEFEFEFE ) ) #¤¬¨£®¯§®±´² §¸¯¤±¸³§±´² "± ¢§¨¤¢³ ² £¨¤¦®¤²¨² Quino checkerspot butterfly ) 3³±¤¯³®¢¤¯§ «´² ¶®®³³®¨ ) throated whiptail nd turtle 0§±¸®²®¬ ¢®±® ³´¬ %´¯§¸£±¸ ² ¤£¨³§ °´¨® Red diamond rattlesnake ) sed snake 3¢ ¯§¨®¯´² § ¬¬®£¨¨ San Diego horned lizard ) %´¬¤¢¤² ²ª¨«³®¨ ´² San Diego fairy shrimp Riverside fairy shrimp) ! ·¸±´² ¢ «¨¥®±¨¢´² 3 «µ £®± §¤· «¤¯¨² #±®³ «´² ±´¡¤± ±´¡¤± Western spadefoot ) %¬¸² Ȩϒ#«¤¬¬¸²ȩ ¬ ±¬®± ³ ¯ ««¨£ ȩ #®¬¬® . ¬¤ 3¢¨¤³¨¥¨¢ . ¬¤ Southwestern po Coronado skink ) no interparietalis - Arroyo toad Coast patch ) ) blainvillii virgultea - Orange Packet !¦¤£ Ȩ((((((((((( ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ 671 0 ¦¤ 6¤±¨¥¨¤£ / Ȩ9¤²ȝ.®ȩ ΐ YesYes ¨³¤ NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo 3 sparsely vegetated areas on gently rolling or level terrain with an abundance Riparian thickets either near water or in dry portions of river bottoms; nests dered by Found near grassland, open sage scrub and chaparral, and desert scrub. They odlands along rivers, streams, or other wetlands. They Prairies, grasslands, lowland scrub, agricultural lands, coastal dunes, desert floors, and some artificial, open areas. They require large open expanses of bitats such as coastal sage scrub and some forms of o be found roosting and nesting cover and also known to use pipes, culverts, and nest shaded riparian forests. Only a few small small mammal burrows. They use rodent or other burrows for Inhabits perennial and intermittent streams with rocky beds and bor usually nest within close proximity of water or very saturated soil. dense vegetation adjacent to their open foraging habitats. along margins of bushes and forages low to the ground; may als Ȟ0±¤¥¤±¤¢¤ȝ2¤°´¨±¤¬¤³² using mesquite and arrow weed in desert canyons. ( ¡¨³ ³ willow thickets or other dense vegetation. boxes where burrows are scarce. - Inhabits relatively broad, well Mature riparian woodlands. Dense riparian woodland. Prefer open scrubby ha populations still exist. Breeds in riparian wo Cactus thickets chaparral. of active nest in 3¤²¨³¨µ¨³¸ #®£¤ lj 3³ ³´² CSCCSCCSCCSCCSCCSCCSC FTFEFEFT SESESE ) ¡±´¤¨¢ ¯¨««´² ² £¨¤¦¤²¨² ) %¬¯¨£® · ³± ¨«¨¨ ¤·³¨¬´² ) striped garter snake 4§ ¬®¯§¨² § ¬¬®£¨¨ San Diego cactus wren billed #®¢¢¸¹´² ¬¤±¨¢ ´² 0®«¨®¯³¨« ¢ «¨¥®±¨¢ Southwestern willow breasted chat ) $¤£±®¨¢ ¯¤³¤¢§¨ )) , ¨´² «´£®µ¨¢¨ ´² 6¨±¤® ¡¤««¨¨ ¯´²¨««´² # ¬¯¸«®±§¸¢§´² ularia Coastal California Loggerhead shrike ȩ #®¬¬® . ¬¤ 3¢¨¤³¨¥¨¢ . ¬¤ -Least Bell's vireo Burrowing owl Yellow warbler Western yellow ) !³§¤¤ ¢´¨¢ )¢³¤± µ¨±¤² ) gnatcatcher occidentalis ) ) californica flycatcher brewsteri - cuckoo Packet Yellow - Two !¦¤£ Ȩ(((((((((( ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ 672 0 ¦¤ 6¤±¨¥¨¤£ / Ȩ9¤²ȝ.®ȩ ΐ N o ¨³¤ NoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNoNo 3 habitats, from dry desert washes, flood plains, chaparral, oak woodland, open variety of ponderosa pine forest, grassland, montane meadows, and agricultural areas.grassland, sage scrub, and chaparral slopes. Roosts in rock Inhabits arid, rocky areas; roosts in crevices in cliffs. Has been recorded in Sparse, low brush on grassy hill slopes; prefers steep slopes with sparsely crevices, caves, mine shafts, under bridges, in buildings and tree hollows. shrublands, woodlands, & forest; most common in open, dry habitats w/ Mostly found on the coastal side of our local mountains in open habitats, Mostly in foothills, mtns., & desert regions of So. Cal.; desert, grasslands, long migrations from the northern latitudes to warmer climes for winter, Variety of shrub and desert habitats, primarily associated with rock Throughout So. Cal. from coast to mixed conifer forest; grasslands, Usually among dense foliage, in forests and wooded areas, making Coastal sage scrub, sage scrub/grassland ecotones, and chaparral dwelling species for breeding. Found foraging in a outcroppings, boulders, cacti, or areas of dense undergrowth. g; yearlong resident in most of range. sometimes hibernates in tree hollows or woodpecker holes. usually avoiding dense stands of chaparral or woodlands. rock crevices, caves, cliffs. b, roosts in rocky crevices. Ȟ0±¤¥¤±¤¢¤ȝ2¤°´¨±¤¬¤³² urban locations in San Diego County (CDFG 2005). ( ¡¨³ ³ Coastal and montane regions on Lives in deserts and sage scru onifer forest; Roosts rocky areas for roostin located California sage - Primarily a cliff communities. mixed c 3¤²¨³¨µ¨³¸ #®£¤ lj 3³ ³´² CSCCSCCSCCSCCSCCSCCSCCSCCSCCSCCSC ) ) ) ) ¢ «¨¥®±¨¢´² ¡¤¤³³¨¨ %´¬®¯² ¯¤±®³¨² ¢ «¨¥®±¨¢´² - .¸¢³¨®¬®¯² ¥¤¬®±®² ¢¢´² .¤®³®¬ «¤¯¨£ ¨³¤±¬¤£¨ Southern California rufous San Diego desert woodrat ) #§ ¤³®£¨¯´² ¢ «¨¥®±¨¢´² Northwestern San Diego #§ ¤³®£¨¯´² ¥ «« · ¥ «« · ) tailed bat .¸¢³¨®¬®¯² ¬ ¢±®³¨² tailed ) Dulzura pocket mouse ) %´£¤±¬ ¬ ¢´« ³´¬ , ²¨´±´² ¡«®²²¤µ¨««¨¨ !¨¬®¯§¨« ±´¥¨¢¤¯² ) Western mastiff bat !³±®¹®´² ¯ ««¨£´² ȩ tailed bat #®¬¬® . ¬¤ arrow 3¢¨¤³¨¥¨¢ . ¬¤ - Western red bat San Diego black - pocket mouse Pocketed free Spotted bat crowned sp ) jackrabbit ) canescens Pallid bat femoralis - Big free ,¤¯´² Packet !¦¤£ Ȩ((((((((((( ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ 673 0 ¦¤ 6¤±¨¥¨¤£ / Ȩ9¤²ȝ.®ȩ ΐ ¨³¤ NoNo 3 Inhabit a diversity of habitats with principal requirements of sufficient food, friable soils, and relatively open, uncultivated ground. Grasslands, savannas, noted in previous biological surveys conducted by RECON Environmental as part of their preserve management efforts. and mountain meadows near timberline are preferred. Ȟ0±¤¥¤±¤¢¤ȝ2¤°´¨±¤¬¤³² Grasslands and sparse coastal sage scrub habitats. ( ¡¨³ ³ listed as endangered under the California Endangered Species Act. listed as endangered under the federal Endangered Species Act. listed as threatened under the federal Endangered Species Act. ial concern in California. 3¤²¨³¨µ¨³¸ #®£¤ lj 3³ ³´² CSCCSC Southern grasshopper mouse /¸¢§®¬¸² ³®±±¨£´² species of spec ȩ #®¬¬® . ¬¤ can badger 3¢¨¤³¨¥¨¢ . ¬¤ life Status: ) 4 ·¨£¤ ³ ·´² LEGEND: ) Species Federal ramona Packet Ameri - State CSC Wild -- - FT FE SE !¦¤£ 1 Ȩ(( ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ Appendix E California Rapid Assessment Method (CRAM) Datasheets ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 674 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 675 RiverineCRAM;AA-1 OtayLandCompanyVillage8WestandVillage9MitigationSite 11/25/2014 LanikaCervantes,KristenKlienfelter 15meters 130meters 32.600408 -116.932355 32.599948 -116.933615 1 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 676 1 32.600392-116.932402NAD83 2 32.600061-116.932919NAD83 3 32.600347-116.932968NAD83 4 32.599959-116.933553NAD83 TheAAislocatedwithinthemostdownstreamedgeoftheOtayRiverthatsupportsadefinedchannel. directlydownstreamofthisAA,theOtayRiversheetflowswithinabroadfloodplain. 2 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 677 RiverineCRAM;AA-1 A12Nonon-bufferswithin500m A12100%buffer Avg250mbufferwidth A12 ~35%invasives;undisturbedsoils B9 2293.30% nohydromidifications 12 A 9 B someaggradation 12 A>2.2mentrenchmentratio 33 91.67% 3patches D3 lowtopocomplexity;1bench C6 9 37.50% 3plantlayers B9 3Co-dominates D3 0%invasion A12 8 9 BModerateinterspersion 2layers-moderateoverlap B9 26 72.22% 73.67% 3 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 678 00 00 00 00 00 00 100 250 250 250 250 250 0 250 250 250 250 4 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 679 5 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 680 13.00 15.00 16.00 1.501.501.60 3.003.003.20 20.00 60.0032.00 2.00 1.54 4.00 2.51 6 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 681 0 3 7 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 682 Top Top Mid Mid Bottom Bottom 8 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 683 Schoenoplectus californicus Schoenoplectus californicus Salix goodingii 3 Salixlaevigata 0 9 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 684 Schenoplectus Salixspecies Tamarisk Mulefat 10 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 685 11 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 686 Oldminingsitedirectlydownstreamofthisarea. 12 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 687 DepressionalCRAM;AA-2 OtayLandCompanyVillage8WestandVillage9MitigationSite AA-2 11/25/2014 LanikaCervantes,KristenKlienfelter AA Encompasses: entire wetland portion of the wetland ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 688 1 32.600750-116.943150NAD83 2 32.600878-116.943397NAD83 3 32.601042-116.943224NAD83 4 32.600923-116.943039NAD83 TheAAisafreshwaterdepressionthatappearsmanmade,createdseveraldecades agoduringminingoperations.Thedepressionisperennial,receivingcontributionsfrom groundwaterthroughouttheyear. ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 689 DepressionalCRAM;AA-211/25/2014 D 3Avg4%AquaticAbundance 100%Buffer A 12 250mAvgwidthforbuffer A 12 >75%invasivesandmoderatesoil C 6 disturbance ½½ 1148 A 12Nomodifiedhydrology A 12Naturalfillinganddrawdown C 6Steepbanksfor~60%ofAA 3083 C 4patchtypes 6 D 3nobenches,lowmicro-topography 938 2plantlayers C 6 3Co-dominantes D 3 33%invasives D 3 4 C 6lowinterspersion A 12highentrainment 2261 57 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 690 0 0 0 15 4 100 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 691 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 250 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 692 1 1 1 1 4 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 693 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 694 Schoenoplectuscalifornicus Typhadomingensis Tamarisksp. 3 33 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 695 TyphaandSchenoplectus Tamarisk Rhusintegrifolia ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 696 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 697 ThisAAandsurroundingareaisanoldminingsiteandisheavilydisturbed. ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 698 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 699 Appendix F Long-Term Management Plan Template ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 700 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 701 Appendix F Long-Term Management Plan Template Section 1.0 Introduction 1.1Purpose of Establishment 1.2Purpose and Goal of the Long Term Management Plan 1.3Regulatory Requirements 1.4Land Owners and Neighbors 1.5Land Manager, Responsibilities, and Qualifications 1.6Conservation Easement Monitor and Responsibilities 1.7Changes in Personnel Section 2.0 Property Description 2.1Location and Setting 2.2History and Land Use 2.3Adjacent Land Uses 2.3Cultural Resources 2.4Hydrology and Topography 2.5Soil Section 3.0 Biological Resources Summary 3.1Methods and Surveys 3.2Wetland and Riparian Habitats 3.3Native Transitional and Upland Communities 3.4Endangered and Threatened Species 3.5Rare Species and Species of Special Concern 3.6Wildlife Corridors and Movement Preservation Section 4.0 Habitat Monitoring Management Activities 4.1Inlet Maintenance 4.2Trash, Debris, and Trespass 4.2Monitoring Elements 4.2.1Vegetation Monitoring 4.2.2Species Monitoring 4.3Weed Management Plan and Integrated Pest Management (IPM) 4.5 Water Quality Monitoring 4.4 California Rapid Assessment Method (CRAM) Otay Land Company Village 8 West and Village 9 May 2015 F-1 Draft Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 702 Otay Land Company Appendix F. Long-Term Management Plan Template Section 5.0 Adaptive Management Strategy 5.1Trespass Repair 5.2Flooding or Sediment Management 5.3Vegetation Management 5.4Additional Monitoring Section 6.0 Allowable Conservation Area Land Uses and Management 6.1Fencing, Gates, and Signage 6.2Trail Maintenance and Seasonal Closures 6.3Other Infrastructure 6.4Brush or Fire Management 6.5Public Education and Volunteering Section 7.0 Annual Reports And Administration 7.1Administrative Tasks 7.2LTMP Annual Reports 7.3Conservation Easement Annual Inspection Reports Section 8.0 Updates And Amendments To The LTMP 8.1LTMP 5-Year Updates 8.2Process for Substantially Amending the LTMP 8.3Transfer of Responsibility Section 9.0 Costs And Funding 9.1Itemized Cost for Monitoring and Management Activities 9.2Task Prioritization 9.3Funding Allocations 9.4Endowment Holder and Preservation of Funds Section 10.0 Literature Cited And Referenced Documents Appendix. A Property Analysis Record (PAR) Otay Land Company Village 8 West and Village 9 May 2015 F-2 Draft Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 703 Otay Land Company Appendix F. Long-Term Management Plan Template Tables and Figures Figure 1 Regional Map Figure 2 Vicinity Map Figure 3 Conservation Area Map Figure 4 Easements Map Figure 5 Biological Resources Map Index & Legend Table 1 Regulatory Permits Table 2 Summary of Acreages within the Conservation Area Table 3 Maintenance and Monitoring Schedule Table 4 Vegetation Monitoring Schedule Table 5 Species Monitoring Schedule Table 6 Table Summary of Management Responsibilities Otay Land Company Village 8 West and Village 9 May 2015 F-3 Draft Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan ICF 00296.14 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 704 ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 705 RESOLUTION NO. _____________ RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA ADOPTING MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (IS-15-006) AND APPROVING A WETLAND RESTORATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN HOMEFED CORPORATION AND THE CITY OF CHULA VISTA, AND AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO EXECUTE SAID AGREEMENT WHEREAS, HomeFed desires to provide wetland mitigation necessary to complete grading operations for Villages 3 and 8 West in the short term and the rest of its villages (Villages 8 East, 9 and 10) in the long term;and WHEREAS, wetland mitigation credits within existing mitigation banks are extremely limited at this time; and WHEREAS, HomeFed proposes to restore existing disturbed wetlandsto mitigate for its wetland impacts, but lacks property in a suitable location to do so; and WHEREAS, the City owns approximately 300 acres of land in the Lower Otay River Valley Watershed that is ideal for restoration due to its locationat the top of the river near the damand its high level of disturbance from previous sand and gravel mining; and WHEREAS, HomeFed proposes to restore approximately 100 acres of wetland and upland habitat within the City’s 300 acre parcel(the “Restoration Site”)in accordance with the subject Wetland Restoration Agreement; and WHEREAS, HomeFed proposes to address Resource Agency permitting requirements through the approval of a Habitat Mitigation and Monitoring Plan (HMMP) that would mitigate for impacts for Villages 3 and 8 West in the short term and establish a mitigation bank with the remainder of the wetlands within the property; and WHEREAS, the City is desirous of completing the portion of Heritage Road between Olympic Parkway and Main Street which is part of Village 3and also requires mitigation of associated wetland impacts;and WHEREAS, the City would like to implement the City’s Greenbelt trail system and Otay Valley Regional Park trails system though the Restoration Site at no cost to the City; and WHEREAS, the City willsecuremitigationareasufficient to mitigate wetland impacts for its University and Innovation District project, at no cost to the City, in accordance with the subject Wetland Restoration Agreement. ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 706 NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby findand determine, as follows: IENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION The Director of Development Services has reviewed the proposed project for compliance withthe California Environmental Quality Act and has conducted an Initial Study, IS-15- 006 in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. Based upon the results of the Initial Study, the Director of Development Serviceshas determined that the project could result in significant effects on the environment. However, revisions to the project made by or agreed to by the applicant would avoid the effects or mitigate the effects to a point where clearly no significant effects would occur; therefore, the Director of Development Serviceshas prepared a Mitigated Negative Declaration, IS-15-006. II.CERTIFICATION OF COMPLIANCE WITH CEQA The City Council does hereby find that the Mitigated Negative Declaration and MitigationMonitoring and Reporting Program (IS-15-006) has been prepared in accordance with requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act, the State California Environmental Quality ActGuidelines, and the Environmental Review Procedures of the City of Chula Vista. The Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (IS-15-006) are available for public review in the Development Services Department. III.INDEPENDENT JUDGEMENT OF CITY COUNCIL The City Council does hereby find on the basis of the whole record before it, including theinitial study and comments received for the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (IS-15-006), that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment and that the Mitigated Negative Declaration reflects the lead agency’s independent judgment and analysis. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED,that the City Council of the City of Chula Vista does hereby adopt Mitigated Negative Declaration No. IS-15-006 and approvethe Agreement Regarding Otay River Valley Restoration, attached hereto and made part hereof as Exhibit 1, between the City of Chula Vistaand HomeFedfor restoration of wetland and upland habitat on City-owned land in the Otay River Valley. ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 707 BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED,that the Mayor of the City of City of Chula Vista is hereby authorized and directed to execute said Agreement on behalf of the City of Chula Vista. Presented byApproved as to form by ________________________________________________________________ Kelly Broughton, Director of Development ServicesGlen R. Googins, City Attorney ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 708 ��Il� City of Chula Vista .�. r}{���,q��p Staff Report File#: 16-0243, Item#: 10. CONSIDERATION OF AN INFRASTRUCTURE FUNDING MEASURE FOR THE NOVEMBER 2016 BALLOT AND DIRECTION TO STAFF TO PREPARE BALLOT LANGUAGE AND ALL OTHER NECESSARY DOCUMENTATION FOR REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE CITY COUNCIL RECOMMENDED ACTION Approve the development of a funding measure to be placed on the November 2016 ballot and direct staff to prepare the ballot language, and all other necessary documentation for review and approval by the City Council. SUMMARY The City of Chula Vista is progressing on developing and implementing its Asset Management Program (AMP) to operate and maintain the City's natural and built environment. This item presents revenue options and asks the City Council tp provide direction to staff to bring back a formal ballot measure for City Council review, approval, and placement on the November 2016 ballot. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Environmental Notice The activity is not a "Project" as defined under Section 15378 of the California Environmental Quality Act State Guidelines; therefore, pursuant to State Guidelines Section 15060(c)(3) no environmental review is required. Environmental Determination The Environmental Review Coordinator has reviewed the proposed activity for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act and has determined that discussion on Infrastructure Financing is not a "Project" as defined under Section 15378(b)(5) of the State CEQA Guidelines because this item involves only an administrative activity of the government; therefore, pursuant to Section 15060 (c)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines the activity is not subject to CEQA. Thus, no environmental review is necessary. BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Not applicable DISCUSSION Backqround Several years ago, the City initiated efforts to develop a comprehensive Asset Management Program (AMP) to more effectively and transparently operate and maintain the City owned assets. Staff has provided annual updates to the City Council on this program. Over this time, City staff has made a variety of outreach effoRs to include the community in identifying the most critical needs and City o(Chula Vsia Page 1 of 6 Printetl on 5/73Y2076 , powe;etl oy!zg:sarTM File#: 16-0243, Item#: 10. priorities. The Asset Management Program Advisory Committee (AMPAC) was convened as a working group composed of Chula Vista residents, business owners, and other stakeholders willing and interested in engaging with City staff regarding preserving, maintaining and upgrading public infrastructure. The AMPAC has been meeting since March 2014 and has been engaged in learning the City's infrastructure systems, touring sites, observing repairs and maintenance activities, and reviewing information on the City's finances. For more general outreach and solicitation of priorities the City has: attended a number of community group meetings to present information, conducted a telephone public opinion survey, and sent out an informational mailer/survey. The telephone survey showed that seven in ten respondents say they would back a sales tax measure to provide new revenue that would enable the City to repair neighborhood streets, sidewalks and potholes; upgrade aging/obsolete public safety vehicles, equipment and technology; repair storm drains; and address deficiencies in parks and sports facilities. The data from the survey that was mailed out to approximately 54,000 households was similar. See data below received from over 3,000 respondents: o% zo� aar 6ar aaro i00% � � � � � Cry streets and potholes - - - 3°�'� '�i•' �! � � � RepairfaAings[ormdrairts - - - ='�=3��� i '�� � � Sidevslk;curbsandgutters � " i � � � Emer�rcyequipmentandfacililies I�r-�� BHigh Retroficstormdrainsmreducewa[er � pooucion ��49 "� 0 Medium i� I I I Waterrerydi(gandirrlQptlonsystems .-.ad-���49u'� i � � � Witlfire res,ronse arcl preventim �5� i � I � Parlcs and recreatlon ta�Litles - - `--'���u-'-'� ' I m , ,. l libary and recreatbn ceniers --�-`=77y�� J I I The significant public feedback is helpful information for Council and staff to make sound, strategic decisions in a variety of areas, including planning, priority-setting, and budgeting. Recommendation and Ootions At the April 7 Infrastructure Workshop, City staff presented the current state of infrastructure assets as well as a recommendation for a potential revenue mechanisms for sustaining the AMP. City staff recommended a half-cent general use sales tax for ten years. As a general use tax, the approval requirement is a simpie majoriry (50°/o+1) of voters. An oversight committee was also recommended to ensure funds are allocated to address pressing needs identified through the AMP process. City Council asked staff to return with a list of the critical and medium need infrastructure items and a list of items that address public safety that could be funded with a sales tax measure. City o(Chula Vlsta Page 2 oi 6 Pnntetl on 5/13f2016 powerzo�y!a?is;ar" File#: 16-0243, Item#: 10. Revenue generated from a half cent sales tax for ten years can address a large poRion of the highest priority needs such as: • Streets . Traffic Signal Systems • Sports Fields and Courts • Park Infrastructure • Other Public Infrastructure . Fire Safety Equipment • Fire Stations • Fire Response Vehicles • Police Facilities • Police Response Vehicles • Public Safety Communication Systems (Dispatch and Regional Communication System) While a general use tax would not approve a specific list of projects, Attachments 1 & 2 provides a list of the types of critical and medium need items that could be addressed with such a measure. Ciry of Chula Vsta Page 3 of 6 Printed on 5/132076 pew.re_�y!a3s:ar^' File#: 16-0243, Item#: 10. City Coundl also asked staR to retum vrith the pms and cons of diRerent finance mechanism options. Belav is a table that shavs details and pros and mns of ihe various opibns: :�,�,-%centgeneral;�. -%:cent[general. � "=' /:cent�tax;for - '=�5200,Million`'�:=;;�: ���'iuse Wx forx : '�FUSe.tax for� �r5 years'.for}"` '�Infrastrusture Bond ' �70,years=�: S_years i�- .�.Public5afety�,� =_���y�3 r�-- Approzimately 5765 Miltion $75 M�lion �575 Million 5200 Million ` how muchis brou ht in? Who pays? Any person or Arry person or My person or Property owners would business business business pay approzimaley$57 purchasing goods purchasing goods purchas7ng goods per$100,000 Assessed in Chula V'sta in Chula Vista in Chula Visia Value How long do '10 yeafs 5 years 5 years 30 years people pay? Pros -Cost sharing -Cost sharinq Lost sharing -Provides upfmnt funding among all people among all people among all people to allow the City to purchasing(all purchasing(all purchasing(all immediately heg'vi residents,visBors, residen�s,visitors, resiienis,visitors, pmjecls and upgrades and tourists) and tourists) and tourisis) -VoterSurvey -VoterSurvey -VoterSurvey -Ensuresfundsvrillbe shwrs support for shovas support for shows support for used for stated purpose sales tax sales ta�c sales�ax -Meets ali Public Safety critical needs plus other critical needs -Capacity to fix more residenliai street needs Cons -Sales tax can be -Sales tac can be -Saies lax can be -Inaeases the ta�c burden seen as regressive seen as regressive seen as regressive on pmperty wmers ariih existing taxes(school bonds,open space,etc.) Shod lerm -Shod term revenue -30 year repayment revenue dces not does not bear the period bear the opportuniry to opportunity to borrow against bortow against �anrrot address all -Cannot address all -Super majority required ai�ical needs Pubfic Safety (66.67%) aitical needs -Won't address ihe -Survey resulls re0ec1 highest priority insuRiden�suppotl for items identified by bond Ihe public Sales tax for a dedinted use has lo be approved by a super majority (66.67%) City of Chula Usta Page a of 6 Printed on 5/13/2016 pew�re�oy te3is,zr" File#: 16-0243, Item#: 10. Methods of restrictina (or auidinal the use of new tax revenues to the fundina of infrastructure In California a two-thirds "supermajority" vote of the electorate is required to pass a new tax for a specified use. This type of tax is known as a "special tax°. A "simple majority° vote of the electorate (50% plus 1) is required to approve a new or increased "general tax", where the use of tax revenues is not legally restricted. While staff recommends a general use sales tax to address general asset management needs, the City Council has asked staff to report on methods to direct the use of a new revenue source specifically for infrastructure. 2/3 vote-In order to legally bind the future allocation of any new revenue, a two-thirds supermajority vote is required to pass a new tax for a dedicated use. Advisory vote-An advisory vote is a type of ballot measure in which citizens vote on a non-binding question. While the outcome of the ballot question will not result in a new law, it would symbolically make the general opinion of the voting population known in regard to a particular issue. In this scenario, an advisory vote would provide formal guidance to an Oversight Committee and future City Councils on a direction for future spending. Logistically, it would be placed as a companion piece to the revenue measure. For example, "If the proposed $.005 sales tax increase is approved, should the Chula Vista City Council be advised to spend new tax revenues only on infrastructure?" Oversight Committee-A Citizen Oversight Committee is also an effective way to guide the expenditure of the funds. Duties typically include review of an Independent Auditor's report on sales tax revenues and expenditures on an annual basis and provision of an annual report to City Council on the sales tax revenue and expenditures. While the Oversight Committee would not have budget authority, it would be a public body governed by the Brown Act, which includes public meetings, posted agendas, reports and minutes. Most cities reference the citizens' oversight committee in the ballot question, but many do not include many details about the members, formation or responsibility of the committee within the full text. Some do include a few key guidelines, leaving the rest to be set by the City Council. City staff recommends the ballot language include the establishment of a Citizen Oversight Committee representing a broad range of expertise and interests to guide and oversee any new sales tax revenue and expenditures. The City Council would approve the details of a Citizen Oversight Committee by Ordinance prior to the operative date of any new revenue. Examples of the composition of other cities' citizen oversight committees are included in Attachment 3. Fiscal Transparency-Although a Citizen Oversight Committee does not prescribe a specific expenditure plan, the clear accounting of additional revenue and related expenditures is key to transparency. Revenue from a sales tax measure would be identified in a separate line item in the budget, and all corresponding expenditures would be distinguishable. Bond after General Use Tax-If a General Use Tax were approved by the electorate, the City Council could subsequently approve the issuance of debt secured by a pledge of new general tax revenues City of Chula Vsta Page 5 of 6 Pnntetl on Sn3/2016 po�rerec yy!eyis;ar^' File#: 16-0243, Item#: 10. to fund the construction or repair of infrastructure. DECISION-MAKER CONFLICT Staff has reviewed the decision contemplated by this action and has determined that it is not site specific and consequently, the 500-foot rule found in California Code of Regulations section 18704.2 (a)(1), is not applicable to this decision. Staff is not independently aware, and has not been informed by any City Council member, of any other fact that may constitute a basis for a decision maker conflict of interest in this matter. LINK TO STRATEGIC GOALS The City's Strategic Plan has five major goals: Operational Excellence, Economic Vitality, Healthy Community, Strong and Secure Neighborhoods and a Connected Community. Implementation of the Asset Management Program, including a funding mechanism, will advance all of these goals by realizing efficient, transparent operations with safe and reliable stewardship of the natural and built environments to ensure a sustainable quality of life expect by the community. CURRENT YEAR FISCAL IMPACT The cost to perform current work on the AMP and the Financing Study were included in the 2015/2016 fiscal year budget and there is no additional fiscal impact. ONGOING FISCAL IMPACT The ongoing fiscal impact would be additional revenue to fund critical capital needs. If the ballot measure were approved, items would be brought forward each year to a citizen oversight committee and the City Council for consideration and approval during the budget process. ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1 8 2 - Infrastructure Funding Scenario Summary Table & Detail Table Attachment 3 - Examples of Citizen Oversight Committees Staff Contact: Amanda Mills, Performance & Organizational Development Manager City of Chula Vsta Page 6 of 6 Prin�etl on 5/13/2016 powe:ea oy!eyls:zr^' 715 0 ¦¤ Attachment 1 44,073,63921,399,07016,786,59516,050,0007,690,881106,000,18517,162,00716,179,6945,197,91438,539,6158,960,2007,000,0004,500,00020,460,200165,000,000 10 Year Timeframe Estimated 1/2 cent Sales Tax Cash Flows over 10 year period - Infrastructure Funding Scenario $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ $ Public Safety Communication Systems (Dispatch and Regional Communication Syst.) Park Infrastructure (Playground Equipment, Gazebbos, Restrooms, Parking etc. ) Other Public Infrast. (Vehicles, Public Bldgs, Storm Drains, Sidewalks, Trees etc) Streets (Arterials/Collectors/Residential) Police Response Vehicles Total by Major Category Sports Fields and Courts Fire Safety Equipment Fire Response Vehicles Traffic Signal Systems Total Police Services Total Infrastructure Total Fire Services Summary Table Total Allocations Police Facility Packet Fire Stations !¦¤£ ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ ATTACHMENT 3 Examples of Citizen Oversight Committees Examples within San Diego County City of El Cajon Proposition O was passed by voters in November 2004. The measure increased sales tax bya halfcent for 10 yearsto fund public safety and animal care facilities(2/3 vote required). In 2008, voters approved Proposition J, a half-cent sales tax increase for 20 yearsfor general city services (51% vote required). From 2009 to 2015, both half-cent sales taxes were applicable in El Cajon. Oversightfor Proposition O The Public Safety Facility Financing Oversight Committee providesoversight to ensurethat revenueswereexpended for theprojects outlined inPropositionO. The Committeecontinues to meet to provide oversight on remaining funds to be spent on constructing the animal shelter. The committeereviewsan Independent Auditors’ Report on revenues and expenditures and presentsan annual report to the City Council. The Public Safety Facility Oversight Committeeconsistsof seven members, no less than four members who areresidents of the city at the time of applying for the commission and who continued to reside in the city during their term. Three of the members of the committee, none of whom need be residents of the city, must be from one or more of the following occupations: aCalifornia licensed architect; a California licensed general contractor; a California licensed civil engineer; a building/property manager; a construction estimator; and/or aCalifornia Certified Public Accountant. Four of the members must beresidents of the city, and must be from one or more of the following occupations or categories:abusiness owner from the El Cajon business community;a member of abona fide tax payers’ association or organization;a public safety employee (i.e., either police or fire personnel) either retired from service or not employed by the city; and/ora resident elector of the city. There is no oversight committeefor Proposition J, but funds are a separate line item in the City budget. City of La Mesa Measure L was passed by voters in November 2008. The measure established a three-quarter cent sales taxfor 20 yearsto fund essential City services.There is no oversight committee, but Proposition L funds are a separate line item in the City budget.The City of La Mesa provides reports on City website. Proposition L Vital City Services Benchmarks City of National City Proposition D was passed by voters in November 2014. Proposition D renewed the one cent salestax, for 20 years(originally approved in 2006)to maintain National City's public safety and prevent cuts to essential services. Oversight Proposition D provides that every five years the Mayor, with the approval of the City Council, shallappoint an independent committee composed of three experts in financial matters, who will report their recommendation to the Mayor and City Council as to whether the transaction and use tax should remain in effect at the rate of one percent, or whether the City Council should reduce the rate of tax or terminate the imposition of the tax. ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 718 City of Vista Proposition L was passed in November 2006. The measure is a half-cent sales tax for 30 years.Proposition L funding is used to enhance safety and vital city services. Oversight The Sales Tax Oversight Committee meets annually to review the independent financial audit ofthe City and other City financial reports necessary to advise the City Council of its findings and make recommendations regarding thesales tax. The Mayor and Council appoint committee members. There are seven members on the Commission who serve four-year terms, with no term limits. Two of the members are at-large members. The remaining five members represent the following groups: Chamber of Commerce, Shadowridge Owners Association, Senior Citizens Organization, Business Community, and Financial/Accounting Field. Examples outside San Diego County City of La Mirada Measure I was passed in November 2012. The one cent sales tax increase is for five yearsto maintainlocal services.Measure I requires annual independent audits and citizens’ oversight of how tax revenues were spent. Oversight Measure I Citizens’ Oversight Board consistsof five volunteers who must be at least 18 years ofage, citizens of the United States of America, and residents of La Mirada. Each volunteer Citizens Oversight Board member will be nominated by a City Councilmember, and appointed by a majority vote of the City Council to a four year term. The Board meets quarterly, or more often if needed to: review and report on the revenue and expenditure of Measure I funds; monitor the City’s progress on the planning, engineering, and construction of infrastructure repairs,renovations and improvements; review independent financial audits and various reports prepared bythe City and its consultants; maintain regular communication with the City Manager’s Office, and City Departments as needed. The Board issuesan annual Report to the Community with its findings regarding the use of Measure I funds in the prior fiscal year. Town of Moraga Measure Kwas passed in November 2012. Theone-cent general purpose sales tax is for 20 years tokeep local streets from falling into disrepair and maintain Town services; with authority to incur debt to accelerate infrastructure projects. Oversight The Local Sales Tax Oversight Committee consists of seven members, all residents of the Townof Moraga, appointed by the Town Council. Generally, terms will be limited to three, consecutive two-year terms for a total of six consecutive years. The committee is expected to meet between two and four times per year or as reasonably determined by the Local Sales Tax Oversight Committee or the Town Council. The Committee will annually: review revenue receipts and expenditures of the Local Sales Tax; review status and performance of the programs and services, funded wholly or partially with proceeds from theLocal Sales Tax; and, prepare an independent report to the Town Council regarding the revenue and expenditures of the Local Sales Tax. City of Oxnard ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 719 Measure O was passed by voters in November 2008. The half-cent sales tax is for 20 yearsto protect, maintain, and enhance vital services. Oversight The Citizen Oversight Committee is composed of nine members residing within the City limits: one member from a business organization, one from a Neighborhood Council or Neighborhood Association, one from a senior organization, one from a youth organization, and five members from the community "at large." The Oxnard City Council appoints all members. Members are appointed to serve a four-year term, with a maximum term of eight years. The Citizen Oversight Committee convenes at least twice annually to review the use of Measure O revenues in conformance with allocations approved by the City Council. A written report is provided annually to every household detailing the revenue and expenditures. ΑΏΐΕȃΏΔȃΐΖ !¦¤£ Packet0 ¦¤ 720